Concerning the part that psychology in its practical, applied, clinical aspects should play in the court work, we may consider the following. View it as you may, there is no escape from the basic fact that conduct, social behavior, is a product of the mental life of the individual. The most direct driving forces of misconduct therefore are very properly to be regarded as material for study which comes well within the province of the science of mental life. (It must have been this which led the great jurist and criminalist, Gross, to state that psychological valuations must ultimately become the basis of all criminal law.) An individual differential psychology is involved which requires knowledge of the bearings which many varieties of mental conditions have upon action. At the beginning of our work, we were advised by the most eminent psychologists that the field was virgin. Everywhere we were told that the use of the standard apparatus of the laboratory, the ergograph, plethsygmograph, the chronoscope, all had no bearing on our problem, for the results from none of them had been found to be correlated with any traits or conditions which were of peculiar significance in offenders. Many hopes that had been expressed by those who ardently desired the rapid practical extension of psychology had not borne fruition. We were told that methods must be worked and normal sought out. In other words, it was deliberately stated by many, that neither classical nor experimental psychology had as yet anything to offer for dealing with this human problem. To introduce the usual and often complicated devices of the laboratory, which are for measuring and discriminating the simpler elements of mental life, would be, it was said, to delude ourselves and be in the position of misleading others. In accordance with our appreciation of this consideration we have all along proceeded by methods which seem to have in them the greatest proportion of common sense, and to be most likely to show correlation between offending careers and characteristics possibly at the root of criminalistic tendencies. Moreover, as time has gone on we have become more and more convinced that those who study offenders should seek not only for peculiarities and disabilities, correlated with tendencies to offend, but also for potentialities, for special abilities which might be utilized for educational or occupational success. To grade the delinquent downwards is not sufficient. There may be the possibility of constructive work with him. As a matter of fact, some of the most encouraging results of our own efforts have come through the discovery that the offender was suited for something which he had never had the chance of doing, and that a corresponding adjustment of his affairs brought cessation of delinquencies. This has been even true with certain types of defectives.