barracoons might be gradually abolished and crime diminished.
As
Cots for the treatment of crime — if punishment is made light, and food and clothing sufficient, the criminal class not only trifle with the treatment but even commit petty crimes to get living. Therefore punishments should be made heavier, and food clothing cut short. The fact is that where the rigour of punishment with cold hunger is extreme, as in Couton and in the Cornetry, the criminals are not deterred by it; and since they do not fear the cudgel, how should they fear the cage. The shame of exposure is tried, but nothing of that kind is so effective as whipping them round the town. If that does not move shame how much less will sitting on a mat with a cangue on do it! Now and then a criminal sitting on the ground with his cangue, his associates in a crowd roused him, purposely covering him from the public gaze, and improving theft. Ah! I fear no nation has yet found a perfect way of dealing with... criminals. Indulgence is not advisable and without good results. Rigour may go on. It is indeed better to err on the side of humanity than on the side of cruelty; — and I have always admired the British Government in this respect. Over leniency encourages crime, while over severity may extinguish crime, and give peace to society. Rather than pity one criminal, pity the whole community. Now, in the British Government there is more than enough of leniency, might it not be possible to stretch a point and add a little severity? Criminals are ashamed and afraid at first of shame and fear, but by and by the sense of shame and fear wears off. And when they are once incapable, it would be hard to reproduce those feelings.