638 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
make the latter more criminal, but does lessen its resistance to crimi- nal influence. This may be illustrated by the many well-known epi- demics of crime, which show so admirably humanity's power of imitation, and its susceptibility to contagion.
In the United States so firm is the belief in this relic of medijeval barbaric practice that it is incorporated in nearly all, if not all, state constitutions. There is a discretion vested in the judges, but they have been reluctant to exercise the discretion, possibly because it is not unlimited and has often furnished a ground for reversal (People vs. Hartman, 37 Pac, 153 ; Williamson vs. Lacey, 29 Atl., 943). Cases illustrating a liberal construction of the rule are Grinnette vs. State, 22 Tex. Ap., 36, in which exclusion was held not to be a violation of right, wherever it was necessary to support public morals and pro- tect witnesses, and People vs. Swafford, 65 Cal., 223, where all were excluded except those connected with the case.
Public executions are also a source of the perpetuation rather than of the prevention of crime ; and it has been demonstrated that the pub- licity does not operate as a deterrent, as was at one time so firmly believed.
We now pass to a consideration of those questions which are more distinctly matters of law, and shall first consider habitual criminal acts.
The greater number of criminals are known to be recidivists, and it is from this class that the greater number of dangerous criminals are recruited. To prevent this growth of crime, special legislation is advo- cated for habitual offenders. It is the criminal in connection with the crime which should be judged; and the theory is that for each addi- tional commission of felony there should be an increase of punish- ment, and that after the third sequestration imprisonment should be indefinite, pending the decision of certain designated officials. By this change a decrease of crime is anticipated in two lines — by cutting short a probable career of crime, and by preventing the birth of a family of paupers or criminals. In connection with the latter may be noted the statute passed by Connecticut in 1895, which provides that no man or woman either of whom is epileptic, imbecile, or feeble- minded shall intermarry while the woman is under forty-five years of age, the penalty being imprisonment for three years. The object is obviously to prevent an increase of defective organisms. In this rela- tion may be mentioned two somewhat radical bills along the line of preventing criminality. In Michigan, in April, 1897, there was intro-
