Criminality in Children. of penal law, it may be asked whether too much adherence to this principle of mercy does not militate against the social defence against crime. If this leniency is justly ap plied to children who have erred, is it well to apply it in cases of a proven criminal act where the only extenuation is the youth of the offender? Is society best served by such mercy, however harsh a severe applica tion of law in such cases may at first appear? The prevailing sentiment is that youth is, in a measure, a partial defense, and indeed, it is often accepted as a total defense, to crime. This is based on the theory that youth is incapable of that depravity, viciousness and malice which are the essential ele ment of a criminal act. Such theory strengthened by the popular fallacy regard ing the comparative rarity of crime commit ted by children. Upon this theory we have built a penal system as regards juvenile offenders, and have approved of a practice of mercy which, far from helping to decrease crime, have tendered to foster its development. We have overlooked the fact that if the child is father to the man, as to virtue, he is father also as to evil. It is true that much is being done on behalf of unfortunate chil dren, but it will be my endeavor to show that such work is not conducted along lines that will most effectually check crime and that, in fact, it does not reach the real delinquent. We must first recognize the fact that of fences by young persons are more serious and numerous than is generally believed. What is even more discouraging is the fact that juvenile delinquency is by no means decreasing, but rather shows a sensible in crease. Let us examine a few figures. Omitting the large population of delinquent minors confined in reformatories and indus trial schools, J. Holt Schooling found that in England and Wales 41 per cent, of all per sons convicted of crime are under 21 years of age. Further, it is well established that
517
criminality is much more frequent in earlj than in adult life, the criminal propensity rising in effectiveness from early childhood to the ages between 16 and 20, when the maximum is reached. 'In commenting some years ago on certain criminal returns, Dr. Morrison said that the deplorable fact had been established of an enormous increase in crimes of all kinds committed by persons between 18 and 21 years of age. Of 456,939 persons convicted in Germany in one year, 44,312 were under r8 years of age. In Hol land, offenders under 16 years of age have doubled in numbers in the last decennial; Russia likewise shows an increase in juvenile criminalism. In France, where the connec tion between youth and crime is being care fully studied, we are told that "the most daring, the most sanguinary and the most hardened criminals with whom French jus tice has had to deal of late years, have been, with few exceptions, mere youths." In 1896, France had 5.933 boys and girls in her re formatories; in the same year Italy had Coining to our country, we find that in 1890. there were 14,8461 offenders in our juvenile reformatories alone, an increase of 29.46 per cent, in ten years. To these must be added juvenile offenders in State prisons as follows: 711 under 15 years of age, 8,984 between 15 and 19, and 19,705 between 20 and 24. Taking the statistics of New YorkState for 1898 (a good year showing a ten dency to decrease in crime) we find that of 3,567 persons convicted in courts of record, 68 were under 15 years of age, and 697 were between 15 and 21. Of the 68 tinder 15 years of age, 2 were convicted of assault, 10 of attempted burglary, 14 of burglary and 35 of grand larceny. These were not petty offences such as are tried in the minor courts. Impressive as only such numbers are, it is not to be believed that all these offenders are actually criminals. But the law as at pres ent administered, makes no fine and neces sary distinctions; it clings to historic rather
