Note 673 — Chapter XXIV

E. Weisbrod, “Offences against Morality before the Law Courts,” p. 5 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1891). Cf., regarding offences against morality, in addition to the above-mentioned work of Tardieu, the interesting “Notes et Observations de Médecine Légale: Attentats aux Mœurs,” by H. Legludic (Paris, 1896); also P. Viazzi, “Sur Reati Sessuali” (Turin, 1896); L. Thoinot, “Attentats aux Mœurs et Perversions du Sens Génital” (Paris, 1898); Toulouse, “Les Délits Sexuels,” published in “Les Conflicts Intersexuels et Sociaux,” pp. 318-326 (Paris, 1904). Regarding offences against morality from the forensic standpoint, see also the comprehensive work of Mittermaier, “Crimes and Offences against Morality” (Berlin, 1906), which contains a comparative account of the legislative enactments of the principal countries of Europe. In addition, consult J. Werthauer, “Offences against Morality in Large Towns” (Berlin, 1907).

[674] Cf. Th. Ziehen, “Degeneratives Irresein,” in Eulenburg’s “Realenzyklopädie,” vol. v., p. 448 (Vienna, 1895); A. Hoche, “Handbook of Forensic Psychiatry,” p. 413.

[675] Cf., in this connexion, P. Näcke, “The Value of the So-called Stigmata of Degeneration” (Archives of Criminal Psychology, May, 1904), and “The Great Value of Certain Signs of Degeneration” (Archives of Criminal Anthropology, 1904, vol. xvi., pp. 181, 182). The most important, according to him, are stigmata of the head and of the genital system, on account of the relationships to the brain and to the reproductive organs. Disturbances of development of the auricle are not so important as those of the globe of the eye (absence of the iris, nystagmus, opacities of the lens, coloboma iridis, ptosis, microphthalmus, anophthalmus, colour-blindness, etc.). Penta has recently drawn attention to the importance and frequency of anomalies of the sexual organs in stuprators and in the sexually perverse (cf. Archives of Criminal Anthropology, 1904, vol. xvi., p. 343; cf. also the observations of Matthaes, quoted in note [490], p. 477).

[676] Paul Näcke, “Criminality and Insanity in Women,” pp. 154-156 (Vienna and Leipzig, 1894).

[677] C. Lombroso, “Recent Advances in the Study of Criminality,” pp. 177, 178.

[678] Cf. G. Aschaffenburg, “Responsibility in Mental Disease,” published in Hoche’s “Handbook of Forensic Psychiatry,” pp. 13-47.

[On the question of “Responsibility in Mental Disease,” English readers will naturally refer to Maudsley’s classical work bearing this title, published in the International Scientific Series.—Translator.]

[679] Cf. A. von Schrenck-Notzing, “The Question of Diminished Responsibility, etc.,” published in “Crimino-Psychological and Psychopathological Studies,” pp. 76-101 (Leipzig, 1902).

[680] Häussler, op. cit., p. 39.

[681] A. Forel, “The Responsibility of Normal Human Beings,” p. 21 (Munich, 1901).

[682] Von Krafft-Ebing, “Psychopathia Sexualis,” p. 331.

[683] Adolf Baginsky, “The Impressionability of Children under the Influence of their Environment,” published in Medizinische Reform, edited by Rudolf Lennhoff, 1906, Nos. 43, 44 (especially pp. 533, 534).

[684] “Another Conventional Lie: Studies concerning Love, Marriage, and Morality,” by an Evangelical Clergyman, p. 7 (Leipzig).

[685] Kraepelin (“The Question of Diminished Responsibility,” published in the Monatschrijt für Kriminal-Psychiatrie, 1904, No. 8) pleads that the necessity for imprisonment should be determined, not by judges, but by medical “crimino-pedagogues,” and he demands “places of secure restraint” (“Sicherungsanstalten”), differing in character from ordinary prisons, for the detention of criminals whose responsibility is diminished. Similarly, P. Näcke (“The So-called Moral Insanity,” p. 60; Wiesbaden, 1902), considers that the prison should be transformed into a kind of “hospital and educational institution.”

[686] “Encyclopediana ou Dictionnaire Encyclopédique des Ana,” p. 59 (Paris, 1701).