their bio-social type. In Lombroso's work, for instance, or in
that of Marro (and to some extent even in my work on homicide),
the characteristics are stated for a total, or for legal
categories of criminals, such as murderers, thieves, forgers, and
so on, which include born criminals, occasional and habitual
criminals, and madmen. The result is a certain measure of
inconsistency, according to the predominance of one type or the
other in the aggregate of criminals under observation. This also
contributes to render the conclusions of criminal anthropology
less evident.

Nevertheless, we may sum up the inquiries which have been made up
to the present time; and in particular we may now point out the
general characteristics of the five classes of criminals, in
accordance with my personal experience in the observation of
criminals. It is to be hoped that successive observations of a
more methodical kind will gradually reinforce the accuracy of this
classification of symptoms.

In the first place, it is evident that in a classification not
exclusively biological, if it is to form the anthropological basis
of criminal sociology, criminals of unsound mind must in all
fairness be included.

The usual objection, recently repeated by M. Joly (``Le Crime,''
p. 62), which holds the term ``criminal madness'' to be self-
contradictory, since a madman is not morally responsible, and
therefore cannot be a criminal, is not conclusive. We maintain
that responsibility to society, the only responsibility common to
all criminals, exists also for criminals of unsound mind.