CHAPTER XVI.

A CRIMINOLOGICAL INQUIRY IN ENGLISH PRISONS.

An attempt has lately been made in this country to apply scientific method to the study of criminal man. A vast amount of data relating to the personal condition, social estate, and penal histories of "convicts" (_i.e._, men sentenced to penal servitude for three years and upwards) has been co-ordinated and amplified by physical measurements, by details of personal and family history, and by description of physical and mental qualities. An examination in respect of all or some of these points of 3,000 men, taken without selection from those undergoing penal servitude in English Convict Prisons, has formed the basis of this inquiry.

Of this large number of sets of observations, which were made by the Medical Officers of the Convict Prisons, Dr. Goring contributed considerably more than half, and to him was entrusted the onerous task of tabulating the material of the whole. With the assistance and advice of Professor Karl Pearson, Dr. Goring was enabled to carry out this work which he has achieved with remarkable patience and ability. The main intention of this investigation at the outset was to obtain accurate information whereby the many hypotheses advanced by different schools of criminology, and especially the Italian Schools, might be confirmed or refuted. But the scope of the work grew, perhaps inevitably, beyond its original purpose, and now includes not only an analysis of the physical and mental condition of convicts, but also many data for speculations on very difficult and contentious questions as to the relative influence of "heredity," "environment," &c., on the genesis of 'criminals' generally.

Dr. Goring's complete and elaborate Report, entitled "The English Convict--a Statistical Study," has been published by the Government in an official Blue-Book. It appears now as Dr. Goring's own work, carried out by a special method, and the conclusions arrived at are his own. I do not propose to attempt to criticise either his method or his conclusions, being aware that such an attempt would involve discussion of some matters on which there is much difference of scientific opinion.

This work is, as far as I know, the first essay made in any country to arrive at results on criminology by the strict application of what is known as the biometrical method of statistical treatment of recorded observations. Whatever its merits or demerits may be, it at least marks an epoch in the history of criminological studies. In the pages which follow, I endeavour to present in a more simple and popular form, and, as far as possible, in his own words, an abstract of Dr. Goring's views, and of the results to which his general inquiry has led him. Students of Criminology must turn to the original volume itself for a detailed exposition of the whole case which the author so ably presents.

The postulate of the "Positive" School, with which the name of the celebrated Professor Lombroso will always be associated, is that crime or criminality is a morbid or pathological state akin to disease, or, in other words, an abnormal state, due to certain physical or mental defects, made manifest by certain stigmata or "_tares physiologiques_"--the result either of inherited defect or reversion to atavistic type, or in short, that there is "a criminal type" _i.e._, a race of beings predestined to criminal acts, against whom any system of punishment would be futile, as by nature such beings would not be amenable to the deterrent influences of penal law. This theory--of which the logical result would be either elimination of the unfit, or the translation into the province of medicine of all legal procedure--has failed to command general assent or approval. Like all half-truths, it is extremely dangerous, for it is, of course, the fact that morbid conditions are associated, to a certain degree, with crime, and, like all sensational dogmas, based on untested observation, it affected the public imagination, prone to believe that the criminal is a sort of "bogey-man"--the stealthy enemy of peaceful persons, ever ready to leap in the dark. This uneasy feeling encouraged the idea that the criminal was a class by himself--an abnormal being, the child of darkness, without pity and without shame, and with the predatory instincts of a wild beast. Thus gradually the common belief has taken root that there is a criminal type, and that it is persons of this particular brand or species who commit crime, and go to Prison. This belief is what Dr. Goring calls the great "superstition" of the day, which stands in the way of Prison reform, which darkens counsel in dealing with crime, which renders rehabilitation difficult, and which stifles and discourages the zeal of the philanthropist, to whom the "criminal" is a man of like passions with himself, and amenable to the same influences; and not predestined to crime and anti-social conduct, from which no human effort could save him.

The peculiarity of the Lombrosian doctrine was in the attempt made by it to "stamp a preconceived idea with the hall-mark of science; to support an _à priori_ conception of 'abnormality' by an alleged scientific method of investigation;" but the methods of Lombroso were scientific only in name. He sought to solve those infinite and delicate relations which exist in all human or social conditions by _observation_ alone. He brought much acumen, a great diligence, and imagination to the examination of the subject, but his field of observation was limited. If criminality were a morbid state, with signs comparable to those of disease, observation alone would suffice; but, in fact, there are no characteristics, physical or mental, peculiar to criminals, which are not shared by all people. It is common to speak of poverty, drink, neglect, &c., as the "causes" of crime; but such a causation can only be established by the statistical method of averaging large numbers, with the view of proving that the tendency to anti-social conduct is, in fact, associated with the personal, economic, and social condition of an individual. "The science of statistics," says Dr. Goring, "is essentially a science of method; and, as applied to criminal man, it may be described as a system of methods whereby comparison, based on a strict anthropometrical survey of the different sets of individuals, may be effective in providing legitimate, simple, and intelligible description of the criminal, and of crime, and of the fundamental inter-relationships of criminality."

The author of the work approaches his inquiry with an open mind regarding the common _à priori_ belief that all men are morally and mentally equal, in the absence of definite pathological cause. This belief is common to all ages. In early days, anti-social conduct was regarded as a sin against the light, _i.e._, against the teaching of religion and the word of God. The punishment of crime was, therefore, an affair for the ecclesiastical tribunals. The distinction between sin and crime evolved but slowly, and the lay punishments of the Classical Schools were largely affected by the religious law. Later, the anti-social man was regarded as a pathological product--the victim of disease; and it is one of the fashions of to-day to regard him as 'a social product'--the victim of adverse social environment.

All these conceptions are regarded as due to a fixed conventional idea that there was a 'normal' man, who led a good life, and an 'abnormal' man who led a bad life, and this misconception is held to have stood in the way of a scientific view of the nature of criminal man. "Scientifically," according to Dr. Goring, "we can only divide men into 'normal' and 'abnormal' when there is some qualitative difference. 'Normal' is the outcome of the natural laws of existence. This becomes 'abnormal' only when supplanted by some pathological process. Normal never 'merges' into the abnormal, _e.g._, the natural ranges of vesicular breathing, of normal temperature, of folly, and want of control, never merge into the morbid ranges of pneumonic breathing, fevers and madness. The qualities that have to be considered in relation to crime are not 'abnormal' qualities, but qualities common to all humanity. Law-breakers are not a special breed of human beings differing _qualitatively_ from those who keep the law: any difference there may be between these two human classes is of degree only and not of kind: and, similarly, law-breaking is not different in quality from all other forms of anti-social conduct for which men are not punished, even if they are found out: yet here again there is a vast range of difference in _degree_. And that is why statistical methods are necessary for the scientific study of the criminal. For only by measurement can difference of degree be evaluated; and statistics is merely a refined instrument for making measurements."

The word 'criminal,' strictly-speaking, only designates the fact that an individual has been imprisoned: that he has committed a crime. The object of this inquiry is to determine whether certain constitutional, as well as environmental, factors play a part in the production of the criminal act. It is impossible to state dogmatically _à priori_ what these factors are, or which of them prevail in the determination of a given act, but it is lawful to assume from the phenomenon of crime that there is a hypothetical character of some kind, a constitutional proclivity, either mental, moral or physical, present, to a certain degree, in all individuals, but so potent in some as to determine for them the fate of imprisonment.

This hypothetical character which, in the absence of a better term, Dr. Goring provisionally calls "the criminal diathesis," is described as a "normal" character, possessed to some extent by all normal people whose differences are of degree only, and not of kind. It is a highly complex unanalysable character which, founded upon, and resulting from, a combination of qualities, some, perhaps inconceivably minute, is best described as a "make-up" comparable to the domesticated or wild "make-up" amongst animals, or to the human "make-up" whereby the sociable being is distinguished from the recluse. Nobody would suppose the gregarious tendency, or the impulse to lead a solitary existence, to be a simple primary quality--a so-called unit character--peculiar to the category it represents; and, similarly, criminality is not a simple heritable entity--a primary instinct to evil, for instance, as Lombroso imagined it to be: it is rather a resultant quality springing from many social and anti-social tendencies, which together form the criminal or non-criminal "make-up" called the "criminal diathesis." It is the degree to which a man is thus "made-up" as a criminal or non-criminal which determines eventually the fate of imprisonment: consequently, the intensity of criminal diathesis is measured by conviction or non-conviction, and by frequency of conviction for crime; and the main object of this inquiry has been to find out the extent to which this "criminal diathesis," as measured by criminal records, is associated with environment, training, stock, and with the physical attributes of the criminal. To this examination, the "biometric" method, under the guidance of its distinguished exponent Professor Karl Pearson, has been applied.

Although only those gifted with high mathematical powers could have originated the minute and abstruse symbolical reasoning at the source of the methods whereby the inter-relationship of these phenomena have been measured and calculated, yet the application of these methods, and of the formulæ which have now been provided, are open to any intelligent worker who has knowledge of arithmetic and of simple mathematics, and the computer's zeal for precision and accuracy. If the results do not command general acceptance, they are fruitful of new ideas, which, by further elaboration, may possibly furnish more light on the problem of crime, and may aid in the direction of administrative methods. At least they furnish an extraordinary example of what industry, and skill, and research, can accomplish in a domain where science, in the past, has asserted itself but slightly.

The question of the existence of a criminal type is regarded as essentially anthropometrical, _i.e._, it can only be solved by the statistical analysis of a large series of measurements. Anthropometry has, of course, been used as an instrument by criminologists, but its strict application demands more than the crude contrast of mean values which is the most that has been hitherto attempted: in addition to the means, it insists that probable errors should be also calculated and recorded; that a measure of the variability of each series of measurements should be obtained; and that, in every case, effects upon measurement due to differentiation in age, stature, intelligence, &c., of the contrasted populations under measurement should be also estimated and allowed for.

Having, by means of a comparison with regard to thirty-seven representative physical attributes of criminals, distinguished (1) by their conviction for different orders of crime, _e.g._, thefts, assault, arson, sexual offences, and frauds, (2) by their frequency of reconviction, and (3) by the length of their imprisonment, established the conclusion that criminals are not physically differentiated because they are criminals, but because of difference in age, stature, intelligence, &c., our author proceeds to a comparison between statistics of criminals, as a class, and of the non-criminal public. The absence of any comparative data with regard to many of the physical characters of the law-abiding classes is, of course, fatal to any precise demonstration, but a comparison of the head-length, -breadth, -height, -index, and -circumference in convicts is made with similar statistics of a set of undergraduates of Oxford, Cambridge, and Aberdeen Universities, and of the London University College Staff, with the result that prison inmates, as a whole, approximate closer in head-measurement to the Universities generally than do students of different Universities conform with each other in this regard, and that from a knowledge only of an undergraduate's cephalic measurement, a better judgment could be given as to whether he were studying at an English or Scottish University, than a prediction could be made whether he would eventually become a University Professor, or a convicted felon.

Similar comparison with the general Hospital population and with soldiers (118 non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Engineers) establishes a similar conclusion that, so far as head-measurements are concerned, the criminal, and the hospital patient, and the soldier cannot be differentiated.

Next, comparison with some seventeenth century skulls, recently discovered while excavations were being made in Whitechapel, leads to the interesting conclusion that there is a close agreement between correlation values obtained from measurements of English skulls 300 years old, and those calculated from the cephalic-diameters of English convicts alive to-day. And a detailed comparative analysis of head-length and -breadth statistics brings against a current theory, respecting the anomalous conformation of the criminal's head, the following fact: that amongst 200 criminals, the head of only one will be genuinely anomalous--a proportion less than has been found amongst Scottish insane people, and probably much the same as would be found in any section of the law-abiding healthy community.

Comparison with respect to hair and eye colour, nose conformation, deafness, left-handedness, tattooing, of such data as are available, illustrates the absence of any marked peculiarity in the case of criminals, and, lastly, a comparison of the head-contours of 800 convicts with those of 118 Royal Engineers, according to a plan invented by Professor Pearson for comparing skull-contours, demonstrates with great precision that, so far from criminals as a class being differentiated or stigmatized by low and receding foreheads, by projecting occiputs, by asymmetry, and by sugar-loaf, dome-shaped, and other peculiar forms of heads, the agreement between the contrasted types is so remarkable, and the differences so trifling, that at least in this respect no ground can be said to exist for the popular belief that criminal tendency can be inferred from the shape of a man's head. From all these comparisons, pursued strictly according to the biometric method of which I have only attempted to give the outline, Dr. Goring draws his conclusion that "no evidence has emerged confirming the existence of a physical criminal type, such as Lombroso and his disciples have described. The data show that physical differences exist between different kinds of criminals, precisely as they exist between different kinds of law-abiding people. But, when allowance is made for a certain range of probable variation, and when they are reduced to a common standard of age, stature, intelligence, class, &c., these differences tend entirely to disappear. The results nowhere confirm the evidence, nor justify the allegations, of criminal anthropologists. They challenge their evidence at almost every point. In fact, both with regard to measurements and the presence of physical anomalies in criminals, the statistics present a startling conformity with similar statistics of the law-abiding classes. The final conclusion we are bound to accept until further evidence, in the train of long series of statistics, may compel us to reject or to modify an apparent certainty--our inevitable conclusion must be that _there is no such thing as a physical criminal type_."

But although no physical type peculiar to criminals can be demonstrated, certain physical differences in criminals have emerged, and it is in the examination of these differences that Dr. Goring attempts to establish a theory of criminality more simple and reasonable than that which refers them to the presence of a definite criminal type. From a comparison of the stature and weight of the general population, published in 1882 by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he shows that, (apart from differences due to class differentiation,) in physique, as measured by stature and weight, criminals, with the exception of those convicted of fraud, are markedly differentiated from the non-criminal sections of the community. This physical inferiority, however, must not be associated with any condition of degeneracy, atavism, or other defect, mental or physical, originating spontaneously, but all the evidence points to the truth of the theory that these bodily conditions are "selective factors" determining, to some extent, conviction for crime. It may be imagined that as good physique determines occupation, so a bad physique predisposes to a criminal career. It also facilitates arrest by the Police, and apprehensions are considerably fewer than offences committed. It is, too, generally observed that persons of good physique are less irascible and prone to violence, and the case of the incendiary would show that a weakly man has recourse to a mean act from motives of revenge, not being capable of an act requiring physical force. "Fraudulents," it is true, are not selected for crime, for they resemble, in weight and stature, the law-abiding public; but they are an exceptional case, which, while destructive of a theory of degeneracy, is not necessarily inimical to the theory that physique selects crime. Dr. Goring does not deny that there is a possibility that this physical inferiority may tend to become an inbred characteristic of the criminal classes, the convicted fathers having sons who inherit their diminutive stature, and thus, in course of time, an inbred differentiation of the criminal classes might result. That this may be so is illustrated by statistics, which show that industrial and reformatory school children are consistently on the average one inch shorter in stature, and several pounds less in weight, than any other class of school-children of the same age in the United Kingdom. Nothing more than this can be conceded to the Lombrosian School. The only fact at the basis of criminal anthropology is that thieves, and burglars, and incendiaries (_i.e._, about 90 per cent. of all criminals) are markedly differentiated from the general population in stature and body-weight. There is no other scientific foundation than this for the extravagant doctrines of the "Positive" School.

It is also held by Dr. Goring that there is no such thing as a "mental criminal type." It is not denied that marked unlikeness of mental characters exists between criminal groups, as it does between different sections of the law-abiding community; but the point emphasised is that this unlikeness is associated not with a differentiation in criminal tendency, but with the criminal's differentiation in general intelligence or mental capacity, which, according to the nature of his crime, varies enormously: _e.g._, the percentage of actual mental defectives convicted of stack-firing is 53, of rape 16, of stealing 11, of manslaughter 5, whereas amongst persons convicted of embezzlement, forgery, and other forms of fraud, the percentage is practically zero. The recent Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-minded, from an enumeration of defectives in sixteen representative districts of the British Isles, estimated that ·46 per cent. of the whole population of England and Wales are mentally defective; a similar enumeration in prisons, casual wards, shelters, etc., revealed 10·28 per cent. of mental defects. Dr. Goring contends that it is clear from this that criminals, as well as showing wide differences amongst themselves, are also, as a class, highly differentiated in mental capacity from the law-abiding classes. Mental defectives, it is argued, unlike the insane and pathological imbeciles, are not a special class of human beings, and they are chiefly distinguished from other normal persons by their low level of general intelligence. The term mental deficiency, as applied to convicts, as well as connoting a mind of inferior capacity, in many cases implies also an unbalanced mind, _i.e._, a mind whose equilibrium is easily disturbed by the preponderance of extreme degrees of objectionable and dangerous qualities, such as impulsiveness, excitability, passionate temper, &c. These qualities are held to be not "morbid" but "natural," being shared in some degree by persons of all mental grades. The measure of general intelligence among criminals bears also a striking relation to their occupational class. Thus, if we examine, say, 1,000 cases of conviction for crime, we should find that the percentage of mentally defective criminals varied from 6 to 35, accordingly as the offender belonged to the professional, commercial, artizan, or labouring class,--the actual percentages for all crime in each class being 6, 15, 26, and 35, respectively. Probably, in the opinion of Dr. Goring, the chief source of the high relationship between weak-mindedness and crime resides in the fact that the criminal thing, which we call "criminality," and which leads to the perpetration of many, if not most, anti-social offences to-day, is not _inherent wickedness_, but natural stupidity. The striking characteristic of 90 per cent. of offences is their incredible stupidity, and, moreover, it is probable that the commonly alleged causes of crime, such as alcoholism and epilepsy, are not more than accidental associations with crime, themselves depending upon the high degree of relationship which is admitted to exist between defective intelligence and crime.

So far then, the conclusion is that English criminals are selected by a physical condition and by a mental constitution which are independent of each other: that the one significant physical association with criminality is a generally defective physique, and that the one vital, mental constitutional factor in the etiology of crime is defective intelligence.

The question of the respective influence of heredity and environment is next considered by Dr Goring. The family histories of 1,500 convicts are examined, and two important relations are demonstrated (1) that the percentage of criminal offspring increases progressively according to whether neither parents, the mother only, the father only, or both parents are criminal: (2) that the percentage of criminal offspring becomes steadily greater as the age of the children increases from 14 to 23. With regard to age, the interesting fact results that the mean age of criminal enlistment is 22, with a deviation of nine years; and 14 to 32 may be regarded as the age when the chance of inherited criminal disposition is most likely to reveal itself--the modal age at first conviction is about 19.

It appears also that the probabilities of conviction are greatly increased when a brother has been convicted, and the greatest intensity of the fraternal, as well as of the paternal association, occurs in families tainted by the crimes of stealing and burglary, _i.e._, the taint of habitual and professional criminality. But though the tendency for crime to recur in families already criminally tainted is an indisputable statistical fact, it is not in itself a fact of heredity. It may be due to contagion within the corrupted home into which a criminal is born. The solution of the question as to which of the two influences, heredity or contagion, is predominant, cannot be determined by observation alone--there are numberless instances pointing one way or the other--it can only be determined by a statistical examination of family statistics, where the possible influence of each factor has been eliminated. The high degree of association between criminality in husband and wife would, at first sight, seem to furnish proof of the influence of contagion, it being a relation where heredity can be eliminated, but when it can be shown that every other married female criminal is the wife of a criminal husband, and that four out of every five alcoholic wives have alcoholic husbands, the theory of contagion gives way to a theory of 'associative or selective' mating among criminals, due to the universal tendency prevailing in every department of life, of like to mate with like. So again, if we eliminate contagion, _i.e._, if we examine crimes in the perpetration of which parental example would not play an important part, such as arson, damage, or sexual offences, the parental correlation is found to be greater than in stealing or burglary, when the influence of parental example would be likely to have most effect. The result arrived at is that the criminal diathesis, revealed by the tendency to be convicted and imprisoned for crime, is inherited at much the same rate as are other physical and mental qualities and pathological conditions in man, and that the influence of parental contagion is, on the whole, inconsiderable, relatively to the influence of inheritance, and of mental defectiveness, which are by far the most significant factors discovered in the etiology of crime.

Other environmental factors which are commonly alleged as the 'causes' of crime, _e.g._, illiteracy, alcoholism, poverty, etc., are examined statistically, so far as the data at the disposal of the author furnish ground for valid scientific conclusion.

These alleged causes are, in reality, nothing more than the co-existence of associated phenomena, and until such association is analysed by statistical methods, causation, in the strict scientific sense, cannot be demonstrated. Thus, to take a general instance: poverty and illiteracy are often described as the 'causes' of crime, but as more than a third of the population of Great Britain belongs to the class of general labourers, who are presumably both poor and illiterate, such a statement can mean no more than that there is a more frequent association of criminal acts with persons living on a low rather than on a high economic scale. The exact numerical measure of the association can only be obtained by elaborate statistical comparison, the data for which are not in existence.

As a matter of fact, a statistical comparison of the penal records of convicts reveals the startling fact that if there be any relation between a convict's education and the frequency of his convictions for crime, it is that those who have received no schooling are the least frequently convicted, and that the worst penal records are of those who have passed through reformatory and industrial schools. Again, if we take alcoholism--it is the fact that deaths from alcoholism are twice as frequent among prisoners as in the general population (26 per 1,000 as against 12 per 1,000), from which it might be inferred that alcoholism is specially associated with the committing of crime. But the incidence of two statistical facts does not, of itself, determine which of the two is antecedent to the other. Does the alcoholist tend to become criminal, or the criminal tend to become alcoholic? Or is the relation of alcoholism to crime due to the fact that both have a common antecedent in defective intelligence? The employment of the correlative tables would seem to point conclusively to the fact that this antecedent is defective intelligence. If a comparison is made of the mean degrees of intelligence of alcoholic and temperate convicts, it appears that there is a pronounced differentiation of intelligence in favour of the latter, and that the mental grade of alcoholic convicts is lower by a half than that of alcoholics in the general population. Apart from offences connected with personal violence, where there is a direct association with inebriety, alcoholism cannot strictly be regarded as a cause of crime, and the general conclusion would seem to be that adverse environment is related much more intimately to the intelligence of convicts than it is to the nature of their crimes, or to the degree of their recidivism. Again, if we examine the relation of occupation to criminality, it appears that crime is related much more closely to the opportunity which a particular occupation offers than to the economic scale of living which it suggests: thus, sailors, miners, and labourers are relatively free from association with the acquisitive offences, for which, from the special facilities afforded by their occupation, clerks, shop-keepers, and persons engaged in commerce are disproportionately selected; and this proclivity to fraud in all its forms is distributed equally through all these classes, the professional and the upper classes providing nearly their proportional share of thieves. Four per cent. of persons in the general population belong to the professional classes: the number of convicted thieves belonging to this class is three per cent. As ninety-five per cent. of all offences are of an acquisitive kind, it is difficult to sustain the point that poverty is a cause of crime.

Dr. Goring is led to the conclusion that there is not any significant relationship between crime and what are popularly believed to be its "causes", and that crime is only to a trifling extent the product of social inequalities or adverse environment, and that there are no physical, mental, or moral characteristics peculiar to the inmates of English Prisons: that one of the principal determinants of crime is "mental defectiveness," and as this is a heritable condition, the genesis of crime must to this extent be influenced by heredity.

Putting aside the part played by the different circumstances affecting criminal man, biologically and otherwise, and without subscribing to the different views and doctrines which, in the opinion of the author, result from the inquiry, the broad and general truth which appears from this mass of figures and calculations is that the "criminal" man is, to a large extent, a "defective" man, either physically or mentally, or, is unable to acquire the complex characters which are essential to the average man and so is prone to follow the line of least resistance. This truth may not be new or startling. It is advanced now by Dr. Goring as a truth which is scientifically demonstrable and so commanding respect and possessing a value which would not belong to statements based on purely empirical observation. This result may be regarded as modest and even disproportionate to the labour involved, but it is worthy of attainment, for much is gained everywhere and especially in the realm of penology, when definite ideas as to the nature of the problems dealt with are substituted for vague notions, or even illusions, as to the nature of the criminal: notions which, in the absence of detached and scientific inquiry, undertaken, as this has been, from a single-minded desire to search out what is true, may have their origin in two quite contrary sources, _viz._: an undue pity for the offender or an undue desire to be revenged on him.

Quite apart from general incapacity to live up to the required social level which brings them within the meshes of the criminal law, Dr. Goring even suggests that the physical aptitude of evading the police may affect statistics, and the fact is that the weaker and not the stronger man is "run in," although the "criminal diathesis" may be equally strong in each. In any case his conclusion on this point is very emphatic, _viz._: that English criminals are selected by their physical condition, and that the one significant physical association with criminality is a generally defective physique; and that the one vital mental constitutional factor in the etiology of crime is defective intelligence.

This general theory of defectiveness as a general attribute of criminality may be regarded by some as confirmed by the fact that persons convicted of crime are mainly drawn from the lowest social scale; and it is plausible to infer that physical and mental inferiority is allied to a low economic scale of living. This theory, however, must not be pressed so far as to affect the liability to punishment of the offender for his act. Penal law is, through its prohibitions, the expression of the social standard of life in the country. Where that standard is high, there must be a residuum of individuals whose mental and physical state does not enable them to live up to that standard. They fall below it through constitutional incapacity, which manifests itself in weakness of will and power of resistance. This inquiry goes to show that it may be predicated that with regard to the great mass of offenders coming within the meshes of the criminal law, this _defectiveness_, in its economic sense, is a predisposing cause, and has no necessary relation to definite physical or mental disease. It is a relative term only, relative to a high standard of social requirement to maintain which the law exists. Penal law, wisely and humanely administered, as in a highly civilized State, should apply its sanctions only with regard to the varying characters and capacities of those who come before the Courts. In other words, punishment must be individualized. The tendency towards the individualization of punishment is making marked progress in all the countries of the world, and nowhere more than in this country. In addition to the absolute discretion vested in the Courts and Tribunals, there is a careful classification for purposes of prison treatment, the object of which is to adapt, as far as practicable, the nature of the punishment to the character and antecedents of the offender. Although, therefore, the fact brought out by the inquiry that, on the average, the English prisoner is defective in physique and mental capacity, would seem to call in question the whole responsibility of any person guilty of an anti-social act, yet, if fully and properly understood, it does not mean more than that in a perfect world where the faculties of each would be fully and highly developed, the problem of punishment would not exist; and it would be a cause of rejoicing if the crime of the country could be demonstrated by statistical methods to be the result, not of a general perversity pervading all classes, but a tendency only on the part of persons living on a low economic scale to fail, on account of physical or mental defectiveness, to conform to the restraints of the criminal law. I regard this as a fair and reasonable explanation of crime generally in this country. It is, at least, an explanation which must fortify and stimulate all those who desire that there shall be fewer persons suffering from those incapacities which predispose to crime, or that, where incapacity is obvious and can be defined, special steps shall be taken not to expose such a person without care or oversight to the conditions of free life, which are likely to be not only ruinous to himself, but dangerous to the community.

It is satisfactory to note that incidentally to its general purpose, the inquiry (1) confirms the idea to which practical effect has been given in recent years by the institution of the Borstal system that the effective way of dealing with crime is to attack those between the ages of 16 and 21, which is shown to be the probable age for enlistment in the criminal brigade, (2) it demonstrates by statistical method that imprisonment does not have the adverse physical and mental results which are often alleged, (3) it confirms the opinion held of the necessity for better care being needed for the mental defective, and (4) it shows that it is by consideration of the individual men and women who make up the criminal population that the best solution of the criminal problem is to be found.

Those who agree with the opinion of Dr. Goring that the principal determinant in crime is mental deficiency will be encouraged by the passing of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, in the belief that this important measure constitutes a great step forward in the rational and scientific treatment of the criminal problem.

However much opinion may differ as to the exact proportion borne by heredity and environment, respectively, in the formation of the criminal character, whether any or no predominant part can be ascribed, as by Dr. Goring, to mental defectiveness, the fact remains and is known to all those concerned in the administration of prisons and in the actual treatment of crime, that a considerable number of adult persons in custody cannot be regarded as fully capable of dealing with the ordinary affairs of life. The provision, therefore, that has now been made for the detection and diagnosis of all forms of mental defectiveness from childhood and early youth justifies a general hope and belief that if this Act is effectively administered, a great impression will, in course of time, be made on the figures of imprisonment; and this hope can be held not only by those who take an extreme view of the influence of heredity, but by plain men and women, without scientific training or knowledge, who are now profoundly moved at the sight of persons of both sexes and of all ages coming to prison in the expiation of offences which, had they been mentally conscious of their obligations to society, or adaptable to their social environment and standard of living, they never would have committed.