“Every feeble-minded person is a potential criminal,” says Goddard in his work on _Feeble-Mindedness_ (_112_, 514), and this sentiment finds an echo in the emotions of many social workers. On the other hand we have the careful work of Bronner in which she compares by their test records a group of delinquent women with groups selected from night classes and the servant class who had never been known to be immoral. On the average she finds that the delinquents do not test below her servant group. She says: “Thus, though our delinquents are not as capable as their sisters, many of them from congested districts, who in other ways are proving themselves ambitious [the group from night classes,] yet they are no less equipped intellectually than others who are earning a livelihood and caring for themselves without coming in conflict with the law in the least. Whatever their mental status might be, measured by other means, the fact remains that there is no _necessary_ correlation between their immoral or criminal tendencies and their intellectual ability and that others, no more endowed than they, are fighting life's battles without manifesting the same immoral or criminal tendencies” (_112_, p. 43). What portion of these moral household servants of equal ability with the delinquents may later fall under temptation, we, of course, cannot say. Neither can we say that any of the delinquents would test deficient, since we do not know the border lines of deficiency with the tests which were used. The conclusion, however, is clear that, if corresponding grades of intellect may be delinquent or not at maturity, we must be cautious in assuming that the lowest grades of intellects would all become delinquent if not under supervision. What chances we are running by allowing feeble-minded individuals to be abroad might be determined if we could find out the probability of tested deficients becoming delinquent. This question cannot be answered by showing for a single year or a period of years that crimes are relatively more common among the defective classes, although such figures give some impression of the danger of deficiency to the community. Kinberg, for example, calculates that in Sweden during the years 1901-1907 murder was relatively 200 times as common as among those not in institutions, but lacking criminal responsibility through insanity or deficiency, as among those who were responsible, arson was 72.5 as common, manslaughter 12.63 times, other injuries to property than arson 6.55, rape 6.1 times, infanticide 4.59 times, larceny 0.99 times, and fraud 0.26 times (_132_). The data were based upon the reports of the Royal College of Health which makes the diagnosis as to criminal responsibility that is required for all cases in which this question arises. Such examinations, it is estimated, miss at least 15% of the deficient criminals.