CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND JURISPRUDENCE 527
In nearly all of the reforms suggested and enumerated hereafter some legislative action has been taken, varying in the different countries, but jurisprudence has made the attempt alone, and not by indorsing the theories of criminal anthropology. The tendency is, however, for jurists and scientists to unite in the effort for reform, and at the Third International Congress of Criminal Anthropology, held at Brussels, one of the distinctive features was the prominent part that jurists took in the deliberations and debates.
In dealing with the specific reforms advocated, it has been thought advisable to use the United States as illustrative, by reason of the increased facility for study, and because the majority of the rules of procedure and laws in force reflect the attitude and progress of other civilized countries. Although there is a greater diversity of law and decisions, owing to the prevailing systems of state government, the purpose is to show the extreme limit to which legislation has gone in advancing the work of criminal anthropologists, and the main obstacles which arise and prevent its further progress. In matters of advanced penology the United States ranks among the first. It must be remem- bered that these reforms are not urged each by itself, but as parts of a system ; that, while one country may represent a more advanced con- dition in one reform, as France does in her system of identification of criminals, and England in her provisions for the incarceration of acquitted, although guilty, insane criminals, no one of them has a system founded upon the recent developments in science and upon modern knowledge, or possesses more than a fraction of the proposed system. While the legal attitude in European countries has been obtained, I do not know that any similar results have been secured as to the rela- tion of the legal system of the United States to criminal anthro- pology.
Frances Alice Kellor. The University of Chicago.
(To be continued.)
