Dr. Seymour Halleck enters an intriguing debate with this book, stating that no society has ever successfully dealt with crime. In his book, he focuses not on better ways to solve crimes after they have happened, but before, with the psychological profile of the criminal, but he makes some warnings and qualifications.

     First, he finds fault with the psychological profile. Fault in that in trying to "save" those who, in childhood, seem to be "destined" to become criminals, society actually makes criminals of them, trying to separate them from their lives and families, when actually they may never commit a crime. And what about the criminal, usually from the upper classes, as Halleck points out by means of statistics, who had exhibited no signs matching with a psychological profile consistent with a criminal in childhood, but went on to commit many nonviolent crimes?

     Perhaps the most interesting part of Halleck's work deals with the many answers to the question: "Which criminals are mentally ill?" "Answer A" says there is no relationship between illness and criminality. According to this, if someone commits a crime he is guilty. If the same person is also mentally ill he is not guilty. "Answer B" says that illness and criminality can be connected, so the degree of criminality of an act is relative to the degree of illness of a criminal. "Answer C", elaborating on answer B, says that someone who commits a criminal act must also be mentally ill. This answer is the most controversial posited.

     "Answer D" says that everybody gets mentally ill sometimes, just as they get physically ill, sometimes. It says that all criminal activity is a form of adaptation in times of mental illness. It them becomes the eye of society that must decide whether all criminals are mentally ill or no criminals are mentally ill, because of the omnipresence of crime. These arguments demonstrate how difficult it is for society to respond to a phenomenon, which has always been with us.