In primitive times most offences were punished by the death penalty, not as a vindictive measure but because the offender was hopeless and society helpless. That is, the social state being of a very simple order, any infraction of its laws would declare the offender a most pronounced criminal, bitterly hostile to society and irreclaimable by such social machinery as then existed. The death penalty when inflicted must ever be so regarded. Not as a life for a life but as the punishment inflicted upon one who has by his own conduct given complete evidence that his recovery to the social state is impossible. In this century of civilisation it is incumbent to look upon the criminal as being in a measure a by-product of society and to deal with him accordingly. Outside of society crime is impossible, therefore society accounts for crime and is also in a measure responsible for it. To this measure exactly (although the measure itself can never be determined with exactitude) is the criminal by-product. In a large measure he is responsible (entire responsibility is conceivable), and it is this sense of responsibility which makes it possible to carry out his treatment. Large industries find that their by-products are an important asset and to disregard them would be ruinous. Mr Frazer in his book "America at Work" states that the expenses of the meat-packers of Chicago for 1901 amounted to L150,244,848. The sales of meat realised L124,263,998, and yet a net profit of L6,767,638 resulted. What appears to be a paradox is explained by the fact that a sum of no less than L32,748,488 resulted from the sale of by-products. All the waste must be turned to dollars. Commercial advance has certainly out-stripped social advance, and apparently for the reason that whereas in commerce a pig's tail is regarded as an important asset, in our social system the criminal and the weakling are regarded as a heavy liability. When the point of view is changed society will advance more rapidly. So, too, society finds that it must utilise its by-products and to devise means which it can bring to bear upon the criminal, so as to bring him to a state of usefulness. The enormity of the crime and the degree of criminality are alike impossible to estimate, therefore it is also impossible to define a punishment which makes an attempt to recognise any of these qualities. It is, however, quite possible to determine within very fair limits the continuance of the criminal habits, also the value from a reformatory point of view, of various social influences, and further there exists the power to apply these influences. To sum up--society possesses within itself the power to reform its criminals (to utilise its by-products) and to determine when they have been reformed.