The following letter, written by an anonymous inmate of a state prison, ran in last September's issue of the Atlantic:

Sirs:

I can speak with some authority on the efficacy of punishment because I have received a good deal of it, having spent almost ten years in prison. I have known thousands of criminals, at large and confined. But I have yet to see one who had any intention of forgoing crime because he or some other had received a severe sentence. I agree wholeheartedly that punishment as a means of criminal control is a failure.

Why it fails has something to do with "It can't happen to me," the incarnation that prevents mankind from worrying itself to death. Chanting this, the smoker goes on puffing while aware of cigarette-induced lung cancer, the driver goes on speeding while listening to reports of highway fatalities, and thieves go on stealing while thieves are being punished. The illogical basis of faith in "It can't happen to me" is the fact that "it," be it prison, collision, or cancer does not happen to everyone. And logical or not, this incantation, more than anything else, is what frustrates the hopeful theorist. If punishment is to be an effective deterrent, every criminal act must inevitably lead to punishment. In this even, criminals, like people who sit on hot stoves, will be rare.

Obviously one man's punishment will not prevent another man's crime and it is just as obvious, in the light of the statistics...on recidivism, that punishing a man for his first crime will not prevent him from committing a second. I know the criminal; the tired old fourth offender has no more thought of being captured and punished than the juvenile delinquent. The criminal refuses to believe that anything short of Fate led to his capture--not fate in the sense that capture is inevitable, but Fate personified, a malicious god responsible for that one hard-luck chance in a million. It is a senseless belief, but remember that it is held by the ignorant--not the stupid, the ignorant. Men in prison are uneducated men; few are stupid, if by stupid we mean unable to learn, moronic.

I firmly believe that this ignorance is the crux of the criminal problem and that education is the solution, in spite of the many who claim that educating the criminal is like sharpening the claws of the lion. Education and and crime are incompatible. I refer to the type of crime committed by the group that is society's primary concern, the tavern-robbing criminals on their way to reform school or to prison for the first time. This group, I believe, can be reformed through education.

A little education did for me what a reform school, Sing Sing, a more recent 25 to 50 year sentence, and all the punishment this list implies failed to do. I am still a convict, but I am no longer a criminal. My faith in education is not based simply on its rehabilitation effect on me. I have watched its effect on others--not many I will admit, because few prisoners have the desire to learn, encouragement is scarce, and facilities are poor. But of those who do improve their education, none return. If the proponents of punishment are sincere in asserting that they punish to deter, they should certainly not be opposed to a plan that would serve the same purpose in a more effective and less costly manner. We should start, whatever the cost, with some sort of federal inspection or control or reform schools, not leave the respective states to coddle or cudgel the delinquent as they see fit. Reform schools should be the first to become rehabilitation centers, staffed with behavorial scientists and equipped to offer the best in education. There is no youngster that cannot with competent help and guidance be made to desist from crime. And the cost of rehabilitating the most recalcitrant youngster will not be one tenth of the eventual cost to society if he is allowed to lead a life of crime. Has anyone ever attempted to compute what this type of criminal must cost society in the course of his life? The sum must be fantastic.