Not a Fact Anymore
DE
← Back to institutional beliefs timeline

Institutional belief · Criminology, prisons and medical classification

Anthropometric and degenerative traits as a scientific basis for prisoner classification

Belgian prison anthropology treated bodily measurements, morphology, hereditary and acquired 'degeneration', mental traits and family history as scientifically meaningful indicators for diagnosing and classifying offenders, and institutionalised those observations in prison files and decisions about treatment and regime.

1 episode

Current understanding

Current understanding

There is no scientifically valid criminal body type or set of hereditary degenerative stigmata from which criminality can be diagnosed. Belgium's own prison service gradually moved away from the original anthropometric model. After the Second World War, psychological and sociological factors gained priority; in a 1952 penitentiary report, prison psychiatrist Étienne De Greeff judged anthropometric measurements minimally useful and considered temperament classifications, biological properties and hormonal theories superfluous.

Consequences and human impact

Consequences and human impact

Louis Vervaeck opened Belgium's first prison anthropology laboratory in Brussels in 1907. With Ministry of Justice support, anthropological laboratories were extended to major prisons in 1920 and prisoners received standardised files containing bodily measurements, family hereditary history, malformations, education, mental resistance and a final diagnosis. The system was intended to individualise prison classification and treatment. At Saint-Gilles alone, the anthropological service created more than 9,000 individual files between 1920 and 1957. The postwar service retained systematic assessment but progressively replaced the old biological and morphological emphasis with psychological and sociological observation.

How the consequences followed

Vervaeck was not a simple copy of Cesare Lombroso. His model increasingly combined biological, psychological and environmental factors and he rejected crude single-cause determinism. The institutionalized error was the confidence placed in anthropometry and hereditary-degeneration markers, not every element of early Belgian rehabilitative criminology.

Modern prisons still use psychological and social assessment. That continuity does not validate the old claims about skull, body form or hereditary 'degeneration'; it illustrates how an institution can retain an assessment function while replacing the factual theory used to perform it.

De Greeff's 1952 report provides an explicit postwar methodological rejection of anthropometry. Belgian prison services continued to use anthropological dossiers for decades, but their content increasingly shifted toward modern psychological and sociological assessment.

1907

year Vervaeck opened Belgium's first prison anthropology laboratory

9,000+

anthropological prisoner files preserved from the Saint-Gilles service

1952

year De Greeff explicitly called anthropometric measures minimally useful in penitentiary assessment

Quantitative figures are highlighted only when the cited evidence supports them. The scale of a related catastrophe is not automatically treated as a death toll caused solely by this belief.

Institutional episode

Belgium

1907–1952Policy basis

Belgium turned criminal anthropology into prison administration. The state-backed service did not merely study offenders for academic purposes; it built standardised diagnostic files intended to classify prisoners and guide their treatment. The oldest model searched bodies and family histories for signs of inherited or acquired degeneration. The prison service's own postwar evolution supplied the correction, explicitly reducing the value of anthropometry and abandoning biological classification in favour of psychological and social evidence.

Institutions

  • Belgian Ministry of Justice
  • Penitentiary Anthropology Service
  • Anthropological laboratories of Belgian prisons

Documented consequences

  • Routine collection of detailed bodily, hereditary and psychological data from prisoners
  • Institutional classification of offenders using concepts of degeneration now regarded as scientifically obsolete
  • Use of medical-anthropological diagnoses to inform prison regime, treatment and assessment
  • Expansion of medical authority within Belgian prison administration
  • Creation of thousands of lasting individual records encoding scientific assumptions about prisoners and their families
  • Postwar replacement of the original anthropometric emphasis by more psychological and sociological assessment

Institutional machinery

Vervaeck's 1907 Brussels prison laboratory used systematic anthropometry and searches for physical signs of degeneration as part of the scientific study of offenders. In 1920 the Ministry of Justice expanded the model through anthropological laboratories in major prisons and standardised prisoner dossiers. These records combined body measurements and morphology with health, hereditary family conditions, education, psychological observations and a concluding diagnosis, and were used in an institutional programme of prisoner classification and individualised treatment. After the war, practitioners inside the system increasingly rejected the biological core: De Greeff's 1952 report to the Benelux penitentiary commission described anthropometric measures as of minimal utility and biological and temperament classifications as superfluous.

Sources and what they establish

Last reviewed: 25/08/2026