ABSTRACT
A whole science has developed based on the assumption of the existence of a biologically determined criminal type and upon the hereditary transmission of criminality. A number of stigmata have been established which, it was believed, characterized a person as a criminal. In many of the cases a careful statistical study has shown that the alleged stigmata, such as absence of the lobe of the ear and irregularities in the position of the teeth, are more frequent in local noncriminal groups than among the criminals, so that for this reason they cannot be considered as significant. The very definition of the term “crime” proves that no such intimate relation can exist. In foreign societies the concept of what constitutes a crime may be even more different than it has been at different periods among ourselves. The definition of crime is so complex and so variable, so entirely dependent upon social conditions that criminality itself can hardly be considered as hereditary.
