Lombroso's Theory of Crime

Author(s): Charles A. Ellwood

Source: Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 2, No. 5 (Jan.,
1912), pp. 716-723
Published by: {nounscla}
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132830
Accessed: 16-07-2015 12:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LOMBROSO'S THEORY OF CRIME.

A. ELLWOOD.
CRTART,ES
The publicationof Lombroso'sworksin English should mark an
epoch in the developmentof criminologicalscience in America. The
bookbeforeus,1togetherwith a volumepublishedalmostsimultaneously
by his daughter,Madame Gina LombrosoFerrero,2summarizingher
father'scriminologicaltheories,make it possibleforthe English reader
to gain a concise and accurate view of Lombroso'stheoryof crime.
It is safe to say that these two books should be found in the library
of everyjudge of a criminalcourt,everycriminallawyer and every
studentof criminology
and penology.
Moreover,Lombroso'swork is now beforethe world in its final
form. His death in 1909 put an end to one of the most brilliantand
fruitfulscientificcareersof the last century;but unlikemanyscientific
men Lombrosolived to completehis work. It is his maturedtheories
whichare now beforeus in English dress. Under these circumstances
it would seem not out of place to review,not simplythe presentbook,
but to some extentLombroso'swork and theoriesin general.
This is made all the more necessaryby the fact that the present
book on "Crime, Its Causes and Remedies"is but the thirdvolumeof
his largerworkon "Criminal Man." A strikingcharacteristic
of this
volume is the emphasis which it places upon the geographicaland
social causes of crime,factorswhich some of Lombroso'scritics,as he
himselfnotes in the preface,have accused him of neglecting. Over
one-halfof the presentvolume is devotedto the discussionof those
causes of crimeto be foundin the physicalor the social environment.
Witha wealthof learningwhichamazes,Lombrosodiscussessuccessively
meteorologicaland climaticinfluencesin the productionof crime,the
influenceof geographicalconditions,the influenceof race,of civilization,
of the densityof population,of alcoholism,of education,of economic
conditions,of religion,of sex and age, of civil status,of prisons and
of political conditions. In this wide discussion he has apparently
drawnfromalmost everyavailable source. Americanstatisticsare, of
"'Crime,Its Causes and Remedies." By Cesare Lombroso,M. D., Professor
of Psychiatryand CriminalAnthropology
in the Universityof Turin. Translatedby HenryP. Horton,M. A., Boston. Little,Brown& Co., I9II, pp. XLVI,

471.

2"Criminal Man, according to the classification of Cesare Lombroso" (Putnam's); reviewed in the September issue of this JOURNAL.

716

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LOMBROSO'S THEORY OF CRIME

course,somewhatinadequatefromthe Americanreader'spoint of view,
but even Americansourceshave been drawnupon heavily. It is evident
that Lombrosowas much morethan a psychiatrist
dabblingwith social
problems. While his statisticaltreatmentof these causes of crimein
the environment
would fall far shortof the exactingdemandsof trained
statisticians(for it containsmuch loose use of statistics),yet it is such
that no one can deny that Lombrosowas a careful studentof social
and political conditionsas well as of anatomyand neurology.
However,one would get a totallywrongimpressionif one inferred
fromthis long discussionof the social causes of crimethat Lombroso's
theoryof crimewas essentiallya social theory. On the contrary,it is
possible to get clearlythe Lombrosianpoint of view only by reading
or
carefully,eitherProfessorParmelee'sexcellentcriticalintroduction,
Madame Ferrero'sequally excellentsummaryof her father'steachings.
Both of these show clearly enough the main or central position in
Lombroso'stheory,whichwas that crimeis primarilydue to biological
or organicconditions. In otherwords,Loribroso'stheoryof crimewas
a completelybiologicaltheory,into which,especiallyin the later years
of his life, he attemptedto incorporatethe social and psychological
factorswhich are also manifestlyconcernedin productionof crime.
Lombrosobelieved,in otherwords,that the criminalwas essentiallyan
organic anomaly,partly pathologicaland partly atavistic. The social
causes of crimewereat most,accordingto Lombroso,simplythe stimuli
whichcalledforththe organicand psychicalabnormalities
of the individual. While the removalof the social causes of crime constitutesthe
immediatepractical problembeforecriminologists,
accordingto Lombecause
are
the
ultimateroots of
the
broso,
they
excitingcauses, yet
crimelie in the atavisticand degenerateheredityof the born criminal
and the criminaloid,and onlythe extirpationof theseultimatesources
of criminalitycan afforda finalsolutionof the problemof crime.
In this organic or biological view of crime, Lombroso was, of
course,in harmonywith that biological monismwhich characterized
muchof the thoughtof the latteryearsof the nineteenthcentury. The
psychologicaland social defectsof the criminalare tracedby Lombroso
in everycase to organic causes. It must be admittedthat Lombroso
makes out the strongestpossible argumentfor such a biological view
of crime. Especially strongis the table on pages 371-372, in which
he shows that practicallyall the defectsof criminalsare also marks
of the epilepticclass, and that most of these defectsare eitheratavistic
or morbidin character. One has to admit at once that such an array
of evidenceis conclusiveproofthat some criminalsat least, if not all,
717

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHARLES

A. ELLWOOD

owe theircriminalityto biologicaldefects. Lombrosohas demonstrated

beyonda doubt that crimehas biologicalroots. The problemremains,
however,whetherthese biological roots are the true causes of crime
or whethercrime would still exist withoutthem. Lombrosostrongly
impliesthat the perfectlynormalindividual,fromthe biologicalpoint
in
of view, could not become a real criminal. Social circumstances,
otherwords,could not createa true criminalout of a naturallyhonest
or normalman, althoughsocial circumstances
may be necessaryto call
forththe latent criminal tendenciesin the abnormal or degenerate
individual. Lombrosoadmitsthat these criminaltendenciesare found
regularlyin the normalchild, and rightlysays that "the most horrible
crimeshave their origin in those animal instinctsof which childhood
gives us a pale reflection."8But he implies that the normal child
outgrowstheseinstinctsthroughthe normalcourseof organicdevelopmentwhatevermay be his social surroundings.Madame Ferreroeven
goes so far as to quote ProfessorCarrara that the bands of neglected
childrenwho run wild in the streetsof Cagliari,the capital of Sardinia,
spontaneouslycorrectthemselvesof their thievishnessand other vices
as soon as theyarriveat puberty.
But it is a great questionwhetherany child,normalor otherwise,
can spontaneously
oorrectitselfof the criminaltendencieswhichnaturally inhere in its instincts. It is a great question,in other words,
whetherany of us would be honestexceptas we were taughtto be so
by society. The fundamental
question,then,whichariseson considering
Lombroso'stheoryof crime,is whetherhe has not mistakenradically
the wholenatureof crime. Is not crimea culturaland social category
ratherthan an organicor biologicalcategory? Is not the great stress
which Lombroso lays upon organic conditionsliable to obscure the
essentialnature of criminality? These questions,of course,cannot be
fullyanswereduntil therehas been much more observationand sifting
of factsthan has yet been done. There is need of many more experimentsbeforewe fullyunderstandthe natureof criminality. It would
be a greatmistaketo take Lombroso'sworkin criminology
as, therefore,
in any sense final. It is only a beginningof scientificinvestigations
lines. In the meanwhile,however,it may be well
along criminological
to considercertaina priorireasonswhyLombroso'sexclusivelybiological
theoryof crimeis untenablefroma scientific
pointof view.
of crimerendersit highlyimprobablethat
The generalpsychology
biologicalcauses are as influentialin the productionof crimeas Lombrosothought. For whatis crime? Crimeis a matterof conduct,and
'Page 368.
7I8

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LOMBROSO'S

THEORY

OF CRIME

conductis a matterof habit. Now, whenlarge numbersof individuals

live togetherin very complexrelations,their habits have to be nicely
adjusted to one anotherif the welfareof the group is to be assured.
While crimeis a matterof habit,it is manifestlythe social life which
makes crime possible. When the maladjustmentof the habits of an
individualto those of the othermembersof his group is too great,we
have a social reactionwhichleads to various formsof coercion,sometimes even to the expulsion and death of the offendingindividual.
due to the formation
a formof social maladjustment,
Crimeis, therefore,
of habits which are regardedby the mass of the group as inimlicalto
its welfare. The manifestreason why we find so little crime among
of it among animals is mainlydue to
savagesand only foreshadowings
the fact that the social life is so simple in such low groups that no
high intelligenceor large amount of training of the individual is
necessaryin orderto assure that he shall not have habits in conflict
with those of his group. It is equally manifestthat the reason why
thereis so much crime, or ratherso much possibilityfor crime, in
highlycivilized,complexgroups is because in them high intelligence
and carefultrainingare necessaryto assure that the individual shall
have habits in harmonywith those of his group. Crime is, therefore,
largelya phenomenonwhich civilization,though,of course,imperfect
civilization,has produced.
Now, if crimeis a formof social maladjustmentproducedby the
of wronghabits in the adolescentindividual,the question
development
remainshow largelythese habits are determinedby the biologicalconditions of the organism. The presentwriteris one who believesthat
it would be a great mistaketo think that the biologicalconditionsof
of individual habits in
the individual organismare not determinative
in instincts. And
rooted
we
Habits
instances.
know,mainly
are,
many
instinctis essentiallya biologicalmatter,varying,however,with racial
and individualheredity. The ultimatesourceof habitsunquestionably
mustbe soughtin the nervousconstitutionof the individual. Now, in
all individuals,as Lombroso and many writerson psychologyhave
pointedout, thereare developedduringthe periodof early adolescence
certainnaturalor instinctivetendencieswhichwouldhurrythe individual into a life of crime,if theywerenot inhibited. Mentallydefective
individuals,however,are incapable of developingbeyondthe period of
childhoodor early adolescence. In such individuals the natural or
whichare adaptedonlyto a verylow typeof social
instinctive
tendencies,
life, come to dominate the whole character,and such a defective
individualmay well be termeda "born criminal." On the otherhand,
719

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHARLES A. ELLWOOD
individuals of normal nervous constitution,that is, without mental
defects,may easily fail to build up the habitswhichwould adjust them
to a complexsocial life,if theylive duringthe periodof theirdevelopment amid low and vicious surroundings. While there are a few
defectivesin everypopulationwho cannottake on the habits necessary
to adjust them to a complexsocial life, yet it is also highlyprobable
thatthereis no one bornso fullyadjustedto a complexsocial life that
he would not becomevicious and criminalif surroundedbv a vicious
and riminal environment.In other words,everyonehas the potentialities of crime in his makeup, and the only reason why larger
numbersof the childrenin civilized societies do not grow up to be
criminalsthan do is because of the strenuouseffortsput forthby the
home, the church,and the school and all of the other civilizingand
moralizingagenciesof our society.
Now, Lombrosofails to see and to emphasizethis fact. He fails,
in otherwords,to see-that criminalpotentialitiesare normal in one
sense to everyindividual and that the repressingof them is due to
various social agencies. Habits of action, he fails to see, are derived
even more fromsocial than fromindividualorganic conditions. The
habitswhichthe normalindividualin societypossesses,in otherwords,
than of any organic
are probablyfar morea resultof his environment
the studentin the
between
difference
nature.
The
of
his
peculiarities
is
school
in
reform
the
and
the
frequentlyin no sense
university
boy
social
the
of
due
to
accident
environment.On the
is
but
rather
organic,
otherhandetherecan be,of course,no longerany doubtthatthe organic
peculiaritiesof many individualsmake one form or anotherof social
maladjustmentinevitable. It was Lombroso'smeritthat he called the
attentionof the worldto the class of defectivesor degeneratesin whom
causes of criminaltendencies.
are the determining
organicabnormalities
He estimatesthis class at about one-thirdof the total criminalclass,
whichmaybe possiblytoo high,althoughthe criminologicalimportance
of this class is verygreat; but Lombrosomakes a great mistakewhen
he tries to extendthe influenceof the organic factorover the whole
class of criminaloids,as he calls them,that is, weakindividualswho are
candidatesforgood or evil accordingto circumstances,
leaving only a
small per cent of the total criminal class who may be considered
organicallynormalin the fullestsense.
Lombroso'stheoriesare open to criticism,however,even as regards
the "born criminal." As has often been pointed out, he certainly
makestoo muchof atavism. The borncriminal,accordingto Lombroso,
is essentiallyan atavisticanomaly,reproducingthe physicaland psy720

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LOMBROSO'S THEORY OF CRIME

chicalcharacteristics
of remoteancestors. He is "a savageborninto the
modern world"; and Lombroso traces an elaborate parallel between
the born criminaland the savage. While we should expect atavistic
reversionto characterizeany defectiveor degenerateclass, yet it is
questionablewhetheratavismin itselfcan be consideredan important
causativefactorin the productionof the borncriminal. Ratheratavistic
phenomenaare simplyan outcome,as the Frenoh criticsof Lombroso
have insisted,and as Lombrosohimselfin part admitted,of the process
of degeneration. The real causal factorat work is, then,the process
of degeneration,atavism being only one of its incidentsand not an
independentprocess at all. As Lombrosohimselfsays, the criminal
is "a savage and at the same time a sick man." But the parallelism
of the savage and the criminalis at least in part based upon certain
faulty conceptionswhich Lombroso had of savage life. Lombroso
seems to assume that man has slowlypassed froman anti-socialto a
social state, whereaswe know now that the social life of primitive
man was probablynot less intensethan that of civilizedman, only it
was narrower. At least the savage is morelaw abiding,for the reasons
which we have noted, than the civilized man. Lombroso'sstatement
that all savages are in the same stage of developmentas the criminals
to be based upon a misconceptionof
of the presentseems,therefore,
the
of many highersavages and barstate
savage society. Moreover,
barianscan upon no good groundbe said to representthat of primitive
man. The parallelismwhichLombrosodrawsbetweenthe borncriminal
and the savage is greatlyweakenedwhen we learn throughthe study
of social evolutionthat the ferocityand animalism,whichhe ascribes
to the criminal,are more characteristicof some of the stages of barbarism than of the loweststages of savagery. This, however,is only
an illustrationof the extremeto whichLombrosocarrieshis conception
of atavismas a causativefactorin the productionof crime. An even
betterillustrationof the same tendencymight,however,be found in
his ascribingsuch thingsas hernia and tattooingto atavism.
Anothercriticismwhichmay be made of Lombroso'streatmentof
the borncriminalclass is his claim that that class constitutesa definie
anthropologicaltype. This idea of a definitecriminal type has, of
course,been one of the points in Lombroso'stheoryof crime which
has been most foughtover. While the mattermustbe regardedas yet
unsettled,it seems probablethat thereis no definitecriminaltype or
types,but that the born criminalwho is, as we have already seen, a
defective,exhibitsin commonwith otherclasses of defectivesmore or
less of the stigmataof degeneration. These stigmataof degeneration
72I

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHARLESA. ELLWOOD
are not,however,definitesigns of criminalitybut ratherof degeneracy,

to the
and the personpossessing
themmay belongnot specifically

criminalclass, but to some otherclass of degenerates. It seemshighly

ofconduct
criterion
at anyratethatanygrossmorphological
improbable
in the individual,
sincesuch conductmustbe
shouldbe discoverable
but uponthe minute
based,not upongrossanatomicalabnormalities,
of thenervoussystem,
whichmayor maynot be correlated
structure

with abnormalitiesof the grossersort. The associationof any very

towardcrimemust
definite
withthetendency
stigmataof degeneration
theassociaor
Iess
as
more
be,therefore,
accidental,
although
regarded
tionofdegeneration
in generaland crimecannotbe so regarded.
owntheories,
Lombroso's
because
indeed,pointto thisconclusion,
he identifies
theborncriminal
withthemoralimbecile
on theonehand,
and withtheepileptic
on theother. In thestriking
table,to whichwe
havealreadyreferred,
an anomalywhichcan be found
thereis scarcely
in theborncriminalwhichcannotbe foundalso in the epileptic. Other

classeshaveshownthatthesamethingis also
of thedefective
students
trueof theborncriminaland the class of feebleminded. This looks
as thoughno criminaltypecan be madeout,evenin the case of the
fromotherclasses
whichclearlyseparatesthe crimninal
borncriminal,
of degenerates.The so-calledborncriTinal,in otherwords,is simply
a mentally
and opportunity,
defective
bepersonwho,fromtendency
withthecriminalclass.
comesassociated
A still further
mustbe made of Lombroso's
treatment
criticism
of the borncriminal,
and that is the greatemphasiswhichhe gives
as a causative
factorin theproduction
to epilepsy
oftheborncriminal
class. Epilepsy became, indeed, with Lombroso a "master key" to

all psychicaland mentalpeculiarities

in humanity.
explainpractically

He findsthat congenitalcriminalityis hut a formof psychicepilepsy,

and so also is genius. Hysteria is also, he says, probablya form of
epilepsy,and we have besides,of course,the commonform. Congenital

is identical,according
to Lombroso,
on the one handwith
criminality

moralinsanityor imbecility,
on the otherwitha peculiarformof psychic
epilepsy. He marshalsa great many factsin supportof this position,
and it must be admittedthat to the layman his argumentsseem for
the most part sound, althoughthey do so only by reason of his great
extensionof the definitionof epilepsy. He findsepilepsy,therefore,
presentin the same proportionin the total criminalclass as atavistic
degeneration. He even says that the criminaloidis an epileptoid.
While this positionof Lombroso'smust be acceptedas yet, if at
all, withgreatcautionuntil medicalmen have agreedupon a definition
722

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LOMBROSO'S THEORY OF CRIME

of epilepsyand carefullyinvestigatedthe prevalenceof "masked," or
so-calledpsychicepilepsy,in the generalpopulation,yet the facts that
Lombrosoputs forwarddo unquestionablyshow that thereis a much
closer connectionbetweenepilepsy and criminal tendenciesthan the
laymanhas generallybelieved. What Lombrosounquestionablydemonstratesis, not that all borncriminalsare epilepticsand all personswith
any criminaltendenciesepileptoid,but that the epilepticclass is a very
dangerousdefectiveclass in societyand shouldbe dealt withby different
means than those thus far adopted,if degeneracyand crimeare to be
combatted. If thereis any argumentforthe segregationof
successfully
the insane,Lombroso'sresearchesshowthat thereis equal argumentfor
the segregationof all pronouncedepileptics.
If the theoryof crime implied in the above criticismis at all
correct,it is evidentthat the criminalclass is not essentiallydifferent
in its genesisfromthe pauper class. Just as the nucleus of the class
of legal paupersis made up of individualsso organicallyweak or defective that theycannotadjust themselvesto society,so also is the nucleus
of the criminalclass. But just as the class of legal paupers contains
also, besides these physicaland mental defectives,a large numberof
individuals who are biologicallynormal, or whose organic weaknes
victims
is whollyadventitious,
who,in otherwords,are the unfortunate
so the criminalclass containslarge numberswhose
of circumstances,
is whollyproducedby the immediatesocial conditionsunder
criminality
whichtheyhave lived. But this view of the parallelismof pauperism
and crimewas remotefromLombroso'sthought.
One thingLombroso'sworkhas definitely
accomplished,and which
will remain forevera monumentto his name, and that is, that the
criminalman must be studied and not simplycrime in the abstract;
that the criminal must be treated as an individual and not his act
alone considered. The individualizationof punishment,which all humanitarianand scientificthinkersare now agreed upon, is something
whichLombroso'swork,moreperhapsthan that of any otherman, has
helpedto bringabout. While theremay be manyerrorsin Lombroso's
theoryof crime,he set about to demolisha much more absurd theory.
That the theoryof the "classical school,"thatcrimeis the productof an
arbitraryfree will, and the resultingcriminallaw and procedure,received fromhim a death strokeis now beginningto become apparent
to all intelligentobservers.

723

This content downloaded from 41.89.93.220 on Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:46:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions