And she is very able. She has a mind adapted to the law, and she could write scenarios. Note how she plans in one letter to have something “up her sleeve” for the trial—to have her friend buy duplicates of the articles stolen on the anniversary of the theft, to change the date of the receipt from “1914” to “1915” on her employer’s typewriter, to put the receipt in the cuff of her wrap and leave it in the toilet room of the court to be found. This would be indeed a dramatic vindication. She is thoroughly cunning and she lies a great deal. But she is in a fight with organized society. She feels that there is a disproportion between her offense and her punishment, and that she is being wronged and defrauded of life. Cunning is one of the forms which intelligence takes in a fight. And in general people become cunning when they are oppressed or do not participate on an equal footing in their society. Esther is a Jew, and the “racial” cunning of the Jew has the same origin as the particular cunning in this case—exclusion from recognition and participation. Any successful scheme of education, reëducation or reformation must recognize the wishes expressed by Esther and will involve an active participation of the subject in the plan. Esther was not bad enough to be committed to the institution to which she was assigned, but once there we note her complete psychic isolation from the officials and from the family in which she was placed. She was directed toward no interesting and creative work, and was not included in any form of society in which she completely participated and in which she could have recognition and the gratification of the other wishes. And this is characteristic both of the penitentiary and of the older type of reformatory for adults and for children.