with these ideas of irresponsibility and biological facts, and that criminals should be punished according to their degree of dangerousness, not according to their responsibility or to the particular crime they commit.

Thus Lombroso was the inspirer of a tremendous revolution in not only the manner of thinking about criminals but also the method of treating them. What is this "Delinquenti Nato" (born criminal) of Lombroso? We must remember, the type like the average never exists, that the so-called type is the one who nearest approaches the average, and so Lombroso states that his criminal man possesses a number of defects or anomalies found here and there singly in the average man. Thus these characters are particularly common, a receding forehead, a protruding and massive chin, the sutures of the skull absent, ears deficient in lobes, ears like handles, ears projecting, female form of breast in males, scanty hair on face, assymetrical face, thin lip, deformities of nose and teeth, exaggerated cheek bones and enlarged frontal sinuses. In the brain itself are found peculiarities in the convolutions and fissures similar to the ape brain. Then there are physiological signs of degeneration,—left handedness, lessened sensibility to pain, lessened sense of smell, lack of pity, cruelty, vanity and pride, lessened intelligence, lack of originality. The sociological marks are tattooing, jargon speech and numerous other characters well known to everyone who has at all come in contact with the criminal class. The structure of type built up of these several anomalies and defects necessarily underwent the most searching scrutiny of scientists and sociologists in all countries and it soon became evident that the so-called criminal characters of Lombroso are not signs of degeneration, that they are present in the most evolved races, that there is no connection between crime and atavism. For instance, assymetry is the rule not the exception in all vertebrates including man, and in a study of 5000 skulls by Liebriech it was especially characteristic of the human race in all times and in all races. The same of many of the other anomalies, they were found as frequent in the highly civilized as in the savage. The defects mentioned are found with great frequency among idiots, epileptics and the insane and the general belief now is that it is impossible to establish any connection between crime and anatomical variations in a human body. The Sociological School came into existence and proclaimed as the result of these studies that crime is a social disease and society has the criminals it creates, that alcohol, insufficient and poor food and disease is responsible for the creation of defectives and that the criminal type is a social or professional type rather than an anthropological one. Crime is the result of conditions acting on an unstable or defective organism.

With these criticisms of the Lombrosian theory there was for a time a marked decline in the interest attached to the scientific study of the criminal. But recently the work has begun again and out of the mass of conflicting data has come a more extended platform to which both the biologists and the sociologists can stand. The study of the man who has committed an anti-social act, so-called crime, must not content itself with the study of the man himself, but must go back to the conditions and temptations which surrounded that man long before his birth. The mother, for instance, who is impregnated against her will by a syphilitic or alcoholic husband, or even by some unknown person, and is during the period of gestation ill cared for or subject to hard work, bears a child which during its first few months is insufficiently nourished, poorly housed and clothed, perhaps abandoned or brought up indifferently without a mother's love or care. Later on he becomes a denizen of the city streets, a waif depending on his natural cunning for existence, possessed of only a fair amount of education. Is it any fault of nature that such a one should want to make the most of his slender resources and use the education of the street to his own advantage? Or again, is it degeneration of a physical kind that causes several hundred thousand men to lead a homeless, outcast, tramp life, or is it a lack of organization in our industrial affairs, with periods of great activity and periods of depression? Again, are the criminal classes confined to the few thousand inmates of our jails and penitentiaries and are those outside mostly honest, and of those so-called honest men how many would remain so if subjected to temptations or placed in unfavorable conditions i. e. potentially criminals. Any study of the unsuccessful criminals, the convicted ones, must necessarily be unfair and unscientific if it does not include the study of the successful criminal, the man who works in the shadow of the law. Again, laws are no longer considered ordained by God. A crime may be an act against God, against man, against nature. Our interpretation of crime varies with our material wefare. Society, i. e. the ruling classes in society, not many years ago held it no crime to do with their property what they pleased, whether that property was animate or inanimate. Today you know that you may not maltreat your wife, your child or your dog. But in this country today there is one law for the man of means and another for the man without means, or rather there are three or four laws for the man with means. Some day it will be as criminal for a thousand men under the leadership of some misguided individual to shoot down unarmed human beings because they are living in another part of the world as it is today for one individual to kill another. The crimes against God do not need our interference. Crimes against nature, nature usually attends to.

The crimes against individual man and society are the ones that society should concern itself with. The work of Lombroso has called attention to the individualization of treatment, that society should treat the individual and not the crime; it should study him. If he is a fool or a defective and beyond cure, place him in such surroundings where he will be as much use to society as possible. If he is a victim of circumstances, endeavor to correct the conditions that made him a victim and do not add to his injury by further punishment. If he is an incorrigible, place him under proper restraint where he may find the schooling he failed to receive. If he has done an injury, give him a chance to make reparation either to society or to the person injured. And lastly, place our criminal institutions, our police courts especially in the hands of experts where the man or boy accused of crime can have as much attention shown him as the man afflicted with physical disease and where the causes can be carefully investigated and the proper remedies applied before the disease becomes chronic and incurable. The born criminal is a rare animal. He is not a serious menace. The criminal is society's chief concern and every society deserves all the criminals it has.

December 2, 1911.

Sociological Theories of Crime.

By Edward Lindsey

The publication of Lombroso's theories of crime and criminals stimulated the discussion and study of crime as never before. While he found many followers at least of the general theory of finding the cause of crime in the physical or mental constitution or perversion of the criminal himself it was also very soon pointed out that the Lombrosan theory was onesided and could by no possibility rise to the scope of a general explanation of crime. One of Lombroso's earliest supporters was Kurella in Germany but Baer, Nacke, Kirn and later Aschaffenburg carefully analyzed Lombroso's work and showed its inadequacy and the essential fallacy of his conclusions. Virchow classed Lombroso and his deductions with Gall and the alleged science of phrenology. In Italy itself, however, while the work of Lombroso gave rise to the so-called Italian school of Criminologists, his theories were seen to be but partial formulations and other members of the so-called Italian school recognized the need of supplementing them. Enrico Ferri was profoundly influenced by Lombroso, but while accepting most of his conclusions did not consider crime to be due to anthropological causes alone. He maintained that crime is the result of manifold causes which may be classified as individual or anthropological, physical and social.

In the relative importance which he assigned to these factors, Ferri vacillated. In an early work he emphasized the individual factors in the statement that "without special individual inclinations, the external impulses would not be sufficient and that the environment gives the form to the crime that has its basis in the biological factor." After his conversion to socialism as his political creed he laid more stress on the environment and formulated what he called "the law of criminal saturation" in the following statement:

"Just as in a given volume of water, at a given temperature, we find the solution of a fixed quantity of any chemical substance, not an atom more or less, so in a given social environment in certain defined physical conditions of the individual, we find the commission of a fixed number of crimes." As a consequence of emphasizing social factors Ferri calls attention to the necessity of adopting other means than punishment to avoid possible future crimes. These he calls "penal substitutes," examples of which are lowering of import tariffs to decrease smuggling; the use of metallic instead of paper money decreasing forgery; popular savings banks as preventing usury; wide city streets and better lighting rendering thefts and other offenses more difficult; oversight of sale of weapons; the marriage of the clergy; the suppression of monasteries; public baths; theatres; foundling homes; suppression of immoral publications and accounts of famous trials, etc. These penal substitutes however are recognized by Ferri to be entirely apart from the penal code. He says that “in every social environment there is always a minimum of inevitable criminality;" that "as society cannot exist without law, so law cannot exist without offenses against the law," and that "the execution of punishment though it is the less important part of the function of social defense, in harmony with the other functions of society, is always the last and inevitable auxiliary." "Punishment," he says, "which is one of the social forms of pain, is always a direct motive in human conduct, as it is also an indirect guide by virtue of its being a sanction of justice, unconsciously strengthening respect for the law. But still this psychological truth, while it demonstrates the natural character of punishment and the consequent absurdity of abolishing it altogether does not destroy our conclusion as to the slight efficacy of punishment as a counteraction of crime." While Ferri thus correctly apprehended the true nature of punishment as psychological motive, in his discussion of practical measures he completely ignores this principle and considers punishment to be "the application of the law which is most appropriate to the perpetrator of the crime, according to his more or less anti-social characteristics both physiological and psychological." He regards the effect of social punishment as slight because of its

slowness and uncertainty as compared with the reaction of nature against the infringement of natural laws. His idea of punishment is complete elimination or "unfixed segregation" of the criminal. We find in Ferri, therefore, a contradiction running throughout his work. In spite of a correct theoretical insight into the social nature of crime he is too much possessed by the Lombrosan theory to make a correct application and is on the whole to be classed with the anthropological school. He was led to regard too closely the nature of crime as abnormal and did not sufficiently appreciate that both social and anti-social characteristics are normally present in every human being.

Raffaelle Garofalo, that third member of the trio called by de Quiros "the three innovators" started from what he called the sociological conception of crime. The legislator, he says, did not create the word crime or the idea it denotes, he has only specified a certain number of acts which according to him, are crimes. Crime is therefore not an artificial creation of the law, but a "natural offense." He says, "crime, in fact, is always a harmful act which, at the same time, wounds some of those feelings which it has been agreed to call the moral sense of a human aggregation. The element of immorality necessary in order that a harmful act should be considered as criminal by public opinion is the violation of that part of the moral sense which consists of the fundamental altruistic feelings, pity and probity. It is necessary further, that the violation should wound not the superior and most delicate part of these feelings, but the average measure in which they are possessed by a community and which is indispensable for the adaptation of the individual to society. That is what we shall call crime or natural offense." He then inquires whether there are psychic types of men showing absence of pity and probity and while concluding that there is no distinct anthropological criminal type, thinks that the criminal shows a psychic type analogous to that of the lower animals and savages. He is thus led to the study of the individual criminal and back to the anthropological theories with which his own must be partly classed. We will later return to some consideration of Garofalo's theory of the natural offense; at present we will briefly mention several other examples of what may be called Anthroposociologic theories, that is theories resting both on the basis of individual and social factors. The so-called French school will be classified under this head with Lacassagne, perhaps the leading spirit in the publication of the "Archives of Criminal Anthropology" at Lyons, at the head. Lacassagne has said: "Social environment is the heat in which criminality breeds; the criminal is the microbe, an element of no importance until it meets the liquid which makes it