CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY. 671 



deteotion should be the exception, bat iu the second it ought to be the 

 rule. But these things are to be determined by the psychic condition 

 of the delinquent and the nature of the causes which impelled him to 

 crime. If the psychic conditions have been verified there should be no 

 further hesitation, but the imprisonment or detention should be en- 

 forced with rigor. 



(4) The judge gives his judgment in three forms: Condemnation, — 

 acquittal for inexisteuce of the crime or of his innocence; — acquittal 

 for insufficiency of ])roof. This corresponds to the ancient formula: 

 Condcinno, absolvo, nan liquet. The jury, on the contrary, except in 

 Scotland, have only two formulas: Yes, no; guilty or not guilt.y. If 

 they are in doubt as to his guilt, they respond not guilty. This does 

 not appear just. The jury should have a formula of non liquet — not 

 proven: the laws would then be equal for all. 



(5) There should be an appeal in criminal cases as well in acquittals 

 as in convictions. This question was treated by Garof^ilo, Ferri, Maino, 

 and by Pugiiese in the Kevue de Jurisprudence in 1885. It has been 

 argued in the affirmative by Mittermaier in his Die Gesetzgehuny und 

 Bechtshildunf). 



In this principle it has received its first legislative recognition in 

 paragraph 388 of the Austrian code and paragraph 399 of the Ger- 

 manic code. But m these cases it is confined only to corruption or 

 false testimony. It is time, however, that the principle of a[)peal in 

 the social interest should be recognized without restriction and ap- 

 peals be taken as easily by the prosecution as by the defense. The law 

 ought to be equal for all. The interest for the one and of the other are 

 the same. No reason in justice can be given why one should have an 

 appeal and the other not. It would serve to correct many erroneous, 

 not to say corrupt, judgments and prevent many scandals upon the 

 law. 



Dr. Brouardel accepted much said by M. Pugiiese, but he combatted 

 some positions. He denied the propriety of making an expert to be a 

 judge or making judges only of experts. The responsibility was too 

 great and the result would be unsatisfactory. 



M. Benedikt agreed with Dr. Brouardel and said that while the edu- 

 cation of the magistrature should include certain prescribed medical 

 studies, they should be always auxiliary to jurisprudence and never 

 above or beyond it. This was in accordance with the opinion of M. 

 Lacassagne. 



Question XVI. — Instruction in medical jurisprudence in the law 

 schools. Professor Lacassagne, of Lyons, reporter. 



In the presentation of this paper M. Lacassagne repeated largely the 

 ideas which he had put before the congress at Eome ui)on the necessity 

 of instruction in medical jurisprudence in the law school. Tliere was a 

 large discussion over this question, but it was confined to the details, 



