human
And then, I said,
gpt
Why did you write that kind of a book?
human
You don’t like it?
gpt
Of course not. It’s insincere.
human
You’ll have to make your bill of indictment more detailed. What’s insincere about it?
gpt
You know as well as I do.
human
It’s cynical. There are two parts to the book—exposition and conclusions. The conclusions are pitiable. You suggest a program of reforms in the judicial and penal system. And they are petty—if they were all accepted, it wouldn’t solve the problem of crime. You imply one of two things, either that these reforms would solve the problem, which they wouldn’t, or that the problem is insoluble, which it isn’t.
gpt
Count one, I said.
human
Pleading deferred.
gpt
And then—this is worse—you know there is no more chance of these reforms being granted under our present system, than of arithmetic being reformed to make two and two five.
human
Count two. Not guilty.
gpt
No jury would acquit you on it. But there’s a third count—perhaps the worst of all. The book is horribly superficial. Hidden away in your preface you mention the fact that the worst crimes against society are not mentioned in the code. You gently hint that some Wall Street transactions are larcenous, even if they are not illegal. All hidden in your preface!
human
That’s entirely unfair, I protested.
gpt
You are quarreling with me over a definition. My book deals with the phenomena of the criminal courts. I have no business with what you or the newspapers call crime. If I wanted my work to be scientific I had to get a sharp definition. And I said that crime consists of acts forbidden by the legislature. I pointed out that it is an arbitrary conception, which is always changing. Some things—like kissing your wife on the Sabbath day—are no longer criminal and some things—like these Wall Street transactions—probably will be crimes tomorrow. Your third count is not against me but against the ’Scientific Method.’