Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/539

 CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND JURISPRUDENCE 5 '9

sought in the individual alone. Manouvrier and Lacassagne may be said to be the present leaders of this school.

While the two factions are thus radically opposed in both methods and conclusions, the tendency during the past five years has been to coordinate all theories," and to consider crime as the result of multifa rious causes — anthropological, physiological, and sociological; and in this union and harmonizing of the work of criminal anthropology lies its main advantage and possible assistance in criminal-law reform. The great progress of the work, as conducted by both schools, and the intercourse and discussion afforded by the meetings of the Congress of Criminal Anthropology, have been very influential in producing this result.

Having outlined the origin and development of criminal anthro- pology, it will be necessary to glance hastily at the other important element of the discussion — criminal jurisprudence. The purpose of the following outline is not to give a historical survey of the develop- ment of the system, but to show the idea of crime, its origin, and the methods employed for its repression ; to show the various stages through which crime has passed and the beliefs held, according to the degree of knowledge incident to the period. For this purpose a division is made into four stages — that of revenge or retribution, repression, reformation, and prevention.

Criminal law had its origin" in the necessity for preserving peace and harmony as civilization progressed and social life became compli- cated. It is that branch of jurisprudence which relates to the defini- tion and punishment of acts or omissions which are attacks upon public order; abuses or obstructions of public authority ; actions inju- rious to the public generally ; attacks upon the persons and property of individuals, or rights connected with them.

In all the primitive relations of mankind revenge was one of the predominating principles, and was executed first by the individual, then by the clan or family, and finally delegated to the community and to the state. Crime was undefined or uncodified. The rule of procedure was the simple one that whatever injury was done by one individual to another, or by one clan to another, could be expiated by similar inju- ries or by warfare. The early penalties, if they may be called such,

' Of. Report of Criminal Anthropological Meeting, 1897 ; Report of United Stales Commissioner of Education, 1893-4, chaps. 14, 15 ; 1889-90, chap. 18.

' Cf. Cherry, Growth of Criminal Law ; Stephens, History of Criminal Law in England, Vols. I, II ; Wines, Punishment and Reformation : tAAlti^, Ancient Law.