58 If the security required is not given by the date fixed, the person ordered to give such security is committed to prison during the period for which security was ordered to be given (section 123).

Any person imprisoned for failing to give security may be released before the expiration of the sentence, whenever the magistrate considers that such release is without hazard to tlie community or to any other person.

I may also refer, in this connection, to the law of Italy. In that country a much more drastic and very interesting system is organized by the law of the 30th June, 1889, and the regulations of the 8th November following, concerning public security.

This law provided for two institutions known respective!} as “ warning” (“ammonizione”) and “compulsory domicile” (“domicilio coatto”). Certain classes of rogues and vagabonds, with no ostensible means of livelihood, and certain individuals indicated by public rumoui- (“voce pubblica”) as habitual criminals, are, after a minute investigation of their antecedents, solemnly “ warned ” by the president of the tribunal, who orders them to conform to certain rules as to residence, similar to those of police .supervision, enjoins them not to consort with convicts, not to carry arms, etc. The effect of the “ warning ” lasts for two years, and the result of any violation of its terms is to subject the offender to substantial tennsof imprisonment. The “ compulsory domicile” signifies that persons who have been “warned,” as well as those under police supervision who have incurred a certain number of convictions for specified ofiences, may, “ ?/ they consiiitde a danger to puhlie security” be compelled to reside in another portion of the kingdom, or be confined in a penal settlement for a period of from one to five years. In practice, these persons are not sent to any other region within the kingdom—such a measure would obviously be a futile .solution of theproblem—but are relegated to eight penal settlements in certain islands in the Mediterranean.* The sentences to “compulsory domicile” are not awarded by the courts but are pronounced by provincial commissions, presided over by the prefect, and composed partly of judicial and partly of administrative officials. An appeal liesto a higher commission, considerably more numerous, but composed of the same classes of officials with the adjunction of a popular element in the shape of tNvo members of Parlimnent. t It will be observed that the principle which has inspired the Indian and Italian provisions, and which is becoming more and more recognized in modern criminology.| is that society has the right to take preventive measures against its more unruly members.

In short, for the old abstract notion of “ crime,” for which the punishment was identical in all cases, there is substituted nowadays the notion of the “ criminal,” who.se guilt varies in degree according to circumstances of a rnoie or less personal character, and whose punishment should likewise be varied, in consequence. It is to the influence of these ideas that we owe the modern legislation which has been enacted in almost every civilized country concerning juvenile offenders and habitual criminals. The ju'oblem is to be further discussed at the forthcoming International Congress of Criminal Law at Brussels, in August 191U, and at a preliminary meeting at Amsterdam, in April 1909, one of the principal questions to be submitted to this Congress was formulated in the following terms: “ Dans quels cas ddtermimis par la loi, la notion de I’dtat dangereux du ddlinquant peut-elle etre substitute il celle de facte dtlictueux poursuivi, et dans quelles conditions est-elle compatible, au point de vue des mesures de dtfense sociale, avec les garanties de la libertt individuelle ?”§ Other examples of this principle might be cited, but enough has been said to illustrate the theory on which the Egyptian legislator has proceeded in framing Law No. 15, 1909. The principal provisions of this law may be summarized as follows :— 1. Persons to whom it applies.—Article 1 lays down the scope of its application in the following terjus :— “ Tout individu notoirement comm comme ayant I’habitude d’attenter k lapersonno ou k la propriett d’autrui, ou de se livrer k des menaces contre la personne on la proprittt, pourra etre renvoye sous la surveillance, de la police.”l| * In 1898,1,291 persons were sent to these penal .settlements which contained at the beginning of that year a population of 2,682 persons.

t Cf. also the two Italian laws of July 19; 1894, and July 17, 1898, concerning anarchist outrages which also provided for the relegation of suspected persons by provincial commissions.

J (7/h “ itevuo de Droit penal et do Criminologie,” janvier 1910, p. 6; “Les etros dangereux par etat.”

§ Voir “Revue de Droit penal et de Criminologie,” numdros de mai et de juin 1909.

j| For translation of the whole law,see “Egypt, No. 2 (1909)” : Cd. 4784.

House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. Copyright (c) 2006 ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.