CHAPTER VII.

CONCLUSIONS.

We have now seen, in its main outlines, the present condition of this

question of the nature and treatment of the criminal. We have seen that

criminality is a natural phenomenon, to be studied gravely and carefully

according to natural methods; and that by natural and reasonable methods

alone can the problem of its elimination be faced with any chance of

success.

A simple and obvious conclusion it seems. Yet it is a conclusion not even

yet generally accepted, and which is only beginning to find expression in

our social life. It is still quite usual to find that crime is regarded as

an abstract matter, not to be treated seriously unless the criminal

himself is ignored. On the other hand, when the criminal comes in for

discussion it is merely as a subject for sensational excitement, or

unwholesome curiosity, as a creature to be vituperated or glorified

without measure.

The criminal has always been the hero, almost the saint, of the

uncultured. That attitude of unbounded reverence for the lunatic, as for

an inspired being, and unquestioning submission to his wildest acts which

to-day can scarcely be found in Europe outside Turkey, has by no means

died out where the criminal is concerned, even in the most civilised

country. The same reverence or amazement that the educated feel for the

man of genius, the uneducated feel for the criminal.

The Romans gave the name of Hercules to great criminals after death, and

dedicated a distinct cult to them. If we go back to a still more primitive

phase of life as preserved in folk-lore, and still to some extent

perpetuated, we find that all that belongs to an executed criminal brings

luck. A finger or other small bone kept in the purse will preserve it from

ever being empty. It also keeps away vermin, and protects a thief from his

victim. Buried beneath the threshold it brings perpetual blessing, and to

have a thief’s thumb among his goods is an excellent thing for a

shopkeeper. The people came for the Marquise de Brinvilliers’s bones the

day after her execution; they regarded her as a kind of saint, says Mme.

de Sevigné. When at Breslau the old Rabenstein (the gallows) was broken

down, a great trade was done by the workmen in the bones found beneath.

Precious above all is the blood of a criminal; even a few drops on a rag

are most costly. Such blood, when drunk, heals fevers and other diseases,

just as the blood of gladiators was among the old Romans a cure for

epilepsy. It must be drunk fresh, if possible warm. Bread dipped in this

blood and eaten is good against the gout. The halter with which a criminal

has been hanged has much power and brings luck. When it is struck three

times on the threshold, the house is preserved from lightning. The same

put into a beer cask with a criminal’s thumb has an excellent influence on

the beer. In Franconia the fat of criminals is sometimes inquired for at

the druggist’s, and a substance, so called, is handed over. When in

Prussia executions took place in public, there was always friction

between the armed guards and the crowd of women, who at all costs pressed

forward with spoons, cups, and dishes to catch some of the blood. At the

execution of a murderer at Hanau in 1861, several men leapt on to the

scaffold and drank the steaming blood. At the execution of two murderers

in Berlin in 1864, the executioner’s assistants dipped numbers of white

handkerchiefs in the blood, and received two thalers for each. The

bystanders even call upon the criminal for his most powerful intercession

in Heaven. According to Pitré, there is still in Sicily a fetichistic

adoration for the souls of the beheaded. The criminal is a person endowed

with divine force, to be treated with awe and reverence, and whose blood

and flesh have something of the old sacramental power of infusing the

divine one’s energy into the body of him who eats of it.[112]

[Illustration: Lacenaire.]

In a less crude form, and among persons who lay claim to a somewhat higher

degree of culture, the same veneration has long existed and still exists.

Appert, writing immediately after the execution of Lacenaire at Paris,

says:--“His portraits were displayed on quays and boulevards. From all

sides exquisite meats and delicate wines reached his cell, while, two

steps away, miserable creatures driven to crime by hunger ate the black

and hard bread of the gaol. Every day some man of letters visited him,

carefully noting his sarcasms, his phrases composed in drunkenness or

studiously calculated for effect; women, young, beautiful, and elegantly

attired, solicited the honour of being presented to him, and were in

despair at his refusal; a noble countess, the mother of a family,

addressed verses to him, and drew upon herself a reply at which no doubt

she blushed. He himself mocked at the infatuation he excited. ‘They come

to me,’ he said, ‘as they would ask a ticket from M. Geoffroy

Saint-Hilaire to see the elephants’ den.’” When Cartouche was in prison he

was visited by many distinguished ladies and overwhelmed by their

attentions. The Abbé Crozes tells us that Tropmann, the brutal murderer,

when in prison received a great number of letters from ladies, full of

anxiety in regard to his spiritual welfare, and asking for the most minute

details concerning him. Some of these letters were reproduced in the

_Figaro_. I have not seen them, but Dr. Corre says: “Their perusal

stupefies one; they witness, among women who have been well brought up, to

an ill-defined obsession, of the nature of which they are even themselves

unaware, and which perhaps had its origin in an unavowable sentiment of

love, born of mystery and the unknown.” It is not only women in whom this

ancient worship of the criminal still survives. In a recent newspaper I

read concerning a murderer: “One of the saddest sights we have ever

witnessed was the prison van going along Waterloo Place at midnight under

the beautiful moonlight with a great crowd running after it cheering

loudly the poor wretch within--cheering that never ceased till the van

disappeared inside the prison gate. The crowd was composed chiefly of

young men, many of them well dressed, and not a few accompanied by their

sweethearts. The scene suggested a convoy by the students of a favourite

singer rather than that by the youth of even the lowest class in Edinburgh

of a brutal murderer of a harmless English gentleman.” And, again, in

another newspaper: “On Monday many visitors were in Seaham for Bank

Holiday and the flower show. Those who visited the cavern where the girl

is supposed to have been murdered were ten times more numerous than those

who went to the flower show. Nearly all were strangers to the town, and

had journeyed thither for the express purpose of viewing the scene of the

tragedy. Many took a memento of some sort, either a chipping of rock, a

pebble, or a stone from the cave. Some went so far as to take water from

the pool where deceased was found, away with them in bottles.”

It is well known that when a woman has murdered her husband it is by no

means unusual for a number of letters to be sent to her, before the issue

of the trial is known, containing offers of marriage.

It is not possible to regard the criminal as a hero or a saint after we

have once seriously begun to study his nature. He is simply a feeble or

distorted person to whom it has chanced--most often, perhaps, from lack of

human help--to fall out of the social ranks. It is as unreasonable and as

inhuman for a whole nation to become excited over him, and to crave for

the minutest details concerning him, as we now deem it to expose the

miseries of any other abnormal person--man of genius or idiot, leper or

lunatic--to the general and unmerciful gaze. Not that any of these may

not be studied; they must be studied, but not delivered over to

unrestrained curiosities, sentimentalities, cruelties. No external force

can change this attitude; no censorship of newspapers will avail. Only the

slow influences of education, and a rational knowledge of what criminality

means, can effect a permanent change. But until this has been effected,

one of the most fertile sources of crime, what has been well called the

contagion of crime, will remain, as it is to-day, a danger in all

civilised countries, a danger which is suggesting heroic remedies. The

minute details of every horrible crime are to-day known at once by every

child in remotest villages. The recital of it stirs up all the morbid

sedimentary instincts in weak and ill-balanced natures; and whenever a

large community grows excited over a crime, that community becomes

directly responsible for a whole crop of crimes, more especially among

young persons and children.[113]

We have, then, to reform our emotional attitude towards the criminal. On

the other hand, we have yet something to do in reforming our rational

attitude towards crime. “There are no crimes; there are only criminals.”

That saying of Lacassagne’s indicates the direction in which practical

changes must develop. “All progress in penal jurisprudence,” as Salillas

well says, “lies in giving consideration to the man.” The question of

legal methods, criteria, and tribunals is one of considerable importance

from this point of view, and it is one to which sufficient attention has

not yet been given. It is unfortunate that, in this country at all events,

there seems to be a tendency to antagonism or divergence between, on the

one hand, the medical and scientific side and, on the other, the judicial

and executive side in the treatment of the criminal.[114] Whether this

divergence is due chiefly to the lawyers or to the doctors is not quite

clear, but it is essential that it should come to an end. Both lawyers and

doctors exist for the sake of society, and are the servants of society;

society, in its own interests, must see to it that they agree quickly. But

so long as society allows antiquated laws and methods to prevail, there

must be disagreement--disagreement which is disastrous to social

interests. We need, before everything else, an enlightened public opinion.

A question which is constantly arising, and constantly leading to direct

divergence between the exponents of science and the exponents of law, is

the question of insanity. Under existing conditions it is frequently a

matter of some moment whether a criminal is insane or not. Now whether a

man is insane or not is largely a matter of definition. Even with the best

definition we cannot always be certain whether a given person comes within

the definition, but it is still possible to have a bad definition and a

good definition. The definition which lawyers in England are compelled to

accept is of the former character. The ruling still relied on is that of

the judges in the MacNaghten case, many years ago: “That to establish a

defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the

time of committing the act the accused was labouring under such a defect

of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality

of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was

doing what was wrong.” That this metaphysical and unpractical test will

not do has been clearly recognised by some of the most eminent lawyers,

who are quite in agreement with medical men. “The test of insanity which

commends itself to medical men,” says Sir J. Crichton-Browne, “was never

more clearly and succinctly expressed than by Lord Bramwell when in the

Dove case he asked, ‘Could he help it?’ Could he help it? That is the real

practical question at issue in any case in which the defence of insanity

is set up.”[115] It should be added that Lord Bramwell has not always been

able to maintain this position. “It ought to be the law of England,” says

Mr. Justice Stephen, a very great authority, “that no act is a crime if

the person who does it is at the time when it is done prevented by

defective mental power, or by any disease affecting his mind, from

controlling his conduct, unless the absence of the power of self-control

has been produced by his own default.” A reasonable doctrine to lay down,

no doubt, and one which medical men generally would accept; but one asks

oneself at once: How many persons guilty of serious crimes--the only class

in regard to whom the question is of practical importance--are to be

counted sane?

The point on which we must fix our attention, however, is that it should

make so much difference whether a criminal is insane or not. Our law is

still in so semi-barbaric a condition that the grave interests of society

and of the individual are made to hinge on a problem which must often be

insoluble. Practically it cannot make the slightest difference whether the

criminal is sane or insane. Sane or insane, he is still noxious to

society, and society must be protected from him. Sane or insane, it is

still our duty and our interest to treat him humanely, and to use all

means in our power to render him capable of living a social life. Under

any system, at once fairly humane and fairly rational, the question of

insanity, while still of interest, can make little practical difference,

either to society or to the criminal. It is unreasonable and anti-social

to speak of insanity as a “defence.” It is an explanation, but, from the

social point of view, it is not a defence. Suppose we accept the

definition of insanity which, as we have seen, is now widely accepted by

medical men and favoured by many eminent lawyers, that insanity is a loss

of self-control, the giving way to an irresistible impulse. It cannot be

unknown to any one that self-control may be educated, that it may be

weakened or strengthened by the circumstances of life. If we define

insanity as a loss of self-control and accept that as a “defence,” we are

directly encouraging every form of vice and crime, because we are removing

the strongest influence in the formation of self-control. When a “defence”

of kleptomania was brought before an English judge in a case of theft he

is said to have observed: “Yes, that is what I am sent here to cure.” We

need not hesitate to accept this conception of the function of the court,

provided always that the treatment is scientific, effectual, and humane.

The fact that to-day it is not so, and that lawyers and doctors are

helpless to make it so, is a glaring proof of the necessity which exists

for society, in its own interests and in those of its weaker members, to

take intelligent cognisance of these matters, and to pave the way for

reasonable action. In the first chapter of this book I noted, without

calling any special attention to it, the curiously divergent way in which

somewhat similar cases were treated. One girl was treated kindly and sent

to a clergyman’s house: she “recovered.” Little Marie Schneider was sent

to prison for eight years, the years during which she will develop into a

woman. What will she be fit for when she comes out at the age of twenty?

She may come out a human tigress, or merely the crushed and helpless

product of prison routine. In either case what intelligent principle

guided the society that condemned her to spend those eight years in

prison? The lad who killed his little sister was sent to penal servitude

for ten years. What will he be good for when he comes out? “In any case,”

as Dr. Savage remarks, “the boy is pretty certain to end his days either

as a lunatic or a confirmed criminal, and I fancy the best course has been

taken to make him the latter. So society will suffer the more, and the boy

himself will be none the better.”

These problems are unknown to the law, but they are beginning to stir

among the community. A girl of twelve not long since murdered a child of

four, as she herself subsequently confessed, in much the same manner as

Marie Schneider murdered Margarete Dietrich. The jury acquitted her. They

acted in defiance of the evidence and of the law. It is clear that what

they said to themselves was this: The law will send this girl to prison

for some ten or fifteen years. We do not believe in the advantage of that,

and we prefer to deliver her from the law altogether. They were, as the

judge said, a very merciful jury. But it is not by shuffling evasions of

law that civilisation progresses. We need just and reasonable laws, not

merciful juries. It is not to the advantage of society that young

murderesses should wander at large, though it may very possibly be better

than throwing them into the prison as at present constituted. The

“merciful” jury, as in the south of Italy, becomes the hysterical and too

often venial jury. We cannot be too grateful for the courage and honesty

with which, as a rule, English juries and judges fulfil their functions;

it is to this adherence to law that many intelligent foreign observers

attribute the fact that criminality in England is in some respects less

serious than one might be led to expect. If, however, this attitude is to

be maintained, and we are to avoid the dangers of lying and cowardly

verdicts, we must see to it that our law keeps pace with our knowledge and

with our methods of social progress.

The institution of the jury is well rooted in England, and on the whole

very efficient. There is not likely to be any agitation for some time to

come for its abolition, as there has been in Italy and France and

Switzerland. But there is at all events one modification in our criminal

courts which is urgently required. It is entirely opposed to the interests

of justice, and therefore of society, that the scientific conclusions in a

case should be thrust into a partisan position. Experts will often differ

as lawyers often differ, but the lawyer is not more competent to decide on

the science of the expert than the expert is competent to decide on the

law of the lawyer. It is not for the interests of justice that one expert,

representing perhaps only his own opinion, should weigh against another

representing perhaps the general body of scientific opinion on that

subject. It is not calculated for the ends of justice that the judge,

however quick and intelligent, should have to pronounce on matters

concerning which he can only speak as a layman, and necessarily falls into

frequent errors of judgment. Special points involving special knowledge or

skill must be submitted to a commission of experts, and the verdicts of

the commission on these special points must be accepted by the court,

though subject to an appeal to a supreme medico-legal tribunal. Some such

method as this is now being widely demanded by intelligent opinion in the

interests of justice. At the International Congress on Forensic Medicine,

held in Paris in 1889, this tendency came out very clearly, and was

formulated in the following proposition which the Congress adopted:--“To

guarantee the interests of society and of the accused in all medico-legal

investigations, at least two experts shall be employed. These shall be

appointed by the judge.” It is to be hoped, in the interests of justice,

that the pressure of public opinion will hasten the adoption of this

reasonable and moderate reform in criminal procedure.

Our courts of justice are still pervaded by the barbaric notion of the

duel. We arrange a brilliant tournament, and are interested not so much in

the investigation of truth as in the question of who will “win.” We cannot

hope for any immediate radical change in this method, but it is our duty

to do all that we can to strengthen those elements in our courts which

are concerned, not with the gaining of a cause, but with the investigation

of truth. This and all other reforms in our methods of dealing with the

criminal, as I have already pointed out, and would again insist, cannot be

attained by a mere administrative _fiat_; nor is it desirable that they

should be. Before any reform can be safely embodied in the law it must

first be embodied in the popular consciousness. We need here, as in so

many other fields of our social life, a strong body of intelligent and

educated opinion. This must accompany that revival, under the inspiration

of the methods of natural science, of that science of jurisprudence which

is at present the most stationary and scholastic of all the sciences.

These problems are every day becoming more pressing. The level of

criminality, it is well known, is rising, and has been rising during the

whole of the present century, throughout the civilised world. In France,

in Germany, in Italy, in Belgium, in Spain, in the United States, the tide

of criminality is becoming higher steadily and rapidly. In France it has

risen several hundred per cent.; so also for several kinds of serious

crime in many parts of Germany; in Spain the number of persons sent to

perpetual imprisonment nearly doubled between 1870 and 1883; in the United

States the criminal population has increased since the war, relatively to

the population, by one-third. There is, no doubt, room for fallacy in many

of these statistics; various circumstances serve to modify such figures--a

greater or less intolerance of crime, more or less success in capturing

criminals, and variations in the methods of dealing with them. On the

whole, however, there seems to be a general agreement that the increase is

real.

Insular Great Britain alone appears to be relatively unsubmerged by the

rising tide of criminality; but even here there is a real increase, in

proportion to the population, in the more serious kinds of crime. Crimes

of passion are rarer among the Anglo-Saxon race in England, Scotland, and

America than anywhere else; but crimes of interest are proportionately

more common than elsewhere. The decrease is in minor offences, and is due

in large measure, no doubt, to reasons connected with the police. The

anomaly of the comparative freedom of Great Britain from crime has been

explained by foreign observers in several ways--by the former frequency of

hanging and of transportation in England, thus eliminating a large number

of criminals,[116] and by the firmness with which sentences are executed.

It is probable that the great stream of emigration from Great Britain,

carrying away much of the finest, but also much of the most turbulent

elements (the two are often connected), has had a very marked influence in

this respect.

Criminality, like insanity, waits upon civilisation. Among primitive races

insanity is rare; criminality, in the true sense, is also rare.

Conservatism and the rigid cult of custom form as distinct a barrier

against crime as they do against progressive civilisation. As the methods

of enlarging and multiplying the uses of our lives increase, so do the

abuses of these methods. In an epoch of stress, and of much change and

readjustment in the social surroundings and relations of individuals,

ill-balanced natures become more frequent, and the anti-social and

unlawful instincts are more often called out than in a stagnant society.

The criminality of the Irish in England is far greater than that of the

Irish at home, and it is a significant fact that while the Americans are

more criminal than the English, the criminality of the English-born in the

United States is more than double that of the native American whites. Like

insanity,[117] criminality flourishes among migrants, and our civilisation

is bringing us all more or less into the position of migrants.

But the problem of criminality is not thereby rendered hopeless. Rather it

is shown to be largely a social fact, and social facts are precisely the

order of facts most under our control. The problem of criminality is not

an isolated one that can be dealt with by fixing our attention on that and

that alone. It is a problem that on closer view is found to merge itself

very largely into all those problems of our social life that are now

pressing for solution, and in settling them we shall to a great extent

settle it. The rising flood of criminality is not an argument for

pessimism or despair. It is merely an additional spur to that great task

of social organisation to which during the coming century we are called.

It is useless, or worse than useless, to occupy ourselves with methods for

improving the treatment of criminals, so long as the conditions of life

render the prison a welcome and desired shelter. So long as we foster the

growth of the reckless classes we foster the growth of criminality. So

long as there are a large body of women in the East of London, and in

other large centres, who are prepared to say: “It’s Jack the Ripper or the

bridge with me. What’s the odds?”[118] there will be a still larger number

of persons who will willingly accept the risks of prison. “What’s the

odds?” Liberty is dear to every man who is fed and clothed and housed, and

he will not usually enter a career of crime unless he has carefully

calculated the risks of losing his liberty and found them small; but food

and shelter are even more precious than liberty, and these may be secured

in a prison. As things are, the asylum and the workhouse, against which

there is a deep prejudice, ingrained and irrational, would have a greater

deterring influence than the prison. There are every morning at Paris

50,000 persons who do not know how they will eat or where they will

sleep.[119] It is the same in every great city; for such the prison can be

nothing but a home. It is well known that the lot of the convict,

miserable as it is, with its dull routine and perpetual surveillance, is

yet easier, less laborious, and far more healthy than that to which

thousands of honest working men are condemned throughout Great Britain.

The fate reserved for a French convict is one that might well be the

reward of honesty. He is sent to New Caledonia, to marry, to settle,

perhaps to become rich. “I do not know,” an ex-deputy, sent out to report

on the condition of the convicts, is said to have declared, “any

struggling peasant or small proprietor in France who would not gladly

exchange his lot for that of a convict of the first class in New

Caledonia.” “The working classes,” as Professor Prins, one of the most

able and thoughtful students of this subject, remarks, “badly housed,

badly nourished, vegetate at the mercy of economic crises.[120] The worker

is always on the borders of vagabondage; the vagabond is always on the

borders of crime. The entire working classes are thus exposed in the first

line, and whether it is a question of disease or of crime, it is they who

succumb first.”[121] Crime would be much commoner than it is if it were

not for the communistic practice of mutual helpfulness which rules so

largely among the poorest classes, and mitigates the stress of misery. All

the more thoughtful students of the criminal, among whom Ferri in this

respect stands first, have seen the direct bearing on criminality of what

Colajanni has called Social Hygiene. We may neglect the problems of social

organisation, but we do so at our peril.

It was at one time thought that the great panacea for the prevention of

crime was education. Undoubtedly education has an important bearing on

criminality, but we now know that the mere intellectual rudiments of

education have very little influence indeed in preventing crime, though

they may have a distinct influence in modifying its forms. Such education

merely puts a weapon into the hands of the anti-social man. The only

education that can avail to prevent crime in any substantial degree must

be education in the true sense, an education that is as much physical and

moral as intellectual, an education that enables him who has it to play a

fair part in social life. The proportion of criminals with some

intellectual education is now becoming very large; the proportion of

criminals who are acquainted with any trade still remains very small; the

proportion of criminals engaged in their trade at the time of the crime is

smaller still. We seem to be approaching a point at which it will become

obvious that every citizen must be educated to perform some useful social

function. In the interests of society he must be enabled to earn his

living by that function. If we close the social ranks against him he will

enter the anti-social ranks, and the more educated he is the more

dangerous he will then become.

All education must include provision for the detection and special

treatment of abnormal children. We cannot catch our criminals too young.

Taverni has found that criminals in childhood are marked especially by

their resistance to educative influences. It is our duty and our interest

to detect such refractory and abnormal children at the earliest period, to

examine them carefully, and to ensure that each shall have the treatment

best adapted to him. It is much easier, and much cheaper, to do that, than

to wait until he has brought ruin on himself and shame on his friends.

This is beginning to be recognised and acted upon in those countries that

are most alive to the meaning of education; in Sweden, for instance, there

is a careful medical supervision of schools, by medical officers who are

not subordinate to the teachers, although this supervision is confined to

the physical condition and capacities of the child. It is indispensable,

if we are to deal effectually with the criminal, that we should be able

to refer to the record of his physical, mental, and moral dispositions

during childhood. In England recently a committee, consisting of the most

eminent medical men specially qualified for the task, was appointed to

examine into the condition of children in primary schools. This committee,

owing chiefly to the enthusiasm and labour of Dr. Francis Warner,

accomplished much valuable work, but the London School Board refused to

allow any access to its schools. The London School Board consists, one may

suppose, of intelligent persons, genuinely interested in education, and

representing the sense of the community, yet they refused to consider one

of the most serious problems that the educator has to face. So true it is

that every society has only the criminals that it deserves.

While a wise modification of the educative influences is here of the

greatest importance, we must not forget that to a very large extent the

child is moulded before birth. There is no invariable fatalism in the

influences that work before birth, but it must always make a very great

difference whether a man is well born and starts happily, or whether he is

heavily handicapped at the very outset of the race of life; whether a man

is born free from vices of nature, or buys freedom, if at all, at a great

price. There is evidence to show how much of the welfare of the child

depends on the general physical and emotional health of the parents, and

that the child’s fate may be determined by some physical weakness, some

emotional trouble at conception or during pregnancy. No legislation can

step in here, save at the most very indirectly. We can, however, quicken

the social and individual conscience. The making of children is the

highest of all human functions, and that which carries the most widespread

and incalculable consequences. It is well to remember that every falling

away from health, every new strain and stress, in man or woman, may lay an

additional burden on a man or woman yet unborn, and perhaps wreck a life

or a succession of lives.

This is not the place to develop these various consequences which flow

from our consideration of the nature and treatment of the criminal. It

seemed well, however, to indicate them, if only to show how large a

problem is this of criminality. Perhaps every social problem, when we

begin to look into it and to turn it round and to analyse it, will be

found not to stand alone, but to be made up of fibres that extend to every

part of our social life.

APPENDIX A.

_Explanation of Plates._

FRONTISPIECE.

Composite photograph of twenty criminals--“dullards”--in the Elmira

Reformatory. It may be compared with Plates XIV. and XV. I am indebted to

the kindness of Dr. Hamilton Wey for these photographs.

PLATE I.

1. S. E., age 32. Life sentence. Third time a convict, and he says “all

for the same man.” His story is that he was flogged by the mate of his

ship at Callao, that he jumped with the mate into the water, and after a

chase on shore he stabbed him. He speaks of the mate as his lifelong

enemy. Height 6ft. 0¼ in. without boots. Very powerful. A most determined

villainous expression, but a massive forehead. Small compressed mouth.

Attempted suicide at Millbank. Lost left arm at Woking from disease of

elbow joint.

2. T. W., murderer.

3. G. W., gardener, age 86; seven years for uttering counterfeit coin.

Three previous short sentences.

4. J. C., farm labourer, from Nottingham, age 62; ten years’ sentence;

petty thefts many times. Fourth time a convict.

5. A. J., from Paisley, age 50; cattle stealing; two years a soldier;

“could not learn the bugle-calls or anything.” Weak-minded; most of life

in prison; three terms of penal servitude; eleven shorter sentences.

6. P. J., charcoal burner and collier, from Hereford, age 36; unlawfully

and maliciously wounding; “low type of intellect.” Very troublesome at

Chatham, and among the weak-minded at Millbank. One previous sentence of

penal servitude.

PLATE II.

1. T. C., chemist, from Portsea, age 21. Paid his addresses to girl whose

mother objected; attempted to murder latter by administering prussic acid.

Eight years’ penal servitude. Valvular disease of heart after rheumatic

fever.

2. G. H., farm labourer, from Leeds, age 50; “very low type;” twenty years

for shooting wife.

3. J. H., soldier and navvy, from Durham, age 60; conspiring to murder.

4. J. C., from Liverpool, fifteen years for manslaughter.

5. E. L., dock labourer, from Bristol. Life sentence for murdering wife’s

paramour; genitals undeveloped; fatty tumours on scapula.

6. W. G. H., from Lincoln, age 12. Manslaughter; fifteen years. Second and

third toes webbed.

PLATE III.

1. R. W., dock labourer, from Paisley, age 18. Assault and robbery; ten

years. Previous conviction for theft.

2. E. S. J., farm labourer, age 38; seven years for horse-stealing and

other thefts; four previous convictions.

3. W. W., stone-masons’ labourer, from Kirkdale, age 21; seven years and

flogged for robbery with violence. Three previous shorter sentences.

4. G. W., puddler, from Salford, age 21; five years for wounding.

5. W. S., cook and steward, from Liverpool; ten years for larceny; five

years previously for ditto.

6. W. C., age 25. Robbery with violence; ten years. Two shorter sentences.

PLATE IV.

1. J. J., hawker, from Hull; seven years for theft.

2. J. M., age 28; eight years a tailor, “rest of life a thief.” Seven

years for larceny, housebreaking, and receiving.

3. V. M., maker of pearl ornaments, from Birmingham, age 20. Thief

chiefly; twelve times in prison.

4. J. W., collier, from Durham; seven years for felony; seven shorter

sentences previously. Right eye destroyed.

5. W. T., farm labourer, from Hereford, age 21; ten years for receiving

stolen goods.

6. N. K., collier, from Gloucester; seven years for receiving joint of a

sheep, stolen and cut up by another; previous conviction for stealing

fellow-labourer’s dinner. “Low type; history told as if it was all a

joke.”

PLATE V.

1. J. H., from Chester, age 21; five years for burglary. In reformatory

and seven times in prison. “Very prominent forehead; small eyes nearly

concealed by upper lid.”

2. J. C. E., age 25; seven years for housebreaking. “Low type.”

3. S. P.. age 35; weaver, from Wakefield; ten years’ penal servitude for

felony; five years previously.

4. J. P., costermonger; seven years; house and general thief.

5. D. M., a Greek, age 16; letter sorter; five years for stealing parcels.

His father had been in penal servitude for stealing bonds.

6. H. S., letter-sorter, age 21. Five years for stealing a letter.

PLATE VI.

1. V. S., age 17; rape on girl of 13; “very low type.”

2. W. W., age 45; coal miner and stoker, from Stafford; rape on child of

10. “Strong, villainous expression.”

3. H. O., groom and jockey, from Leeds, age 57. Bestiality; fifteen years’

penal servitude; conspiracy by servant girl, he says. Threatened to

destroy himself. “Eyes very close to the nose; small head; low type.”

4. W. M., age 32, from Manchester; nine years a soldier, farm labourer

before and since; ten years for crime _contra naturam_.

5. T. R., age 16; farm labourer, from Worcester; ten years for rape;

“monkey face.”

6. W. B., age 23, from Manchester; height 5ft. 0½ in.; seven years for

arson; intellect feeble.

PLATE VII.

_Relation of the age of Fathers in normal subjects, criminals, and the

insane (adapted from Marro)._

+--------------------------------------------------------------

| |Normal.|Criminals.|Murderers.| Sexual |

| | | | |Offenders.|

|--------------------|-------|----------|----------|----------|

| | per | per | per | per |

| | cent. | cent. | cent. | cent. |

|Period of immaturity| 8.8 | 10.9 | 2.9 | 2.7 |

| " maturity | 66.1 | 56.7 | 44.1 | 66.6 |

| " decadence | 24.9 | 32.2 | 52.9 | 30.5 |

+--------------------------------------------------------------

+-----------------------------------------------+

| |Thieves.|Sharpers.|Insane.|

| | | | |

|--------------------|--------|---------|-------|

| | per | per | per |

| | cent. | cent. | cent. |

|Period of immaturity| 15.5 | 2.8 | 17.0 |

| " maturity | 57.2 | 60.0 | 47.0 |

| " decadence | 27.1 | 37.1 | 36.0 |

+-----------------------------------------------+

PLATE VIII.

Tattooed criminal from Lombroso’s _Uomo Delinquente_. A French sailor, a

deserter, previously condemned for an unknown crime. The various

inscriptions and designs bear witness to his vicious and criminal tastes.

The heart’s case, for instance, is common among pæderasts.

PLATE IX.

The eight heads in this and the following Plate have been chosen,

intentionally, almost at random, in order to show the average types of

criminal with whom the London police at Scotland Yard have to deal.

1. F. C., age 61. A well-known London burglar; tattooed.

2. C. D., age 31. Housebreaker. “A dangerous character.” Many scars on

head, body, and limbs.

3. H. A. G., age 36. “A very clever swindler,” “of gentlemanly appearance,

and good address.” Speaks French and German.

4. W. A., age 42. “A desperate burglar, and will assuredly use firearms.”

A smith, native of Middlesex. Several scars.

PLATE X.

1. J. C., age 32. Shoemaker by trade, native of London. “A daring burglar;

will probably use firearms.” Tattooed.

2. M. A. L., age 28. Factory hand, born at Sheffield. “A dangerous thief,”

who has had eight years’ penal servitude for assault and robbery.

3. W. K., age 40. “A dangerous thief, with several convictions.”

4. R. W., age 23. Born at Hartlepool. “A dangerous man.” Larceny.

PLATE XI.

The heads in this and the following Plate are chiefly Italian, and taken

from Lombroso’s _Uomo Delinquente_.

1. Desroues, poisoner.

2. Cartouche.

3. B. S., Piedmontese forger.

4. Incendiary (and cinæedus) of Pesaro, nicknamed “the woman.”

PLATE XII. ITALIAN BRIGANDS.

1. A Calabrian brigand.

2. Carbone, a brigand chief.

3. A Basilicata brigand.

4. Venafro di Caspoli, brigand.

PLATE XIII. FRENCH CRIMINALS (from Corre’s _Les Criminels_).

1. Tropmann, an Alsatian mechanic, aged 19, who assassinated a family of

eight persons.

2. Pranzini, thief, and murderer of three persons.

3. Oillic, age 27, Breton sailor, leader in the murder of the officers of

the _Fœderis Arca_. Hair black, laughs continually, very energetic, very

intemperate “without ever losing his head.”

4. Carbuccia, age 26, a Corsican, who co-operated very actively in the

same tragedy. Abandoned in childhood; very intelligent and very violent.

Intemperate; handwriting tremulous like that of an old man.

PLATE XIV.

Composite photograph of eleven criminals undergoing physical training at

Elmira.

PLATE XV.

Composite photograph of thirty-eight criminals undergoing physical

training at Elmira.

APPENDIX B.

_The Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Paris._

The second International Congress of Criminal Anthropology was held in

August 1889 at Paris, in the large amphitheatre of the Faculty of

Medicine. A very considerable audience assembled here during the week over

which the Congress extended. Many distinguished representatives of

science, law, medicine, and the administrative world came from very

various countries, and official representatives were present from France,

Italy, Russia, Holland, Belgium, the United States, Denmark, Sweden,

Roumania, Servia, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Paraguay, and Hawaii. Great

Britain, it will be observed, was only conspicuous by its absence. Among

those who took part in the proceedings of the Congress may be mentioned M.

Thévenet, the Minister of Justice, Dr. Brouardel, the Dean of the Medical

Faculty of Paris, and President of the Congress, MM. Théophile Roussel,

Lombroso, Ferri, Garofalo, Moleschott, Lacassagne, Demange, Van Hamel,

Semal, Ladame, Benedikt, Tarde, Wilson, Tenchini, Motet, Manouvrier,

Alphonse Bertillon, Bournet, Féré, Coutagne, Letourneau, Mme. Clémence

Royer, Drill, Clark Bell, Magnan, Topinard, Delasiauve, and the General

Secretary of the Congress, Dr. Magitot.

In his opening discourse Dr. Brouardel remarked that the Italian school

had the great merit of taking up again the study of a question with which

philosophy, law, and medicine have always been occupied. Every time in the

history of a country that philosophic studies have free expansion, the

desire to safeguard society, the spirit of toleration, the methods for

ameliorating the fate of the guilty, of protecting them from themselves,

and of taking them out of the environment which educates them to crime,

have been the object of the meditation and study of great thinkers; and

their conceptions have eventually conquered public opinion. It has been

the honour of the Italian school--in the land where Roman law, the

foundation of all law, was born--that it has again put into the crucible

this problem of criminality, and that it has proceeded to the analysis of

that problem by the only truly scientific method--by studying the

psychology of criminals, and their pathological abnormalities. It will be

its distinction to have declared against illusory enthusiasms, and to have

founded a science which will contribute to the more efficacious protection

of society.

The first communication came from Lombroso, as the recognised chief of the

Italian school. He summarised what he believed to be the most important

abnormal physical characteristics found among criminals--the presence of

cranial and facial asymmetry, precocious synostosis, unusual frequency of

left-handedness, large orbits, prominence of zygoma, large median

occipital fossa, frequency of tattooing, etc. These characters, he

considered, were all due to pathological causes. The discussion was at

once commenced by M. Manouvrier. He began by declaring that he was by no

means an antagonist of the Italian school. He granted that it had been

proved that physical abnormalities are more common among criminals than

among the ordinary population, but he claimed due consideration for the

influence of environment; crime is a sociological matter much more than a

physiological matter. M. Dimitri Drill said that, strictly speaking, there

is no criminal type; there are, as Morel had shown, organic conditions of

defect and degeneration, but criminality remained above all a social

question. MM. Pugliese and Garofalo expressed very similar opinions. M.

Lacassagne pointed out that we too often forget the factor of misery in

the production of crime; he meant not merely social misery, but

physiological misery, of which the origin was intra-uterine. As regards

poverty, M. Garofalo could not share Lacassagne’s views; his

investigations had shown that the number of criminals furnished by the

middle classes is, proportionately, quite equal to that furnished by the

lower classes, while for some kinds of crime the upper classes gave a

higher figure than the lower. Mme. Clémence Royer called attention to the

importance of hybridism in the genesis of crime. The recrudescences of

criminality, she remarked, correspond to the great epochs of the mingling

of races. Benedikt spoke of the relation between insanity and crime; the

criminal is a diseased person, he held, or a lunatic, and we must consider

the molecular troubles of the cerebral substance as well as the external

physical signs. After M. Tarde, speaking as a _juge d’instruction_, had

admitted the existence both of the organic predispositions to crime, and

the influence of the social environment, M. Brouardel joined in the

discussion. Crime should not, he said, be regarded as the result of any

single isolated cause, physical, moral, or social, but of all those causes

at once. The diagnosis of the criminal must be subordinated to the same

rules as the diagnosis of a disease; that is to say, it is made up of

related and simultaneous conditions. A single sign is insufficient to

reveal the criminal, just as a single symptom will not prove typhoid

fever. Professor Ferri well summed up the morning’s discussion. Crime, he

admitted, is a very complex phenomenon; it is a sort of polyhedron, of

which every one sees a special side. All the points of view maintained

that day were, at the same time, true and incomplete. Lombroso had brought

to light the biological side of crime, but that was not the whole of it.

Drill, Dekteren, and Manouvrier had shown the social side; Pugliese the

legal side, which is a more special aspect of the social side. Tarde, the

sympathetic critic of criminal anthropology, had not left out of sight the

physiological side of crime. We must, like Moleschott and Brouardel,

proceed synthetically, for crime is at once a biological and a social

phenomenon. He recalled a saying of Lacassagne’s at the previous Congress,

that the criminal is a microbe which only flourishes in a suitable soil.

Without doubt it is the environment which makes the criminal; but, like

the cultivation medium, without the microbe it is powerless to germinate

crime. Both biological and social aspects are fundamental in criminality,

and they constitute the two essential data of criminal anthropology.

Dr. Semal, Director of the Mons Lunatic Asylum, and the official delegate

of the Belgian Government, presided at the afternoon session, when various

communications of a somewhat miscellaneous character were brought forward.

On the following morning Professor Van Hamel, of Amsterdam, presided, and

M. Manouvrier brought forward again the question of anatomical criminal

characteristics and their illusory character. M. Lombroso defended himself

with his usual energy and spirit, pointing out the distinction between the

instinctive criminal and the occasional criminal. He explained that he had

himself given so much attention to the biological factor in criminality,

although he was, above all, an alienist, because it had previously been

entirely neglected. He admitted that his conclusions had sometimes been

too rash, although founded on the observation of now nearly 27,000

individuals by himself and others, but he had always been ready to give

up an indefensible position. The atavism of criminals, he now believed,

may largely be explained by morbid causes. The discussion was carried on

by other members, and was sufficient, in the opinion of M. Garofalo, to

show that the divergence of ideas was more apparent than real; those who

far off seem adversaries, are found on nearer view to be partisans. On his

proposition, it was decided by the Congress that it is desirable to

continue on the largest scale the comparative study of criminals and

normal persons, subjecting them to a severe and minute examination, in

order to ascertain the physical differences which separate them. On the

proposition of M. Lacassagne, it was unanimously agreed that access to

prisons ought to be made easier, and that the bodies of executed criminals

should be available for scientific study.

At the afternoon session, presided over by Professor Ferri, Dr. Coutagne

read a paper on “The Influence of Professions on Criminality.” Mr. Wilson

followed on “The Statistics of Crime in the United States,” in which he

referred to the necessity of creating international criminal statistics,

permitting of the comparative study of crime among different nations. M.

Laschi brought forward an interesting communication on “Political Crime

from the point of view of Anthropology,” in which he spoke of the bearing

of race on politics, and also on genius; and M. Giampietro dealt with “The

Moral Responsibility of Deaf-mutes in relation to Legislation.”

On Wednesday morning Baron Garofalo read an important paper on the

question whether, when an individual’s guilt has been recognised, the

class of criminals to which he belongs can be determined by criminal

anthropology. This question was discussed from, necessarily, a somewhat

legal point of view, with Garofalo’s customary ability and clearness. He

was not concerned, he said, with the recognition of the criminal, but with

his classification, and in criminal anthropology we must give the first

place to psychology. He insisted on the necessity for the careful

psychical examination of the criminal, although it is necessary also to

consider his physical nature; while sometimes even the character of the

crime is sufficient to class the criminal. Uniformity of punishment is a

manifest absurdity; and he referred to the progress already made in France

by the recognition of the gravity of incorrigible recidivism. The old

criminal law only recognised two terms, the _offence_ and the

_punishment_. The new criminology recognises three terms, the _crime_, the

_criminal_, and the _method of repression_. Criminal law, he concluded,

must not be treated as a detached and isolated science; it must be

subordinated to psychology and to anthropology, or it will be powerless to

interpret and to determine, in any enlightened legislation, the true

classification of criminals. M. Alimena, a young Italian lawyer, thought

that the considerations brought forward by Garofalo furnished presumptions

only, and not judicial certainties. After a lively episode between M.

Benedikt and M. Lombroso, M. Brouardel, bringing the discussion back to

the point, remarked that the problem proposed by Garofalo--the

classification of criminals--can only be resolved by the totality of the

evidence. The complete investigation of the criminal can alone enlighten

justice. The crime by itself is insufficient to class the criminal, just

as the most senseless act is not enough to characterise a lunatic. The

morning session was closed by some remarks from M. Herbette, the official

director of the _Administration Pénitentiaire_. The Administration, he

observed, were following the results of criminal anthropology with close

attention, ready to adopt all conclusions that were proved, as they had

already adopted some. While recommending zeal and confidence in the

pursuit of these studies, he urged that the conclusions should be as

mature and as assured as possible, or criminal anthropology would risk its

authority and _prestige_.

At the afternoon session, presided over by Professor Ladame (Geneva), M.

Ferri read a paper on the determining conditions of crime--individual,

physical, and social--and their relative value. M. Ferri is one of the

most accomplished and philosophic advocates of the new criminal

anthropology, and his paper, and its subsequent eloquent elucidations,

were listened to with great attention. Crime, he said, is at once

biological and social. Out of 100 persons living in the same conditions of

misery and abandonment, 60 commit no crimes; of the other 40, 5 commit

suicide; 5 become insane, 5 are beggars, 25 commit crimes; therefore the

social environment is not the exclusive cause of crime. But, again, we

must not neglect the social environment, for, to mention one piece of

evidence only, the maximum of crimes against property is reached in

winter. And, again, the most delicate biological modifications must be

considered, for rapes and crimes of violence are most common when the

temperature is high, and climate and barometrical pressure play a certain

part. If the thermometer had marked ten degrees less, or the barometer a

few millimetres more, perhaps such and such a crime would not have been

committed. The conclusion is that, on the one hand, we must ameliorate

social conditions for the natural prevention of crime, and on the other

hand exercise measures of temporary or perpetual elimination of

individuals, according as the biological conditions in each case seem more

or less curable. M. Alimena attached great importance to education,

especially to its hereditary effects. The criminal ought not to be able to

say to his judge: “Why have you not made me better?” He agreed with the

words of Lacassagne at the former Congress at Rome: “Societies have the

criminals that they deserve.” M. Manouvrier considered that Ferri did not

attach enough importance to the social factor; no two persons lived in the

same social environment. This was also the opinion of M. Drill. M. Tarde

expounded his views as to the characteristics of criminals being due to

the professional exercise of crime. M. Féré would not believe in any

professional type until it had been established by precise measurements.

The discussion on the whole showed that, as M. Van Hamel said, society to

defend itself must have an eye on every side.

On Thursday the members of the Congress visited Sainte-Anne, where M.

Magnan demonstrated the subject of degeneration. They also visited the

Prefecture of Police, where M. Alphonse Bertillon showed his

anthropometrical method of identifying criminals in action, and M.

Moleschott succeeded with little trouble in identifying a man who had

given a false name.

On Friday morning M. Tarde presided, and M. Pugliese, of Trani (Italy),

read a report on the criminal trial from the sociological point of view.

The evidence which demonstrates the existence of a crime and of a criminal

can only be duly weighed by a magistrate possessing much technical

knowledge. It is not enough for him to be a judge or a jurist; he must be

well acquainted with anthropological and sociological science; he must

know the environment in which crime is produced, and the people who are

born to live and die in this environment. He advocated the establishment

by the State of a college for the education of magistrates. At present

there is great confusion, and the magistrate is called upon to decide

complex questions of which he is quite ignorant. The duty of the judge to

demand the decision of science with the power to tread it under foot was a

manifest contradiction. It was not reasonable that a medico-legal judgment

should be over-ridden by a jury, and it was time to reverse the ancient

maxim that the judge is the expert of experts. When it is a question of

legal medicine, the medico-legal expert must be the judge. There should be

a medico-legal commission, whose duty it would be not to express opinions,

but to give decisions. That is the only way to avoid many scandals. M.

Brouardel, from the medico-legal standpoint, said he was not able to

accept the present which Pugliese offered him. Every trial had issues

which were not medical, and here the medico-legal expert would be

incompetent. Apart from this, he would be cautious as to using

anthropological data at all. It was still premature, and to go too fast

was to risk compromising everything. M. Benedikt agreed with M. Brouardel,

and advocated the scientific education of lawyers, which M. Lacassagne

also considers desirable.

The next paper was by MM. Taverni and Magnan on the childhood of

criminals, and the natural predisposition to crime. M. Taverni had made a

number of investigations on children in reformatories--a study which he

called pedagogic biology--and had traced backwards the childhood of

criminals, and forwards the career of unpromising children. The chief

indications he had found in the childhood of criminals were inaptitude to

education, resistance to family order, and the revolt against social

conventions. Among adult criminals one found in childhood the same

characters of inaptitude and resistance. For M. Magnan the child was often

already a complete criminal, as the result of physical and moral

degeneration, due to nervous, insane, or alcoholic heredity. He regarded

the matter as a purely clinical one (following Moreau, of Tours, and

Morel). He brought forward many interesting examples, and pointed out that

in all of them sexual aberration played a very prominent part. An

interesting discussion followed. MM. Motet, Dalifol, Roussel, and Herbette

regretted that the State did not undertake the care of children at an

earlier age, when there was greater hope of the favourable influence of

physical, moral, and intellectual education. M. Lombroso, while expressing

his great esteem for M. Magnan (the Charcot of alcoholism, as he called

him), was not able to agree with him. What he had himself said about

children was founded on the observations of Perez, Taine, and Spencer.

Moral sense was often lacking in the child. He was an embryonic criminal.

MM. Moleschott and Van Hamel spoke in defence of the child who is

unconscious. He was not chaste, because he had no ideas of modesty. He had

no respect for truth, and the destructive instinct is strong in him. M.

Moleschott referred to the anecdote in which Goethe recorded the delight

with which, as a child, he once produced a terrible carnage among the

crockery. But we must not confuse a phase of evolution with the conditions

of disease or criminality. M. Rollet, the advocate who pleads before the

tribunals at Paris the cause of all children who are arrested (about 20 to

30 boys and 8 to 10 girls every day), said that he always pleaded

irresponsibility, and demanded an acquittal. The child was then either

handed over to its parents, or to the philanthropic society of which Th.

Roussel is president. If the child appeared vicious, he demanded that he

should be sent to a reformatory until the age of 20. He judged by the

physiognomy and the history, but thought it would be a great advantage to

have the competent advice of a criminal anthropologist. This wish was

immediately satisfied. M. Manouvrier offered to come to the Palais de

Justice every day. Mme. Pigeon said that in her experience she had never

met a child of five or six, however perverted and vicious, who was

refractory to education. It was, however, a task requiring great care and

devotion. The regeneration of the child, M. Eschenauer said, could only be

by love. M. Roussel, who has devoted his life to the cause of the

disinherited children of society, spoke of the progress that had been

made, and said that the tendency was to enlarge more and more the sphere

of the State.

At the afternoon session, presided over by M. Drill, M. Brouardel called

the attention of the Congress to troubles of development appearing at

puberty. He drew a vivid picture of lively and intelligent Paris _gamins_

whose precocious development is arrested at puberty, both physically and

mentally. The sexual organs do not develop, hair does not appear on the

body. Instead of this, at 16 or 18 they become plump and feminine in

appearance and manners, and there is sexual impotence. Previously

brilliant at school, they now become lazy, and incapable of sustained

attention or effort. In later life they may become artists, poets, or

painters, if born in easy circumstances, but their work does not give

proof of the higher artistic qualities. Their devotion to those who

surround them is often of almost feminine tenderness. The chief factors in

producing this acquired degeneration are complex, such as overwork,

unhealthy dwellings, precocious sexual habits, and early alcoholism. M.

Herbette then described the efforts of the French Government in what he

described as moral orthopædics. They endeavoured to remove from the child

every idea of fatalism. M. Bérillon said he had been very successful in

treating vicious children by suggestion, and had succeeded in curing bad

sexual habits at one sitting.

M. Tarde then gave a summary of his report on the old and the new

foundations of moral responsibility. In this interesting and ingenious

paper, of a somewhat metaphysical character, he tried to show how moral

responsibility harmonises at once with the human conscience and with

contemporary science. Responsibility rests on identity, and by identity he

meant individual identity and social identity. This responsibility rests

on the determination of our actions, and is only relative. Mme. Clémence

Royer replied from a strictly scientific standpoint. All our acts are

determined by our physical nature. M. Coutagne refused to enter the domain

of metaphysics. The question was a practical one, and every individual,

sane or insane, must be treated as responsible. M. Motet said the question

was a clinical one. If the individual is normal, his responsibility is

complete; if he is abnormal or degenerated, his responsibility is limited;

if he is insane, his responsibility is _nil_. M. Manouvrier would reject

metaphysics absolutely. M. Ferri said that we must not accept the

conceptions of merit and demerit. All men are responsible before society,

but society has no right to punish. It has only the right to protect

itself. M. Tarde, in a spirited speech, defended his position. He

protested against the confusion of the criminal and the insane. There is a

profound reason for the fibres of indignation and contempt that is rooted

in us, and as long as they persist we shall turn them against the criminal

who acts in accordance with his native and not morbid character.

On Saturday morning Professor Lombroso presided. A proposition declaring

that it is desirable that every Government should adopt Bertillon’s

anthropometric method for the identification of recidivists was

unanimously adopted. M. Semal then read a paper on conditional liberation

and conditional detention. The beginnings of these have already appeared

in several countries, but to carry them on safely on a more extended scale

it is necessary to practise the most careful physical and psychical

examination of the prisoner. This would create, under the shield of

medical science, a clinical field of the bar. It would also necessitate

the spread of knowledge which is now lacking, and a re-organisation of the

administration and medical inspection of prisoners. M. Bertillon trusted

that anthropological considerations would not lead the prison

administration to neglect its duties of moral reformation. M. Benedikt

said that prison chaplains agreed with medical men in recognising the

incorrigibility of certain criminals. M. Drill thought that we must

clearly distinguish judgment from punishment. Reference had been made to

the sentiments of hatred and revenge, but those sentiments were the

outcome of habit or atavism. Formerly they were exercised in the same way

against the insane. The change of feeling towards the insane is due to a

true appreciation of the nature and causes of insanity. We do not

sufficiently consider the conditions under which criminals are placed. It

is not without reason that our Russian people speak of prisoners as

“unfortunates.” M. Vesnitch (the official representative of Servia)

desired that the legal side of the question should not be lost sight of.

The study of anthropology and of law ought to be compulsory for all those

who desire to become governors of prisons.

M. Sarraute then read a paper on the judicial applications of criminal

sociology. Law students should be examined in criminal anthropology and

legal medicine. Imprisonment should be for an indefinite period, and the

prisoner carefully observed and examined. The jury should be modified. M.

Tarde observed that advocates were already using the results of criminal

anthropology, and it was necessary that magistrates should be in a

position to appreciate the bearings of such arguments.

M. Taladriz then read a paper on “Criminality in its relations with

Ethnography,” drawing his illustrations largely from Spain, where crime

differs greatly in different parts of the peninsula. He desired the

establishment of an international penal code, protecting the rights of

nationalities.

In the afternoon Professor Benedikt presided, and M. Van Hamel read his

report on the “Cellular System from the point of view of Biology and of

Criminal Sociology.” He concluded that there should be a very careful

selection of cases for cellular isolation, subject to psychical and

medical examination. The results depended quite as much on the treatment

adopted during the cellular confinement as on the confinement itself.

On the proposition of M. Garofalo a commission was appointed to carry on a

series of observations on 100 criminals and 100 honest persons whose

antecedents were perfectly well known. On the proposition of M. Semal, the

Congress affirmed the necessity of a psycho-moral examination of the

prisoner as a preliminary to conditional liberation. It was resolved also

that it is desirable that law students should be instructed and examined

in legal medicine; and, on the proposition of M. Eschenauer, that the

direction and instruction of young children in reformatories should be

confided to experienced women.

In his closing discourse Professor Brouardel remarked how various and

complex are the issues raised by criminal anthropology. They were dealing

with one of the most interesting and profound of all problems--a problem

which had in all ages exercised the human mind. The Congress had brought

together some of the materials for a future edifice, although they were

not yet able to raise it.

The _Archives de l’Anthropologie Criminelle_ was the official journal of

the Congress, and the number for September 1889 was entirely devoted to

its proceedings. The next Congress will be held at Brussels in 1892.

APPENDIX C.

_The International Association of Penal Law._

This association was founded in 1889 on the initiative of Professor von

Liszt. Its success was immediate, especially among lawyers, professors of

law, and magistrates; and this success is a remarkable proof of the great

movement for penal reform which is now everywhere making itself felt.

Nearly twenty countries in Europe and America are represented by the

association. It is truly international; no attempt is made to discuss

national modifications, or to advocate the doctrine of any school. The

conditions of membership involve adhesion to the following

propositions:--

I.--The mission of penal law is to combat criminality regarded as a social

phenomenon.

II.--Penal science and penal legislation must therefore take into

consideration the results of anthropological and sociological studies.

III.--Punishment is one of the most efficacious means which the state can

use against criminality. It is not the only means. It must not, then, be

isolated from other social remedies, and, especially, it must not lead to

the neglect of preventive measures.

IV.--The distinction between accidental criminals and habitual criminals

is essential in practice as well as in theory; it must be the foundation

of penal law.

V.--As repressive tribunals and the penitentiary administration have the

same ends in view, and as the sentence only acquires value by its mode of

execution, the separation, consecrated by our modern laws, between the

court and the prison is irrational and harmful.

VI.--Punishment by deprivation of liberty justly occupying the first place

in our system of punishments, the association gives special attention to

all that concerns the amelioration of prisons and allied institutions.

VII.--So far as short imprisonments are concerned, the association

considers that the substitution of measures of equivalent efficacity is

possible and desirable.

VIII.--So far as long imprisonments are concerned, the association holds

that the length of the imprisonment must depend not only on the material

and moral gravity of the offence, but on the results obtained by treatment

in prison.

IX.--So far as incorrigible habitual criminals are concerned, the

association holds that, independently of the gravity of the offence, and

even with regard to the repetition of minor offences, the penal system

ought before all to aim at putting these criminals for as long a period as

possible under conditions where they cannot do injury.

“The association,” it is elsewhere stated, “starts from this point of

view, that in order to combat criminality we must know criminality.” As

Professor von Liszt said, “That which guides us and brings us together is

the conviction that penal science must rest on the firm basis of facts,

must attach itself to the realities of social and individual life, and not

be content with the purely intellectual development of purely legal

notions.” This is the only sound and rational foundation for criminal law,

and it is because the association has adopted this foundation that I

desire to call special attention to its valuable and fruitful work.

The first session was held at Brussels, in August 1889. Berne was selected

for the second, in 1890. The bulletins of the association (printed both

in French and German) contain the reports presented at these meetings, as

well as the subsequent discussions. They may be obtained, for a small sum,

from the publisher, J. Guttentag, Berlin, or from C. Muquardt, Librairie

Européenne, Brussels. The annual subscription is four shillings, and is

payable to Professor G. A. Van Hamel, Amsterdam, Holland.

APPENDIX D.

_Some Cases of Criminality._

I have here brought together a few cases of fairly ordinary and

representative criminality, chiefly in order to show how such cases are

generally investigated. It has not seemed desirable to lay down any

definite system of examination. Elaborate schemes have been prepared; it

is more difficult to settle on a definite scheme on a small scale. At

present it seems best to leave much to the judgment of the individual

investigator. The six cases here given will serve to show how criminality

is usually investigated, and may be useful as a guide.

I.--B. A., aged 18, carpenter; weight, kilog. 69.3; height, m. 1.77.

Complexion pale. In various parts of body scars from wounds by knife,

dagger, stones, and glass, received in various quarrels. Head also covered

by scars. Hair on head very abundant; entirely without beard. Prominent

superciliary arches. Enormous frontal sinuses, lower jaw voluminous;

lemurian appendix present; forehead low and narrow; head normal.

Esthesiometer: left, 1½ right, 1¼; tongue, 1½. Dynamometer: left, 42;

right, 40½. Tendon reflexes normal. General sensibility: right, 52; left,

50. Sensibility to pain: right, 28; left, 30. Slow to distinguish colours.

Drunkard; began at age of 12, led on by his mother. Has thieved

frequently, but only found out once at the end of two years, and

condemned. Is irreligious.

When he is drunk feels melancholy. Has epileptic convulsions, in which he

falls down, and is frequently wounded. He has had similar fits for six

years; they are followed by complete amnesia. The first came on in an

educational institute, after being compelled to take a cold bath in

January.

Three or four hours before the fit he is so stupid that he cannot reckon

two coppers that he holds in his hand; and that he cannot recognise the

people around him, though he may have known them for some time.

After the fit he does not know where he is, and for two or three days

cannot drink water or bathe, on account, he says, of the cold bath that

brought on his disorder.

Is not easily affected; has no aspirations; does not concern himself with

politics.

Cannot say anything of his parents, except that his mother was a drunkard.

(V. Rossi.)

II.--D., age 18, of Turin, smith. A woman’s head tattooed on his right

arm, and the beginning of a name (record of love); in epigastric region a

transfixed heart (to recall a revenge to be accomplished). A scar in left

frontal region; cannot, or will not, say how he got it, but has ever since

suffered from giddiness.

Complexion very pale; vasomotor reaction more marked on the left; pupils

react slowly; facial asymmetry; ears prominent. Hair sparse, dry, and very

dark. Fingers very long and slender. Has tremors; suffers from hypertrophy

of heart. Head acrocephalic, flattened at the nape.

Cranial measurements: longitudinal diameter, 177; transverse, 151;

longitudinal curve, 360; transverse, 300; maximum circumference, 530.

Dynamometer: both hands, 34; right, 14; left, 17. Esthesiometer: right,

1.8; left, 1.2; tongue, 0.4. Topographic sensibility erroneous in both

hands. General electrical sensibility: right, 49; left, 43. Sensibility to

pain: right, 20; left, 27. (Normal person gives: general, 53; to pain,

38.) Temperature in axilla, 37°5. Slow to distinguish colours.

Vicious from a child; very precocious sexual habits.

At eight years commenced at school to steal certificates of merit in order

to get a prize. At fourteen, at the invitation of a friend who was a

thief, robbed a jeweller; from that time committed numerous robberies

whenever he could. Willingly gets drunk, but his chief passion is travel.

In politics he would prefer a Republic, but without police or prisons; but

confesses that in winter, when work is scarce, “it is not bad in prison.”

His parents affirm they are honest, but not the other relations. Mother

suffers from palpitation of the heart. One sister is leading a bad life;

another is very religious. A maternal cousin was in prison. (V. Rossi.)

III.--Certa Fil, condemned to four years’ imprisonment for thefts of fur

cloaks and similar articles. Age 56. Circumference of head, 545. Right eye

placed rather low. Tendon reflexes normal.

From a child she has suffered from illness caused by fear, owing to a fall

into the water. From fifteen to thirty suffered from frequent headaches.

Eight years ago, about three years before thefts, had typhoid fever, and

also contracted syphilis from her husband. She had frequent and severe

pain in the temples. No children. Her mother suffered from arthritis,

which caused melancholy, which is said to have contributed to her death.

She had fourteen children, mostly twins, who all died at birth except one,

who is very extravagant and dissolute.

_Sensibility._--With esthesiometer: on the hand, 3 mm. on left, 2 mm. on

right; head, 16 mm.; tongue, 9 mm. With faradic current: general

sensibility, 70 mm.; on the hands, while a student has pain on palm at 55,

on dorsum at 60, she has pain on right palm at 50, left at 50; right

dorsum at 60, left at 55. Strength with dynamometer slight: right, 28 cg.;

left, 38 cg.; with both hands, 58 cg.

_Psychological Examination._--Married at age of nineteen, she lived

happily with husband for twenty years, _i.e._, until age of thirty-nine.

Then the husband began to lead a dissolute life, and infected his wife

with syphilis. Driven wild by her husband’s continual ill-treatment, she

began to steal furs and other articles from a neighbouring shop. She was

always afraid of being discovered, and experienced remorse which took away

sleep and appetite, and she planned methods for restoring the things

without being discovered.

During her four years of imprisonment she did not learn the _gergo_ or

prisoner’s slang, would not associate with her companions, and was always

crying. She blushed slightly when questioned concerning her periods.

_Diagnosis._--This woman, under the stress of illnesses and need of money,

was drawn to theft; she was not, however, predisposed to crime, and

(excepting the dissolute conduct of one brother) there were no marked

signs of hereditary degeneration. When we add that she was never given to

orgies, that she did not care to associate with her criminal companions,

that she did not learn the _gergo_, that she blushed when spoken to

without due consideration, we must conclude that she is an occasional

criminal. If she had been in a comfortable social condition, and in good

relation with her husband, she would probably not have become a

delinquent. (Giuseppe Abradi, _Archivio di Psichiatria_, vol. x. Fasc. I.)

IV.--R. S., of Naples, age 23; height, m. 1.68; weight, kilog. 82.5.

Soldier.

Traces on skin of wounds from fire-arms and knives; one on the abdomen

given him by a woman.

Colour of skin is dark.

Tattoo marks on legs and arms: initials, daggers in memory of revenges to

be accomplished, arrows as records of love; on his hand a sun; also bears

the signs of the _camorra_, of which, but only as a great secret, he

revealed the significance.

He declares that for him, and for the _camorrista_ in general, tattooing

is “a passion, an ambition, like that, for example, of students for their

collars and ties.” “The more one is tattooed,” he said, “the more one is

esteemed and feared by comrades, because it shows how far one has gone in

the road of crime.”

Hair on head thick and dark; complete absence of beard. Prognathism:

forehead small and narrow (165 × 48), lower jaw voluminous; eyes small and

very mobile; frontal sinuses prominent. Has a certain air of _bonhomie_ in

his face which contrasts with the cynicism with which he narrates his

criminal achievements.

Cranial measurements: longitudinal diameter, 187; transverse, 150;

longitudinal curve, 364; transverse, 310; maximum circumference, 557.

Dynamometer: with both hands, 84; with right, 54; with left, 43. Supports

with extended arm a weight of kilog. 5 for fourteen minutes.

Esthesiometer: right, 3.5; left, 4.5. Electrical sensibility: right, 40;

left, 45. Sensibility to pain: right, 0; left, 0. Slow to distinguish

colours, confusing blue and green. Thermometer: right, 37°5; left, 37°9.

Fond of wine; vicious since he was a child. Natural and unnatural sexual

habits.

Except venereal disorders and a cyst, which he had as a child, has never

been ill.

He has indeed been sent to a hospital as insane, but it was feigned, as he

was then under trial, in order to obtain “attenuating circumstances.”

By him and his family religion is regarded as merely imposture, and

politics does not exist. In the newspapers he only reads the police news,

as that which alone concerns him.

At age of 10 was “sent to college” (_i.e._, house of correction), because

he was found taking the impression of a lock. There he was initiated in

the _camorra_, exercised by the lads clandestinely.

On coming out, he committed numerous offences, of which more than one

remained unpunished. He wounded a prostitute whom he found with another

lover. Thieved with dexterity, and was once condemned to twenty-five

months’ imprisonment. He robs from houses, and when opportunity offers

picks pockets. At a penal establishment he joined with others to rob the

director. He confesses that in his family, except one sister who is

honest, all are rogues of his own stamp.

Maternal grandfather died at 60 in the hospital. Mother is healthy, but

drinks; lost all her hair at 50; condemned for fraud and wounding. Father

had five years’ imprisonment for attempting to wound his brother, a

priest, who refused to give him money; also drinks, and when drunk is very

lively. A paternal uncle was condemned for “qualified” robbery. The

maternal uncles are all _camorristi_.

He has five brothers and one sister. One, G., was four times in hospital,

because when he committed a grave offence he feigned madness; so far this

game has always succeeded, and he has been acquitted or punishment

diminished. When he has money he is an angel, says R. S., but when he has

none, he flies from him like the plague, for he becomes furious. He is a

drunkard, and once when drunk severely wounded his mistress without cause.

Another brother, G., is a _camorrista_ and sharper.

Another brother, E., does the elegant, and steals from “aristocrats”;

suffers from dizziness, especially in summer, or when near a fire.

A brother, N., calls himself an artist, takes impressions of locks, and

makes false keys, for which he demands a more or less elevated price,

according to the amount of the booty. Also studies padlocks, and makes

facsimiles; does not rob on his own account, nor is he _camorrista_; and

does not use the knife even when drunk.

The last of the brothers, Gia., has been condemned more than once for

robbery and picking pockets. Is _camorrista_. (V. Rossi.)

V.--The following carefully-taken case (by Professor Angelo Zuccarelli, of

Naples) of incorrigible insubordination in a soldier is translated from

_L’Anomalo_ of January 1889, and is a model of careful and systematic

examination:--

Habitual conduct in the army, from 1881-1888, both on and off duty, is

reported as bad; frequently guilty of theft, insubordination and

destruction of military effects. [Details here given of 59 offences, with

resulting punishments, during this period.]

The following facts are all that can be obtained as to his family and

previous history:--

Among the ancestors of his parents some eccentricity.

Mother hysterical, with nymphomania, and deafness due to chronic otitis.

Father, a drunkard and irascible.

One sister imbecile, and another scrofulous.

A brother, instinctive thief, imprisoned for “qualified” theft.

All the family given to thieving.

Our subject, now 28 years old, had no education from his parents; was a

shoemaker at Stilo (Reggio, Calabria), his native place, where he had a

bad reputation for idleness and thieving.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.

_Head._

_Inspection and Palpation._--A considerable depression in the lambdoid

region.

External occipital protuberance scarcely perceptible.

Markedly plagiocephalic on the right side, anteriorly; with

plagio-prosopia on the same side.

Ears small; the right planted further back.

Prognathism of the superior maxilla.

Absence of the two upper middle incisor teeth, from a fall in childhood.

Inferior dental arch, with parabolic and oblique margin to the right;

depressed on the right.

Colour of face, yellowish, pale.

Beard thin.

_Measurements._--Circumference at the base cent. 54

Anterior semi-circumference " 28½

Posterior " " " 25½

Antero-posterior curve " 31

Transverse " " 31½

Approximate cranial capacity (results of three curves), 1165.

Maximum antero-posterior diameter mill. 182

" transverse diameter " 147

Cephalic index, 80.76 (cranial type, sub-brachycephalic).

Bi-auricular diameter mill. 128

Bi-mastoid " " 126

Maximum frontal diameter " 104

Bi-orbital " " 108

Bi-maxillary " " 102

Height of the forehead " 56

" " face " 128

Length of nose (to tip) " 54½

Width " (base) " 32

_Trunk and Limbs._

Body slender. Height medium.

Left mammary region depressed, and nipple lower than on right side.

Posteriorly the left base of the thorax rather less developed than the

right.

Hands thin, with long and pointed fingers.

Tattoo marks on the two fore-arms: on the right a transfixed heart, a

woman’s head, the letters F. and B.; on the left two stars, one large, the

other small, the letters L. and A. (his initials), a cross, and nearer the

wrist an indistinct sign ending in a B.

On the feet the two little toes are small, especially the left, out of

proportion to the development of the rest of the foot.

Hair sparse.

Superficial veins healthy, but varicose in left popliteal region. Genital

organs little developed.

PHYSIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION.

_Dynamometer._--Right hand, 90; left hand, 85.

_Tactile sensibility._--On the tongue the two points of the

_esthesiometer_ are perceived only at a distance of five mill. In general

the sensibility is very feeble. Localisation very inaccurate; impressions

on one side often referred to the other.

_Sensibility to pain._--Advanced hypoalgesia, while reiterated punctures

fetching blood are felt as slight touches. Burns with a lighted cigar are

little if at all felt; but there is some dissimulation on the part of the

subject.

_Thermal and meteoric sensibility._--Apparently abolished.

There has been no opportunity for electrical examination.