Criminology Science Research Articles

Trends in the Development of Criminology in Britain

AT THE BEGINNING of the twentieth century criminology ;\was at a crossroads. In so far as it was an accepted scientific £ Xdiscipline it owed much to Lombroso and his followers, who starting as anthropometrists, had begun to elaborate sociological and psychological theories of causation which took them far from measurement of bodily characteristics and comparisons with other races or animals. Lombrosianism was already becoming an elaborate complex of theorizing, partly based upon clinical observations; and, in numerous forms, was spreading rapidly over the continent of Europe. It was, however, an approach alien to English modes of thought. While Lombroso was elaborately proving the correctness of his original intuition regarding the atavistic nature of crime, and at the same time nibbling away at its base by adding new classes of offenders based on environmental classifications, Galton was noticing the consequences of the patterns of whorls and junctions upon people's fingers and suggesting their possible use for identification. The tradition of British criminology was founded upon the statistical techniques which Galton began to elaborate, and the long history of agitation for reform, rather than upon the biosocial theories of Havelock Ellisl and continental Lombrosianism. Of great importance to the social sciences were the development by Karl Pearson in the I890'S of the techniques of correlation and of chi-square2. They were, of course, invented primarily to further the cause of eugenics, and this has particular relevance to the nascent science of criminology, since the period was much dominated by discussion about the inheritance of various traits. Amongst these was criminality, or, to be more precise, 'the criminal diathesis' or tendency to criminality; and closely associated with it, feeblemindedness. Important in this connection are the various, now well-known family trees the Jukes in particular and the work of H. H. Goddard in America.

Science in Criminology

Medical and Scientific Investigations in the Christie Case By Dr. Francis E. Camps. Pp. xxiii + 244 + 6 plates. (London: Medical Publications, Ltd., 1953.) 30s. net.

An Outline of Scientific Criminology.Nigel Morland

Previous articleNext article No AccessNew Biological BooksAn Outline of Scientific Criminology. Nigel Morland David B. TylerDavid B. Tyler Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 28, Number 3Sep., 1953 Published in association with Stony Brook University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/399853 Views: 1Total views on this site PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

An Outline of Scientific Criminology

An Outline of Scientific Criminology

An Outline of Scientific Criminology

An Outline of Scientific Criminology

Phylobiological Aspects of Forensic Psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry has to do with the effort to investigate illegal or criminal behavior from a medical or biological point of view. This phase of psychiatry deals with the individual who is in conflict with the moral codes set up by society-the individual who is not necessarily mentally deranged in the accepted sense but who deviates from socially approved behavior. It attempts especially to trace the relation between criminal or antisocial conduct and the disorganization of behavior observed in insane or neurotic manifestations. On the basis of such investigations it is the aim of forensic psychiatry to offer advice regarding the treatment and legal management of criminality. Some investigators in this field admit that the existing approaches to and regulations of criminal conduct have so far yielded only inadequate results. R. C. Cabot in his foreword to Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck's study of Five Hundred Criminal Careers (1) says that Psychiatry and psychology have given thus far few if any clues of proved usefulness in the treatment of crime and that The book merely brings to light in the experience of one institution the general bankruptcy of our remedies for crime. A similar pessimistic note has been sounded by the Gluecks themselves when they state in the conclusion of their study of one thousand juvenile delinquents published in 1934, (2) that neither psychiatrists nor sociologists have as yet built up a science of criminology. They write: The major conclusion is inescapable that the treatment carried out by clinic, court and associated community facilities had very little effect in preventing recidivism. However, other investigators (for instance Cyril Burt (3), and also Healy and Bronner (4)), report that a well organized treatment of delinquents, especially of juvenile cases, yields more positive results.

The Lombrosian Myth in Criminology

The prevailing conception this country of Lombroso as the founder of scientific criminology may best be described as a myth. Many earlier studies of crime closely parallel contemporary sociological studies. An extensive literature upon juvenile delinquency, professional crime, crime causation, and other aspects of criminology was already existence when Lombroso began his work. The use of autobiographical documents, the employment of official statistics, the ecological approach, and the study of the criminal in the open, were understood and applied long before the time of the Italian school. From a sociological viewpoint, the advent of Lombroso represents a retrogression or an interlude the progress of criminology rather than a step advance. The eclipse of the earlier work may perhaps best be explained as a result of shifting prestige values associated with the importation of social Darwinism into the social sciences, with the growing popularity, the later part of the nineteenth century, of psychiatric and other individualistic or biological theories, and with the isolation of American criminology from earlier European development.

The Science of Criminology

The Science of Criminology

Trabajos recientes sobre endocrinología y psicología criminal.

This represents an interesting compilation of essays and articles that had been individually published by the writer at previous times. The first of these appeared in 1922. An attempt is made to explain the genesis of criminal characters on anomalies of physical development, especially anomalies of the cerebrum. Minor anomalies passed through several generations have a tendency to breed degeneracy. The author has examined many criminals and in the majority of instances finds evidence of some endocrine dysfunction. The suggestion is offered that such dysfunction may be materially lessened by the administration of endocrine gland substances. A lengthy discussion of studies in modern biology follows. The author goes further and shows that the will of man is subconscious and man's actions are subordinated to his individual mechanical somatic properties. The application of these studies to the science of criminology is in opposition to the usual "moral metaphysics." It will take

SCIENTIFIC CRIMINOLOGY AND RESPONSIBILITY1

Acta Psychiatrica ScandinavicaVolume 7, Issue 1-2 p. 297-316 SCIENTIFIC CRIMINOLOGY AND RESPONSIBILITY1 PROFESSOR OLOF KINBERG M. D., PROFESSOR OLOF KINBERG M. D. STOCKHOLMSearch for more papers by this author PROFESSOR OLOF KINBERG M. D., PROFESSOR OLOF KINBERG M. D. STOCKHOLMSearch for more papers by this author First published: June 1932 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1932.tb02967.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume7, Issue1-2June 1932Pages 297-316 RelatedInformation

Institute of Scientific Criminology

Institute of Scientific Criminology

The Ætiology of Crime

In a recent number of the Journal of Mental Science, Sir Bryan Donkin contributes some important and interesting “Notes on Mental Defects in Criminals.” This is an important contribution, because, with manifest sincerity, it criticises adversely an important modern idea: the idea that Criminological Science, that all Social Science, must be built upon facts, and facts only. And, apart from their general interest, these notes are particularly interesting to me, because they refer, more than incidentally, to my book The English Convict, wherein the validity of arguments and conclusions depends entirely upon the study and logic of facts whose value, for elucidating biological problems, Sir Bryan would appear to discredit. For this reason may I be permitted to say a few words in support of a position which has been formidably assailed?

Propensity to Crime

Eminent scientists in all parts of the world have for many years been devoting themselves to the study of crime, its causes and its prevention, and the cultivators of the science of criminology already cover a vast field of research which comprises almost everything under the sun. While some analyze the physiological condition of the individual, his psychology, atavistic and hereditary tendencies, the influence of age and sex on criminality; others observe geographical conditions in order to discover the influence of the atmosphere, of temperature, of the rivers and seas, of agricultural products, of the soil and subsoil of the place where the individual is found and the kind of food he lives on; and, lastly, others study social conditionsin other words, the influence of poverty and wealth, of habits, usages and customs, of vices, of civil status, of education, of professions, etc., on the commission of crimes. And in order to formulate doctrines from the splendid fruits of such studies, their advocates have advanced brilliant theories in order to explain the causes of the social phenomenon called crime. It cannot be said, however, that all questions on criminology have been completely settled. There are still serious objections to some conclusions drawn by criminologists, and the law of criminal saturation, for example, by virtue of which in every social environment there is a minimum of natural and atavistic criminality, due to anthropological factors, is still a mooted question. We are, therefore, in the midst of a period of research and analysis, and by way of contribution to these studies from which civilization and humanity derive so many benefits I propose to explain some more facts, taken from our criminal statistics, in order to point out the causes which in my opinion facilitate the development of certain criminal tendencies. I.

A Contribution to the Catamnestic Study of the Juvenile Offender

The problems confronting the science of criminology are so well known and so generally agreed upon, that it seems almost superfluous to enter into an extensive discussion of them here. The entire question resolves itself into the well recognized truism, that we must gain a thorough insight into the personality of the criminal before we can hope to deal with him in a rational and effectual manner. The revolution brought about in the science of criminology by the positivistic school of Italy has passed its acute stage and the reaction noted in all quarters is the result of the recognition of the danger of replacing pure reason by sentimentality, which the positivistic school carries with it. We all agree with Lacassangne that society has the criminals that it deserves but we also must keep in mind that every society has the unalienable right to protect itself from the criminals that it has.

The Need of New Criminological Classification

Our existing statistics on crime are admittedly unsatisfactory. My own experience-probation work for the Prison Association of New York, parole work for the Elmira Reformatory, investigations for the New York State Commission on Immigration and for the Russell Sage Foundation-falls in with the general verdict. The foundations on which we are trying to build a science of criminology are unreliable. The conviction grows steadily that the fault lies with our syste.m of classification. The terms which we use in describing crimes, the categories in which we try to arrange criminals, are survivals of medieval law-courts. However much definiteness they may once have had, they are without validity for modern science. Larceny, for instance, covers too great a multitude of sins to be of any use in classification. Even the recent subdivisions of the categories, into larceny in the first degree, larceny in the second degree, has been of little help. From the mass of cases now under my observation, here are three-all labeled grand larceny in the second degree. (a) A young Swiss, the son of a doctor in a smart resort, accustomed to luxury, a graduate of the University of Berne. He quarreled with his father over a love affair, came to this country at the age of twenty-one, with a fair knowledge of English, fluent in French, German and Italian. He lived riotously while in funds, and between remittances from home worked in restaurants. At the time of his crime, he was head checker in a large French restaurant. The mishap of a horse at Sheepshead Bay and the exigencies of a notorious Tenderloin beauty led him to take a hundred and fifty dollars from the cash drawer. Three days after the jury had returned an indictment against him, to which he plead guilty, a large sum of money reached him from his home, and he paid back what he had stolen. He was sent to the Reformatory in spite of the intercession of his employer-the complainant. The fact that there were several thousand dollars in the cash drawer from which he took one hundred and fifty adds weight to his claim that he hoped to pay back the money before the theft was discovered.

Belgium

M. Lentz has dealt with the statistical and clinical study of criminal lunatics, a subject hitherto entirely untouched in Belgium. He shows that no serious attention has been paid to these criminal lunatics or insane criminals, who may be classed as insane, abnormal, and vicious. If the limits of these different classes are hard to define, criminological science must nevertheless distinguish them, even artificially. Seeking a criterion to characterise criminal lunatics, properly so called, M. Lentz finds it in their pathogeny, manifest in the two elements cause and effect. But amongst these lunatics occur pretty often offenders who only become insane in the course of their detention. They generally pass unnoticed, and go from the prison to the asylum.

Concerning Lombroso.

Breckenridge, Mo., February 20, 1896. <h3>To the Editor:</h3> —Having carefully read your editorial on "The Italian School of Criminal Anthropology," in theJournalof February 15. I can not resist the impulse to write you a few words of congratulation for your able and elaborate defense of Professor Lombroso and his modern science of criminology. The Italian professor, as the founder of the new science of criminal anthropology, has been severely criticised by many of our alienists and optimists of religion and science; but it was not surprising that the views he enunciated, relating to problems of no ordinary difficulty and complexity, should meet animadversion and strictures, even among our thoughtful men. You are doubtless correct in saying, "that much that is felt by excellent men on this subject is prejudice (if the word is not too severe) springing from a superficial knowledgeof the works of the Italians themselves and