Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 31Issue 5 January-February Article 4

Winter 1941

Criminology in GermanyWerner S. Landecker

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationWerner S. Landecker, Criminology in Germany, 31 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 551 (1940-1941)

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANYWerner S. Landeckerl

The problem of crime can be studiedfrom various points of view. The so-ciologist, the psychologist, the jurist-

each looks at crime from a different

angle and is concerned with an aspectof crime that is determined by the in-

terest predominating in his field ofstudy. This should be borne in mindin a discussion of German contributionsto the field of criminology. Here, too,we find that the problems consideredvary with the branches of science fromwhich the writers approach the study

of crime. In Germany, this has led toan even greater diversity of crimino-logical investigations than in this coun-try. This is the case because in Ger-many contributions to criminology arenot co-ordinated in any single depart-ment of higher learning; whereas, in

the United States it is sociology whichfunctions as a clearing house for allvarieties of criminological research. InGermany, criminology is not considereda subdivision of sociology, nor is it an

autonomous science in its own right;rather, it is a loose nexus among con-

tributions coming from a variety ofsources. Corresponding to the partic-ular points of view employed in these

contributions, one can distinguish be-tween the legalistic, anthropological,psychological, sociological and biolog-ical approaches to the field of crimin-ology.

' Teaching Fellow in Sociology and ResearchAssociate, University of Michigan. This article

I.

The Legalistic Approach: The

Purpose of Punishment

German criminology can be said to

have arisen from the interest of the

jurist in matters of crime. This is

hardly surprising, for in a sense crime

is a product of law. No act is a crim-

inal act unless it is determined as such

by law; i.e., unless law prescribes a

penalty for the person who has com-

mitted that act. Therefore, once jurists

had become less dogmatic in their point

of view by broadening their interestbeyond the mere interpretation of legal

rules, they began to philosophize and

meditate about the purpose of legal in-

stitutions and focused their attentionon the question, Why do we punish

criminals?

The answers given to this question

can be classified roughly into two

groups. According to some writers, the

penalty is solely a reaction of societyto the fact that a crime has been com-

mitted; according to others, the penalty

is a means to an end, by which society

attempts to reduce the number of fu-ture crimes. Customarily, the first

group is called "absolute theories of

punishment," the second "relative the-

ories of punishment."

was submitted on the recommendation of Pro-fesnor Arthur E. Wood.

[ 551]

WERNER S. LANDECKER

Absolute Theories-Justice

An influential "absolute" theory wasthat advanced by the philosopher Im-manuel Kant (1724-1804). Nowadays,his penal theory appears to be theweakest point in his system of thought.Yet he laid the basis for modern liberaland humanitarian ideas by stressing thevalue of the individual. Man is an en-tity which has its own intrinsic value;''one man ought never to be dealt withmerely as a means subservient to thepurpose of another. ' ' 2 This principle

served not only as a basis for his hu-manitarian philosophy, but also as thepoint of departure for his penal theorywhich is utterly devoid of humanitarianconsiderations. Since Kant assumesthat man should not be used as a meremeans, he maintains that even whenbeing punished man should not be usedas a means to an end, neither to theend of reforming society nor even tothe end of reforming the criminal him-self.' Punishment, then, finds its jus-tification only in the principle of jus-tice, which requires that a person whohas committed a crime shall be pun-ished. In other words, punishment hasits raison d'6tre not in any future effectupon which it may be directed, butonly in the criminal act by which it ispreceded.

Justice, according to Kant, requiresnot only that crime be followed bypunishment, but also that the harmdone by the offender should find itsequivalent in the harm done to him;justice requires that the measure of

2Immanuel Kant, The Philosophy of Law,trans]. by W. Hastie, Edinburgh, 1887, p. 195.

3 Kant, op. cit., p. 195.

punishment should be determined bythe principle of retaliation. Whoeverhas committed murder must die, sexoffenses must be punished by castra-tion, etc. Beccaria, therefore, who ad-vocated the abolition of capital pun-ishment was motivated, as Kant wouldsee it, "by the compassionate senti-mentality of a humane feeling." Thefact that Kant could arrive as suchconclusions from the principle of theintrinsic value of man shows that so-cial problems cannot be solved solelyby means of abstract reason; for anyprinciple, when carried to its extreme,defeats itself.

Negation of Wrong

Partly in harmony with Kant's viewsis the penal theory of another greatGerman philosopher, Georg WilhelmFriedrich Hegel (1770-1831). He, too,advocates an absolute theory, in thathe justifies punishment not as a meansto influence either society or the crim-inal,'but as an act of retribution.4 How-ever, the reasoning on which this thesisis based is quite different fronr Kant's.

In the first place, if punishment werean attempt at exercising influence onpeople, either on the criminal or onothers, it would be based on the as-sumption that man is not free. This,Hegel objects, would violate the prin-ciple that right and justice must havetheir seat in the free will, not in arestriction of the will. To use punish-ment as a threat by which to enforcelaw would be much the same as to raisea cane against a dog. Man, however,

4 Hegel's Philosophy of Right, transl. by S. W.Dyde, London, 1896, §§90 ff.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

must not be treated as dog, but withdue accordance to his dignity andhonor.

Hegel feels that punishment is a formof recognizing the criminal as a ra-tional being, because the conceptionand measure of his punishment are de-ducted from his very act. The criminalact is a negation of law; therefore,law must reinstate itself by cancelingthis negation through punishment.Punishment is the negation of a nega-tion and in this manner serves the pur-pose of restoring the reality of law.

Strictly speaking, punishment notmerely re-establishes law as it existedbefore it was violated by the criminaldeed, but it also transforms it from thestate of abstractness to that of concrete-ness. Hegel develops this idea in ahighly philosophical manner, emphasiz-ing logical necessity rather than socialreality. But if we translate his philo-.qophical terminology into sociologicallanguage, the result is not such badsociology after all. We might-put itthis way: Criminal law, as all law, hasits social reality in its practical appli-cation and enforcement. A legal actwhich is never violated and thereforenever e.nforced exists only in the booksand has, in this sense, merely abstractexistence. The fact that it is neverbroken shows that it does not ordainanything which would not be done atany evnt. Therefore, such an act isnot a social Force or control factor, forno force is so formidable that It doesnot give r1se to occasional revolts. Alaw which is never broken-and a lawwhich is always broken-exists onlyon paper.

Therefore, it can be said in a sensethat the criminal renders the law aservice; he gives the law a chance tounfold its strength and by this to ap-pear as a concrete entity. By inflictingpunishment on the criminal the lawtakes advantage of this opportunity formaterializing itself. Law gains in con-creteness and tangibility through theact of punishment; in Hegel's terms,"it becomes an actualized will, free notonly abstractly and potentially, butactually."

Does this interpretation of punish-ment exclude that a rational purposeis attached to it, in the sense that pun-ishment is also used as a means to in-fluence the criminal and society? Hegelobjects that this would amount to deny-ing the freedom of will and to treatingman as we treat a dog. Since Hegel'sdays, however, psychologists havefound that differences between manand dog-and even neurotic rats-arenot as far reaching as they may appearto be.

Relative Theories

According to absolute theories asthey are exemplified in Kant's andHegel's views, punishment looks backto the past, so to speak, being a reac-tion of society to an occurrence that hastaken place in the past. As viewed byrelative theories, however, punishmentlooks into the future, being an attemptat exerting sonic kind of control overconditions which arc conducive tocriminal actions. Since lese lattertheories consider punishment as ameans of crime prevention, they arealso called "prevention theories." It is

WERNER S. LANDECKER

customary to distinguish among them"general prevention" theories from"special prevention" theories, depend-

ing on whether punishment is consid-ered a means to influence the generalpublic or the individual criminal.

GENERAL PREVENTION

An outstanding figure among the ad-vocates of general prevention theoriesis Anselm von Feuerbach (1775-1833).Feuerbach has gained fame as the

author of the Bavarian Penal Code of1813, one of the greatest legislativeachievements in the history of criminallaw. This code is a practical applica-tion of Feuerbach's penal theory, whichis known as the "theory of psycholog-ical coercion."

Feuerbach realized that the use ofpunishment as a means of crime pre-vention presupposes a notion of thecauses of crime. We cannot preventcrime unless we know how it origi-nates. Like the Italian Beccaria andthe Englishman Bentham before him,Feuerbach explains crime in terms ofthe pleasure principle. Man is moti-vated to commit crimes by the pleasurewhich he anticipates from the criminalact or from its results. In order to pre-vent crimes it is necessary to counter-act the impulse to commit the deed withan impulse to abstain from it. There-fore, the pleasure derived from the actmust be outweighed by the expectationof pain resulting from it. Thus, thethreat of punishment functions as ameans to impress the potential offender

5 Anselm Ritter von Feuerbach, Lehrbuch despeinlichen Rechts, 13th ed., Giessen, 1840, §13.

6 K. L. W. von Grolman, Grundsaetze der Krim-inalrechtswissenschaft, 1798. On Grolman see

with the fact that the pleasure whichhe might derive from the act would bemore than balanced by the discomfortattached to it by the law.' It is thethreat of punishment which, accordingto Feuerbach, is.the agent of deter-rence; the execution of the penalty hasonly a secondary place in the balanceof pleasure and pain, since it merelyaffirins the threat by its fulfilment.

SPECIAL PREVENTION

1. Deterrence

While Feuerbach emphasized the de-terrence of the general public from vio-lating the law, other German penolo-gists aimed at preventing the individualcriminal from continuing his criminalcareer. Among the advocates of "spe-cial prevention" theories, Karl Ludwig

Wilhelm von Grolman (1775-1829)agreed with Feuerbach that the insti-tution of punishment is justified by itsdeterrent effect. He disagreed fromhim, however, in deriving this effectnot soinuch from the threat of punish-ment as from its actual infliction.Furthermore, he believed that the de-terring effect is not directed againstthe populace in general, but againstthe individual offender who undergoespunishment.6 Punishment, according toGrolman, has the purpose of deterringthe offender from committing criminalacts in the future. Being a means 'ofinfluencing the individual offender,punishment, as Grolman sees it, mustbe proportional to the needs of theindividual who is subjected to it. Thus,

C. L von Bar, A History of Contihental CriminalLaw, transl. by J. S. Bell and others, Boston,1916, pp. 427 f.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

Grolman's theory of punishment hascleared the way for more recent trendstoward the individualization of punish-ment. Nevertheless, it must be realizedthat he fell short of modern penolog-ical ideas in that his individualizedtreatment aimed merely at deterrence,and that he did not recognize the nec-essity to change attitudes by means ofmore therapeutic devices.

2. Reformation

The therapeutic point of view, fromwhich punishment appears as a meansof reforming the criminal, was stronglyadvocated in German penology by agroup of writers who followed the leadof the philosopher Karl C. F. Krause(1781-1832). Krause denied the exist-ence of criminal tendencies as inherentcharacteristics of offenders and thuslaid the basis for a sociological ap-proach to the problems of crime pre-vention. He believed that criminal

behavior results from environmentalconditions to which the offender is ex-posed,; and by which the criminal willis formed.7 Therefore, the most thor-ough method of preventing crime is tocounteract these evil influences by edu-cating the criminal.8 Thus early in thenineteenth century Krause anticipatedmodern trends in penal psychologywhen he stated that an essential partof penal education is habit formation.The offender must be habituated towhat Krause calls "the. good." Sincecrime is the product of acquired habits,crime prevention requires that these-

7K. C. F. Krause, Das System der Rechtsphilo-sophie, ed. by K. D. A. Roeder, Leipzig, 1874, pp.303 ff.

s An account of educational methods in Ger-

undesirable habits be broken by condi-tioning the offender to opposite habits.

Although Krause did not consider habit

formation but the reformation of thewill of the offender as the ultimate goal

of penal education, he recognized that

only through habit formation could theoffender be made "to will the good."

3. Social selection

To the above considered penologicaltheories, which in one form or anotherhave persisted in German criminology

until recent times, the contemporary

criminologist Hans von Hentig hasadded a theory of punishment which

proceeds from an entirely different

point of view. Von Hentig, formerlyProfessor of Criminal Law and Crim-inology at the University of Bonn in

Germany and now at the Universityof Colorado, attempts to apply Darwin's

hypothesis of natural selection to pen-

ological theory. According to Darwin,evolution is a process of selection, in

which those individuals survive who

are best adapted to the conditions oflife. Furthermore, individuals havingthis 'advantage over others have the

best chance of procreating their kind.

Consequently, useful variations becomeultimately fixed and thus become char-acteristics of the species.

Von Hentig believes that punishmentis an agent in this process of selection."Criminal jurisdiction," he says, "must

work out a type of man who fulfills the

man prisons prior to the Hitler r4gime is givenby Werner Gentz, "The Problem of Punishmentin Germany," Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology, vol. XXI (1931-1932), pp. 873-894.

556

conditions of human symbiosis." 9 Pun-ishment affects the chances of survivaland propagation of the offender bylowering the conditions of his exist-ence. It leads thus to the result, asvon Hentig states, that the "wild" va-riety of man, the one afflicted' withcriminal tendencies, will gradually dis-appear, and that a socially desirablementality will spread among men.

Besides the selective function of pun-ishment, reformation of the criminal isconsidered only a secondary and sup-plementary goal. Punitive measuresshould aim at reform in cases wherethe criminal is amenable to correction,and where selection would undulydecimate the available "breeding ma-terial." Similarly, von Hentig doesnot deny the deterring effect of punish-ment, but he considers intimidationmerely a preliminary step in the socialprocess of selection. In Von Hentig'sopinion, man is born either with or with-out criminal tendencies. To increase thenumber of those who are born withoutthem is the goal of punitive selection.

4. Deterrence, reformation andisolation

While the theories discussed aboveare unitary in the sense that they em-phasize a single aim of punishment aseither exclusive or predominant, amore refined penological theory cannotfail to recognize differences in kindamong offenders and accordingly dis-

9 Hans von Hentig, Punishment; Its Orion, Pur-pose and Psychology, London, etc., 1937, p. 131.

LO See Adalbert Albrecht, "Professor Franz vonLiszt," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminol-ogy, vol. 11 (1911-1912), pp. 168-170.

11 The work of the association Is described bythe son of one of its founders, J. A. van Hamel,

WERNER S. LANDECKER

tinguish various purposes of punish-ment. It is Franz von Liszt (1851-1919),one of the most outstanding men inthe history of German criminology,10

to whom we owe such a theory of pun-ishment. Von Liszt, who was a cele-brated teacher of criminal law at theUrliversity of Berlin, gained interna-tional reputation as the founder of thesociological school of criminology inGermany. Together with Prins in Bel-gium and van Hamel in Holland, hefounded in 1889 the "InternationalCriminalistic Association," which wasdevoted to the study of crime as a so-cial phenomenon and to the promotionof a theory of punishment as a meansof preventing crime."

Von Liszt's penal theory is based onthe principle that the object of punish-ment is not the crime, but the criminal.Therefore, he claims thht the penaltyshould not be determined by the effectof the deed committed, but by the per-sonality of the offender. 2 That aspectof personality which is significant forthe infliction of punishment is thegreater or lesser dangerousness of theoffender to the maintenance of socialorder.'3 From this point of view vonLiszt arrives at a threefold classifica-tion of criminals; he distinguishes be-tween "acute criminals," "incipientchronic criminals," and "chronic crim-inals." In the case of an acute crime,the offender is moved to his deed byexternal conditions which have led to

in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,vol. II (1911-1912), pp. 22-27.

12Franz von Liszt, "Die psychologischenGrundlagen der Kriminalpolitik," in Strafrecht-liche Aufsaetze und Vortraege, Berlin, 1905, vol.II, p. 170.

13 Von Liszt, op. cit., p. 170.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

a momentary excitement or to an emer-gency situation. Under the influenceof these factors the individual commits

a single offense which does not springfrom inveterate character traits and islater deeply regretted. The chroniccrime, on the other hand, is the productof deeply rooted tendencies of the of-fender, which may or may not havetheir origin in environmental condi-tions. If the deed is the expression ofa criminal tendency which is in theprocess of development without having

yet taken possession of the personalityof the offender, von Liszt speaks of an"incipient chronic criminal."

Von Liszt believes that in the caseof each of these three categories pun-ishment should fulfill a different pur-pose. Those who might become "acutecriminals" should be impressed by thethreat of punishment as a means ofdeterrence. "Incipient chronic crim-inals" are in a stage where they arestill corrigible. Therefore, in their casepenal measures should aim at reforma-tion. Von Liszt believes that reforma-tion can be achieved by habituation toregular work. In his opinion, reforma-tion is frequently possible in the caseof juvenile habitual offenders. As animplication of the reformative characterof punishment he advocates the inde-terminate sentence. The "chronic crim-inal," on the other hand, is consideredincorrigible by von Liszt; accordingly,

he states that he should be isolatedfrom society.

14 See also Nathaniel Cantor, "Prison Reform

in Germany-1933," Journal of Criminal Law andCriminology, vol. XXV (1934-1935), pp. 84-90.

15 Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of May14, 1934, art. 48.

THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST CONCEPTION

OF PUNISHMENT'

With the advent of Hitlerism, Ger-man penal theory and practice have re-turned to the idea of punishment asretribution.' This trend has found itslegal expression in an act in whichpenal servitude is called a means to

make the offender atone for the wronghe has committed.15 Accordingly, inan official publication of the NationalSocialist Party,0 punishment is definedas "retribution for the offense by an

injury imposed upon the offender."How can we account for this revival

of the dark ages in German penology?By writers who can be considered thor-oughly permeated with current trendsof thought in Germany we are told thatthe idea of retribution is an essentialelement of German culture. The de-mand for atonement, it is stated, is asold as the German people; this demandwill prevail as long as the German peo-ple will exist. Says the writer, Under-secretary of State in the German De-partment of Justice: "Maybe the desireto have the offender atone for his deedcannot be based on logical or philo-sophical grounds, but it lives in us, andthat is enough."'17 He finds the justifi-cation of punishment in what he calls"a refined urge for vengeance." Simi-larly, in a publication of the official"Academy of German Law" it ispointed out that the legal penalty

which is rooted in German legal "feel-ing" is retributive in nature. In typical

ir Hans Frank (ed.), NationalsozialistischesHandbuch fuer Recht und Gesetzgebung, 2nded., Munich, 1935, p. 1320.

17 Freisler, in Das kommende deutsche Straf-recht, allgemeiner Tell, ed. by F. Guertner, Ber-lin, 1934, p. 14.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

Nazi phraseology, the idea of retribu-tion is cdlled "one of the deepest worldwisdoms, an immortal principle of jus-tice, springing forth from the elemen-tary depths of the uncrippled Germanfolk-spirit." '18

What appears thus in the guise of aflowery romanticism is in reality amethodical attempt to popularize Nazipenal methods and the Nazi system ingeneral by an appeal to the most crudeand cruel impulses of man. This poli-tical "philosophy" has found its mostcynical expression in a discussion ofcapital punishment, written by the Un-dersecretary of State in the Depart-ment of Justice, Mr. Freisler.19 Afterhaving discarded other techniques ofexecution, the writer finally arrives atthe alternative of the guillotine or theaxe. Which deserves preference?Freisler decides for the axe because, ashe says, "decapitation by axe bettersuits the German spirit."

It is hardly necessary to point outthat this is not the way of science. Thefundamental claim on which all sciencebases its justification and prestige isto be an agent for progress. The ob-jective of penal science, in particular,is progress in penal treatment, i.e., todevelop a procedure of treatment forthe offender which is of benefit for so-ciety. If the penologist seeks to appealto popular prejudices he allies himselfwith those forces which are the mostserious obstacles to progress. It is thepolitician who wishes to please themasses; the scientist, however, musthave the courage to advocate principles

ls Schoetensack, in Schriften der Akademiefuer Deutsches Recht, vol. I, Berlin, 1934, p. 90.

which, because they depart from tradi-tional prejudices, lack in popular ap-peal. The fate of penology under Na-tional Socialism teaches us the lessonthat by merely aiming at political suc-cess the- scientist forfeits the quest forprogress and, thus, science itself.

II.

THE LEGALISTIC APPROACH: THE

CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENDERS

Throughout the history of criminallaw we find that criminal acts havebeen divided into various categories.Usually it has been the character of theobject attacked by the offender-suchas life, property, or morality and de-cency-which has served as the maincriterion for the classification of pun-ishable deeds. This interest of the jur-ist in categories of crime rather thanin the phenomenon of crime in generalhas led to the result that the person-ality of the offender also has-been ap-proached in the light of the kind of of-fense committed by him. Here we ob-serve a significant difference betweenAmerican and German criminology inthe study of the offender. Americancriminology, not being influenced bylegal traditions, studies "the criminal"or "the juvenile delinquent" as such.The American criminologist investi-gates causes of crime and means of re-form without differentiating betweenvarious categories of offenders accord-ing to the legal classification of the deedcommitted. The German criminologist,on the other hand, follows the legalapproach in establishing classes of

LD Schriften der Akademie fuer DeutschesRecht, vol. I, Berlin, 1934, p. 101.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

crime, and directs his attention to the

particular conditions under which thevarious kinds of offenses are committed.

If we state that criminologists inGermany follow the example of legaltradition in that they, too, differentiatebetween various kinds of crimes andcriminals, we do not mean to implythat they necessarily use the same cate-gories that have been established by thelegislator. On the contrary, the sociol-ogist uses a criterion of distinctionwhich differs from that employed bythe jurist. While criminal law classi-fies offenses in terms of the value at-tacked, sociology determines the ele-ments of the offense as a social actionand establishes categories accordingly.

An attempt at classifying crimes interms of their elements has been madeby Wilhelm Sauer, a contemporarywriter, in a book called "Criminal So-ciology. ' 20 Criminology, according toSauer, attempts to determine the es-

sential characteristics of every kind ofoffense and to use them in establishingtypes of crime, which can serve as ascientific basis for criminological in-vestigations. The two main categoriesinto which Sauer divides criminal acts

are offenses committed by acts of vio-lence and offenses for gain. Acts thatbelong to the first category are destruc-tive in nature. Their main character-istic is that the offender causes damage.Deeds of the second type are construc-tive in the sense that the offender acts

to achieve an advantage for himself.27

Under the heading of offenses com-mitted by acts of violence we find four

20 Wilhelm Sauer, Kriminalsoziologie, Berlinand Leipzig, 1933.

sub-classes: brutality crimes, offensesfor self-expression (which includessuch offenses as libel and blasphemy),offenses by taking advantage of power,and exploitation offenses. Among of-fenders for gain, Sauer again distin-guishes four types, which he calls thegraspers, the cheaters, the traitors, andthe exploiters.

By means of these categories, Saueris able to establish relations betweenoffenses which from the point of viewof criminal law appear as isolated fromeach other. For instance, in Sauer'sclassification assault and malicious mis-chief are both brutality crimes,whereas possession of stolen propertyand keeping a house of ill fame areboth committed by the "exploiter" type.The typological approach, as Sauer be-lieves, broadens our knowledge becauseis throws light on related traits andidentical tendencies.22 On the other

hand, this approach makes it possibleto restrict generalizations to certaintypes of offenders in contradistinctionto other types for which they are notvalid. Such a generalization is Sauer's"law of inertia." This law applies onlyto offenders for gain and states that theoffender does not turn away from hispath unless he is urged to do so by co-gent motives. Other generalizations at-tempted by Sauer apply to all typesof offenses. The most significant oneis concerned with the frequency of of-fenses. The law formulated by Sauerstates that an offense is committed themore frequently, a) the more easily itis committed; b) the more difficult it

21 Sauer, op. cit., p. 634.22Sauer, op,. cit., p. 22.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

is to control; c) the milder the deed isjudged; d) the more closely it is re-lated to unpenalized or even legal ac-tions; 23 e) the less the object of attackis valued.

2 4

The main advantage of the typolog-ical approach seems to be that it en-ables one to include in criminologicalresearch the distinguishing character-istics of each type. All the more it issurprising that Sauer eventually re-lapses to the traditional manner oftreating all types of offenses as iden-tical. In his study of causative factorshe assumes that all offenses have thesame single cause, the "wish for ex-ploitation." This wish, he states, isneither founded in an inherent dispo-sition of the offender nor produced bythe influence of environmental factorsupon him, but originates from his "freewill. ' 25 With this assumption Sauer

departs from the realm of scientific in-vestigation and enters into purelymetaphysical speculation.

Another exponent of the typologicalapproach to the study of the criminalis Franz Exner, at present Professor atthe University of Munich. Under hisdirection, a number of investigationshave *been made, in which classes ofcriminals are studied from variousaspects. 26 Some of the groups dealtwith are murderers, receivers of stolengoods, perjurers, robbers, and sexoffenders. The procedure employed in

23 It is noteworthy that this hypothesis seemsto be borne out by socio-psychological researchin this country. Floyd H. Allport has establishedand substantiated a "J-curve hypothesis," accord-ing to which there is a negative correlation be-tween thp degree of the deviation of an act froma generally accepted standard and the frequencywith which it occurs. F. H. Allport, "The J-Curve

these studies is rather uniform; theyare based on a number of case his-tories, usually between 100 and 200,which are examined for the purpose ofdetermining personal conditions of the

offender, such as sex, age, marital status,occupation, and religion; prevalenttypes, such as occasional, habitual, orprofessional offenders; and the situa-tions in which the acts have been com-mitted. The value of these studies con-sists in making it possible to comparethe conditions prevalent in each cate-gory of offenders, and thus to arrive atthe conclusion that certain conditionsare either peculiar to some 6f them orcharacteristic of criminal acts in gen-eral. Such a concluding statement,

* which would co-ordinate the varioussingle pieces of research, has not thusfar appeared.

III.

THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACH

The anthropological approach to thestudy of crime and the criminal pro-ceeds from the assumption that crim-inal behavior has its counterpart inphysical characteristics of the offender.In German criminology we find twovarieties of this school of thought. Thefirst anthropological criminologistswere followers of the Italian Lombrosoand adopted his theory that criminalsare distinguished by physical anomaliesof either atavistic or degenerative ori-

Hypothesis of Conforming Behavior," The Jour-nal of Social Psychology, vol. V (1934), pp.141-183.

24 Sauer, op. cit., p. 799.25 Sauer, op. cit., p. 779.26 These studies are published in the series

Kriminalistische Abhandlungen, which is editedby Professor Exner.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

gin. Lombroso's main follower in Ger-

many was Hans Kurella, who published

his Natural History of the Criminal in

1893.27 Kurella, although on principle

a faithful disciple of Lombroso, de-

parted from his master's theory that

criminal characteristics result from de-

generation. Instead he assumed that

physical traits by which the criminal

is distinguished originate from a va-

riety of sources; among them he named

prenatal diseases, cerebral and infan-

tile paralysis, and other conditions of

various kinds affecting the normal de-

velopment of the individual. At the

same time, the spread of Lombroso's

theories in Germany resulted in at-

tempts to disprove his claims. Adolf

Baer, in particular, chief physician at

the Ploetzensee prison in Berlin, made

measurements of the inmates of this

institution and came to results which

did not substantiate Lombroso's the-

sis.28 In his opinion, crime is not a

physical, but a social phenomenon. He

believes that whatever factors con-

tribute to the origin of criminal be-

havior result, ultimately, from environ-mental influences.

21

While the early German studies incriminal anthropology received impetus

from abroad, later trends in this field

were stimulated by a German scientist,

Ernst Kretschmer. Like Lombroso,Kretschmer can be classified as a phys-

ical anthropologist. But while Lom-

broso concentrated his efforts upon the

271 H. Kurela, Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers,Stuttgart, 1893.

28A. Baer, Der Verbrecher in anthropologi-sober Hinsicht, Leipzig, 1893.

study of physical details, such as theformation of the skull, jaw, ears, nose,

and teeth, Kretschmer is concerned

with the human physique and its typesin general. Moreover, he differs from

Lombroso in that his interest is notfocused on the criminal and his char-

acteristics. Nevertheless, his contribu-tion is of significance for criminology,

since some of his followers attempted

to apply his theory to the study of the

criminal.

Kretschmer's main assumption is

that constitutional traits and behaviortraits are correlated.30 The method by

which he determines the association be-

tween constitution and behavior is the

ideal-typical; that is to say, he estab-lishes certain types of body-build and

behavior, any one of which is approxi-

mated by every individual, no indi-vidual being a perfect example of his

type. Kretschmer distinguishes three

types of body-build: the asthenic, who

is tall and thin, with narrow shoulders,

lean arms with thin muscles, and a

narrow chest; the athletic, who is mid-

dle-sized to tall, with broad shoulders,

strong development of the musculature

and narrow hips; and, finally, the pyk-

nic, who might be described best inKretschmer's own words: "Middle

height, rounded figure, a soft broad faceon a short massive neck, sitting be-

tween the shoulders; the magnificent

fat paunch protrudes from the deep

vaulted chest which broadens out

toward the lower part of the body." 31

20 A. Baer, op. cit., pp. 410 f.30E. Kretschmer, Physique and Character,

transl. by W. J. H. Sprott, New York, 1925.31 E. Kretschmer, op. cit., p. 29.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

Kretschmdr's thesis is that these con-

stitutional types are paired with cer-tain mental types, abnormal as well asnormal. On the one hand, he finds thatschizophrenia is associated with theasthenic and athletic types, and manic-depressive insanity with the pyknic

type. These two abnormal mental con-ditions, he assumes, are merely deri-vations from two corresponding "nor-

mal" mental dispositions. These normaltypes he calls "schizothyme§" and "cy-clothymes." Consequently, the schizo-thymes are associated with the asthenicand athletic types, the cyclothymeswith the pyknic type.

What, actually, is the disposition of

the schizothymes and the cyclothymes?Typically schizothyme, we are told, are

the polite sensitive man,' the world-hostile idealist, the cold masterful na-ture and egoist, and the dried and emo-tionally lamed. Among the cyclothymeswe find the gay chatter-box, the quiethumorist, the silent good-tempered man,

the happy enjoyer of life, and the ener-getic practical man.2

Kretschmer's theory of the associa-tion between physique and characterhas been very influential in Germanyas well as abroad. Some of his followershave made the attempt to find rela-tionships between constitutional types

and criminal behavior. E. Mezger 33

reports that the pyknic type, being

more sociable and adaptable, tends less

32 E. Kretsctmner, op. cit., pp. 207 ff.33 "Die Bedeutung der biologischen Persoen-

lichkeitstypen fuer die Strafrechtspflege," Mittei-lungen der Kriminalbiologschen Gesellschaft,vol. II (1929), p. 26.

34 "Kriminalanthropologie und Kriminalbiolo-gie," in Handwoerterbuch der Kriminologie, ed.by A. Elster and I-L Lingemann, Berlin and Leip-zig, 1933-36, vol. I, pp. 835 f.

to criminal behavior and is more easilyreformable. Gustav Aschaffenburg 34

finds that the pyknic type is prevalent

among occasional offenders, while theasthenic and athletic types have alarger share among habitual offenders.This seems to be compatible with acontention by Sauer 3

5 that the cyclo-

thyme tends more to crimes of violenceand brutality, the schizothyme to fraud,

embezzlement, receiving of stolen goodsand related offenses.

Statistical investigations support

these contentions only in part. Twostudies have been published, eachbased on 100 cases, one dealing withinmates of a German prison,36 the other

with murderers of Turkish descent inthe Russian province of Aserbaidzan.3 7

In both groups the proportion of pyk-nics was considerably lower than that

of the other types. However, the Ger-man study does not substantiate theassumption that pyknics commit actsof violence; rather, the athletic typeappeared to be associated with such

offenses. The author of the Russianstudy found-contrary to what onewould have expected-that among hismurderers the asthenics outweighed

any other type in number. He comes tothe conclusion that the asthenic commitshis act in a premeditated, insidiousmanner, frequently in connection withrobbery, while the deed of the pyknicresults from a sudden impulse.

35 W. Sauer, op. cit., p. 27.36 Kurt Boehmer, "Untersuchungen ueber den

Koerperbau des Verbrechers," Monatsschriftfuer Kriminalpsychologie und Strafrechtsreform,vol. XIX (1928), pp. 193-209.

37 S. Blinkov, "Zur Frage nach dem Koerperbaudes Verbrechers," Monatsschrift fuer Kriminal-psychologie und Strafrechtsrefo rm, vol. XX(1929), pp. 212-216.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

It is interesting to compare the find-ings of these investigations with studiesof juvenile delinquents which havebeen made by Willemse at two reforma-tories in the Union of South Africa38

He found the delinquency of asthenicsto be characterized by lack of energy,susceptibility to influences, timidity,cowardly acts, careful calculativeness,and a tendency to commit acts solitar-ily. The delinquency of athletics doesnot seem to be so well defined in char-acter; Willemse stresses their self-con-fidence and egocentricity. The delin-quency of pyknics, finally, consists usu-ally in momentary aggressions, sensa-tional joy-rides with stolen motors,forming of criminal gangs, sexual ex-cesses, and alcoholic intemperance.

In the United States, Kretschmer'sapproach exercised influence on Earn-est Albert Hooton, a Harvard Professorwho recently made an attempt at re-viving the anthropological study of thecriminal in this country which re-ceived wide attention. Hooton appliesKretschmer's classification of physiquein a modified manner; his categoriesare entirely based on height andweight. He believes that he has dem-onstrated conclusively that constitu-tional types are associated with certainoffenses. The most important of hisfindings are the relationship of short-ness and slenderness to burglary andlarceny and to frequency of previousconviction, of tallness to murder, anda predilection for sex crimes shown bythe short, fat men. 0

In conclusion it might be asked,

38 W. A. Willemse, Constitutional Types in De'-linquency, New York, 1932.

What is the significance of Kretschmer'stheory for the criminologist? Thethesis of an association between phy-sique and character should be appliedin the field of criminology with extremecaution; present-day psychologists donot recognize the existence of an entitycalled "character." On the other handwe know that the individual respondsto stimuli by certain modes of reaction.It can be expected that modes of re-action are associated with body-build,since in reaction processes the physicalorganism plays a part. It is apparentthat this must apply also to modes ofreaction which are classified as crim-inal behavior. It should not be over-looked, however, that there are a va-riety of other factors which contributealso to the formation of behavior pat-terns. Science is not yet in a positionto determine the share of the consti-tutional factor as compared with others.Few criminologists, if any, would as-sume that the constitutional factor (inKretschmer's sense) is ever responsiblefor a tendency to criminal behavior.On the other hand, many criminologistswould probably agree that in thosecases where a criminal tendency hasbecome established the constitutionalfactor frequently determines the typeof criminal behavior in which thistendency is materialized.

IV.

THE PSYCHOLoGIcAL APPROACH

The psychological study of crime hasbeen cultivated in Germany for a longtime. In a comparison of the contribu-

39E. A. Hooton, Crime and the Man, Cam-bridge, Mass., 1939, p. 98.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

tions of the three principal continentalcountries it has been said that in eachof them a special trend has always beennoticeable-Italy emphasizing the an-thropological side of crime, France thesocial side, and Germany the psycho-logical side.4" At present, Germanwriters do not emphasize the psycho-logical aspect of crime any longer,4

and many of the earlier studies havebeen rendered obsolete by more recentdevelopments in the field. Neverthe-less, a number of contributions madeby German psychologists during thelast few decades are still of great sig-nificance for criminological investiga-tion.

There is hardly a school of thoughtin German psychology that has exer-cised greater influence upon the studyof the criminal than the psychoanalyticmovement, which proceeded from theteachings of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). The basic points of Freud's the-ory which are of interest in the presentcontext can be summarized as follows:(1) Freud holds that the human mind

is in part made up of processes of whichthe individual is unaware; these hecalls "the unconscious." (2) The un-conscious is largely formed by expe-riences during the early years of life.(3)" Its content is to a great extent ofeither a sexual or an egotistic character.(4) It consists of material which wouldprove painful at the conscious level andwhich enters the unconscious by meansof repression. (5) The repressed objectis substituted in the conscious by an

40 Maurice Parmelee, editorial preface to Gus-tav Aschaffenburg, Crime and It Repression,transL by A. Albrecht, Boston, 1913, pp. X11 f.

41S below part VI.

object more acceptable to the indi-vidual. (6) Consequently, in caseswhere a repression has taken place be-havior can be explained only by uncov-ering the repressed desire and its re-lation to its substitute in the conscious.

The application of this theory to thestudy of the criminal is apparent; tounderstand a criminal act it is neces-sary to determine motivations whichare buried in the unconscious of thecriminal. Furthermore, these repressedmotivations serve also as a means toexplain the phenomenon of crime ingeneral. Franz Alexander and HugoStaub, two leading exponents of theFreudian school of criminology, findthe criminal to be distinguished fromthe non-criminal by a difference in re-pression processes.42 The criminal does

not deviate from the rest of the popu-lation by inherent, hereditary traits;rather, criminal behavior is the out-come of developmental conditions bywhich the individual has been pre-vented from adjusting himself to"so-ciety. -According to the psychoanalyticschool of.thought, every individual, re"gardless of whether he develops intoa criminal or not, is born with themental equipmpent of a criminal; thatis to say, he is born with impulseswhich are not in harmony with therequirements of social life. The normalindividual is able to repress these im-pulses and to transform them into so-cially acceptable striving; the futurecriminal fails in carrying out this ad-justment. 3 Whether or not the indi-

42 F. Alexander and H. Staub, The Criminal,the Judge and the Public, transl. by G. Zilboorg,New York, 1931, p. 34.

43 Alexander and Staub, ibid.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

vidual is able to repress his originaldrives and to find socially harmlessoutlets for them depends on the educa-tion which he receives. It is, therefore,the social factor of the bringing upwhich is of decisive importance in theorigin of crime as seen by the Freudianschool.

The need for repressing a desirearises only if it is not eliminated bybeing fulfilled. By experiencing aninterference in materializing his de-sires the individual is frustrated.Freud's followers claim that criminalbehavior results from desires whichhave not found a socially acceptablesubstitute and which, therefore, havebecome frustrated. A group of Amer-ican sociologists and psychologists, whoare greatly influenced by Freud, haveindeed emphasized the function of frus-tration in the causation of crime.44

These writers have attempted to sub-stantiate their hypothesis that frustra-tion always leads to aggression.4 5 Theyclaim that in the case of a frustrationthe individual reacts to this experienceby an act of aggression, which is notnecessarily directed against the agentthat caused the frustration. This as-sumption is utilized also in the explan-ation of crime, since crime is harmfulto one or more members of the groupin which it is committed and is, there-fore, an act of aggression. 48

In their attempt to trace the originof crime to the influence of frustration,the authors stress elements of it in

44John Dollard, Leonard W. Doob, Neal E.Miller, 0. H. Mowrer and Robert R. Sears, Frus-tration and Aggression, New Haven, 1939, esp.pp. 110-141.

45 Op. cit., p. 1.46 p. cit., p. 111.

conditions which have been found tobe correlated with criminal behavior.Such factors of frustration are poverty,unsatisfactory occupational status,meager education insofar as it lowersthe earning capacity, youthful agewhere lacking earning power is asource of frustration, smaller than av-erage stature, physical ugliness anddeformity, membership in socially in-ferior racial and national groups, ille-gitimacy, unsatisfactory marital condi-tions, and unwholesome home condi-tions and the resulting frustration ofthe child. The volume of crime is con-ceived of as a function of the inter-action and balance between the degreeof frustration, on the one hand, and thedegree of anticipated punishment, onthe other. The amount of crimes com-mitted in a society depends on the ex-tent to which the effect of frustrationis balanced by anticipated punish-ment.

47

In its attempt at determining thecauses of crime the psychoanalyticschool is at its best in cases wherecriminal acts seem to lack rational mo-tivation; i.e., where they cannot betraced to motives which ordinarily un-derlie acts of the same kind. It hasbeen found, for instance, that some-times thefts are committed although thethief has no use for the stolen object.In such cases, the criminal act is fre-quently an outlet for sexual wishesand thoughts which the individual hasattempted to repress .4 Likewise, fire-

47 Op. cit., p. 141.

4s William Healy, "Psychoanalytic Contribu-tions to the Understanding and Treatment ofBehavior. Problems," The American Journal ofSociology, vol. XLV (1939-1940), pp. 422 f.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

setting frequently can be traced tosexual urges. 4 In a great number ofcases, criminal behavior is a means tocompensate a sense of inferiority. Thecriminal tries to overshadow his tend-ency to depend on others and traces offemininity by displaying toughness andaggressiveness. 0 Another motivation,also unconscious, is what is called the"spite reaction." The offender findshimself hurt or neglected by somebodywhom he considers responsible for him-self and takes revenge by disgracingthis person by his own criminal acts. "

Another typical example of psychoan-alytic interpretation is the "criminalout of a sense of guilt." Criminal acts,it is maintained, are sometimes com-mitted because the offender is burd-ened with an unconscious feeling ofguilt.5 2 Such a feeling of guilt may haveits origin in forbidden wishes, possibly ofan incestuous character, which the of-fender has repressed in his early child-hood. In order to relieve this feelingof guilt, the individual seeks punish-ment, the criminal act being a meansof attaining this desired goal. Again,in other cases the individual is unableto bear the responsibilities and fric-tions which everybody has to undergoin the state of freedom and commits acriminal act in order to get into jail,where he can live in a condition ofdependency and routine, without beingforced to make his decisions for him-self.

53

49 W. Healy, op. Cit., p. 422.50 Franz Alexander and William Healy, Roots

of Crime, New York and London, 1935, pp. 67and 223 ff.

51 Alexander and Healy, op. cit., p. 67.

While the Freudian school tracescrime to a variety of unconscious mo-tivations, the followers of Alfred Adler(1870-1937) consider crime as theproduct of a single impulse. For Ad-ler, the primary agent in human be-havior is the wish to gain superiorityover others. If a person experiencesa feeling of weakness or inferiority, hisdesire for superiority compels him torelieve his feeling of inferiority by aneffort to excel. The intensity of thiseffort.is determined by the degree to

which he is affected by an inferiorityfeeling. Consequently, an extremesense of inferiority will lead to an ex-

aggerated attempt at compensation.

According to Adler's school of "In-dividual Psychology," crime is an over-compensation for a deep feeling of in-feriority. Adler, himself, in a paper

on juvenile delinquents,5 4 explains a

certain case of theft as a means ofcompensation for a feeling of -inferi-

ority, which the delinquent had ac-quired due to the fact that his parentsused to keep drawers and containerslocked from him. Another example isthe case of a boy who had experiencedsevere frustrations because his youngersister was manifestly preferred to him.The outcome was that he stole moneyfrom his mother with which he boughtcandy. Part of this he distributedamong other boys in order to compen-

52 F. Alexander and H. Staub, The Criminal,the Judge and the Public, pp. 112 ff., 159 ff.

53 Alexander and Healy, Roots of Crime, p. 67.54 Alfred Adler, "Demoralized Children," in

The Practice and Theory of Individual Psychol-ogy, London, 1933, pp. 346 f.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

sate his inferior role at home by gain-ing prestige elsewhere.5

Of particular interest for the sociolo-gist is an attempt to use Adlerian prin-ciples as a means of determining socio-cultural causes of crime. This attempthas been made by Professor GottholdBohne, Director of the CriminologicalInstitute at the University of'Cologne. 6

His objective was to explain an increasein the rate of capital crimes in Ger-many, as well as an increase in reck-lessness in the commission of crimes,particularly a growing lack of regardfor human life. Bohne advances the

hypothesis that this trend can be ac-counted for by the declining influenceof individualism in modern life. Until

the middle of the nineteenth century,history had witnessed a breakdown ofauthoritative controls over the indi-vidual. Man had become more and

more emancipated from communal re-strictions and, in accordance with thisdevelopment, had increasingly learnedto recognize the intrinsic value of thehuman personality. This trend was re-versed through the impact of the in-dustrial revolution. Again social andeconomic factors of control arose, lifebecame more and more industrializedand mechanized, and as a result theindividual was once more deprived ofhis initiative and his role as an inde-pendent and self-sufficient unit. Be-

ing degraded to a mere wheel in anintricate industrial machinery, the in-

dividual has lost the satisfaction of

s5 Alfred Adler, op. cit., pp. 347 f. Other casesare analyzed from the point of view of individualpsychology by Alexandra Adler, Guiding HumanMisfits, New York, 1938, pp. 44-54.

50G. Bohne, "Individualpsychologische Be-

achieving something, the satisfaction ofpursuing and attaining a goal; he haslost respect for his performance andinstead acquired a feeling of being asmall and insignificant particle withina total structure. The spread of thisfeeling of insignificance and inferiorityis accompanied by an equally wideningneed for compensation through acts

which give control, prestige or-atleast-conspicuousness. The mountingdemand for such compensation, as acorollary of present cultural trends,is in Bohne's opinion responsible forthe increasing resort to criminal activ-ities and the growing recklessness intheir execution.

If this analysis is correct for condi-tions in Germany-and it seems that itreveals at least a contributing factor inthe formation of criminal trends-thenit must all the more be applicable toAmerican conditions. On the one hand,

the process of standardization and

mechanization seems to have acquiredgreater impetus in the United Statesthan abroad. On the other hand, com-petent observers have pointed out thatin this country more than anywhereelse the criminal enjoys a sort of mor-bid prestige. There are strata of thepopulation that look at the criminal

with a kind of hero worship.5 7 Undersuch conditions crime lends itself easilyto an interpretation which stresses itscompensatory elements.

Obviously, the Adlerian approach,

especially as it is represented by

trachtungen zu den Kapitalverbrechen der letztenZeit," Deutsche Juristen-Zeitung, vol. XXXIII(1928), pp. 1502-1507.57 F. Alexander and W. Healy, Roots of Crime,

pp. 282 f.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

Bohne, does not overlook the socialbases of crime. In spite of the psycho-logical point of departure, the socialand cultural setting of crime finds due.recognition. This is not quite so evi-dent in the case of the psychoanalyticschool of criminology. But althoughthe psychoanalyst emphasizes psychicaspects of crime, he does not assumethat by this approach the causes ofcrime are determined in their entirety.Alexander and Healy recognize that acomplete explanation of crime mustproceed from the sociological as wellas the psychological point of view.5"Both social and psychic factors are atwork in producing criminal behavior.As long as this fact is recognized bythe psychologist and the sociologist,the specialization of each in restrictedaspects of crime can only be welcomed.

V.

THE SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH

Sociological research in the field ofcriminology had received a promisingstart in Germany as early as 1902, whenthe first edition of Gustav Aschaffen-burg's classic Crime and Its Repres-sion'0 was published. Since then, how-ever, there has been a surprisingscarcity in original contributions of thischaracter.6 0 The point of view on whichAschaffenburg's work is based is trulysociological. Crhie, he says, is a prod-uct of human society; only within so-ciety does crime originate, and fromits connection to society it draws fresh

5S Alexander and Healy, op. cit., pp. 273 ff.59 In 1913, it was made available in an English

translation.60 Among the exceptions Moritz Liepmann's

book on War and Crime in Germany (Krieg undKriminalitaet in Deutschland, Stuttgart, etc.,

nourishment. 6' He proceeds with an

analysis of the social causes of crime.

Among these he discusses the change

in social activities and conditions under

the influence of seasonal changes of

weather, race and religion, urban and

rural environment, occupation, the con-

sumption of alcohol, prostitution, gamb-

ling, superstition, economic conditions,

and certain social situations, such as,

crises and strikes. Following his analy-

sis of social factors, he deals with the

personal and psychic causes of crime,

and concludes with. a discussion of the

treatment and' prevention of crime.

This work, therefore, is distinguished

not only by its sociological approach to

the study of crime, but also as the only

contribution by a German writer which

in its scope and organization resembles

an American textbook on criminology.

Recent sociological research in the

field of crime has been influenced

greatly by American patterns. It has

been the merit of Franz Exner to have

directed the attention of German

scholars on current trends in American

criminology. Exner became acquainted

with research in the United States

upon the occasion of a journey to this

country in 1934. After having returned

to Germany, he published a "Criminal-

istic Report on a Journey to Amer-

ica, ' ' 62 where he raises the question

what Germany can learn from the

United States in the treatment of

crime. His answer is:. "About nothing

in the field of penal law and procedure,

1930) is especially noteworthy.61 Aschaffenburg, op. cit., p. 5.62 F. Exner, "Kriminalistischer Bericht ueber

eine Reise nach Amerika," Zeitschrift fuer diegesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, vol. LIV (1935),pp. 345-393, 511-543.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

some things of value in the field ofpunitive treatment, and a great deal inthe field of criminological research."'6 3

There are two features of Americancriminology by which Exner was espe-cially impressed, and which he conse-quently attempted to transplant to Ger-many: the ecological investigation ofcrime and the prediction of success orfailure in parole. In the line of ecology,Exner instigated a study in which theattempt was made to show the exist-ence of a "delinquency area" in thecity of Munich after the fashion of Clif-ford Shaw's research in Chicago . 4 Theresult was negative; the author did notsucceed in demonstrating that cases ofdelinquency are concentrated in a cer-tain part of the city. Furthermore,stimulated by methods of determiningthe probability of recidivism, whichhad been developed in this country byErnest W. Burgess, Sheldon and EleanorT. Glueck, and others, Exner inaugu-rated similar research in Germany."The study of German delinquentsshowed that the factors associated withrecidivism were largely identical withthose found by American criminol-ogists.

The main contribution of Germanscholars to the sociology of crime liesin the fact that they have provided itstheoretical foundation. In particular,they have concerned themselves witha question to which American writers

63 F. Exner, op. cit., p. 345.64 Klaus Seibert, Die Jugendkriminalitaet

Muenchens in den Jahren 1932 und 1935, Krim-inalistische Abhandlungen, ed. by F. Exner, vol.XXVI, Leipzig, 1937, pp. 44-62.

65 F. Exner, "Die Prognose bei Rueckfallsver-brechern," Mitteilungen der Kriminalbiologi-schen Gesellschaft, vol. V (1938), pp. 43-53.

have given little attention,66 i.e., Whataspects of crime are the subject-matterof sociology, and how does the socio-logical approach to crime differ fromother approaches? It was Franz vonLiszt 67 who in his famous article "Crimeas a Socio-Pathological Phenomenon" 8

first determined the scope of a criminalsociology. According to von Liszt,crime appears from the biological andpsychological points of view as anevent in the life of the individual, andmust from these points of view be ex-plained by the characteristics of theindividual. From the angle of thesociologist, on the other hand, crime isstudied as an event in the life of so-ciety and explained as a product ofsocial conditions. Both approaches, invon Liszt's opinion, are not mutuallyexclusive but supplement each other.Every crime is the product of indi-vidual traits of the criminal, on the onehand, and of social conditions surround-ing the offender, on the other. Thus,von Liszt comes to the conclusion thatthe causes of crime can be found only bya study of both the social and the indi-vidual aspects of crime; among these,however, he considers the former byfar more significant than the latter.

Does the interrelationship of indi-vidual and social aspects of crime implythat the sociologist must concern him-self with both? In a later publicationvon Liszt made clear that this is not

66 An exception is: Jerome Michael and Mor-timer J. Adler, Crime, Law and Social Science,New York, 1933, pp. 77-87.

67 Cf. above p. 12.

68'"Das Verbrechen as sozial-pathologischeErscheinung," in F. von Liszt, StrafrechtlicheAufsaetze und Vortraege, vol. H, pp. 230-250.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

the caseP9 The individual aspects ofcrime are of interest only if a certaindeed of a certain offender is considered;only then is a study of the offender

from the anatomical, physiological,psychological and genetic points ofview significant. It is the physician, thejudge, the psychologist, and the prisonofficer who are concerned with the sin-gle offender; but not the sociologist.The sociologist, as von Liszt points out,studies a series of crimes, composed ofinnumerable instances, which as awhole is typical for society in generalor a certain social organization. In theexplanation of such a series of crimesit is irrelevant to ask why the indi-vidual criminal happened to commit hisact; instead, the explanation can befound only in social, political or eco-

nomic conditions, by which a wholegroup of individuals is affected. Event-ually, von Liszt was led to abandonthe view that crime must be accounted

for by a combination of social and indi-vidual factors. Rather, he assumedthat the study of either the individualor the social factor must prevail, de-pending on whether one is concernedwith a single crime-which in hisopinion is not the matter of the soci-ologist--or with crime in general andits various types.

If we compare von Liszt's definitionof criminal sociology and its subject-matter with the views of a more recentwriter, such as Exner,70 we find somedivergence of opinion, although vonLiszt's influence is still noticeable.

Exner defines criminal sociology as

60 F. von Liszt, "Die gesellschaftlichen Fak-toren der Kriminalitaet," op. cit., pp. 433-447.

"the science which attempts to describe

crime as a social phenomenon and tounderstand it as a function of socialconditions." Criminal sociology is con-cerned with crime as a mass phe-nomenon, whereas criminal psychologydeals with the individual crime. Never-theless, Exner holds that. a'single crimealso can be studied in a sociologicalmanner, i.e., by an investigation of thesocial situation from which the deedhas originated. While, thus, criminalsociology is concerned not only withsocial conditions but also with indi-vidual cases, likewise criminal psy-chology cannot neglect to consider massphenomena. Certain data cannot bestudied from the psychological point ofview but by mass observation. For in-stance, studies of the psychology of thesexes or of age groups are possible onlyif a great number of cases are used.Thus, Exner concludes that sociologyhas to pay attention to the single casealso, and likewise psychology to crimeas a mass phenomenon. Yet, he main-tains that there remains a distinct dif-ference between the two. The psy-chologist considers crime in its intra-human conditions, i.e., as a phenomenonrooted in the individual mind; also inthose cases where he studies a wholemass of crimes his interest is focused'on the psychic aspects of these crimes.For the sociologist, however, crime isa social phenomenon, which he at-tempts to study in its social conditions.He is never concerned with the de-scription of a single case for its ownsake. Single cases serve only as means

70F. Exner, "Kriminasoziologie," in Hand-woerterbuch der IMiminologie, vol. II, pp. 10-26.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

of studying the influence of socialfactors upon the individual and thusof determining, ultimately, the connec-tion between such factors and crime ingeneral.

In conclusion, it seems that von

Liszt's main contribution to the defini-tion of criminal sociology as againstcriminal psychology consists in the ideathat the two branches of criminology dealwith different problems. To this Exnerhas added that sometimes the study ofdifferent problems requires the investi-gation of identical material; but al-though both sciences overlap in theiruse of data, they differ because datawhich in one science are studied fortheir own sake serve in the other onlyas a means to an end.

VI.

THE BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

The biological approach to the studyof crime stands at the end of this survey

-because it is predominant in Germanyat the piesent time. Its advocates main-tain that crime is mainly the outcomeof inherited dispositions. There aretwo reasons why present-day crim-inology in Germany places emphasison the theories of hereditary-biologicalcausation. First, this trend can be ex-plained by the fact that a major partof contributions to criminological re-search in Germany has been made byphysicians and psychiatrists.71 Second,

71 See Nathaniel Cantor, "Recent Tendenciesin Criminological Research in Germany," Jour-nal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. XXVII(1936-1937), p. 782.

.2 Adolpf Lenz, "Die Persoenlichkeit des Tae-ters und sein Verschulden gegenueber der Volks-

the stress on biological factors is inline with the views of the NationalSocialist Party which is the controllingpower in Germany. The central themeof National Socialism is the doctrine ofthe determination of human behaviorby "blood" and "race." According tothis assumption, the basic personalitypattern of the individual results frominherited traits which are either com-mon to the whole race or pecul iar toa more limited biological group, suchas the family. Under a dictatorial sys-tem such as it is established by Na-

tional Socialism, research is permittedonly if it proceeds on the basis of the

political doctrine in power; the task of

research, then, is to give scientific sup-

port to the officially accepted hy-

pothesis. This being the case, it is

easily understood why a leading ex-

ponent of the school of criminal biology

could state: "Criminal biology has con-

tributed its share to the support of the

authoritarian form of government. '7 2

Under modern dictatorships there is an

official and solely acceptable school of

thought in every field of science in gen-

eral and in criminology in particular.This is not only the case with the

biological approach in Germany; wefind that the same holds true for Soviet

Russia where, in accordance with theMarxian ideology, crime may be studied

only in terms of the socio-economic

approach.73

gemeinschaft," Mitteilungen der Kriminalbio-logischen Gese lschaft, vol. V (1938), p. 10.

73 Cf. Nathan Berman and E. W. Burgess, "TheDevelopment of Criminological Research in theSoviet Union,". American Sociological Review,voL 11 (1937), p9.216 f.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

Criminal biology, as defined in the

basic text,7 4 is "the systematic study ofthe personality of the offender and ofhis offense as an individual experi-

ence." For the study of personalityfrom the point of view of criminal bi-

ology the hereditary background of theoffender is of primary importanceY'Accordingly, the objective of researchin criminal biology has been to demon-strate the significance of the hereditaryfactor in the formation of the criminalpersonality.

The typical criminal personality is

supposedly found among habitual of-fenders, whereas individuals who havecommitted offenses not more than onceare considered to have succumbed toenvironmental influences. To bear outthis thesis, the psychiatrist FriedrichStumpfl studied 195 recidivists, whohad served at least five penal sentences,and compared them with a controlgroup of 166 former offenders who had

been convicted only once and sincethen refrained from criminal acts fora period of at least 15 years.7 6 In order

to show the role of heredity in thebackground of both groups, the authorinvestigated the family history of eachoffender. He found that in the familiesof the recidivists the number of crim-inals was considerably larger than in

the families of the non-repeaters; e.g.,the percentage of criminal brotherswas 37.0% as against 10.8%, and ofcousins 17.5% as against 6.3%. Re-

garding mental diseases, there was nosignificant difference for manic de-

74 Adolf Lenz, Grundriss der Kriminalbiologie,Vienna, 1927, p. 20.

75 A. Lenz, op. cit., p. 22.76 F. Stumpfl, Erbanlage und Verbrechen, Ber-

lin, 1935.

pressives, schizophrenics, epileptics,

and psychotics; on the other hand, thepercentage of the feebleminded in the

families of the recidivists was 23.1%as against 6.6% in the families of thenon-repeaters. In general, Stumpflfound the families of the recidivists to

'be characterized by a spirit of enter-

prise, unsteadiness, and a desire forindependence. The families of non-repeaters, on the other hand, were pre-dominantly pedantic, co-operative, con-servative, and stationary.

Stumpfl arrived at the conclusionthat crime is the product of certaincharacter traits which are inherited.The validity of this conclusion is greatlyimpaired by the unscientific manner inwhich the data have been gathered,which is quite typical for the investi-gations of family histories undertakenby criminal biologists. All too fre-quently the author received his infor-mation from unreliable sources, as evi-denced by phrases such as "he is sup-posed to have been . . . " "people say

of him . . . ," "but there are also peo-

ple who say . . . ," or "somebody who

knew him well said. . . ." Data ob-

tained in such a fashion are not thekind of material on which scientific con-clusions can be based.

The author of another study at-

tempted to determine the role ofheredity and environment in the forma-tion of 500 recidivists. 77 This writer

determined the number of those who

were "mentally inferior," found thatthey constituted 80% of his recidivists,

77 Karl Schnell, Anlage und Umwelt bei 500Rueckfallsperbrechera, Kriminalistische Ab-handlungen, ed. by F. Exner, vol. XXII, Leip-zig, 1935.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

and thus arrived at the "conclusion"that in 80% of his cases crime wascaused by inherent traits. That mentalcharacteristics can result from environ-mental influences also is evidently notrecognized under the reign of the Na-tional Socialist doctrine.

More judicious in its conclusions isa study of criminals who committedacts of violence in comparison to thecriminal behavior of their offspring, byKonrad Ernst.78 This book is based onan investigation of 93 cases of convictswho had committed at least three actsof violence and had adult descendants.The author found that among the sonsof the offenders 56.4%o had been con-victed also, and not less than 27.1%omore than thrice. The correspondingpercentages among daughters were23.4%o and 1.6%. Variations in thecrime rate of. the second generationwere correlated with certain character-istics'of the first generation. A highrate among the offspring was associatedwith the following traits of theirfathers: Early delinquencies, short in-tervals between offenses, continuationof criminal activities in the later periodsof life, a large number of penal sen-tences, variations in kind of criminalacts, convictions for, beggary, and thecommission of sex crimes against familymembers.

The scope of this study is describedby ,the author as the comparison ofcriminal behavior in two generations.He expressly declined to decide whetherthe correlations established by him aredue to the influence of heredity or en-

78 K. Ernst, Ueber Gewalttaetigkeitsverbrecherund ihre Nachkommz, Berlin, 1938.

vironment.7 9 Such self-restriction iswise indeed; the avoidance of hastyconclusions is a great merit of this workas compared with the studies men-tioned above. That criminal parentshave criminal offspring is not neces-sarily due to the hereditary transmis-sion of criminal tendencies; it can justas well be explained by the fact thatthe children of criminals are exposedduring their most formative period oflife to an environment conducive to theformation of criminal habits. Whetheractually heredity or environment havecontributed more to the transmission ofcriminal traits, and whether it is at allpossible to differentiate heredity fromenvironment, we do not know. To thesolution of these problems the recentGerman studies have contributed asmuch and as little as the much earlierAmerican investigations of the famousJ ukes and Kallikak families.

A number of studies have beenundertaken with a view toward demon-strating the importance of heredity asa cause of crime by a more exactmethod. This method is the investiga-tion of twins, of whom at least one isa criminal offender. Twins are either"identical" (monozygotic) or "fra-ternal" (dizygotic). Identical twins arethose who have developed from thesame ovum and whose hereditary back-ground is therefore more similar thanthat of fraternal twins who have de-veloped from two different ova. Amongcriminal biologists the opinion is preva-lent that a comparison of identical andfraternal pairs of twins who have grown

79 K. Ernst, op. cit., p. 1.

WERNER S. LANDECKER

up in the same environment affords anopportunity to determine the influenceof heredity upon criminal behavior.The hypothesis employed in the studiesof this school is the following: If inthe case of identical twins one siblingis an offender the other should be anoffender too, because both have thesame hereditary qualities. Among fra-ternal twins, however, the other siblingis expected to be a non-criminal, sincethe two differ in their hereditarymake-up.

The first study of this kind was madeby Johannes Lange, who believed tohave proved by his research that"crime is destiny."'80 Lange's materialconsisted of 13 identical and 17 fra-ternal pairs of twins, of whom at leastone was an offender. He found that in10 cases of identical twins both siblingshad committed offenses, whereas amongthe fraternal twins there were only twosuch pairs. There are three plain rea-sons why the results of this study arenot as startling as its title. First, thetwo samples, 13 and 17, are too smallto support generalizations. Second, inbotb samples the alleged rule sufferedexceptions which require explanation.Third, the methods of distinguishingbetween identical and fraternal twinsare far from being foolproof.

The weight of at least the first ofthese shortcomings has been decreasedby further research in the same direc-tion. The samples used in a study byHeinrich Kranz8 1 were slightly larger,

so J. Lange, Crime and Destiny, transl. byCharlotte Haldane, New York, 1930.

Sl Lebensschicksale krimineller Zwillinge, Ber-lin, 1936.

82 Die Urspruenge des Vrbrechens, dargestellt

but the differences he found betweenidentical and fraternal pairs of twinswere smaller than those at which Langehad arrived. Kranz came to the resultthat 21 out of 32 identical pairs and 23out of 43 fraternal pairs consisted oftwo criminal siblings. Even less pro-nounced was the difference found in astudy by Friedrich Stumpfl.12 Here, thenumber of criminal pairs was 11 outof 18 identical pairs and 7 out of 19fraternal pairs. The most impressiveresearch of this kind has been under-taken by a group of American stu-dents.8 3 The number of pairs used inthis investigation was 340, a samplemuch larger than any Which was avail-able to German workers. This materialwas composed of cases of adult crim-inality, juvenile delinquency, and casesof behavior difficulties in children. Theauthors found that out of a total of 126identical pairs 105 pairs were bothmarked by any one of the three be-havior problems. Among 214 fraternalpairs both siblings were affected in only68 cases.

What do these twin studies show?Their authors claim that the compari-son of identical and fraternal twins fur-nishes a method by which the role ofheredity can be determined without theinterference of environmental factors.Since twins, regardless of whetheridentical or fraternal, supposedly growup in the same environment it is main-tained' that the environmental factor iskept constant in these studies, heredity

am Lebenslauf von Zwillinoen, Leipzig, 1936.83 Aaron J. Rosanoff, Leva M. Handy and Isabel

Avis Rosanoff, "Criminality and Delinquency inTwins," Journal of Criminal Law and Crimi-nology, vol. XXIV (1933-1934), pp. 923-934.

CRIMINOLOGY IN GERMANY

being the only variable. This assump-tion is erroneous. First, it never hap-

pens that two individuals live in ex-actly the same environment howeversimilar they may be. It must not beoverlooked that -environment includes

not only economic conditions and familystatus, which are the same for all mem-bers of the same family during their

early years of life, but also less tangiblebut equally potent factors such as one'srole within the family, the child-parentrelationship, and associations outsidethe family. If variations in these re-spects exist even for identical twins,

which cannot be doubted, then theyexist all the more for fraternal twins.The latter show greater dissimilarities

in appearance than the former, and itmust be expected that these differencescall for differences in reaction on thepart of parents and other associates.Therefore, it can be assumed that thedifferences in environment are greaterfor fraternal than for identical twins.If this is the case, the factor of environ-ment is not kept constant in thesestudies, so that it is fallacious to ascribe

variations in behavior solely to vari-ations in heredity.

There can be no doubt that heredityhas its share in the formation of humanbehavior in general and in the causa-tion of crime in particular. But no un-biased student of crime will deny thatthe hereditary factor works in a totalstructure of conditions among whichheredity is but a single item. Unfortu-nately, it has always been a character-istic of the specialist to overemphasize

the importance of his particulak ap-proach to his object of study. It is no

wonder that this tendency is even aug-

mented when political expediency puts

a premium on it. A true scientist will

never forget that the more he narrows

down his field of specialization the less

he is able to explain the total situation

which he focuses from his limited point

of view. Therefore, the exaggerations

of the biological school of criminology

should serve us as a warning against

scientific onesidedness and narrow-

mindedness and against the dangers ofpolitical control over science. If pres-

ent-day criminology in Germany helps

us in this way to define better our own

goals, then history will judge it a not

entirely useless adventure in science.