I agree in general that this sort of work has a long and storied history of being junk science (like phrenology), and one might even be tempted to describe this

I agree in general that this sort of work has a long and storied history of being junk science (like phrenology), and one might even be tempted to describe this sort of work as irresponsible- But I think we shouldn't get too prescriptive about what constitutes interesting and useful science. There may be very interesting relationships to uncover that we will otherwise miss. Previous research suggests that the correlation between attractiveness and 'averageness of features' is a strong one and one thesis is that this is because having features 'matching the template' is indicative of general fitness and resistance to disease. Based on this research you might wonder about whether or not a person having perceived low fitness was a risk factor for criminality. Or perhaps the low fitness itself somehow causes criminality? Indeed there are many other interesting interpretations that we might miss out on if we judge all 'dangerous' work at face value. Perhaps we as a society are willing to give up on those ideas in our desire to avoid the atrocities of the past, but personally I am not. Onwards and upwards, they say.