Criminal Sociology | Page 8

the very notable work of Despine (1868), which indeed gave rise to the
inquiries of Thomson, and which, in spite of its lack of synthetic
treatment and systematic unity, is still, taken in conjunction with the
work of Ave Lallemant, the most important inquiry in the
psychological domain anterior to the work of Lombroso.
Nevertheless, it was only with the first edition of ``The Criminal'' (1876)
that criminal anthropology asserted itself as an independent science,
distinct from the main trunk of general anthropology, itself quite recent
in its origin, having come into existence with the works of Daubenton,
Blumenbach, Soemmering, Camper, White, and Pritchard.
The work of Lombroso set out with two original faults: the mistake of
having given undue importance, at any rate apparently, to the data of
craniology and anthropometry, rather than to those of psychology; and,
secondly, that of having mixed up, in the first two editions, all
criminals in a single class. In later editions these defects were
eliminated, Lombroso having adopted the observation which I made in
the first instance, as to the various anthropological categories of
criminals. This does not prevent certain critics of criminal anthropology
from repeating, with a strange monotony, the venerable objections as to
the ``impossibility of distinguishing a criminal from an honest man by
the shape of his skull,'' or of ``measuring human responsibility in
accordance with different craniological types.''[2]
[2] Vol. ii. of the fourth edition of ``The Criminal'' (1889) is specially
concerned with the epileptic and idiotic criminal (referred to alcoholism,
hysteria, mattoidism) whether occasional or subject to violent impulse;
whilst vol. i. is concerned only with congenital criminality and moral
insanity.
But these original faults in no way obscure the two following
noteworthy facts--that within a few years after the publication of ``The
Criminal'' there were published, in Italy and elsewhere, a whole library
of studies in criminal anthropology, and that a new school has been
established, having a distinct method and scientific developments,

which are no longer to be looked for in the classical school of criminal
law.
I.
What, then, is criminal anthropology? And of what nature are its
fundamental data, which lead us up to the general conclusions of
criminal sociology?
If general anthropology is, according to the definition of M. de
Quatrefages, the natural history of man, as zoology is the natural
history of animals, criminal anthropology is but the study of a single
variety of mankind. In other words, it is the natural history of the
criminal man.
Criminal anthropology studies the criminal man in his organic and
psychical constitution, and in his life as related to his physical and
social environment--just as anthropology has done for man in general,
and for the various races of mankind. So that, as already said, whilst the
classical observers of crime study various offences in their abstract
character, on the assumption that the criminal, apart from particular
cases which are evident and appreciable, is a man of the ordinary type,
under normal conditions of intelligence and feeling, the anthropological
observers of crime, on the other hand, study the criminal first of all by
means of direct observations, in anatomical and physiological
laboratories, in prisons and madhouses, organically and physically,
comparing him with the typical characteristics of the normal man, as
well as with those of the mad and the degenerate.
Before recounting the general data of criminal anthropology, it is
necessary to lay particular stress upon a remark which I made in the
original edition of this work, but which our opponents have too
frequently ignored.
We must carefully discriminate between the technical value of
anthropological data concerning the criminal man and their scientific
function in criminal sociology.

For the student of criminal anthropology, who builds up the natural
history of the criminal, every characteristic has an anatomical, or a
physiological, or a psychological value in itself, apart from the
sociological conclusions which it may be possible to draw from it. The
technical inquiry into these bio- psychical characteristics is the special
work of this new science of criminal anthropology.
Now these data, which are the conclusions of the anthropologist, are
but starting-points for the criminal sociologist, from which he has to
reach his legal and social conclusions. Criminal anthropology is to
criminal sociology, in its scientific function, what the biological
sciences, in description and experimentation, are to clinical practice.
In other words, the criminal sociologist is not in duty bound to conduct
for himself the inquiries of criminal anthropology, just as the clinical
operator is not bound to be a physiologist or an anatomist. No doubt the
direct observation of criminals is a very serviceable study, even for the
criminal sociologist; but the only duty of the latter is to base his legal
and social inferences upon the positive data of criminal anthropology
for the biological