I shall not enter here into a discussion of what part, if any, environment played in the shaping of the lives of these individuals, for several reasons, chief among which, however, is the fact that I have not had the opportunity of investigating thoroughly the environmental conditions in which they grew up and am therefore unable to evaluate properly this phase of the question. The fact, however, that my cases were culled from various sources and that the anomalous traits manifested by them were already present at an age when environment could hardly have had any lasting influence upon them, leads me to believe that it is heredity that is responsible for the major portion of this anomalous product. However, we shall leave this question to the decision of the practical eugenists. Personally I fully believe that we are dealing here with a type in which heredity plays an important rôle. I fully believe that these individuals were always the same as they are now and that the probabilities are that they will always remain so. Assuming then, for the moment, that we are correct, the question arises:--"Has society dealt with these individuals in a proper manner?" This question must be answered decidedly in the negative. I will not enter here into an extensive discussion of a system of penology which might be specifically applicable to this class of individuals. I can only agree fully with the current opinions of eminent criminologists on this subject. At the 1911 Congress of Criminology and Anthropology at Cologne, the following resolution among others was adopted:--"Hardened and professional criminals, recidivists, who present a great danger to society must be deprived of their liberty for as long a time as they are dangerous to the mass. Their liberty should be as a general rule, conditional." Archibald Hopkins, Esq., has been recently quoted by Gault as follows:--"The Head of Scotland Yard, in London, said not long ago that nine-tenths of the serious crimes there were committed by men who had served one or more terms of imprisonment and who might be regarded as belonging permanently to the criminal class. His judgment was that if they could be eliminated from such a situation, violation of the law would be diminished to less than a third of what it has been. Why cannot this be done? Let the Courts be clothed with power, after two or more offenses, in its discretion, to pronounce a man incorrigible, who shall be sentenced for life, to whom no pardon shall issue. By an arrangement between the general government and the states, a colony could be established, say in the Island of Guam, where escape would be impossible, and where, under military guard, convicts could be made to earn their own living. Surely society has the right to protect itself from these incorrigibles, who are released only to prey on it again. They also are the class who rapidly produce their kind, and at present society puts no obstacle in the way.