Really interesting article. The connection between external and internal traits is also intriguing given that it suggests a monist interpretation of human nature. It also seems strongly biological and determinist which has implications about crime prevention, the identification of would be criminals, and what to do with both people who are likely to commit crimes and people who have committed crimes. The implications regarding the purpose of prison also seem less rehabilitative and more punitive because prisoners cannot change the shape of their ears, it seems by implication they cannot change the propensities of their behaviors.
Thank you. I’m glad you liked it! I’m also very interested by theories that link internal and external qualities - partly I think because while they’re very easy to dismiss in our scientific age, they are intuitively very appealing. That, it seems, ought to mean something.
As far as punishment is concerned, Lombroso favoured social defence - lock ‘em up so they can’t harm us - rather than rehabilitation. It’s a very pessimistic outlook. It’s odd to remember he was on the political left, beating in mind that his ideas certainly appeal to the ‘throw away the key’ brand of right-wing politics.
I agree that they seem like they should mean something. I wonder whether there was any effort for false positives or false negatives... the way out of this is that it seems that no single trait, by itself, was sufficient and no single one was required.
I suppose if you start from the view that internal and external signals are linked and you identify external ones that do not readily change, then there would be little point in trying to rehabilitate those individuals given that these traits do not change. I wonder too if people with many of these signs were ever persecuted preemptively.
I find that often "progressives" and people on the left venture new solutions to social issues. In some ways these efforts have caused great harm. I also wonder what the "right" was advocating at the time. What were the alternative accounts (I think sin is one), free will, and the like.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments! Yes, you are quite right that if internal and external signs are linked, and you can’t change one, it does seem to follow that you couldn’t change the other. Bad news for criminals! I think Lombroso was very keen in the idea that certain criminals should simply be locked away for everyone else’s good. He seemed to have a less harsh stance later in his career towards those who were criminals but not ‘born’ ones. Does our modern idea of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics map on to 19th century ideas, I wonder? Certainly Lacassagne’s French School arose partly in opposition to Lombrosian theory, and we might think of them as more leftish in outlook. Im planning a piece on the criminological debate that caused, in fact.
Really interesting article. The connection between external and internal traits is also intriguing given that it suggests a monist interpretation of human nature. It also seems strongly biological and determinist which has implications about crime prevention, the identification of would be criminals, and what to do with both people who are likely to commit crimes and people who have committed crimes. The implications regarding the purpose of prison also seem less rehabilitative and more punitive because prisoners cannot change the shape of their ears, it seems by implication they cannot change the propensities of their behaviors.
Thank you. I’m glad you liked it! I’m also very interested by theories that link internal and external qualities - partly I think because while they’re very easy to dismiss in our scientific age, they are intuitively very appealing. That, it seems, ought to mean something.
As far as punishment is concerned, Lombroso favoured social defence - lock ‘em up so they can’t harm us - rather than rehabilitation. It’s a very pessimistic outlook. It’s odd to remember he was on the political left, beating in mind that his ideas certainly appeal to the ‘throw away the key’ brand of right-wing politics.
I agree that they seem like they should mean something. I wonder whether there was any effort for false positives or false negatives... the way out of this is that it seems that no single trait, by itself, was sufficient and no single one was required.
I suppose if you start from the view that internal and external signals are linked and you identify external ones that do not readily change, then there would be little point in trying to rehabilitate those individuals given that these traits do not change. I wonder too if people with many of these signs were ever persecuted preemptively.
I find that often "progressives" and people on the left venture new solutions to social issues. In some ways these efforts have caused great harm. I also wonder what the "right" was advocating at the time. What were the alternative accounts (I think sin is one), free will, and the like.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments! Yes, you are quite right that if internal and external signs are linked, and you can’t change one, it does seem to follow that you couldn’t change the other. Bad news for criminals! I think Lombroso was very keen in the idea that certain criminals should simply be locked away for everyone else’s good. He seemed to have a less harsh stance later in his career towards those who were criminals but not ‘born’ ones. Does our modern idea of ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics map on to 19th century ideas, I wonder? Certainly Lacassagne’s French School arose partly in opposition to Lombrosian theory, and we might think of them as more leftish in outlook. Im planning a piece on the criminological debate that caused, in fact.
Thank you for your thoughtful engagement. I concur.
That piece re Laccassagne sounds really interesting.