In investigating the causes of crime we have first to understand what we mean by the word "Crime," and also what we describe by the term "Criminal."

Crime may be regarded both objectively and also subjectively, i.e., as regards the deed itself and as regards the doer of the deed. In the past it was customary to consider the crime only and to punish the doer, or the criminal, according to the enormity of his deed. Scientific methods require, however, that we should study the criminal and ask ourselves "what is he?" and "of what forces is he the product?" If these questions can be satisfactorily answered, then society is better enabled to arm herself against his invasion, in fact having successfully diagnosed his case she may be led on to discover the means whereby criminals may be reduced to their irreducible minimum, both as regards number and as regards their capacity for doing harm.

Man has two natures, the animal and the spiritual. The animal is the passive product of Nature, the forces of his development being guided and restricted by the condition of the life in which he is born and reared. To this animal nature belongs the natural appetites, passions, faculties and senses. This nature is not sufficient in itself, and its realisation cannot be accomplished until it is brought into complete subordination to the higher or spiritual nature. The function of this spiritual nature is to subordinate the animal nature by harmonising and controlling it, and it finds its partial realisation in the institutions of family, church and state; and its ultimate realisation in the heavenly counterparts of these. Thus subordinating the animal nature, it develops the powers of man's natural inheritance along their true line of advance and brings him steadily nearer the goal of perfect manhood.

When, however, the spiritual influence is not exercised and man resigns himself to the uncontrolled influences which spring from his lower nature, he rapidly degenerates. Socially, this degeneracy is noticed by its process of gradually loosening, and finally severing the ties which bind man to his race. He becomes an unsocial being and ceases to contribute to the wealth, peace or establishment of society. His desire for society is regulated by his capacity to draw from it the satisfaction of the abnormal appetite of unregulated passion. In this mood he totally disregards the laws of society and seizes every opportunity that presents itself to prey upon it and he thus becomes an anti-social being. Through all ages up to the present, society has at the cost of much effort and suffering been progressing, stage by stage, towards a higher order. Each advance purchased at such a price, becomes a free gift, by inheritance, to the next generation, and from this inheritance still further progress may be made. It is quite possible that in a dissolute age retrogression may set in and the ground be lost, in which case its recovery becomes the arduous task of a succeeding regenerate age.

With each advance that it makes society embodies in its institution the principles of social life such as it has been able to discover them. These principles being finally accepted, we must assume that they are eternal or else we are compelled to admit that society may be for ever at fault, that its development does not correspond with the true development of man, and that this present life is in no wise preparatory for a future. Though we declare that the principles of society are eternal, the social institutions which embody them are merely temporal, and may change with time and circumstances. They are, nevertheless, binding upon our allegiance, and any attempt to overthrow them becomes the anti-social act of the criminal and is a punishable offence. The criminal is an enemy to social advance. He profanes that which society holds sacred, he scatters that which society, at great cost has acquired, and he attacks society at its most vulnerable points.

What, then it may be asked, are the causes that produce this anti-social being? In the case of the sane criminal, an immoral basis underlies all causes, and without this they would each and all be impotent. Some causes, as e.g. alcoholism, are the result of the individual's immorality; others again are independent.The principal causes are:—A bad ancestry (heredity), bad domestic and social conditions, alcoholism, imitation, and stress of circumstances.

Heredity.—Among unscientific people there are many extravagant theories held, some even affirming that from the moment of conception a child's character may be determined as criminal, as if character underlay habit instead of habit evolving character.

It is therefore necessary that we should endeavour to discover if possible how far the influence of heredity extends, and especially to disclose its powers as a factor influencing conduct. A man may be seen to have the same peculiar carriage and gait as his father; but to argue from that, that he will in obedience to a naturally transmitted impulse, follow in his father's footsteps as a thief or a forger is to step entirely out of the bounds of science. Gait and carriage belong to a different sphere altogether from morals and conduct. But let it be at once acknowledged that the morals and conduct of any given ancestry show a tendency to be reproduced in the posterity. The drunkard is the father of drunkards; the suicide is the father of suicides, and the parent's crime is repeated by the child. Not in all cases is this by any means a fact: but in a sufficient number to exclude the possibility of coincidence accounting for them all, and to demonstrate conclusively that some influence must be at work connecting the deeds of the progenitor with those of his offspring. What is this influence? Can it be at once declared to be the influence of heredity? The most usual way of determining this question is by the process of exclusion. If environment, education, imitation and other causes do not account for the phenomena, then heredity must. Heredity thus becomes a convenient name by which to denominate the insolvable. Sometimes the denomination is correct and sometimes incorrect, and very often, even when correct, it conveys a wrong impression. The impression being that the influence of heredity is altogether irresistible and also ineradicable.

Now, whatever the influence of heredity may be, it must be determined scientifically and not merely guessed at. Nor must the failure to find an adequate cause for a certain crime be a sufficient reason for accounting heredity as responsible. Heredity has limits to its range of influence as well as any other cause for crime, and it may be found that there are certain fears which it can never invade. For instance, one sphere wherein its influence is manifestly great, is in the structure of the nervous, osseous, muscular, circulatory and vascular systems. Again, what is more common than to find intellectual ability running in families? Ribot, in his work on heredity, gives long lists of the world's most famous poets, artists, musicians, statesmen and soldiers, all showing the tendency of ability, in these various directions, to be transmitted from one generation to another. Not always to the generation immediately succeeding, for sometimes these various qualities disappear in the son to reappear in the grandson or great-grandson. However, convincing the evidence for transmission in these cases may be, it gives no warrant whatever for the conclusion that heredity may exercise an influence upon the MORAL conduct of man.

Let it here be observed that the Moral Law is fundamental to all law. No laws in Nature ever contradict the Moral Law, but are always found acting in obedience to it. All the works of God are in accord with this Law; God is the Moral Governor of the Universe. Therefore whatever may hold good with all other laws, does not necessarily hold good with this Law. That a man should inherit his father's intellectual qualities is then no argument that he should also inherit his father's immorality. Nothing less will suffice than distinct evidence that he HAS inherited his father's immorality.

A further observation is necessary, and that is, that morality is not absolute but relative. Strictly speaking, no man is moral. God alone is absolutely moral. Nor can we compare the morality of one man with the average morality of mankind in general. To estimate a certain man's morality of conduct we must compare his conduct with the degree of the sense of responsibility which exists within him, and also his power of control over his conduct. The murderous act of a lunatic for instance is an immoral act, because we compare the act with morality in the abstract; but it would be a mistake to call the lunatic an immoral man, for the simple reason that he had no control over his conduct and was therefore not responsible for it.

Take the case of the drunkard. A certain drunken father has several drunken sons. The influence of environment, of education, or of imitation, we will suppose to be excluded. Is heredity the cause, and if so, has it invaded the moral sphere? The influence of the father's drunkenness is first made manifest in his own nervous system. The nerve centres become clogged and poisoned and fail to discharge their functions with the same healthy activity as formerly. The nervous system degenerates, and the consequence of this degeneracy is the production of that form of irritation within the system which we call the craving for drink, and which requires alcohol for its immediate satisfaction. The man will admit that he has no liking for the taste of drink; but declares that he is in a certain state of unsettlement which can only be overcome by the use of liquor. A temporary calm is induced, only to be followed by a more intense irritation or unsettlement afterwards, and thus a circle of cause and effect is at once described.

This is then the degenerate state of the father's nervous system. Now, it is undoubted that he may transmit this same degenerate nervous system to his offspring and thus as his children grow up it is not to be wondered at if the same craving for drink is to be found in them as was existing in their parent. The influence of heredity has been at work upon the nervous system. Has its influence been restricted to this system, or has it invaded the moral sphere? The children's conduct is immoral, for no amount of argument can determine drunkenness to be anything else: but are the children themselves immoral? They are not immoral so far as they are acting in obedience to an impulse which is irresistible. The drunkard who is himself responsible for his habit, is, strictly speaking, an alcoholic and is vicious and degraded. The drunkard who drinks in spite of himself is, strictly speaking, a dipsomaniac, and is diseased and insane. The alcoholic may become the dipsomaniac; but the child who is the victim of a transmitted taint is without doubt a dipsomaniac and not an alcoholic. He is insane. It may not be an incurable form of insanity; nor need it be a very acute form; but insanity it is, and therefore he cannot be called an immoral man because he drinks, although he is guilty of immoral conduct. Heredity has not invaded the moral sphere. It has given the man a diseased nervous system, which, while weakening his will, has not perverted it. Thus it is seen then that if any effort is to be made for the reform of the dipsomaniac, the direct influence of heredity must be overcome by a course of treatment which would be addressed to the nervous system. Treatment which shall draw out the alcoholic poison and which shall quicken and invigorate the nerve centres. When the influence of heredity is discovered to be restricted within these limits, the case of the hereditary dipsomaniac becomes far less hopeless than it appeared at first sight, and it is for this reason that the causes of crime should be thoroughly investigated. To moralise to the dipsomanic is but lost effort, one may as well abuse a driver for not stopping his bolting horses. Some reformatory schemes have trusted entirely to moral agencies, and their failure has been quoted as evidence that all such schemes are futile. But their failure has been due to an entirely wrong conception of the cause of crime. The primary cause is undoubtedly a reprobate will: but this cause is not found in every case. Where the consequences of the parent's conduct has been inherited we find not the primary, but a secondary cause, such as e.g. a diseased nervous system. Sometimes both the primary and the secondary causes exist side by side, and then treatment must be addressed to both the will and to the physical system. In fact whatever methods of treatment are employed, the moral temperament must not be neglected, for even if the will be not perverted, it is considerably weakened and needs strengthening.

The case of the sensualist is somewhat similar to that of the drunkard. Ribot quoting Prosper Lucas, gives the example of a "man cook, of great talent in his calling, has had all his life, and has still at the age of sixty years, a passion for women. To this he adds unnatural crime. One of his natural sons living apart from him does not even know his father, and though not yet quite nineteen, has from his childhood given all the signs of extreme lust, and strange to say, he, like his father, is equally addicted to either sex." (Ribot; Heredity p. 89.)

The fact that this son imitated his father's vices at an early age, is not sufficient in itself to assign the cause to heredity. Nor does the fact that he was separated from his father's influence or example, strengthen the assignment beyond dispute. The causes for such conduct are so common that very few men escape from their influence, and whosever does not resist them, falls and becomes a victim. But probably this was a case in which an inherited influence pressed itself so strongly upon him as to become irresistible. What, we ask was inherited? A perverted will? That is absolutely impossible. A perverted will is the outcome of a deliberate choice of evil when the choice of virtue is equally possible. A weakened will, or a will subject to heavy stress is a different thing. There must be some stress upon the will. What is it? It is a well known fact that the exercise of the members of our body results in a great facility of movement being attained. The pianist can, after long practice, execute rapid and complex performances of fingering, which in the early stages of education were absolutely impossible. It is because the nerve centres controlling the muscles employed have been brought to such a high state of activity that they operate almost independently of the will. The nerve centres controlling certain of our functions DO operate independently of the will. Breathing is an example, and although an effort of the will is required to correct bad breathing, yet when once the habit of correct breathing is established, the directing influence of the mind ceases, and the nerve centres discharge their functions automatically.

In the normal man the sexual instinct is inherited but the passion is submissive to the control of the will. The will is supreme and self-restraint is always possible. The immoral man has refused to exercise this restraining power, he has, in fact, by his immoral thoughts, lent his mind to the strengthening of the passion until it has gained an ascendancy. Continual sexual excitement has resulted in the nervous centres controlling the sexual organs becoming so powerfully developed as to act almost automatically, and independently of the will. In the normal man, sexual excitement results upon the mental vision; in the sensualist the excitement precedes the vision. Another effect is noticed in the physiognomy which changes in accordance with the development of the nerve centres and presents all the appearances of the typical sensualist or prostitute.

In some cases the sensualist transmits this highly organised or disordered nervous system to his descendants, and consequently when they arrive at a certain age they find their bodies invaded by a passion over which they have small, and sometimes no, control. It is distinctly a case of functional insanity with them. Their will power is weak because of undue stress, but it has not been perverted. Perversion may follow; but may also be avoided, and even the will sufficiently strengthened so that it may re-assume control and subject the passion to control. The influence of heredity is here also confined to the nervous system. That is, the direct influence, the influence which was first felt and before it received any support which the mind of the victim may give it. The cases of hereditary suicides, murderers and assassins afford a very large field for investigation, and we cannot do more than suggest some causes which seem to give strong evidence of their existence. These causes if their existence be allowed, and we see every reason that it should, will restrict the influence of heredity to a much narrower sphere than is popularly supposed. The old story of the devil preaching upon the horrors of hell serves somewhat to illustrate our meaning. When the abbot enquired whether it was not contrary to his interests to draw so vivid and terrible a picture he replied in the negative and gave as his reason that the man who contemplated the horrors of hell was the man who was bound to find his way there.

The contemplation of criminal acts effects a strange fascination upon the mind and very often induces imitation of the same acts. When a suicide or murder, in fact any crime, is committed by a member of a family the other members either, according to their moral disposition, experience a greater or lesser repulsion for the deed than they formerly possessed. The enormity of the deed is either stronger or lesser in their eyes than before. In the latter case, murder or suicide does not seem nearly so heinous a crime when it is brought so closely under their notice. The very knowledge that a father or uncle or any other near relative, or even friends for that matter, committed suicide, makes the act appear far less terrible, and also far less impossible for themselves. Most men have at some time or another an impulse to destroy themselves, it may not be very strong; but if it is felt at a time when the circumstances of life are unfavourable and, if added to this, there is presented the example of a suicide very near at home, the impulse is undoubtedly strengthened. The whole chain of circumstances seem to direct the vision upon the rash act of the friend or relative, until at last the vision becomes fascinating, and the act is imitated. To use a concise expression one may call this the "hypnotic power of circumstances." It is not an absolute cause in itself; but, strictly speaking, may we call any cause absolute? It is not a cause which would influence a man of strong will or of sound morality. But a sentimental person, one of morbid ideas, weak will, or overcome by the thought of detection, or the fear of misfortune, might easily fall a victim to its influences. It will not account for all the cases of hereditary suicide, for a mental disease may be transmitted which would account for the suicide of both father and son or whatever the combination may be. It, however, does account, we believe, for the majority of the cases, and the similarity of the method employed strengthens this belief, for it indicates that the mind is dwelling upon the actual vision of the relative's suicide, and is not merely contemplating suicide in the abstract. This theory would imply that any case of suicide, upon which the mind would dwell and concentrate itself, would exercise the same influence, and this is the case. A few years ago in Dunedin an accountant who was involved in financial difficulties, shot himself with a pistol. His executor, against the advice of friends, took charge of the pistol. Becoming involved in financial difficulties himself, he too committed suicide by shooting himself with the same weapon! Almost, without a doubt, we may say that the circumstances of the first suicide exerted upon the mind of the trustee a hypnotic influence which combined with and gave the final impulse to the other contributing causes of his act.

Another instance is that of a young man who, contemplating suicide, carried a revolver about with him for a whole day. He spoke of suicide to his friends, occasionally discharged shots into the ground, and finally, during the evening, blew his brains out. That he contemplated suicide was evident from his conversation, but that his mind was not made up, is also evident from the delay he occasioned. In fact, his whole behaviour indicates a faint desire to cling to something stronger than himself in order to brace himself against his haunting fears. The revolver fascinated him. He dallied with it, made up his mind, changed it again, and finally the influence became supreme for a moment, and he fired the fatal shot. Throughout the day, he very probably thought of the grief of his relatives and of the young woman he was soon to marry, he pictured the consternation of his friends, read the newspaper accounts of his act, saw his funeral, and let his mind run altogether in morbid channels. Thus it was that the vision of his own act exerted an hypnotic influence upon him which became at the critical moment supreme and irresistible.

When the picture is real and not imaginary, and when the circumstances of a parent's or brother's or friend's suicide may easily be recalled and the mind allowed to dwell upon them, how much greater would the influence become, especially when the same example has served to diminish the idea of the enormity of the act. Where persons lend themselves to the idea that an hereditary influence exists and may spring upon them at any moment, they are almost sure either to destroy themselves or else to develop some form of insanity. There are cases of murder and assassination (apparently hereditary crime) where the conditions are so similar that the hypnotic power of circumstances may likewise be urged as sufficient cause.

So far, an attempt has been made to show that whatever the influence of heredity may be, it is restricted outside the sphere of morality. It cannot transmit an IMMORAL IDEA. So far as certain forms of vice and crime are concerned it most probably is limited entirely to its effect upon the physical structure of man. Combined with family tradition and working upon a diseased, or weakened will, it accounts for similarities of conduct. Suicides, murderers and assassins do not then receive by transmission from their ancestry any taint or tendency which may be called the direct cause of their crime. Another factor is present, a hypnotising power, and this is the final and directing power. It is a different influence to imitation, although its first result is the same, viz: the lowering of the moral idea. But crimes where the act is the imitation of another person's act are generally committed from the desire to become notorious and to be the centre of observation. The spirit of vanity, very strong in the low type, is appealed to and aroused. Or perhaps, the example of another's crime affords a suggestion for the method of accomplishing a certain desired end. On the other hand, the ancestral example, after having broken down the moral barrier depends entirely upon its power to fascinate. Those of weak will or guilty conscience, alone succumb to its influence. If we consider the cases of thieves, vagabonds and paupers we find their crimes and vices likewise running in families. It is nevertheless quite a mistake to jump at the conclusion that heredity accounts for all these coincidencies. Exempting all cases of transmitted mental alienation and observing only those who are quite responsible for their action, it is impossible to suppose that there is, somewhere in their organism, a power which will direct their lives into the channels of vice or crime just as irresistibly as the influence which makes the hair grow on the crown of their heads. It is unthinkable. It supposes a responsible person who cannot control himself. Which is a contradiction.

M. Moleschott, at the International Congress of Criminal Anthropology held in Paris in 1889, "mentioned an influence towards crime that had not been noticed, to wit, the hereditary social influence, or that is, the tradition which is instilled into the mind of every child before he knows the difference between right and wrong, that by which he obtains the rudiments of his knowledge of right and wrong. Whether it be correct or not it is the child's standard. He gets it not from any knowledge of theory of justice, but from the tradition of his own neighbourhood, as it is taught by his parents and associates by the people, and as is believed by them." (Criminal Anthropology; the Smithsonian Report for 1891.)

It will be understood that the influences of which M. Moleschott speaks are not of an hereditary nature, that is, they are not transmitted through the blood; but they are influences which are present from the first moment of consciousness. They are quite sufficient to account for the criminal type being found in the physiognomy of a person born and reared among such surroundings. It is a very popular error to suppose that a person's physiognomy never changes, and therefore that if the criminal cast of countenance is seen it must be a faithful witness to some innate depravity transmitted from an ancestry. The expression plays such an important part in the moulding of the countenance, that of two brothers very much alike in youth, one, afterwards given to crime, will still retain his resemblance to his brother; but will display the criminal type as well. It is thus that we have the different types in murderers, assassins, thieves, swindlers and sensualists. They are all criminal or vicious but their forms of criminality and vice are so diverse that a different expression results from the different kinds of thought passing through their minds. In their theories, few people acknowledge that the symmetry of the facial features may change, and yet it is a matter of common observance that they do. In the cases of persons becoming insane or persons who have suffered from long and painful illnesses it is very remarkable. Likewise in the case of the man who has fallen into crime, it is also most noticeable. Of course there are limits to the changes which the expression may produce, but these changes are nevertheless very great and sufficiently so, not perhaps to produce Lombroso's type in any given face, but to give that face at least a distinctly criminal cast.

The appearance then of this criminal cast upon the features is not sufficient evidence to account for an inherited tendency towards crime. Dr Manouvrier insists that Lombroso's theory that the criminal is born and not made is based upon the exploded science of phrenology, and declares that all the anatomical distinctions and physicological characteristics quoted by Lombroso are to be found among honest men as well as among criminals. The fact that a greater proportion are found among criminals to his mind proves nothing.

[There is not vast difference between normal and abnormal persons possessing these peculiarities. In Lombroso's work "The Female Offender" he notices:—

Gradenigo (quoted by Lombroso) gives the following table showing the peculiarities of the ears of 245 criminals as compared with 14,000 normal women:—

Other anthropometrists notice different proportions.]If Lombroso's theory, that a man was born a criminal, was to be taken as the rule, Manouvrier declares that it must then be universal, and that men thus born must inevitably commit crime. If it be a rule then it must operate in all classes, and since it does not so operate, proof is given that it is not the rule. Manouvrier declares that the man possessed of characteristics the very opposite of Lombroso's criminal, if subjected to the conditions, influences, and temptations, which lead to crime would as likely commit crime as he who possessed all the characteristics which Lombroso describes as typical. Manouvrier regards the social life of a person from childhood as being the most important factor in moulding character. He emphatically denies that there is in the embryo a predisposition to crime. Dr Magnan likewise refuses his assent to this theory.

It may be rather daring to suggest a theory which would reconcile the differences between these eminent men: but as the facts presented by each side are indisputable, some such reconciliation must exist. Possibly if we interpret Lombroso's phrase, "inherited tendency towards crime" or "predisposition towards crime" in the same way as we interpret the term ("predisposition towards disease") when speaking of tubercular persons (or, as Mercier speaks of the insane), that is as persons, who in a given favourable environment, are more likely to commit crime than persons without that inherited tendency, we may find these theories to be more in accord with one another. Lombroso insists that there must be an inherited tendency, Manouvrier insists that there must be environment. As in the case of tubercular persons (of tubercular ancestry) these two causes are complementary, may it not be also the case with criminals of criminal ancestry? The INHERITED IMMORAL IDEA seems to be really what Manouvrier rejects. A vicious conception of life which makes the man inevitably, incurably, and irresistibly a criminal, is apparently the interpretation he puts on Lombroso's theory. But from Lombroso's works and speeches, the interpretation does not appear to be at all a necessary one. The transmission of a disordered nervous system with its consequences, as one cause, the "hypnotic influence of circumstances" as another cause, and these two causes acting sometimes separately and sometimes conjointly, will very possibly account for the phenomena Lombroso observes. A most important factor, and one which cannot be disregarded, compels the acceptance of some such theory. This factor is the success resulting from reformatory effort. It is not only Lombroso and Manouvrier that need to be reconciled, but Lombroso, Manouvrier and Brockway. This latter gentleman is the founder of the famous Elmira Reformatory which has reformed 82 per cent. of 12,000 felons which have been committed to it for treatment.

We come then to this conclusion that heredity plays an important part in the production of the criminal; but that there are other very important factors which are often confused with it and when separated from it reduce the popular estimate of its influence to the scientific one, which is considerably the lesser one. Furthermore, as a consequence of this investigation, the true foundations upon which reformatory science is to be built are clearly indicated.

This statement, that heredity plays an important part in the production of the criminal, needs to be carefully guarded. It means precisely this and nothing more:—That where an hereditary influence (such as above described) making crime easier, has been transmitted, there that influence is an important factor in the production of the criminal. It does NOT mean that this influence is invariably transmitted by the criminal parent, neither does it mean that the majority of criminals are "born" criminals.

The following is an extract from a letter upon this subject which the author has received from Dr. Arthur MacDonald, one of the leading criminologists of to-day:—"There is no proof of any scientific value that criminality is inherited." By criminality we understand "the moral basis of crime."

The famous "Jukes" family that lived in the State of New York, afford one of the most interesting studies in heredity to be found in the annals of criminology. Of this numerous family (some 709 persons of which were clearly traced in five generations) the elder sons took to crime and the younger sons to vagabondage. There was indeed a proportion of honest and industrious persons among them. Of the women 52 per cent. were prostitutes. That a proportion of honest men among the sons, and a fair number of virtuous women among the daughters is recorded, clearly proves that an hereditary taint is not, in all cases, necessarily transmitted from parent to child. Latency in one generation, with activity in the next, is frequently observed in the transmission of disease; but in the case of crime, as distinguished from vice, this is rarely so.

That the younger sons of the "Jukes" family fell into habits of vagabondage (leaving it to the elder sons to carry on the criminal traditions of the family) is also worthy of notice. It serves to show that whatever the influence of heredity may be, as a factor disposing towards crime, it cannot be an independent and final factor. In families living after a primitive manner of life, as this family did, the elder sons are invariably the companions of their fathers and accompany them on their depredatory raids. The younger sons are left to the milder environment of their mother's society. Thus from a criminal point of view, the environment of the elder sons is more intense than that of the younger sons. The difference in environment accounts for the difference in character formed; the more intense environment accounting for criminals and the milder environment for vagabonds. Sometimes the influence of environment is overcome, and we noticed that among the "Jukes" a proportion of the family was honest and industrious. Acknowledging the transmission of a physical defect from a criminal ancestry, we must bear in mind that the conditions of the criminal's life are such as are calculated to produce in himself that defect which he transmits. His body becomes weakened, his nervous system disordered, and the physical substratum of his mind diseased. These defects he transmits to his offspring and thus handicaps them in the effort that is required from the individual to adapt himself to the conditions of society.

This is the criminal "taint" or handicap that makes it more likely that the individual should fall into crime than the normal man. Although society regards this hereditary criminal as a monster, it has been made clear that he is really more deserving of compassion than one not so handicapped. To secure society from his injurious acts, our courts frequently take the illogical and unjust course of imposing a more severe punishment upon him. This is in itself a clear evidence of the demand that exists for penological reform.

Environment.—By environment we understand bad homes, bad associations, and generally bad conditions.

Of the condition of the 12,000 persons who passed through the Elmira Reformatory between the years 1876-1902, only 1.47 per cent. came from good homes and 37.4 per cent. from fair homes. Of the character of the men's associations, 56.6 per cent. was positively bad; 41.9 per cent. was "not good;" .9 per cent. was doubtful, and 1.6 per cent. was good.It is scarcely necessary from a practical point of view to enquire into the actual amount of crime which results from a bad environment, for it is only too obvious that none but those of the strongest wills and of the highest morality can resist the influence of bad surroundings when these are constant. Our enquiry should rather be directed to ascertain what constitutes a bad environment and what are the causes that produce it. It should also seek to discover by what means its evil influence may be checked and how to eradicate these influences when present. The attitude of our law-courts towards the criminal is practically this:—"You have been reared amidst evil surroundings whose influence you could not resist, you are a criminal, an outcast from society, you must be punished by being locked up in a school of crime in the hope that it may inspire you to live a better life. The sentence of the court is ..." And society endorses this attitude!

The evil influence of bad surroundings is well exemplified by an instance recorded by Viscount D'Haussonville in his work "L'Enfance a Paris":—"Some years ago a band of criminals were brought before the jury of the Seine charged with a terrible crime, the assassination of an aged widow, with details of ferocity which the pen refuses to describe. The president of the court having asked the principal, Maillot, called 'the yellow,' how he had been brought to commit such a crime, he replied:—What do you wish that I should tell you Mr President? Since the age of seven years I have been found only on the streets of Paris. I have never met anyone who was interested in me. When a child, I was abandoned to every vicissitude—and I am lost. I have always been unfortunate. My life has been passed in prisons and gaols. That is all. It is my fate. I have reached—you know where. I will not say that I have committed the crime under circumstances independent of my own will, but finally—(here the voice of Maillot trembled) I never had a person to advise me. I had in view only robbery. I committed robbery but I ended with murder."

The following description of the manner in which parents may defeat the work of the juvenile reformatory or industrial school was given by Senator Roussel at the Fourth International Prison Congress:—"The pernicious influence of parents relative to minors is manifest in two ways and at two periods of the child's life. First in extreme youth, when he is only a burden, his parents neglect him. He is left without proper care, often without proper food and subjected to all the hazards of the streets; he is forced to be a vagabond and a beggar, and this situation continues until a violation of the law places the little unfortunate in the hands of justice. Later, everything is changed. When by maturity of age and good effects of penitentiary education, the child instead of being a burden can be a source of profit, we see those same parents, who had abandoned him in his infancy, and apparently had forgotten him altogether, go to him and win him back to them by their entreaties, and finally on his discharge regain him by virtue of parental authority. This indiscretion of evil parents ... is the way that the first-fruits of correctional or charitable education are corrupted and that a great many minors who would have become useful members of society, are definitely lost to it."

It may be heresy to criticise our public school system but it is more than an open question whether we are not producing a generation of badly educated people who are not aware of their own ignorance, who see no dignity in labour and who prefer to make their living by speculation rather than by work. The fault largely consists in estimating the efficiency of a school or a teacher solely by the results obtained at examination and making the children work for this end and this end only. Their memories are taxed to the uttermost but no attempt is made to develop them into reasoning, enquiring and labour loving beings. The difficulty with which children in the sixth and seventh standards follow the simplest arguments is simply amazing. The teachers, moreover, have no opportunity for cultivating the art of pedagogy. Their whole time is taken up preparing matter to pour into the child's mind. The bad salaries that are paid can also have but one result, viz., the depriving the State of the services of the most manly and most noble teachers and having the work committed to those of the genus prig.Bad homes, bad schools and playgrounds only once removed from cattle yards, will be, in this country, the most potent factors in producing crime.

Alcohol.—The influence of alcohol in the commission of crime is both direct and indirect. We see its direct influence in those crimes which are committed whilst the culprit is either in a state of intoxication or else just recovering from such a state. To detect and trace its indirect influence a much closer study is required. The inconsequent, lazy and thriftless life of the criminal demands some sort of stimulant, and this is found readily at hand in alcohol. Alcohol is not the cause of the crimes of these people but it is closely associated with such cause. The man who stabs another in a saloon is not then guilty of his first crime. Under the influence of intoxication he has lost his power of self-control and he commits a deed for which he may in a sober moment have still a degree of moral abhorrence or be perhaps too much of a coward to perform.

Many criminals, whose crime requires a certain amount of nerve and calculation, as e.g. assassinations, murders, robberies, swindlings, etc., will not touch alcohol until their crime has been completed and they have satisfied themselves that they covered up all trace of it. They then often indulge in a debauch.

In the lower courts, offenders will frequently plead as an extenuation that they were intoxicated at the time when they committed their offence. This is often done in order to escape the full penalty, and such pleas are not to be relied upon in estimating the real influence of alcohol. In the higher courts, for the same reason, criminals often feign insanity, and in not a few of such cases they become their own dupes by actually losing the possession of their senses. Drunkenness and crime go together, although the increase in the consumption of alcohol does not necessarily mean that crime has increased. Neither does the reverse hold good. When crime appears first it is not long before all forms of animal indulgence follow. Sometimes drunkeness appears first, and when the home has been reduced to beggary, crime results.

Under the immediate influence of drink, the crimes most commonly committed are those against morality and the person. In countries where the saloon is an institution, it is invariably the home of criminals and the scene of many murders and deeds of blood. In France, e.g. out of 10,000 murders committed, 2,374 occurred in saloons. The indirect influence of alcohol is perhaps more terrible than its direct influence. There is this sad feature about it also that the greatest sufferers are the victims, not of their own abuse, but of that of others. Many a criminal tells the story, which is easily corroborated, of the days of his childhood when his father came home drunk and the children for very fear had to hide themselves or run out into the streets, often to sleep wherever they could, and perhaps steal to satisfy the pangs of hunger. Such children are quickly absorbed, the girls into the ranks of prostitution, the boys into those of crime. Many too, by reason of their parents' intemperance, are weaklings and unable to take their stand in the ranks of honest labourers. Unless they are rescued by philanthropic effort they very soon take to crime, and physically and psychically present all the features of the "instinctive criminal."

Of 12,000 criminals at Elmira, in nearly 36 per cent, was a drunken ancestry to be clearly traced.

To state exactly the influence of alcohol as a cause of crime will, from the nature of the case, never be possible; but this much is certain, that EVERY cause finds in it a strengthening contributary of considerable potentiality.

Imitation.—One of the principal characteristics of the criminal is his excessive vanity. His great ambition is to gain notoriety and to be talked about by the public. Almost every criminal has his hero in crime whose deed he tries to emulate as nearly as possible; or, better still, to outshine. Thus we find, that when some daring deed has been perpetrated, there are not wanting others who quickly make an attempt to imitate it. A prisoner tried to kill his comrade because a third man, who was standing his trial for murder, was receiving in his estimation too much attention from the public and especially "too many bouquets." A murderer in New Zealand declared that the notorious bushranger Ned Kelly was his ideal of a man. A certain priest, beloved by all, was found murdered. None could account for the crime; afterwards it was discovered to have been the act of a young criminal who performed it merely as an act of bravado. Instances of this sort might be multiplied all tending to show that the vanity of the criminal leads him, as far as his courage will permit, to imitate the most daring deeds in crime. The witnessing of executions and reading the accounts of fictitious and real crimes often leads many into crime. As a deterrent to crime, it was once the custom in England to conduct executions in public. Lombroso records it as being his conviction that such publicity does, by the law of imitation, lead more into crime than it turns from it. This he considers is one of the most powerful arguments in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Out of 167 persons condemned to death in England, 164 had been present at executions. The reading of sensational novels or the descriptive accounts of great crimes has a most alarming effect upon those who are of an impressionable nature. These persons are to themselves the heroes of an imaginary world. They will put on an air of bravado, adopt a "swagger" style of attire, carry sharp knives and pose before their companions as dare-devils. If not sufficiently courageous to perform deeds of daring they will constantly be recounting imaginary ones for which they will claim the authorship; or else they will be for ever threatening to do something of a staggering nature. The more courageous of these frequently become dangerous criminals while the more timid descend into sneak thieves, or the assaulters and violators of the persons of the defenceless. This inflammatory reading matter also exerts an hypnotic influence over some which is almost irresistible. Dr MacDonald ("Criminology" p. 131), gives the instance of a woman who after having read of the dreadful crime of a Parisian mother, came to Dr Esquirol and pleaded with him to admit her into his hospital, declaring that since reading of this crime she was tormented by the devil to kill her youngest child. Reading of the crime and vividly picturing to herself the details of it, had resulted in the woman's mind being laid hold of by a fascinating power which continually prompted her to kill her own child. Her wish was granted and she recovered.

In this case we have another instance of the "hypnotic influence of circumstances." Firstly, the picture is deeply impressed on the mind; next the moral sensibilities are hardened, and lastly the overt act is committed. Tropmann who murdered a whole family of eight, confessed that his demoralisation was due to the reading of sensational novels. The publication of the details of crimes and the circulation of inflammatory fiction is a most fruitful cause of further crime. One of the most efficient safe-guards against crime and scandal is a sensitive public moral tone. This is undoubtedly hardened by the publicity given to sordid and gruesome details. One fails to see what good purpose can possibly be served. Knowledge is power, but in this case, it is a power for evil. The weak-willed readily obey the law of imitation, the criminal is gratified at seeing the big headlines in the newspapers and impelled to further crime, and some neurotics are positively hypnotised.

Any serious attempt to suppress the increase of crime must take these matters into consideration, and it will unquestionably prove abortive unless a much stricter censorship is exercised over the publication of the gruesome details of crimes and scandals and also over the sale of the type of literature referred to.