[1][2][3] The book is a comprehensive English summary of the main results of criminal anthropology,[4] a field of study which was scarcely known at the time of the publication of the volume.

[2] Italian Cesare Lombroso is recognised worldwide as the founding father of criminal anthropology since he was the first to perceive the study of crime as a self-standing scientific field.

[7] Lombroso founded his own school of thought on criminal anthropology, which attracted support from fellow scientists across Europe.

Regardless of the lack of enthusiasm in the British scientific community, Ellis found the topic relevant and important for society.

[9] The volume of literature on criminal anthropology from European countries, such as Portugal, Italy, Spain, France, Russia, is larger than the English one.

A picture of the life and treatment applied to prisoners in Elmira Reformatory is depicted in part C. Criteria for the physical medical investigation of criminals and their descriptions are outlined in appendix D.[1] The preface lays out how the book came in to existence and what is its purpose.

The criminal is a congenitally weak-minded person whose abnormality, while by no means leaving the mental aptitudes absolutely unimpaired, chiefly affects the feelings and volition, so influencing conduct and rendering him an anti-social element in society.

Ellis mentions six different types of criminals: political, by passion, insane, instinctive, occasional, and habitual.

The cited literature belongs to Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, Antonio Marro, von Baer, Schwalbe, Rafael Salillas, Arthure McDonald, Eugene Talbot, and Douglas Morrison.

[1] They give a detailed description of the physical, moral, social, emotional, and religious aspects of criminals and their lives.

Since the idea of punishment for one's crime lays on the beliefs that one is normal and that a criminal act is a voluntary deviation, Ellis strongly opposes the reformatory system of his time.

Instead of being reformed, criminals are hardened, depressed, corrupted, or turned into brutes who will once again be sentenced to prison once released.

He suggests the abolition of the definite and predetermined sentence, reorganisation of prison staff so that they are trained and qualified in caring for the criminals, and regulation of voluntary visitation.

Criminals should be involved in industry (e.g. farming, fruit growing, carpentry, shoe-making, painting, tailoring, baking, laundering, housework, music, telegraphing).

[1] Towards the end of chapter six, Ellis refers back to Lombroso's definition of the criminal, which is "an inborn defect, idiotic, imbecile, and weak-minded class".

At Bicêtre, members of the congenitally anti-social class were recognised and trained at an early age so as to avert them from the path of criminality.

In the case of petty crimes or young offenders, Ellis encourages the use of fines and communal work as a form of punishment.

Ellis states that society has the duty both to protect itself against (insane) criminals and to treat them as humanely as possible so as to render them capable of living a social life.

[14] Arthur MacDonald states that Ellis challenges the nineteenth century view of criminality by proving that it is an intrinsic part of society and it has to be treated as such.

MacDonald believes that The criminal is a valuable work because it shows the British society the complex nature of prisoners.

[13] The criminal presents itself as a practical guide for changing the prison and sentencing systems and gives the example of the Elmira Reformatory to support its claims.

Because of that, A.G. Warner, in his review of the book, hopes that Ellis' volume would catch the interest of others undergoing studies in social sciences.

Warner dreams that the field of criminal anthropology would be greatly enriched by students eager to fill in its knowledge gaps.

[13] British criminologist or workers in the prison system have, since the beginning of the 1890s, unanimously adopted a position that opposed the theories favoured by various existent schools of thought.

[8] In his Memoirs[16] published in 1894, prison inspector Arthur Griffiths concludes: The world will probably remain very much where it was before the evolution of the criminal type.

It has been deduced from too incomplete premises, too hasty inquiries to give substantial results.In the years prior to the First World War, British scientist continued to show their scepticism regarding criminal anthropology.

Doctor James Devon, medical officer at Glasgow Prison, highlights the complex nature of crime, which goes beyond physical characteristics or inherited tendencies.

Both Ellis and Francis Galton, which were supporters of criminal anthropology, were accused of blindly accepting of Lombroso's theory without critically interpreting it.