come to be used also in the inquisitional procedure; the endeavour to force a confession causes them to become more severe, and this in turn reacts upon the punishment itself. On the whole, the ultimate tendency, of imprisonment was greatly to restrict the death penalty and thus to contribute to more humane methods of punishment. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to recognize that this result was preceded by an increasing cruelty. The fact that the prisoner was under the control of the punitive authority for a longer period of time led to a multiplication of the means of punishment. How simple, and, one might say, how relatively humane, was blood-revenge, satisfied as it was to demand life for life, in comparison with the penal law of the Middle Ages, with its methods of forcing confession by means of the rack and of various forms of physical suffering and of death penalties! The same is true of a further change inaugurated by the passing of blood-revenge into punishment. This change likewise led to a decided restriction of the death penalty, yet it also, no less than the forcing of confession, brought upon penal justice the stigma of systematic cruelty. The assumption of penal power on the part of the public judiciary, in conjunction with the possession of unlimited control over the person and life of the malefactor, led to the adoption of a principle which long continued to dominate penal justice. This principle was drastically expressed in the Priests' Code of the Israelites, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." True, this _jus talionis_ was already foreshadowed in the custom of blood-revenge, and yet the simple form which it here possessed, 'a life for a life,' made it a principle of just retribution, and not a demand sharpened by hate and cruelty. In the case of blood-revenge, moreover, the emotions of revenge were moderated by virtue of the fact that considerations of property played a rôle. Requital was sought for the loss which the clan sustained through the death of one of its members. Hence the clan might be satisfied with a money compensation, or, occasionally, with the adoption either of a fellow-tribesman of the murderer or, indeed, even of the murderer himself. In contrast with this, even the most severe physical injuries, so long as they did not result in death, were originally always left to the retaliation of the individual. This retaliation was sought either in direct combat, or, in the heroic age proper, in a duel conducted in accordance with regulations of custom. All this is changed as soon as the State abolishes blood-revenge and assumes jurisdiction over cases of murder. In the event of personal injuries, the judge determines the sentence, particularly if the individual is unable for any reason to secure retaliation--having been rendered helpless, for example, through his injury, or being prevented by the fact of class differences. Under such circumstances it is