into a different course,—it thus becomes the positive Morality of the State. Positive Good Manners, however, consist herein, that in every individual we recognise and honour the representative of the Human Race. This Morality, I said, is made possible for the State, in the way of its Legislation, by means of the negative Good Manners of its Citizens. Thus, we may lay down the following as the permanent fundamental principle of Criminal Legislation:—The more certain it is that punishment will follow crime, and the more the Manners of the Nation are formed upon this certainty, so much the milder and more humane may punishment itself be made. This amelioration, however, is not on account of the transgressor, for whom as such the State has no ulterior regard; but it is on account of the Race whose image he still bears in his person.
For example:—He who is accustomed to consider this matter not superficially, but in its profounder aspects, will unquestionably admit that an individual may become so dangerous to society that it is impossible for the State thoroughly to protect society from his aggressions without removing him from the world. It will, however, be likewise admitted—unless indeed we were to proceed upon the barbarous Mosaic principle,—‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,’—it will, I say, be admitted that the State ought to adopt this method only in cases of extreme necessity, and where there is actually no other course available; for the transgressor still remains a member of the Race, and as such possesses the right to live as long as he can for the purpose of self-improvement. But admitting this course to be necessary in particular cases, yet for the Government to employ a pompous ceremonial in the execution of the condemned, to sharpen the agonies of death by torments, to expose the remains of the dead in a disgusting public spectacle, is at most only to be justified where the great mass of the Nation stand in need of such frightful
