This, too, is what Buckle said: "We often hear of hereditary talents,
hereditary vices, and hereditary virtues; but whoever will critically
examine the evidence will find that there is no proof of their
existence. The way in which they are usually proved is in the highest
degree illogical; the usual course being for writers to collect
instances of some mental peculiarity found in a parent and his child,
and then to infer that the peculiarity was bequeathed. By this mode of
reasoning we might demonstrate any proposition. But this is not the
way in which the truth is discovered; and we ought to enquire not only
how many instances there are of hereditary talents, etc., but how many
instances there are of such qualities not being hereditary."
I have for myself, neither in life nor in books, found one single case
in which it could be confidently said that a criminal weakness was
inherited. That A, a criminal, has a son B, who also became criminal,
proves nothing. You must first prove that a similar child of different
stock would not become criminal if brought up as A's son was. You must
also prove that if you took away A's son as a child and brought him up
differently he would still show criminal weakness. But all the facts
negative this. The child even of a criminal tribe in India, if removed
from its environment, grows up like other children. Coming of criminal
ancestors has not handed down a criminal aptitude. You must not
mistake inheritance of other traits for inheritance of criminal
aptitudes. A is very quick-tempered, which he has not from a child
been trained to control. Under sudden provocation he kills a man. His
son B inherits his father's quick temper, is similarly badly brought
up, and the same thing occurs. The hasty hereditary theorist says:
"Behold the inheritance of a propensity to murder." But quick temper
is not a criminal trait; it is often an accompaniment of the kindest
disposition. It is an excess of sensitiveness. The training, physical
and mental, was in each case lacking, and a coincidence of provocation
caused a coincidence of crime.
Let it be once clearly discerned that if a quality be hereditary it is
always hereditary, and cannot appear, except as the result of
heredity--and the absurdity of modern theories will be manifest.
There is not--there has never been in anyone--a tendency to crime until
either gaols or criminal education creates it. No one ever wanted to
commit crime as crime. A daring boy with no outlet for his energy may
break out into violence, robbery, and later into burglary; he would not
have done so had his physical need for exercise and his spiritual need
for facing danger had another outlet. The instincts that led him into
crime were good and noble instincts which, finding no legitimate
channel, found an illegitimate channel for themselves.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account