626 ClilMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 



iials. If some of them Lave been ciimimils, who can say that they 

 would uot have been honest if subjected iu early life to favorable edu- 

 cation and sociologic influences? But, on the contrary, who can say 

 what may not be(;oine of the man who has a sound mind in a sound 

 body if ho be subjected to the continued pressure of adverse sociologic 

 surroundings. Take as a single illustration the feeble cranium capac- 

 ity which is not without certain relation to feebleness of mind. The 

 feebleness of mind may make its owner commit crime under cer- 

 tain deplorable circumstances, but at the same time this may render 

 him more inoffensive under other circumstances. His unfortunate ana- 

 tomic character may itself conspire to make him more peaceable, hon- 

 est, and virtuous. In any event it would be hard to afiirm that there 

 was a greater proportion of feeble-minded men among honest men than 

 among dishonest. And as with feeble-mindedness, so with the other 

 anatomic criminal characteristics. 



Some one has used the phrase ".all other things being equal," a man 

 with such and such anatomic characteristics would be more likely to 

 become a criminal than a man with other characteristics. Manouvrier 

 assailed this position, saying that it was founded in error. It was 

 because "all other things" were not e(pial that the man became crimi- 

 inai. He asked what were these things, and suggested the infantile life, 

 fannliarity with vice and crime, the surroundings, the want of moral train- 

 ing, sociologic conditions; and these, he said, were the conditions which 

 produce the criminals rather than the anatomic characters. He asserted 

 that the man with characteristics the opposite of Lombroso's criminal, if 

 subjected to the conditions, influences, and temptations which lead to- 

 wards crime, was as likely to become a criminal as was he who possessed 

 the characteristics described by Lombroso. He assailed also the idea of 

 a criminal type who stood for the criminal classes. He declared that, in 

 his opinion, there was no such type. The criminal, the thief, might 

 have a head shaped one way iu one case, and another way in another 

 case, with crania or facial anomalies, with deep occipital fassettes, and 

 so forth. But these did not form a type; they were different charac- 

 teristics which had no relation to each other, and which he did not 

 believe had any relation to crime or criminal tendencies. It was as 

 though a man with a long head commits a crime; according to this 

 theory, that forms a criminal type. A nian with a broad head commits 

 a crime ; that forms a criminal type. And, using different peculiarities 

 as illustrations, where a man with long arms or long legs, or one with 

 short alius or short legs, commits a crime, then each of these become 

 in their turn criminal types. Thus you have as criminal types the 

 long and the short, the round and the square head, the long and the 

 short arm, and the long and the sliort leg. Therefore he declared his 

 opinion that, properly speaking, there was no such thing as a (Timinal 

 type. The criminal type was the man who, having submitted to the 

 sociologic iulluence of crime, having been born and raised therein 



