662 CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 



acters of the criminal born, such as ])latycephalic, the occipital fossette, 

 and other characters of the viril skull. 



Dr. Topinard responded to him by afSrming that the skull of Char- 

 lotte Corday was normal, and that it presents all tlie proper characters 

 of the skull of a woman. The platycephalic was a normal character 

 and the vermicular fossette was uot an anomaly, and there was nothing 

 irregular in the skull unless it should be its platycephalic, and he said 

 it was rare or never that a skull was the same in all its parts and on 

 bcth its sides. Nearly all skulls showed a difference or distinction on 

 the one side or the other. 



M. Benedikt op])osed this theory of the craniometric methods and 

 also the psychologic characteristics enumerated by Baron Garofalo, 

 which, he said, would belong equally to the dyspeptics and the neural- 

 itics. It was easy to make hypotheses, and according to his belief one 

 had as much right to say that the occipital fossette was an indication 

 of a pre-dispositiou to hemorrhoids as much as it was to crime. 



Ferri and Lombroso replied vigorously to Dr. Benedikt, while Sen- 

 ator Moleschott came to his aid. 



Dr. Brouardel recalled the speakers to the discussion of the report of 

 Baron Garofalo. The problem proposed by him was a classification of 

 criminals. The crime i^self is insufficient to class the criminal. The 

 decision must be upon all the evidence. One insane act is not suffi- 

 cient to characterize an insane person. It mast be established by the 

 antecedents of the subject, his former life, his peculiarities, and his 

 ])hysical signs. This was the only true system to be pursued, and any 

 purely physical or purely psychologic examination would be insuffi- 

 cient and was to be repulsed entirely. Su^jpose the theories of Baron 

 Garofalo to prevail, then a criminal born, according to his views, should 

 be arrested at once and confined in some special establishment. 



M. Herbette took uj) the discussion and enumerated the results ob- 

 tained by the administration of the i)enitentiaries. We have, said he, 

 atone time the prisoners and the sick jieople. The prison is not a hos- 

 pital. The hospital is an association for the good of the sick and where 

 they may furnish a subject of study and experience. In the most of 

 them the entry is free, and in all the departure equally free. In the 

 prison the situation is entirely ditterent. The prisoner is imprisoned as 

 a result of the penal right of society to protect itself. 



M. Lacassagne protested that for the sake of science, for the sake of 

 societ.y, for the sake of investigation into crime and its causes, the law 

 should give to the prison authorities the right to investigate the biology 

 of the criminal and the sole control of the cadaver of the criminal, 

 whether his death was inflicted by the law or came from other causes. 



But M. Herbette declared he would not go so far, and he counseled 

 patience, study, careful investigation, great conservatism, regard for 

 the feelings of the public, so to the end there should be no revulsion on 

 their part, for the reforms which were forced might bring great risks to 

 science and compromise its success. 



