532
The Green Bag
or somatic characteristics. He does say that if one should say that the de
assertions. Speaking of the marked anti-Lombrosian tendencies that have
linquent is the same as other men, “he must surely have a more complicated conception of human nature than that represented by simple free will."
developed in Germany particularly, he
The question of the existence of distinct
criminal
types
is of course
bound up with that of the action of social factors, and if the latter have
seems to side partly at least with the German writers, including Aschafien burg, whose "Crime and its Repression" is also scheduled to appear in this series. ‘‘According to Sommer, even if there be no criminal type in the Lombrosian sense, it does not follow that there does
great importance it must be more
not exist a born or endogenous delinquent,
diflicult to indicate general character istics common to criminals in the mass. The sociological theories have thus viewed the criminal in an altogether
as the Germans have called the individual
different light from Lombroso and writers adopting his method, and the socialistic theorists, to whom De Quiros
devotes a section, have carried this tendency to an extreme, treating crime solely as a social phenomenon. Colajanni maintains that there is a direct relation between economic misery and crime. That De Quiros does not go so far as
this in the sociological direction is plain. He disagrees with Colajanni’s emphasis on the economic factor; the relations
oranthropological factor of the Italians." Therefore Sommer can say that Aschaf
fenburg has “placed in relief the basis of that doctrine which rests on the endogenous origin of crime." This non-committal position of the
author is much to his credit, and it makes it impossible to class him with the extremists of either the anthropologi cal or the sociological school, though he evidently leans toward the theory of
criminal types.
The problem, he says,
is essentially that of human personality, thus recognizing its complexity. Criminal anthropology, as he remarks,
between this factor and criminality,
has been the chief factor in revising our
he says, are not yet definitely known.
conceptions,
Of Bouger's “Criminality and Economic
fails to lay suflicient emphasis on the origin of the attitude of modern penology
Conditions," which is to appear later in the Modern Criminal Science Series, he remarks that it is based more on
the opinion of the author than on facts. Where, then, does the author belong, and what is his position with reference to the question of distinct criminal types? He himself tells us that the polemic waged around this question whether the criminal is born so or made
so “completely fills the history of the modern theories of criminology." And the seriousness of this problem De Quiros apparently fully realizes, approaching
it with the caution becoming the truly scientific investigator and modestly refraining
from
any
over-confident
but
De Quiros perhaps
partly at least in the perception that the criminal is the victim not only
of inherent forces but of those operating upon him externally from society.
Besides
the anthropological
factor, another that has been changing our penological conceptions, he says,
is that tendency, so complex in its origin as to be difiicult to describe, which leads toward the goal of penal tutelage substituted for punishment. These two factors need to be combined, he tells us, for criminal anthropology without the principle of penal tutelage leads to a crude or indifferent penology, while the penal tutelage movement,
