CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 623 



he declared them to be differences of anatomy and physiology; that 

 they belonged as much to honest men as to criminals, and that the line 

 of difference mentioned by Lombroso bore no relation between an hon- 

 est man and a criminal. These were structural and other diff"erences of 

 physiology and anatomy, while crime was a matter of sociology. 



Baron Garofalo, MM. Drill, Lacassagne, and Benedikt declared their 

 opposition in whole or in part to the theory of Lombroso. M. Drill 

 recalled that the organization of man was far from being simple, 

 that he was an extremely complex being, made up of many component 

 parts and that his life depended upon his surroundings, his education, 

 his training, his companions, and that whatever there might be in the 

 physical or anatomical characteristics of a man which would point 

 towards his crime or the possibility of its commission, thateach of these 

 elements entered into and became a factor, and were each and all of 

 them to be considered in deciding this question. 



According to M. Dekterew the surrounding circumstances, the social 

 condition, of man played the greatest role and had the greatest influence. 



M. Pngliese declared crime to be a social anomaly and the consequence 

 of a failure of the criminal to adapt himself to his social surroundings. 



M. Benedikt, of Vienna, was of the opinion that criminals were sick 

 men either in body or spirit; and if one examines the exterior morpho- 

 logic signs to explain and account for the existence of crime in the con- 

 duct of a given man, it was equally necessary to investigate the mole- 

 cular trouble in his cerebral structure. He declared that the physiologic 

 characteristics were a greater factor than the anatomic, and this it was, 

 with the favorable social surroundings, that made the assassin or the 

 robber. The criminal, said he, has no particular stigma or mark by 

 which he can be known from other men. Sometimes there may be signs 

 of a defective organization, but these are marks or signs of the epileptic 

 or of the insane. This was also the view of Tarde. There might be 

 certain predispositions which were organic or possibly physiologic, 

 which were more or less easily developed according to the social sur- 

 roundings of the individual and which might, under favorable circum.- 

 stances induce crime. 



M. Lacassagne agreed with Tarde that in considering the problem of 

 criminality it was necessary to take largely into account the social influ- 

 ences. Because these influences and surroundings might modify the 

 organic characteristics and thus create these anatomic anomalies which 

 were relied upon by the Italian school. In order to study the criminal 

 it is first necessary to consider his surrounding. It is not atavism, but 

 the social surroundings, the social condition, which make the criminal. 

 If the condition of the humble and the poor and the young and the 

 ignorant is ameliorated you will diminish immediately the army of crim- 

 inals. It is society which makes the criminals. Society has only the 

 criminals it merits. Criminality was above all a social question. M. 

 Lacassagne said a factor of crime too much neglected was misery, pov- 



