experimentation, are to clinical practice.

In other words, the criminal sociologist is not in duty bound to
conduct for himself the inquiries of criminal anthropology, just
as the clinical operator is not bound to be a physiologist or an
anatomist. No doubt the direct observation of criminals is a very
serviceable study, even for the criminal sociologist; but the only
duty of the latter is to base his legal and social inferences upon
the positive data of criminal anthropology for the biological
aspects of crime, and upon statistical data for the influences of
physical and social environment, instead of contenting himself
with mere abstract legal syllogisms.

On the other hand it is clear that sundry questions which have a
direct bearing upon criminal anthropology--as, for instance, in
regard to some particular biological characteristic, or to its
evolutionary significance--have no immediate obligation or value
for criminal sociology, which employs only the fundamental and
most indubitable data of criminal anthropology. So that it is but
a clumsy way of propounding the question to ask, as it is too
frequently asked: ``What connection can there be between the
cephalic index, or the transverse measurement of a murderer's jaw,
and his responsibility for the crime which he has committed?''
The scientific function of the anthropological data is a very
different thing, and the only legitimate question which sociology
can put to anthropology is this:--``Is the criminal, and in what
respects is he, a normal or an abnormal man? And if he is,
or when he is abnormal, whence is the abnormality derived? Is it
congenital or contracted, capable or incapable of rectification?''