tried for murder are only a mere fraction of those who commit
murder. True, and the more deliberate the murder, the
greater, unfortunately, the chance of the villain getting
away. Still, in cases merely of suspected murder, or in cases
where no evidence is taken, it would be manifestly unfair
arbitrarily to assign motives for the deed, if deed it was.
No, one must start with the assumption, sufficiently accurate
under all the circumstances, that the killings in which the
killer is caught are fairly representative of killings as a
whole.

All crimes naturally tend to divide themselves into two
classes--crimes against property and crimes against the
person, each class having an entirely different assortment of
reasons for their commission.

There can be practically but one motive for theft, burglary,
or robbery. It is, of course, conceivable that such crimes
might be perpetrated for revenge--to deprive the victim of
some highly prized possession. But in the main there is only
one object--unlawful gain. So, too, blackmail, extortion, and
kidnapping are all the products of the desire for "easy
money." But, unquestionably, this is the reason for murder in
comparatively few cases.

The usual motive for crimes against the person--assault,
manslaughter, mayhem, murder, etc.--is the desire to punish,
or be avenged upon another by inflicting personal pain upon
him or by depriving him of his most valuable asset--life. And
this desire for retaliation or revenge generally grows out of