HERITABLE BASIS OF CRIME AND DELINQUENCY 79 
characterize the criminal type. Statistical methods, however, 
provide a means of testing such a supposition by enabling us to 
compare the standard deviations of the characteristics tabulated. 
The standard deviation, a measure of the average departure of 
individuals from the mean of the group, gives us a precise measure 
of the variability of the group dealt with. By comparing the 
standard deviations of the curves of variability for any measur- 
able character in criminals and non-criminals it can be determined 
which class of men exhibits the greater average degree of variation. 
This method is much more precise and valuable than the loose 
enumeration of particular cases which is so often found in writings 
on criminal anthropology. When applied to criminals by 
Goring (he applied the standard deviation for thirty-seven 
physical characters both in the criminal sub-groups and in the 
criminal group in general), it was found that the characters of the 
sub-groups of criminals had much the same range of physical 
variability, and that criminals as a whole compared with different 
classes of non-criminals fail to show any significantly greater 
range of variation in the physical features of which measurements 
were obtained. 
The doctrine that the born criminal is an anomalous, atavistic 
creature set apart from the rest of mankind by the possession of 
a physical and mental organization that inevitably disposes him 
to evil is rejected as without adequate basis of fact. ‘‘There is no 
such thing as an anthropological criminal type.” 
But while denying the existence of a specific type of criminal, 
Goring is careful to state that criminals are discriminated from 
the law-abiding public by certain general physical and mental 
characteristics. His standpoint is best stated in his own words: 
“Reviewing the general trend of our results, it would seem that 
the appearances, stated by anthropologists of all countries to be 
peculiar to criminals, are thus described because of a too separate 
inspection and narrow view of the facts by these observers. They 
cannot see the wood for the trees. Obsessed by preconceived 
beliefs, small differences of intimate structure have been uncriti- 
cally accepted by them, and exaggerated to fit fantastic theories 
