You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Some forty years ago when Havelock Ellis wrote the pioneer work
in English on the criminal he noted that Great Britain was behind most other countries in the quality and quantity of scientific work dealing with criminals, and that it was the only European country without a journal devoted to criminology. The charge still holds true, hardly mitigated by the publication in this country of two or three outstanding books on the subject. The Dartmoor mutiny certainly awakened some interest in the question of the punishment and treatment of the criminal. Public opinion was aroused, and it was generally held that the criminal must be dealt with on more modern and scientific lines: in future the skilly is to be medically inspected before being served up; prison cells are to be better ventilated. About the time of the introduction of these reforms, the House of Lords managed also to add a contribution towards the scientific treatment of the criminal: it succeeded in re-establishing—against the view of the Commons—whipping as a punishment (preventative?) for certain offences.
In this atmosphere of highest practical reform one can hardly expect a very cordial reception for a book which consists chiefly of a psycho-analytic study of the criminal and an endeavour to understand him, but which deals but scantily with this kind of treatment of the criminal.
The authors are chiefly engaged with the psycho-analytic interpretation of the criminal and of the relation of society, and more especially of the law and its administration, to the criminal. The criminal is recognized as a special character type, and although the authors would disclaim that anything like finality has been reached in their study of the criminal character, they have laid down the broad lines upon which further studies will be based.
'There but for the grace of God go I', was an intuitive understanding that the unconscious of the criminal and the non-criminal is the same. But the authors would not be satisf