States are both afloat on the high seas ofnworld history in the same hfeboat. Thatnsea will not be calmed by pushing yetnanother sacrificial victim over the side.nTommy W. Rogers, an instructor ofnsociology {in exile from the collegialnfellowship of the academy), writes fromnJackson, Mississippi, where he is androne in a governmental apparatus.nThe CriminalnTypenby Michael A. FumentonJames Q. Wilson and Richard J.nHerrnstein: Ciime and Human Nature;nSimon and Schuster; New York.nIconoclasm is the poor man’s intcllectualism.nChallenge a traditional way ofnthinking and you can vault yourselfninstantly into the celebrity spotlight,nwith lucrative publishing deals, testimoniesnbefore congressional committees,nand interviews on Good MorningnAmerica. Since the 1960’s the iconoclastsnhave held sway in the study ofncriminal behavior, ignoring importantnstudies done in the 1940’s and beforenfor no reason except that they didn’t fitntheir theories for the New Age. Nowntwo Harvard professors have issued ancomprehensive compilation of studiesnon criminology refuting the fantasies ofnthe iconoclasts and confirming what wenhave always innately believed aboutncriminals and criminal behavior.nWritten by political scientist JamesnQ. Wilson and psychologist Richard J.nHerrnstein, Crime and Human Naturenreads like a commonsense guide toncriminology. We are told, for instance,nthat there is a criminal “type.” He is anyoung male, with a lower-than-averagenI.Q., and a mesomorphic (muscular)nbody type. And yes, there even seems tonbe a slight correlation between facialncharacteristics and the type of crimencommitted. More fundamentally, thencriminal has a short time horizonnwhich makes him impulsive and unwillingnto postpone gratification. It maynbe unsettling to hear that many criminalncharacteristics are constitutional,nbut they should not be ignored simplynbecause “nothing can be done” aboutnthem. As the authors point out, “Firstnof all, a constitutional factor merelynmakes a person somewhat more likelynto display a certain behaviour; it doesnnot make it inevitable. There is nonevidence for the existence of a ‘crimengene.'” “Second, helping a person whonis constitutionally more at risk is onlynpossible if we look for those predisposingnfactors early in life.”nHow early? Very. Since the 1960’snthe schools have emphasized their ownncentrality in the socialization process.nBut despite the public service campaignsnbombarding teenagers with thenslogan “Don’t be a fool; stay in school!”nthere is evidence that teenagers whonwant to drop out are probably better offndoing so. In fact, Wilson and Herrnsteinncite evidence that by the time thenchild is in school most of the good ornharm has already been done. We arentold that “there is little chance of annafifectional bond between mother andninfant forming if the infant is deprivednof a mother figure during the first threenor three and a half years of life.” Thenauthors note that if a “bond never formsnthe consequences can be very severe”nresulting “in a personality characterizednby the lack of guilt, an inability to keepnrules and an inability to form lastingnrelationships,” all of which lead toncriminal behavior. It is now believednthat “adults other than the biologicalnmother may serve as suitable objects ofnthis attachment.” However, in today’sn”superwoman” society where careerorientednmothers often dump their childrennin day-care centers within a fewnweeks after birth and where half of allnwomen in the labor force have childrennunder the age of three, this is clearlyncause for concern.nThere is much more bad news herenfor the New Agers. It appears there is nonsubstitute for morality—not the relativisticnsort of “morality” celebrated todaynbut the old-fashioned public type practicednlong before “If it feels good, do it”nbecame a popular motto and before then”Me generation” took “Do your ownnthing” as its slogan. Groups dedicatednto strengthening traditional public morality,nespecially temperance groups,nseem to have had a substantial positivenimpact on the incidence of crime.nThe research here compiled also indicatesnthat there’s no substitute fornold-fashioned swift, certain punishment.nNot only are criminal penaltiesnthese days usually less severe than formerly,nand imposed more slowly, butnthey are also much less certain to benapplied at all. For a young man with anshort time horizon who acts out ofnimpulse, delayed and light punishmentsnreduce the cost of crime. Asncrime becomes cheaper, the incidencenincreases. Few shoppers can resist anbargain.nFar less certain than the link betweennlax imposition of punishment and highncrime rates are the supposed links be­ntween crime and unemployment andnracial prejudice. As Wilson and Herrnsteinnnote: “During the 1960s [Chinatown]nin San Francisco had the lowestnincome, the highest unemploymentnrate, and the highest proportion of substandardnhousing of any area of the city.nYet in 1965 there were only five personsnof Chinese ancestry committed to prisonnin the entire state of California.”nLest one think the Chinese are anomalous,nthe Japanese are also greatlynunderrepresented among the criminalnpopulation. So far as Blacks arenconcerned, the one study availablenshows that West Indian nativesn— indistinguishable physically from thennative American Blacks who share theirnNew York ghettos—were underrepresentednin the state’s prison populationnwhile native American Blacks were substantiallynoverrepresented.nWilson and Herrnstein believe thatnCrime and Human Nature is not “annargument from which many (possiblynany) clear policy recommendations cannbe deduced,” but the authors sell themselvesnshort. The replacement of moralnrelativism with more traditional teachingnin the public schools, swifter andnsurer punishment in the courts, emphasisnon the early rather than thenmiddle years of a child’s developmentnin all discussions of social legislationn—all of these are clearly suggested.nThis volume deserves to have a tremendousnimpact on the way we perceivencrime and combat its causes. ccnMichael Fumento is the former editornof Illini Review at the University ofnIllinois.nIN FOCUSnUtopian onnthe Dolenby William C. RicennnP.M.: Bolo’Bolo; Semiotext(e)/nColumbia University; New York.nAn afternoon’s reading of Bolo’Bolo byn”P.M.” leaves the reader wonderingnwhat the New York State Council onnthe Arts is doing giving public money tonColumbia University to publish suchnbooks. A futuristic Utopian tract, Bolo­n’Bolo is as inane as it is self-indulgent.nIts author, P.M., a slave to every clichenof the untutored stylist, boldly decries (anla Parisian literary theory) the “deal”nthe “Planetary Work Machine” hasnwrought upon us whilst it builds on “itsnAPRIL 1986/39n