With what feelings must an enlightened observer contemplate the furrow of a lash imprinted upon the body of a man？ What heart beats not in unison with the sublime law of antiquity， 'Thou shalt not inflict stripes upon the body of a Roman？' There is but one alternative in this case， on the part of the sufferer. Either his mind must be subdued by the arbitrary dictates of the superior (for to him all is arbitrary that does not stand approved to the judgement of his own understanding)； he will be governed by something that is not reason， and ashamed of something that is not disgrace；第一章r else every pang he endures will excite the honest indignation of his heart， and fix the clear disapprobation of his intellect， will produce contempt and alienation against his punisher.
The justice of punishment is built upon this simple principle： Every man is bound to employ such means as shall suggest themselves for preventing evils subversive of general security， it being first ascertained， either by experience or reasoning， that all milder methods are inadequate to the exigency of the case. The conclusion from this principle is that we are bound， under certain urgent circumstances， to deprive the offender of the liberty he has abused. Further than this perhaps no circumstance can authorize us. He whose person is imprisoned (if that be the right kind of seclusion)Chapter annot interrupt the peace of his fellows； and the infliction of further evil， when his power to injure is removed， is the wild and unauthorized dictate of vengeance and rage， the wanton sport of unquestioned superiority .
When indeed the person of the offender has been first seized， there is a further duty incumbent on his punisher， the duty of endeavouring his reform. But this makes no part of the direct consideration. The duty of every man to contribute to the intellectual health of his neighbour is of general application. Beside which it is proper to recollect， what has been already proved. that coercion of no sort is among the legitimate means of reformation. Restrain the offender as long as the safety of the community prescribes it， for this is just. Restrain him not an instant from a simple view to his own improvement， for this is contrary to reason and morality.
Meanwhile， there is one circumstance by means of which restraint and reformation are closely connected. The person of the offender is to be restrained as long as the public safety would be endangered by his liberation.
But the public safety will cease to be endangered as soon as his propensities and dispositions have undergone a change. The connection which thus results from the nature of things renders it necessary that， in deciding upon the species of restraint to be imposed， these circumstances be considered jointly， how the personal liberty of the offender may be least entrenched upon， and how his reformation may be best promoted.
The most common method pursued in depriving the offender of the liberty he has abused is to erect a public jail， in which offenders of every description are thrust together， and left to form among themselves what species of society they can. Various circumstances contribute to imbue them with habits of indolence and vice， and to discourage industry； and no effort is made to remove or soften these circumstances. It cannot be necessary to expatiate upon the atrociousness of this system. Jails are， to a proverb， seminaries of vice； and he must be an uncommon proficient in the passion and the practice of injustice， or a man of sublime virtue， who does not come out of them a much worse man than he entered.
An active observer of mankind， with the purest intentions， and who had paid a singular attention to this subject， was struck with the mischievous tendency of the reigning system， and called the attention of the public to a scheme of solitary imprisonment. But this， though free from the defects of the established mode， is liable to very weighty objections.
It must strike every reflecting mind as uncommonly tyrannical and severe.
It cannot therefore be admitted into the system of mild coercion which forms the topic of our enquiry. Man is a social animal. How far he is necessarily so will appear if we consider the sum of advantages resulting from the social， and of which he would be deprived in the solitary state. But， independently of his original structure， he is eminently social by his habits. Will you deprive the man you imprison of paper and books， of tools and amusements？
One of the arguments in favour of solitary imprisonment is that it is necessary the offender should be called off from wrong habits of thinking， and obliged to enter into himself. This the advocates of solitary imprisonment probably believe will be most effectually done the fewer be the avocations of the prisoner. But let us suppose that he is indulged in these particulars， and only deprived of society. How many men are there that can derive amusement from books？ We are， in this respect， the creatures of habit， and it is scarcely to be expected from ordinary men that they should mould themselves to any species of employment to which in their youth they were strangers.
But he that is most fond of study has his moments when study pleases no longer. The soul yearns， with inexplicable longings， for the society of its like. Because the public safety unwillingly commands the confinement of an offender， must he for that reason never light up his countenance with a smile？ Who can tell the sufferings of him who is condemned to uninterrupted solitude？ Who can tell that this is not， to the majority of mankind， the bitterest torment that human ingenuity can inflict？ A mind sufficiently sublime might perhaps conquer this inconvenience： but the powers of such a mind do not enter into the present question.