Finally it may be said also that most of the bio-sociologists, while recognizing the great influence exercised by environment do not give any description of this environment. It is not enough to name social imperfections existing in our days, and to demand their reform, one after another; we must first of all find out whether these imperfections are connected with the present economic system, and can be removed without attacking the system itself. [193]— IV. P. NÄCKE. [194] In his work, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, Dr. Näcke treats the criminal question from the medico-anthropological point of view. However, his remarks upon the connection which exists between economic conditions and crime are very important. In the fifth chapter, entitled, “Die anthropologisch-biologischen Beziehungen zum Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, he puts the question: can one fix the idea of “crime” anatomically? According to him the answer must be an absolute negative. “Semal is right when he says: ‘The moral sense is a slow and gradual acquisition of the ages.... The conscience of peoples like that of the individual, calls every act moral that is useful to the agent himself or to others....’ Every people, then, fixes the concept ‘crime’ according to the moral code prevailing among them at the time; it is consequently not rooted in man physiologically, but is as Manouvrier brilliantly demonstrates, purely sociological. It is therefore really nonsense to seek for anthropological stigmata for a sociological concept. “But another consideration also leads us to the same result. The stability of a people demands the establishing of certain boundaries, called ‘laws’, the transgression of which might disturb the social order, and therefore must be punished. But the laws form only single boundary marks, not a tight enclosure, so that between them many, consciously or not, pass through without being caught or punished. Besides, the laws of a higher morality do not always correspond with the prevailing legal system, so that many things are offenses in the eyes of the moral code that are not such in the eyes of the law, a fact which, as is well known, the conscienceless take advantage of. It is plain, therefore, that there are innumerable transgressions that are not punished, innumerable criminals who pass as honest men, so that we cannot really speak of criminals and honest men, but simply of the punished and the unpunished. “Punishment is, however, as we have already seen, a poor criterion. Habitual criminals are often not nearly so depraved as many persons of good reputation, especially in certain districts whose moral concepts are of a very elastic kind; or as others who have, to be sure, been punished but once, but who, in all their actions, have always been crafty criminals.” [195]