INTRODUCTION.
In systematizing the literature of my subject I have pursued the following method: I begin with some significant extracts from authors who wrote before the birth of modern criminal science. After these I take up the statisticians, that is to say, those who, without belonging to any special school of criminologists, have treated the subject principally by the aid of statistics. Next I give an exposition of the school which insists especially upon the individual factors in crime, and ascribes only a secondary place to economic factors (the Italian school); following this I treat of the school which considers the rôle played by environment as very important (the French school); and afterwards that of the bio-sociological doctrine which forms the synthesis of the two schools. Then follow the “spiritualists”, that is to say the religious authors who have been more or less influenced by modern criminal science; and finally, the authors who belong to the “terza scuola”, and the socialists who consider the influence of economic conditions as being very important or even decisive. The authors coming under the same heading have been treated in chronological order.
Like every classification this is more or less arbitrary. Several authors might have been placed under two different headings. We may add that as time goes on the differences between the Italian and French schools are becoming less and less marked, so that their opinions and those of the bio-sociologists no longer show any great divergences as far as our subject is concerned. [[1]]
Part One.
CRITICAL EXPOSITION OF THE LITERATURE DEALING WITH THE RELATION BETWEEN CRIMINALITY AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS.
CHAPTER I.
THE PRECURSORS.
AUTHORS WHO TREATED THE SUBJECT BEFORE THE BIRTH OF MODERN CRIMINAL SCIENCE.
I.
Thomas More.[1]
In the first part of his “Utopia” More severely criticises the economic conditions of his time in England, and adds some observations upon the criminality of that period.
Raphael Hythloday, whom More makes the speaker in his work, and through whom he expresses his own opinions, says:
“It chanced on a certain day, when I sat at the Cardinal’s table, there was also a certain lay man cunning in the laws of your realm. Who, I cannot tell whereof taking occasion, began diligently and earnestly to praise that strait and rigorous justice, which at that time was there executed upon felons, who, as he said, were for the most part twenty hanged together upon one gallows. And, seeing so few escaped punishment, he said he could not choose but greatly wonder and marvel, how and by what evil luck it should so come to pass, that thieves nevertheless were in every place so rife and so rank. [[2]]
“Nay, Sir, quod I (for I durst boldly speak my mind before the Cardinal) marvel nothing hereat; for this punishment of thieves passeth the limits of justice, and is also very hurtful to the public weal. For it is too extreme and cruel a punishment for theft, and yet not sufficient to refrain and withhold men from theft. For simple theft is not so great an offense, that it ought to be punished with death. Neither is there any punishment so horrible, that it can keep them from stealing, which have no other craft whereby to get their living. Therefore in this point, not you only, but also the most part of the world, be like evil schoolmasters, which be readier to beat, than to teach their scholars. For great and horrible punishments be appointed for thieves, whereas much rather provision should have been made, that there were some means, whereby they might get their living, so that no man should be driven to this extreme necessity, first to steal, and then to die.
“Yes (quod he) this matter is well enough provided for already. There be handicrafts, there is husbandry to get their living by, if they would not willingly be nought. Nay, quod I, you shall not scape so; for first of all, I will speak nothing of them that come home out of the wars, maimed and lame, as not long ago, out of Blackheath field, and a little before that, out of the wars in France; such, I say, as put their lives in jeopardy for public weal’s or the king’s sake, and by reason of weakness or lameness be not able to occupy their old crafts, and be too aged to learn new; of them I will speak nothing, forasmuch as wars have their ordinary recourse. But let us consider those things that chance daily before our eyes. First there is a great number of gentlemen, which can not be content to live idle themselves, like drones, of that which others have labored for; their tenants, I mean, whom they poll and shave to the quick, by raising their rents (for this only point of frugality do they use, men else through their lavish and prodigal spending, able to bring themselves to very beggary) these gentlemen, I say, do not only live in idleness themselves, but also carry about with them at their tails a great flock or train of idle and loitering serving men, which never learn any craft whereby to get their livings. These men as soon as their master is dead, or be sick themselves, be incontinent thrust out of doors. For gentlemen had rather keep idle persons, than sick men, and many times the dead man’s heir is not able to maintain so great a house, and keep so many serving men as his father did. Then in the mean season they that be thus destitute of service, either starve for hunger, or manfully play the thieves. For what would you have them do? [[3]]When they have wandered abroad so long, until they have worn threadbare their apparel, and also impaired their health, then gentlemen because of their pale and sickly faces, and patched coats, will not take them into service. And husbandmen dare not set them a work, knowing well enough that he is nothing meet to do true and faithful service to a poor man with a spade and a mattock for small wages and hard fare, which being daintily and tenderly pampered up in idleness and pleasure, was wont with a sword and buckler by his side to jet through the street with a bragging look, and to think himself to be as good as any man’s mate.
“Nay, by Saint Mary, sir (quod the lawyer), not so. For this kind of man must we make the most of. For in them as men of stouter stomachs, bolder spirits, and manlier courages than handicrafts men and plowmen be, doth consist the whole power, strength, and puissance of our army, when we must fight in battle. Forsooth, sir, as well you might say (quod I) that for war’s sake we must cherish thieves. For surely you shall never lack thieves while you have them. No, nor thieves be not the most false and faint-hearted soldiers, nor soldiers be not the cowardliest thieves; so well these two crafts agree together. But this fault, though it be much used among you, yet is not peculiar to you only, but common also almost to all nations. Yet France besides this is troubled and infected with a much sorer plague. The whole realm is filled and besieged with hired soldiers in peace time (if that be peace) which be brought in under the same color and pretense, that hath persuaded you to keep these idle serving men. For these wise fools and very archdolts thought the wealth of the country herein to consist, if there were ever in readiness a strong and sure garrison, specially of old practised soldiers, for they put no trust at all in men unexercised. And therefore they must be forced to seek for war, to the end that they may have practised soldiers and cunning manslayers, lest that (as it is prettily said by Sallust) their hands and their minds through idleness and lack of exercise, should wax dull. But how pernicious and pestilent a thing it is to maintain such beasts, the Frenchmen by their own harms have learned, and the examples of the Romans, Carthaginians, Syrians, and of many other countries do manifestly declare. For not only the empire, but also the fields and cities of all these, by divers occasions have been overrunned and destroyed by their own armies beforehand had in a readiness. Now how unnecessary a thing this is, hereby it may appear, that the French soldiers, which from their youth have been practised and inured in feats of arms, do [[4]]not crack nor advance themselves to have very often gotten the upper hand and mastery of your new made and unpractised soldiers. But in this point I will not use many words, lest perchance I may seem to flatter you.
“No, nor those same handicraftmen of yours in cities, nor yet the rude and uplandish plowmen of the country, are not supposed to be greatly afraid of your gentlemen’s idle serving men, unless it be such as be not of body or stature correspondent to their strength and courage, or else whose bold stomachs be discouraged through poverty. Thus you may see, that it is not to be feared lest they should be effeminated, if they were brought up in good crafts and laborsome works, whereby to get their livings, whose stout and sturdy bodies (for gentlemen vouchsafe to corrupt and spill none but picked and chosen men) now either by reason of rest and idleness be brought to weakness or else by easy and womanly exercises be made feeble and unable to endure hardness. Truly howsoever the case standeth, this methinketh is nothing available to the public weal, for war’s sake, which you never have, but when you will yourselves, to keep and maintain an innumerable flock of that sort of men, that be so troublesome and noyous in peace, whereof you ought to have a thousand times more regard than of war.
“But yet this is not the only necessary cause of stealing. There is another, which, as I suppose, is proper and peculiar to you Englishmen alone. What is that? quod the Cardinal. Forsooth my Lord (quod I) your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now as I hear say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves. They consume, destroy, and devour whole fields, houses, and cities. For look in what parts of the realm doth grow the finest and therefore dearest wool, there noblemen and gentlemen, yea and certain abbots, holy men no doubt, not contenting themselves with the yearly revenues and profits, that were wont to grow to their forefathers and predecessors of their lands, nor being content that they live in rest and pleasure nothing profiting, yea much noying the public weal, leave no ground for tillage, they inclose all into pastures; they throw down houses; they pluck down towns, and leave nothing standing, but only the church to be made a sheephouse. And as though you lost no land by forests, chases, lands, and parks, those good holy men turn all dwelling places and all glebeland into desolation and wilderness. Therefore that one covetous and unsatiable cormorant and very plague of his native country may compass about [[5]]and enclose many thousand acres of ground together within one pale or hedge, the husbandmen be thrust out of their own, or else either by fraud, or by violent oppression they be put besides it, or by wrongs and injuries they be so wearied, that they be compelled to sell all. By one means therefore or by other, either by hook or crook they must needs depart away, poor, silly, wretched souls, men, women, husbands, wives, fatherless children, widows, woeful mothers, with their young babes, and their whole household small in substance and much in number, as husbandry requireth many hands. Away they trudge, I say, out of their known and accustomed houses, finding no place to rest in. All their household stuff, which is very little worth, though it might well abide the sale; yet being suddenly thrust out, they be constrained to sell it for a thing of nought. And when they have wandered abroad till that be spent, what can they do but steal and then justly pardy be hanged, or else go about begging. Yet then they also be cast into prison as vagabonds, because they go about and work not, whom no man will set to work, though they never so willingly profer themselves thereto. For one shepherd or herdman is enough to eat up that ground with cattle, to the occupying whereof about husbandry many hands were requisite.
“And this is also the cause why victuals be now in many places dearer. Yea, besides this the price of wool is so risen, that poor folks which were wont to work it, and make cloth thereof, be now able to buy none at all. And by this means very many be forced to forsake work, and to give themselves to idleness. For after that so much ground was inclosed for pasture, an infinite multitude of sheep died of the rot, such vengeance God took of their inordinate and insatiable covetousness, sending among the sheep that pestiferous murrain, which much more justly should have fallen of the sheep-masters’ own heads. And though the number of sheep increase never so fast, yet the price falleth not one mite, because there be so few sellers. For they be almost all comen into a few rich men’s hands, whom no need forceth to sell before they lust, and they lust not before they may sell as dear as they lust.
“Now the same cause bringeth in like dearth of the other kinds of cattle, yea and that so much the more, because that after the farms plucked down and husbandry decayed, there is no man that careth about the breeding of young stock. For these rich men bring not up the young ones of great cattle as they do lambs. But first they buy them abroad very cheap and afterward, when they be fatted in their pastures, they sell them again exceeding dear. And [[6]]therefore (as I suppose) the whole incommodity hereof is not yet felt. For yet they make dearth only in those places where they sell. But when they fetch them away from thence where they be bred faster than they can be brought up; then shall there also be felt great dearth, stock beginning there to fail where the ware is bought. Thus the unreasonable covetousness of a few hath turned that thing to the utter undoing of your island, in the which thing the chief felicity of your realm did consist. For this great dearth of victuals causeth men to keep as little houses and as small hospitality as they possibly may, and to put away their servants, whither, I pray you, but abegging or else (which these gentle bloods and stout stomachs will sooner set their minds unto) astealing?
“Now to amend the matter, to this wretched beggary and miserable poverty is joined great wantonness, importunate superfluity and excessive riot. For not only gentlemen’s servants, but also handicraftman, yea and almost the plowmen of the country, with all other sorts of people, use much strange and proud newfangledness in their apparel, and too much prodigal riot and sumptuous fare at their table. Now bawds, queans, whores, harlots, strumpets, brothel-houses, stews, and yet another stews, winetaverns, alehouses and tippling houses, with so many naughty, lewd, and unlawful games, as dice, cards, tables, tennis, bowls, quoits, do not all these send the haunters of them straight astealing when their money is gone?
“Cast out these pernicious abominations, make a law that they, which plucked down farms and towns of husbandry, shall reëdify them, or else yield and uprender the possession thereof to such as will go to the cost of building them anew. Suffer not these rich men to buy up all, to engross and forestall, and with their monopoly to keep the market alone as please them. Let not so many be brought up in idleness, let husbandry and tillage be restored, let clothworking be renewed, that there may be honest labors for this idle sort to pass their time profitably, which hitherto either poverty has caused to be thieves, or else now to be vagabonds, or idle serving men, and shortly will be thieves. Doubtless unless you find a remedy for these enormities, you shall in vain advance yourselves of executing justice upon felons. For this justice is more beautiful in appearance, and more flourishing to the show, than either just or profitable. For by suffering your youth wantonly and viciously to be brought up, and to be infected, even from their tender age, by little and little with vice, then in God’s name to be punished, when they commit the same faults after being come to man’s state, which from their youth [[7]]they were ever like to do; in this point, I pray you, what other thing do you, than make thieves and then punish them?”[2]
II.
Jean Meslier.[3]
In speaking of the faults which cling to society Meslier, among other things, says the following about crime:
“Another abuse, and one that is almost universally accepted and authorized in the world, is the appropriation of the wealth of the soil by individuals, in place of which all ought to possess it equally in common and enjoy it equally in common. I mean all those of the same district or territory, so that they as well as those who inhabit the same city, town, village, or parish should compose but one great family. They should all regard themselves as being brothers and sisters one to another and all children of the same fathers and mothers, who, for this reason ought to love one another as brothers and sisters and, in consequence, live peaceably together, having all things common. All should have the same or similar food, should be equally well lodged, clothed and shod, but should also apply themselves equally to their business, that is to say, to work or to some other honest and useful employment, each following his or her profession, or whatever is most necessary and fitting to be done according to the time or season or the things especially needed. And all this should be done, not under the direction of those who would like to dominate over others tyrannically and imperiously, but only under the direction of the wisest and best intentioned, for the maintenance and advancement of the public weal. All cities and other communities should also on their own account take great pains to make alliances with their neighbors and keep inviolable the peace and union between them, in order to aid and succor one another in time of need; for without this the public well-being cannot be maintained, and the greater part of mankind must be wretched and unhappy.
“For first, what results from this individual appropriation of the wealth of the soil for each to enjoy it severally apart from the others, as it seems good to him? It results that each is eager to get as much as he can, in all sorts of ways, good and bad. For cupidity, which is insatiable and, as we know, the root of all evils, looking through an open door, so to speak, toward the accomplishment of its desires, does not fail to take advantage of the opportunity, and makes all [[8]]men do whatever they can in order to have an abundance of goods and riches, and to be so protected from indigence as to have the pleasure and contentment of enjoying whatever they wish. From this it happens that those who are the strongest, the most crafty, the most skilful, and often even the most wicked and unworthy, have the largest share in the wealth of the soil and are best provided with all the good things of life.”[4]
“This is not all, but it also results from this abuse of which I have been speaking, namely that wealth is so badly distributed among men, some having everything, or at least much more than their true share, and others having nothing, or lacking a part of what is useful and necessary … it results from this, I say, that hatred and envy first of all arise. From these spring in turn murmurings, complainings, commotions, insurrections, and wars, which cause an infinity of evils among men. From these again proceed thousands and millions of mischievous lawsuits which the private owners are obliged to have among themselves to defend their property and to maintain what they consider their rights. These suits cause thousands of pains to the body, and tens of thousands of disquietudes to the mind, and often enough cause the entire ruin of both parties. From this it also happens that those who have nothing, or who have not all that they need, are constrained and obliged to employ evil means to get subsistence. From this come the frauds, deceptions, rascalities, injustices, extortions, robberies, thefts, murders, assassinations, and brigandages which cause such an infinity of evils among men.”[5]
III.
J. J. Rousseau.
I believe that the following observation, which I find in the “Discourse upon the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men”, is worth quoting.
“The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, ‘This is mine’, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, and murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared if some one had torn up the stakes, or filled the ditch, and cried to his comrades: ‘Beware of heeding this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the ground belong to all, and the ground itself to no one.’ ”[6] [[9]]
IV.
Morelly.
In his “Code de la nature” this author seeks to show that the harmony in which men lived in primitive society (when common property existed) has been destroyed by the institution of private property, which, coming in little by little, has changed common interests into contrary interests. He expresses himself on this point as follows:
“Every division of goods, whether equal or unequal, and all individual appropriation of the portions so formed are what Horace calls ‘Summi materiam mali.’ All political or moral phenomena are the effects of this pernicious cause. It is by this that we can explain all theorems and problems with regard to the origin, development, connection, and affinity of virtues or vices, disorders, and crimes; also with regard to the true motives of good or bad actions, the determinations and perplexities of the human will, the depravity of the passions, the inefficacy of precepts and laws to restrain them; and, finally, with regard to the monstrous creations resulting from the aberrations of the mind and the heart. The reason, I say, for all these things can be ascribed to the general obstinacy of legislators about breaking or letting any one else break the cord with which sociability was first bound by those who usurped to their own use soil that ought to belong indivisibly to all humanity.”[7]
Farther along he defines the same idea more exactly when he says: “Take away property, I repeat without ceasing, and you destroy forever a thousand factors which lead men to desperate extremities. I say that, delivered from this tyrant, it is totally impossible that man should give himself to crimes, that he should be a thief, an assassin, or a conqueror. The laws which authorize property punish him, it is true, for these crimes. Even his own remorse and fears, sprung from the prejudices of the moral system in which he has been raised, punish him still more. But the most severe chastisement of the offender is the primitive and innate feeling of benevolence. This inner voice of Nature, though commonly confined to the indifferent admonition not to injure, has still force enough to make the criminal feel keenly.”[8] [[10]]
V.
C. Beccaria.
The following passage taken from the introduction to Beccaria’s “Des délits et des peines” is not without importance for our subject:
“The advantages of society ought to be equally divided among all its members. However, when men are gathered together we note a constant tendency to collect privileges, power, and happiness in the hands of a small minority, and to leave for the multitude only poverty and weakness. It is only by good laws that this tendency can be checked. But ordinarily men leave the regulation of the most important matters to temporary laws and to the caution of the moment, or even entrust them to the discretion of those whose interests are opposed to the best institutions and the wisest laws.”[9]
“If we turn to history we shall see that laws, which ought to be agreements freely made between free men, have oftenest been only the instrument of the passions of the minority or the result of the chance of the moment, never the work of a wise observer of human nature who has known how to direct all the actions of the multitude to this single end: The greatest good of the greatest number.”[10]
In Section 35 (“On Theft”) we read, among other things, as follows:
“A theft committed without violence ought to be punished merely by a fine. It is just that he who takes the property of another should be deprived of his own. But if theft is ordinarily the crime of poverty and despair, if this offense is committed only by that class of unfortunate men to whom the right of property (a terrible right and perhaps not a necessary one) has left no possession but mere existence, the imposition of a fine will contribute only to multiply thefts, by increasing the number of the indigent, and robbing an innocent family of bread to give it to a rich man who is perhaps himself a criminal.”[11]
VI.
S. N. H. Linguet.
In his “Théorie des lois civiles”, directed principally against Montesquieu’s “L’esprit des lois”, in which Linguet seeks to defend the thesis, “The spirit of the laws is Property”, there are some interesting [[11]]passages. After having shown that private property has been founded upon violence, he treats of the origin of the laws and, at the same time, of the causes of crime, and says:
“Among men all equal, all robust, passionate, sanguinary, and accustomed to arms, dangerous disputes would continually arise. It would be impossible but that chance and intelligence should produce great inequality of fortune. He who believed that he had been injured would wish to get justice for himself. The association formed to secure the booty would be troubled by the difficulty of enjoying it. These inconveniences occurred to the clearest thinkers and they sought to find a remedy. It was a totally new art that they created. But as it is almost always science that misleads, and as truth is never so easy to discover as at a distance from the Doctors, they looked about to see what route they should take.
“They thought that a primary act of violence was incontestably necessary. They could not disavow it, since it was the sole basis of their rights. But they also saw that it was necessary to prevent any further violence, since this would fall upon themselves. They conceived that the primitive usurpation ought to be regarded as a sacred title; but they perceived no less clearly that it was necessary to proscribe any new usurpation, which would contradict the ancient one and destroy it. In order to succeed in this they proposed to authorize only those brigandages which were carried on in common, and to punish severely those persons who dared to commit individual acts of spoliation. In response to their suggestions it was decreed that society should have the right to take everything, but that the members of society, as individuals, should be deprived of this right. They agreed that each should have peaceful possession of the part allotted to him, and that whoever tried to take it from him should be declared a public enemy and prosecuted as such.
“Here, then, in a few words is the source of all human laws. From it spring laws of every kind except the divine law, the source of which is as pure as its author. Upon this basis are founded all imaginable constitutions. This it is which sanctions the law of nations and the civil law, of which the one legitimates conquests, and the other proscribes robbery, only punishing, however, the thefts not committed by a large company. Finally this same principle has directed the steps of all politicians and of all founders of governments and empires.
“They have come by different ways, the details of which it is useless to discuss here, to change the original social anarchy, in which these principles were discovered, into administrations more or less [[12]]imperfect. Violence thus formed the foundation of their rights, but all wished to keep with justice what they got possession of very unjustly. They took precautions to prevent those who assisted them in their wholesale conquest from imitating them in detail. After making sure of the general domain they did not wish any one to be able to dispute the particular distribution of it. They confirmed by regulations all their accomplices in the possession of what they had had the address or the good fortune to seize. They decreed that any one who, seeing these possessions stolen by force, should attempt to secure restitution by the same method, should be punished as guilty of an offense against society.”[12]
In the chapter “Good and Evils which Laws Produce” Linguet pronounces the following trenchant and satirical judgment:
“The aim [of justice and law], as we have said, is to give society a fixed position. There results from them an invariable order which keeps each member in his place. It is by their means that the multitude who do not know them, even while they respect them, submit without repugnance to the small number who are armed by them. In this sense there is nothing so admirable as the law. It is the most sublime invention that ever presented itself to the human mind. It offers to any reflective individual the most satisfying, the most beautiful of spectacles. To restrain force and violence by pacific means; to subjugate the liveliest passions; to assure to painful virtues the preference over easy and delusive vices; to direct the eyes, the hands, and the hearts of men; to subdue them without preventing them from believing themselves free; to prescribe duties capable of securing the repose of docile souls who performed them, and of protecting them against rebellious spirits, who wish to be exempt from them; all this the laws do or ought to do. It would be difficult to join together so much greatness with so many benefits.
“But as the theory of the laws is honorable to the humanity which has been able to grasp it, so the practical application of the laws has been most distressing, when, after the observance of them has been recommended, it is necessary to pass on to the punishments decreed for the offenses which violate them. The passions which self-interest unceasingly incites often necessitate this grievous extremity. Then we see men authorized by general consent to exercise an inflexible rigor upon their fellows. We hear justice pronounce sentences which would pass for cruel if they were not indispensable. It makes use of prisons, executioners, gallows. Liberty and even life become pledges [[13]]of which justice deprives men at pleasure when they abuse them. To make good the losses which the state suffers from the crimes that disturb it, it comes back upon the criminals, and consequently suffers almost equally from the crime and from the punishment.”[13]
VII.
P. H. D. d’Holbach.
In the third section of his “Système social”, under the heading, “The Influence of Government upon Morals”, Holbach, in treating of the causes of crime says among other things:
“In China they punish the mandarin in the department in which a great crime has been committed. A bad government has its own negligence or its own injustice to blame for the great number of malefactors who are found in a state. The multiplicity of criminals proclaims an administration as tyrannical and careless. The severity of taxes, the vexations and hardships inflicted by the rich and great multiply the number of the unfortunate, whom poverty often reduces to despair and who avail themselves of crime as the promptest means of escape from their condition. If wealth is the mother of vices, poverty is the mother of crimes. When a state is badly governed and wealth is too unequally divided, so that millions of men lack the necessaries of life, while a small number of citizens are surfeited with luxuries, there we commonly see a great number of criminals, whose number punishments do not diminish. If a government punishes the unfortunate it leaves undisturbed the vices that are leading the state to its ruin; it erects gibbets for the poor, whereas by bringing men to poverty it has itself made thieves, assassins, and criminals of every kind; it punishes crime, while it continually invites men to commit crime.”[14]
“The man who has no share in the wealth of the state is not held to society by any bond. How can we expect a crowd of unfortunates to whom we have given neither principles nor morals to remain quiet spectators of the abundance, the luxury, the unjustly acquired riches of so many corrupt individuals, who seem to insult the general poverty, and are only rarely disposed to relieve it? By what right can society punish the thieving servant who has been a witness of the unpunished robberies and extortions of his master, or has seen public thieves strutting along, enjoying the consideration of their [[14]]fellow citizens, and shamelessly displaying the fruits of their extortions under the very eyes of the heads of the state? How can we make the poor respect the property of others when they themselves have been the victims of the rapacity of the rich, or have seen the property of their fellow citizens snatched away by violence or fraud with impunity? Finally how can we successfully preach submission to men to whom everything proves that the laws, armed against themselves alone, are indulgent toward the great and happy, and are inexorable only for the unhappy and poor? ‘A man dies but once’ and the imagination of the criminal familiarizes itself little by little with the idea of the most cruel punishments. He ends by regarding them as a ‘mauvais quart d’heure’, and would as soon perish by the hand of the executioner as die of hunger, or even work all his life without reward.”[15]
VIII.
G. B. de Mably.
This author’s opinion of crime is best expressed by the following quotation taken from his “De la législation ou principes des lois”:
“The more I reflect upon it the more I am convinced that inequality of fortune and condition disorders man and alters the natural sentiments of his heart, for the habit of luxury gives him a desire for things that are useless for his true happiness and fills his mind with the most unjust and absurd prejudices and errors. I believe that equality, while satisfying modest requirements, keeps those requirements modest, and preserves in the soul a peace which is opposed to the birth and progress of the passions. By what strange folly should we have cultivated a studied elegance and refinement in our needs if inequality of fortune had not accustomed us to regard this ridiculous fastidiousness as a proof of superiority, and attained thereby a certain consideration? Why should I consider as below me a man who is perhaps my superior in merit; why should I pretend to have authority over him and so open the door to tyranny, to servitude, and all the vices most fatal to society, if the inequality of conditions had not exposed my soul to ambition, as the inequality of fortune has exposed it to avarice? It is inequality alone that has taught men to prefer many useless and harmful things to virtue. I believe that it has been demonstrated that in a state of equality nothing would be easier than to prevent abuses and maintain the law. [[15]]Equality is certain to produce all good, because it unites men, elevates their souls, and prepares them for mutual feelings of benevolence and amity. Inequality, on the other hand, produces all evil, because it degrades men, humiliates them, and sows division and hatred among them.”[16]
IX.
J. P. Brissot de Warville.
In his “Théorie des loix criminelles” we find among others the following passages that are of interest in connection with the subject which occupies our attention:
“A man is not born an enemy to society. It is circumstances which give him that title, such as poverty or misfortune. He does not disturb the general tranquillity until he has lost his own. He ceases to be a good citizen only when the name becomes meaningless in his case; and it is when poverty has destroyed his own privileges that he dares to attack those of his fellows. To make all citizens happy is, then, to prevent the inception of crime; and the rarity of crime is in direct ratio to the goodness of the administration. This simple principle, however unknown to administrators even to the present day, is no less solid on that account, no less luminous, and ought no less to serve as the basis for government. If it has been neglected, it is because it has appeared easier to rulers to punish the unfortunate being who demands the rights that nature gave him, than to satisfy his just demand; to stifle the cries of anguish, than to change them to shouts of applause. The penal code of every nation is much like the bull of Phalaris; its imposing garb of juridical forms, like the timbrels and other instruments surrounding the brazen monster, prevent the cries of the victims from reaching the ear. Tyrants cry out to the credulous spectators that blood is necessary to the public safety; good legislators are greedy of it.
“The first and most efficacious means of preventing crimes consists, then, in a wise administration that procures the general happiness. When the rays of the beneficent star that rules extend their influence even to the lowest ranks of society, they are rarely sullied by punishments; each, concentrating itself upon the spot where heaven has thrown it, makes the day that it lightens joyous and blessed (and crime is so near to the man who is forced to curse his fate!). If the taxes are light and not severely felt, if subsistence is [[16]]easy, the number of marriages increases, they are happy, and the population multiplies. The people then do not regret their labors, since they are interspersed with pleasures. They are attached to the fatherland, which offers them good fortune, and to life, which gives them the means of enjoying it. A man does not disturb the public peace, because his own prosperity is the fruit of it. A property-holder himself, he takes good care not to do any violence to the right of property, and even where he would not naturally have a horror of bloodshed, his days are too precious to him for him to dare to cut short those of his fellow-citizens.”[17]
“… What sovereign, I say, cannot easily see that he has in his hand the true means of restraining crime, namely to secure the public well-being by means of civil legislation. Yes, the more perfect civil legislation becomes the less need there will be for criminal legislation. And this need will disappear entirely when the twofold basis upon which civil legislation ought to rest becomes fixed and invariable; when the property and the liberty of subjects are respected by the monarch; when the unfortunate man who has been born without property (though with the same needs as others) can, by working, correct the injustice of fate, and destroy the inequality of the distribution of wealth; when, finally, the fruit of his labor will not be the prey of the greedy tax-gatherer. The rich man can then enjoy his wealth in safety, because despair will no longer expose him to the knife of the poor man whom his proud opulence insults. We posit here as the foundation of good legislation the security of real and personal property, but a masterpiece of statesmanship would be, to make them useless, if it were possible, by abolishing them altogether. This would be to tear up crime by the roots. It was thus that Lycurgus, whose laws have been so calumniated because to narrow minds they seemed impossible of imitation, cleverly dried up the source of all crime. To avoid attacks upon property he abolished it; to prevent adultery he had all women held in common; to make the Spartan a hero he made him the slave of his harsh legislation; finally to prevent the sad effects of the passions he permitted none but the passion for the public weal. This is why crimes were so rare in Sparta as long as these laws were faithfully observed. But when Lysander brought back from the fatal conquest of Athens treasures, the taste for art and the rage for luxury, all the vices were rapidly introduced. Then crimes broke out; ambition made men commit perjuries, assassinations, treasons; then the virtuous Agis, who wanted to revive [[17]]morality, perished under the perfidious knife of the royal servitude; then men like Nabis and Machanidas appeared; and finally a penal code was introduced, and Sparta was reduced to the status of an ordinary city.”[18]
“Ought we to be astonished that the attacks upon the social laws are so multiplied to-day, and that there are always so many thieves and assassins, when to the causes of crime which we have developed it is necessary to add that horrible malady of European states, mendicity? When the water destined by nature to quench the thirst of all men is artificially diverted into particular channels for the exclusive use of certain individuals, the unfortunate man, tormented by need, falls into despair, and in a rage breaks these fatal channels, making the fragments fall upon the heads of his enemies. Exclusive possession of property has everywhere produced poverty in the most numerous class, and poverty has given birth to mendicity, which, robbing with one hand to satisfy hunger, with the other plunges a dagger into the bosom of the rich to stop their cries. Here we have in two words the origin of theft and murder. To destroy the roots of these it would be necessary to restore among men the equality of condition so praised by modern philosophers, but not at all included in the programs of modern governments. It would be necessary to distribute wealth equally among all citizens, to eradicate from their hearts the corrosive desire of ambition, and to blunt the spur of their personal interest.”[19]
In his “Recherches philosophiques sur la propriété et sur le vol” Brissot gives an exposition of natural property, and of property as established by society. He says of crime: “Civil property is very different from natural property, as we have shown. It is not based upon the same title, and has not the same aim or the same bounds. Need is the limit of natural property. Civil property goes further and includes superfluities. In nature each man has a right to everything; in society the man to whom his parents have left no property has a right to nothing. In nature he would be guilty if he did not satisfy his needs; he is guilty in society when he satisfies them if he has no property. Society has, then, upset all the ideas of property given by nature. It has destroyed the equilibrium between human beings which nature established. Equality banished there appear the odious distinctions of rich and poor. Society has been divided into two classes, the first consisting of citizens with property, living in idleness; the second and more numerous class composed of the [[18]]mass of the people, to whom the right to exist has been sold dear, and who are degraded and condemned to perpetual toil. To confirm this new right of property the most cruel punishments have been pronounced upon all those who disturb or attack it. The breach of this right is called theft; and see how far we are from nature! The thief in the state of nature is the rich man, the man who has a superfluity; in society the thief is he who robs this rich man. What a complete transposition of ideas!”[20]
“If man retains, even in society, the inalienable right of property which nature has given him, nothing can take it from him, nothing can prevent his exercising it. If the other members of society concentrate in their own persons the possession of all the soil; if those who are robbed by this spoliation and forced to have recourse to labor cannot by this means secure their whole subsistence, then they have the right to exact from the others, who hold property, the means of satisfying their needs. They have a claim upon the wealth of others in proportion to their own necessity, and force used to resist this claim is violence. The rich man is the only thief; he alone ought to hang from those infamous gallows which are raised only to punish the man born in poverty for being needy; only to force him to stifle the voice of nature, the cry of liberty; only to compel him to subject himself to a harsh servitude in order to avoid an ignominious death.”[21]
X.
W. Godwin.
In the third chapter of the First Book of his “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice”, Godwin treats of two important kinds of crime, theft and fraud.
Of these he says: “Two of the greatest abuses relative to the interior policy of nations which at this time prevail in the world, consist in the irregular transfer of property, either first by violence, or secondly by fraud. If among the inhabitants of a country there existed no desire in one individual to possess himself of the substance of another, or no desire so vehement and restless as to prompt him to acquire it by means inconsistent with order and justice, undoubtedly in that country guilt could scarcely be known but by report. If every man could with perfect facility obtain the necessities of life, and, obtaining them, feel no uneasy craving after its superfluities, [[19]]temptation would lose its power. Private interest would visibly accord with public good; and civil society become what poetry has feigned of the golden age. Let us inquire into the principles to which these evils are indebted for their existence.”[22]
According to him these crimes are the consequence:
First, Of poverty, which has reached enormous dimensions (in England one person out of every seven has at some time received public aid). The situation has become such that for the poor man the state of society is a state of war. He considers society not as a body whose object is to maintain personal rights and to procure to each individual the means of providing for his own support, but as a body that protects the advantageous position of one class of persons, while holding others in a state of poverty and dependence.
Second, Of the ostentation of the rich, who make the poor man feel all the more what he is deprived of.
Third, Of the tyranny of the rich, made permanent by legislation, by the administration of the laws, and by the distribution of wealth.
In his Eighth Book (“Of Property”), Godwin elaborates the ideas given above. Speaking of the moral improvement that would result from the abolition of private property, he says: “And here it is obvious that the great occasions for crime would be cut off forever. All men love justice. All men are conscious that man is a being of one common nature, and feel the propriety of the treatment they receive from one another being measured by one common standard. Every man is desirous of assisting another; whether we should choose to ascribe this to an instinct implanted in his nature which renders this a source of personal gratification, or to his perception of the reasonableness of such assistance. So necessary a part is this of the constitution of mind, that it may be doubted whether any man perpetrates any action, however criminal, without having first invented some sophistry, some palliation, by which he proves to himself that it is best to be done. Hence it appears, that offense, the invasion by one man upon the security of another, is a thought alien to the human mind, and which nothing could have reconciled us to but the sharp sting of necessity. To consider merely the present order of society, it is evident that the first offense must have been his who began a monopoly, and took advantage of the weakness of his neighbors to secure certain exclusive privileges to himself. The man on the other hand who determined to put an end to this monopoly, and who peremptorily demanded what was superfluous to the [[20]]possessor and would be of extreme benefit to himself, appeared to his own mind to be merely avenging the offended laws of justice. Were it not for the plausibleness of this apology, it is to be presumed that there would be no such thing as crime in the world.
“The fruitful source of crimes consists in this circumstance, one man’s possessing in abundance that of which another man is destitute. We must change the nature of mind before we can prevent it from being powerfully influenced by this circumstance, when brought strongly home to its perceptions by the nature of its situation. Man must cease to have senses, the pleasures of appetite and vanity must cease to gratify, before he can look on tamely at the monopoly of these pleasures. He must cease to have a sense of justice before he can clearly and fully approve this mixed scene of superfluity and want. It is true that the proper method of curing this inequality is by reason and not by violence. But the immediate tendency of the established administration is to persuade that reason is impotent. The injustice of which they complain is upheld by force, and they are too easily induced, by force to attempt its correction. All they endeavor is the partial correction of an injustice, which education tells them is necessary, but more powerful reason affirms to be tyrannical.
“Force grew out of monopoly. It might accidentally have occurred among savages whose appetites exceeded their supply, or whose passions were inflamed by the presence of the object of their desire; but it would gradually have died away, as reason and civilization advanced. Accumulated property has fixed its empire; and henceforth all is an open contention of the strength and cunning of the one party against the strength and cunning of the other. In this case the violent and premature struggles of the necessitous are undoubtedly an evil. They tend to defeat the very cause in the success of which they are most deeply interested; they tend to procrastinate the triumph of truth. But the true crime in every instance is in the selfish and partial propensities of men, thinking only of themselves, and despising the emolument of others; and of these the rich have their share.
“The spirit of oppression, the spirit of servility, and the spirit of fraud, these are the ultimate growth of the established administration of property. They are alike hostile to intellectual and moral improvement. The other vices of envy, malice, and revenge are their inseparable companions. In a state of society where men lived in the midst of plenty, and where all shared alike the bounties of [[21]]nature, these sentiments would inevitably expire. The narrow principle of selfishness would vanish. No man would be obliged to guard his little store, or provide with anxiety and pain for his restless wants, each would lose his individual existence in the thought of the general good. No man would be an enemy to his neighbor, for they would have no subject of contention; and of consequence philanthropy would resume the empire which reason assigns her; mind would be delivered from her perpetual anxiety about corporal support, and free to expatiate in the field of thought which is congenial to her. Each would assist the inquiries of all.”[23]
XI.
R. Owen.[24]
The author in several works has given us his ideas upon the relation between crime and the social environment, and especially economic conditions. It is in “The Book of the New Moral World”, which appeared in 1844, that his views are best expressed.[25]
They may be summed up as follows: It is not the man himself, it is his circumstances that form his character; an unfavorable environment produces a bad man, a favorable one a good man. The organization of the society of today is such that it awakens in a man all evil qualities. The greater part of mankind live in conditions of the greatest poverty, and become physically, intellectually, and morally inferior. The working classes are housed in unsanitary dwellings, work too hard and too long, and are insufficiently clothed and nourished.
Improper production and distribution of wealth are the causes of the prevalence of disorder and anarchy. The means of production, the raw materials and the productive forces, are sufficient to provide [[22]]amply for the needs of all. But competition by devouring wealth prevents this, and brings it about that while some have a superfluity, the majority have not even the necessaries of life (a fact which is one great cause of criminality). The process of distribution adds enormously to the waste because of the great number of intermediaries.
Education and instruction are neglected to the last degree. The children of the lower classes are almost entirely deprived of instruction, not to say education; their parents, never having been taught themselves, are incapable of imparting instruction, nor have they the leisure for it. However, the children of all classes are made egotistical and anti-social; they have impressed upon them the maxim “Each one for himself”, in place of being taught that the love of one’s neighbor is the principle upon which society ought to be based.
Owen finds the cause of crime, then, in the organization of society upon the basis of private property. The following is a characteristic passage from Volume VI, “General Constitution of Government and Universal Code of Law”:
“Private property has been, and is at this day, the cause of endless crime and misery to man, and he should hail the period when the progress of science, and the knowledge of the means to form a superior character for all the individuals of the human race, render its continuance not only unnecessary, but most injurious to all; injurious to an incalculable extent to the lower, middle, and upper classes. The possession of private property tends to make the possessor ignorantly selfish; and selfish, very generally, in proportion to the extent of the property held by its claimant.…
“Private property also deteriorates the character of its possessor in various ways; it is calculated to produce in him pride, vanity, injustice, and oppression, with a total disregard of the natural and inalienable rights of his fellow men. It limits his ideas within the little narrow circle of self, prevents the mind from expanding to receive the extended views beneficial for the human race, and understand great general interests that could be made most essentially to improve the character and condition of all.…
“Private property alienates mind from mind, is a perpetual cause of repulsive action throughout society, a never-failing source of deception and fraud between man and man, and a strong stimulus to prostitution among women. It has caused war throughout all the past ages of the world’s known history, and has been a stimulant to innumerable private murders.
“It is now the sole cause of poverty and its endless crimes and [[23]]miseries over the world, and in principle it is as unjust as it is unwise in practice.
“In a rational-made society it will never exist. Whatever may have been its necessity or utility, before the introduction of the supremacy of machinery and chemistry, it is now most unnecessary and an unmixed evil; for every one, from the highest to the lowest, may be ensured through life much more of all that is really beneficial for humanity, and the permanent happiness of the individual, through public scientific arrangements, than it is possible to obtain through the scramble and contest for procuring and maintaining private property.
“Private property also continually interferes with or obstructs public measures which would greatly benefit all, and frequently to merely please the whim or caprice of an ill-trained individual.…
“With a well arranged scientific system of public property, equal education and condition, there will be no mercenary or unequal marriages; no spoiled children; and none of the evils which proceed from these errors in the present system, if crudities which pervade all the departments of life, and are thoroughly inconsistent, can be called a system of society.
“In fact, as soon as individuals shall be educated and placed—and it is for the best and permanent interest of society that all should be educated and placed—the saving of time, labour, and capital, between public and private property, will be beyond any estimate the mind of man can form in favour of public property.…
“Therefore the twelfth law[26] will be, that—
“ ‘Under the Rational System of society—after the children shall have been trained to acquire new habits and new feelings, derived from a knowledge of the laws of human nature—there shall be no useless private property.’
“The old system of the world has been created and governed on the assumed principle of man’s responsibility to man, and by man’s rewards and punishments.
“And this principle has been assumed upon the original supposition, that man was born with power to form himself into any character he liked; to believe or disbelieve whatever he pleased; and that he could love, hate, or be indifferent as to all persons and things, according to an independent will which enabled him to do as he liked in all these respects. [[24]]
“The present system is, therefore, essentially a system supported and governed by laws of punishment and reward of man’s creating, in opposition to nature’s laws of punishing and rewarding. The former system is artificial, and always produces crime and misery, continually increasing, and therefore requiring new laws to correct the evils necessarily forced upon society by the old laws; thus laws are multiplied without limit by man to counteract nature’s laws, and ever without success. While nature’s beautiful and benevolent laws, if consistently acted upon in a system made throughout in accordance with them, would produce knowledge, goodness, and happiness, continually increasing, to the human race.
“By man’s laws being forced upon the population of all countries, in continual opposition to nature’s laws; with law added to law, in the vain attempt to remedy endless previous laws, the world had been made and kept criminal, with crimes multiplying as human laws increased.
“The laws of man are made to support injustice, and give additional power to the oppressor and to the man devoid of truth and honesty over the innocent and just. And such must be the result, as long as human laws, lawyers, and law paraphernalia shall be sanctioned by society.…
“Nature’s laws carry with them the only just rewards and punishments that man should experience; and they are, in every case, efficient for nature’s purposes, and to ensure the happiness of man in all countries and climes; and, differing from man’s puny, short-sighted laws, they are always adequate to the end intended to be accomplished. And this end is evidently to increase human knowledge and happiness. It is through these laws of nature, that man has attained the knowledge which he has acquired. He has been continually urged onward to make discoveries, and to invent, through pain experienced, or pleasure enjoyed or anticipated.
“But man has been trained to have his character formed, and to be governed by laws of his own making; his habits, manners, ideas, and associations of ideas have emanated, directly or indirectly, from his artificial and injurious source; and, in consequence, the mind, language, and practice of all individuals have become a chaos of confusion. And this chaos in the character and conduct of individuals has made a yet greater chaos in all the proceedings of society: and, in consequence, man is now opposing man, and nation opposing nation, all over the earth. Yet all nature declares, that it shall be by union of man with man, and nation with nation, that the human [[25]]race can ever attain a high degree of permanent prosperity and happiness, or become rational.
“Nevertheless, while this irrational individual and general character shall remain, those men and women who have been made to receive this character, and to be so injured, must continue for a time to be governed by these most injurious laws. The laws of nature being alone applicable to a society, whose laws are in accordance with the laws of nature.
“When this rational society shall be formed, and men, individually and generally, shall be trained to act in accordance with it, then shall human punishments and rewards cease, and cease for ever.
“The thirteenth law will therefore be, that—
“ ‘As soon as the members of these scientific associations shall have been educated, from infancy, in a knowledge of the laws of their nature, trained to act in obedience to them, and surrounded by circumstances all in unison with them, there shall be no individual reward or punishment.’
“The Rational System of society is one and indivisible in its principles and practices; each part is essential to its formation. It is one unvarying consistent system for forming the character of all individuals, and for governing their affairs; and it is essentially a system to prevent evil, and render individual punishment and reward as unnecessary, as they are unjust and injurious to all.…
“Individual punishments and rewards, ignorance, the inferior feelings and passions, with all crimes and miseries, will go together when the irrational system shall be abolished. When the cause of evil shall be removed, then will the evil cease, and not before.”[27]
XII.
E. Cabet.
In the second part of his “Voyage en Icarie” the author treats of the relation between crime and economic conditions. In his opinion [[26]]money and inequality of fortune and of property are the causes of all crimes. The following quotation explains his views. (The work speaks of present day society as in the past, and supposes the existence of a state with common property.)
“Wealth and superfluity being, by their nature, as I have already said, injustice and usurpation, the poor often thought only of robbing the rich; and theft, under all its forms (swindling, pocket-picking, bankruptcy, breach of trust, fraud, cheating, etc.), was the almost universal occupation of the poor as well as of the rich. And the poor robbed not only the rich, they robbed even the poor themselves, so that all, rich and poor, were both robbers and robbed.
“It would be impossible to enumerate all the kinds of theft and classes of thieves. It was in vain that the rich had terrible laws made against theft; it was in vain that the prisons and galleys were kept filled with poor thieves, and that their blood was often poured out upon the scaffold. Buoyed up by the hope of not being discovered, the poor robbed in the fields, or in houses, or upon the highroads, or even in the streets at night. The skilful pick-pocket stole even in open day. The audacious swindler robbed by means of trickery and deceit, sometimes by selling things of no value, sometimes by taking advantage of credulity or even of beneficence.
“Shall I speak of the counterfeiters of every description? Shall I also speak of the usurers, the great thieves, the wolves of the bourse and the bank, the contractors and monopolists? Shall I speak of those who enriched themselves by means of public calamities, who desired or provoked invasions or wars in order to make their fortunes, and famines in order to amass money in the midst of corpses? Shall I speak of the thieves who risked the public health by adulterating the food and drink that they sold, and of those other great robbers, the heads of the army, who pillaged foreign peoples while exposing their own country to terrible reprisals? Finally shall I speak of the innumerable means of amassing money at the expense of others, and of the innumerable individuals in almost all classes who daily practiced them?
“Not all these acts were classed as thefts by the law. The most inexcusable, the most harmful, those which were only practiced by the rich, even enjoyed legal impunity. But all of them were, nevertheless, in reality according to the rules of a sound morality, thefts. Each class presented, without doubt, many exceptions. There were some rich men as honest as possible, and many workers and poor men were persons of probity; but it may be said that by force of circumstances, and as an irresistible consequence of the inequality of fortune, [[27]]all men, rich and poor, were generally induced to commit actions which were in reality only a kind of theft.
“And often theft led to all kinds of cruelty, to murder, and even to the most barbarous tortures in order to make owners reveal where they had hidden their gold. How many poisonings and parricides did the thirst for gold or inheritance excite! Thieves kidnapped children in order to prostitute them. They even stole and murdered young people in order to sell the flesh of their corpses!
“In a word, neither confidence nor security was possible. Each individual saw enemies in almost all the others; and society seemed, as it were, but a haunt of cut-throats in the midst of a forest! And all these horrors, which you will find more or less everywhere, were with us, and are still elsewhere—I cannot repeat it too often—the inevitable result of the unrestricted right of property.”[28]
XIII.
F. Engels.
Among the disastrous consequences which industrial capitalism draws in its train the author ranks the tremendous increase of criminality. In his “Condition of the Working Class in England” he says: “The failings of the workers in general may be traced to an unbridled thirst for pleasure, to want of providence, and of flexibility in fitting into the social order, to the general inability to sacrifice the pleasure of the moment to a remoter advantage. But is that to be wondered at? When a class can purchase only a few and only the most sensual pleasures by its wearying toil, must it not give itself over blindly and madly to those pleasures? A class about whose education no one troubles himself, which is a playball to a thousand chances, knows no security in life—what incentives has such a class to providence, to ‘respectability’, to sacrifice the pleasure of the moment for a remoter enjoyment, most uncertain precisely by reason of the perpetually varying, shifting conditions under which the proletariat lives? A class which bears all the disadvantages of the social order without enjoying its advantages, one to which the social system appears in purely hostile aspects—who can demand that such a class respect this social order? Verily that is asking much! But the working-man cannot escape the present arrangement of society so long as it exists, and when the individual worker resists it, the greatest injury falls upon himself. [[28]]
“Thus the social order makes family life almost impossible for the worker. In a comfortless, filthy house, hardly good enough for mere nightly shelter, ill-furnished, often neither rain-tight nor warm, a foul atmosphere filling rooms overcrowded with human beings, no domestic comfort is possible. The husband works the whole day through, perhaps the wife also and the elder children, all in different places; they meet night and morning only, all under perpetual temptation to drink; what family life is possible under such conditions? Yet the working-man cannot escape from the family, must live in the family, and the consequence is a perpetual succession of family troubles, domestic quarrels, most demoralizing for parents and children alike. Neglect of all domestic duties, neglect of the children, especially, is only too common among the English working-people, and only too vigorously fostered by the existing institutions of society. And children growing up in this savage way, amidst these demoralizing influences, are expected to turn out goody-goody and moral in the end! Verily the requirements are naïve, which the self-satisfied bourgeois makes upon the working-man!
“The contempt for the existing order is most conspicuous in its extreme form—that of offenses against the law. If the influences demoralizing to the working-man act more powerfully, more concentratedly than usual, he becomes an offender as certainly as water abandons the fluid for the vaporous state at 80 degrees, Réaumur. Under the brutal and brutalizing treatment of the bourgeoisie, the working-man becomes precisely as much without volition as water, and is subject to the laws of nature with precisely the same necessity; at a certain point all freedom ceases. Hence with the extension of the proletariat, crime has increased in England, and the British nation has become the most criminal in the world. From the annual criminal tables of the Home Secretary, it is evident that the increase of crime in England has proceeded with incomprehensible rapidity. The number of arrests for criminal offenses reached in years: 1805, 4,605; 1810, 5,146; 1815, 7,898; 1820, 13,710; 1825, 14,437; 1830, 18,107; 1835, 20,731; 1840, 27,187; 1841, 27,760; 1842, 31,309 in England and Wales alone. That is to say, they increased seven-fold in thirty-seven years. Of these arrests, in 1842, 4,497 were made in Lancashire alone, or more than 14 per cent. of the whole; and 4,094 in Middlesex, including London, or more than 13 per cent. So that two districts which include great cities with proletarian populations, produced one fourth of the total amount of crime, though their population is far from forming one fourth of the whole. Moreover, the criminal [[29]]tables prove directly that nearly all crime arises within the proletariat; for in 1842, taking the average, out of 100 criminals, 32.35 could neither read nor write; 58.32 read and wrote imperfectly; 6.77 could read and write well; 0.22 had enjoyed a higher education, while the degree of education of 2.34 could not be ascertained. In Scotland, crime has increased yet more rapidly. There were but 89 arrests for criminal offenses in 1819, and as early as 1837 the number had risen to 3,176, and in 1842 to 4,189. In Lanarkshire, where Sheriff Alison himself made out the criminal report, the population has doubled in thirty years, and crime in five and a half, or six times more rapidly than the population. The offenses, as in all civilized countries, are, in the great majority of cases, against property. The proportion of offenses to the population, which in the Netherlands is as 1 : 7,140, and in France as 1 : 1,804, was in England, when Gaskell wrote, as 1 : 799. The proportion of offenses against persons to the population in the Netherlands, 1 : 28,904; in France, 1 : 17,537; in England, 1 : 23,395; that of crimes in general to the population in the agricultural districts, as 1 : 1,043; in the manufacturing districts as 1 : 840. (‘Manufacturing Population of England’, chap. 10.) In the whole of England today the proportion is 1 : 660; though it is scarcely ten years since Gaskell’s book appeared!”[29] [[30]]
[1] [Note to the American Edition: In my opinion, More is the first author who has noted in a scientific way the relation between criminality and economic conditions. Before him there were other authors, to whom this relationship did not remain totally unperceived; but they treated the subject by chance, as it were, and in a very superficial way. Cf. J. van Kan, “Les Causes économiques de la Criminalité”, pp. 15 ff.] [↑]
[3] “Le testament de J. Meslier.” [↑]
[8] Pp. 144, 145. See also pp. 38 ff., and pp. 150 ff. [↑]
[13] Pp. 186–189. See also pp. 199, 200, and 207–209. [↑]
[16] Pp. 47, 48. See also pp. 72 ff. [↑]
[24] See also the work entitled: “An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth” (Chapters II and III), by W. Thompson, a disciple of Owen. On page 17 he says: “The unrestrained tendency of the distribution of wealth, being so much toward equality, excessive wealth and excessive poverty being removed, almost all the temptations, all the motives, which now urge to the commission of crime, would be also removed.” In general, the English socialists from the commencement of the nineteenth century (e.g. Charles Hall, Thomas Hodgskin, Charles Bray, and others) have had a notion, more or less clear, of the relation between the nascent industrial capitalism and criminality. Upon these authors cf. Quack, “De Socialisten” (Tome Supplémentaire), and Beer, “Geschichte des Sozialismus in England”, I. [↑]
[25] See his “Essays on the Formation of Character”; and “Reports of the Proceedings at the Several Public Meetings held in Dublin.” [↑]
[26] One of the laws which, according to Owen, should produce the change from modern society to the society of the future. [↑]
[27] Pp. 40–45. It is well known that Owen put his theories into practice when he founded the village of New Lanark. The disastrous consequences of industrial capitalism, such as excessive hours of labor, insufficient nourishment, unsanitary housing, the lack of education for children, etc., were diminished there or altogether avoided. Among the population of the colony, though originally alcoholized and demoralized by capitalism, little by little the favorable environment made itself felt, so that for nineteen years there was no judicial prosecution, and drunkenness and illegitimate births disappeared. (See Denis, “Le socialisme et les causes économiques et sociales du crime”, p. 283, and Quack, “De Socialisten”, II, pp. 279 ff.) [↑]
[29] Pp. 128–131. See also: F. Engels, “Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie”, pp. 449 and 459; F. Engels and K. Marx, “Die heilige Familie oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik”, pp. 239–241. See also, the following: Plato, “The Republic”, I. 5.; C. A. Helvetius, “De l’homme”, X. p. 49; J. P. Marat, “Plan de la législation criminelle”, pp. 18 ff.; J. Bentham, “Traités de la législation civile et pénale”, III ch. V, pp. 45 ff.; Ch. Fourier, “Théorie des quatre Mouvements”, III; “Théorie de l’unité universelle” (“Traité de l’association domestique-agricole”), Introduction. 2. p. 51; “Le nouveau monde industriel et sociétaire”, Sect. VI; B. P. Enfantin, “Les enseignements”, pp. 92, 93; W. Weitling, “Die Menschheit wie sie ist, und wie sie sein sollte”, p. 47; “Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit”, pp. 53, 54, and 104, 105; “Das Evangelium eines armen Sünders”, p. 102; V. Considérant, “Théorie du droit de propriété et du droit au travail”, p. 33; L. Blanc, “Organisation du travail”, pp. 57 ff.; C. Pequeur, “Des améliorations matérielles”, pp. 86–88, 232–234, 239–241; J. A. van Royen, “Wetgeving en armoede beschouwd in betrekking tot het misdrijf”, pp. 9 ff.; C. J. A. den Tex, “De causis criminum”, pp. 84 ff.; Chaillou des Barres, “L’influence du bien-être matériel sur la moralité d’un peuple” (“Journal des Economistes”, 1846); E. Mercier, “Influence du bien-être matériel sur la criminalité”; P. J. Proudhon, “De la justice dans la révolution et dans l’église”, pp. 533–534.
[Note to the American Edition: For the opinions of the scientific world of Holland at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth: J. A. v. Hamel, “Strafrechtspolitiek van voor honderd jaar” (Gids, 1909, II).
See for the same period in England: L. von Thót, “Die positive Strafrechtsschule in einigen europäischen Ländern”, pp. 407 ff. (“Monatschr. f. Kriminal-Psychologie u. Strafrechts-reform”, VIII).] [↑]
CHAPTER II.
THE STATISTICIANS.
I.
A. M. Guerry.
In his “Essai sur la statistique morale de la France”, the author has made a study of the influence of age, sex, season, education, etc., upon criminality. But there is scarcely to be found an exposition of the influence of economic conditions upon the subject which we are considering. The following passages, however, are not devoid of interest.
“Wealth, (as determined by the amount of taxes on personal and real property) more often than density of population, coincides with crimes against property, of which it thus appears to be an indirect cause. We shall observe, however, that while the maximum of wealth falls in the departments of the North, where the greatest number of crimes against property are found; and the minimum in the center where these crimes are most rare; yet in the South the average is almost as high as in the North. Now if in the North is wealth which indirectly produces the crimes against property, why is it that the same is not true of the South? It would be unsafe to conclude from the fact that the poorest departments are those where the fewest crimes against property are committed, that poverty is not the principal cause of these crimes. In order to justify this conclusion, which in other regards we are far from rejecting, more direct proofs would be necessary. As a matter of fact, it is possible that the departments where there is the least wealth are not those where there are the greatest number of the very poor; and that the departments where the largest fortunes are to be found are just those where the poverty of a part of the population is greatest.
“The question of the effect of wealth or poverty upon morality [[31]]presents more difficulty than one would suspect at first glance. To study it it would be necessary to determine the ratio of the indigent and pauper class in each department. Some documents upon the subject have been published, it is true, but they have no authentic character, and do not appear to merit enough confidence for us to give the analysis of them here.”[1]
Further along Guerry shows that the departments where commerce and manufacturing are most highly developed furnish also the greatest number of crimes against property. But the author has not investigated the connection between these two symptoms. Although not rejecting, then, entirely the hypothesis that poverty is not the principal cause of crimes against property, Guerry recognizes nevertheless that a causal connection between poverty and crime is possible, that is to say he perceives that the department where the greatest poverty prevails is not necessarily that which is the poorest, nor that the richest is the one that has the fewest of the very poor.
II.
Ad. Quetelet.
An exposition of the whole system of this author would lead us too far. But the following quotations from his “Physique sociale” will suffice to show the breadth of his views and the vastness of his conception of society.
“Thus, to make our manner of procedure plain by an example, anyone who examines too closely a small portion of a very great circumference traced upon a plane, will see in this portion only a certain number of physical points, assembled in a more or less accidental way.… From a greater distance his eye will take in a greater number of points, which will already appear regularly distributed in an arc of a certain extent; soon, if the observer continues to recede, he loses sight of the individual points … grasps the law that has presided over their general arrangement, and recognizes the nature of the curve traced.…
“It is in this way that we shall study the laws that concern the human race; for when we examine them from too near at hand it becomes impossible to grasp them; we are struck only with individual peculiarities, which are infinite.”[2]
“In all that relates to crimes, the same figures are reproduced with [[32]]such constancy that it is impossible to misconstrue them, even in the case of those crimes which, it would seem, should be most likely to escape human prevision, such as homicides, since these are in general committed as a consequence of quarrels arising without motive, and under apparently fortuitous circumstances. Experience, however, proves that not only is the annual number of homicides nearly constant, but that even the weapons employed are used in the same proportions. What can be said then of crimes that are the result of reflection?
“This constancy with which the same crimes reappear annually in the same order, and lead to the same penalties in the same proportions, is one of the most curious of the facts that we learn from court statistics.… A budget which we pay with frightful regularity is that of the jails, the penitentiaries, and the gallows.… We can enumerate in advance how many individuals will stain their hands with the blood of their fellows, how many will be forgers, how many poisoners; almost as we can predict the births and deaths.…
“Society contains within itself the germs of all the crimes that are about to be committed. It is society, in a way, which prepares them, and the criminal is only the instrument that executes them.
“Every social state supposes, then, a certain number and certain order of crimes as a necessary consequence of its organization. This remark, which might appear discouraging at first sight, becomes consoling, on the contrary, when we consider it more closely, since it shows the possibility of the improvement of men, by the modification of their institutions and habits and whatever, in general, influences their manner of being. At bottom this is only the extension of the well known law … that so far as the same causes are present we must expect the repetition of the same effects. What has produced the belief that this did not apply to moral phenomena is the too great influence commonly ascribed to man in matters relating to his actions.”[3]
In the second volume of the “Physique sociale”, Quetelet studies the influence of climate, age, and sex upon the tendency to crime. Although he merely touches upon our subject and treats it only indirectly, the following passages are worth the trouble of quoting:
“Poverty also is very generally regarded as leading to evil; however the department of the Creuse, one of the poorest in France, is that which shows in every respect, the highest morality. In the same way in the Netherlands, the most moral province is Luxemburg, [[33]]where there is most poverty reigning. We must, however, be clear about the word poverty, which is here employed with a significance to which exception may be taken. A province is not really poor for having less extreme wealth than another, if the inhabitants, as in Luxemburg, are sober and industrious; if, by their labor, they succeed in providing in a dependable way for their needs, and in satisfying tastes that are so much the more modest, as the inequality of fortune is less felt, and causes less temptation; it may be said with more justice that this province enjoys a modest competence. Poverty makes itself felt in the provinces where great wealth is piled up, as in Flanders, Holland, the department of the Seine, etc., and especially in manufacturing countries, where the slightest political disturbance, the slightest obstruction in the channels of trade, will suddenly reduce thousands from a state of well-being to one of distress. It is these sudden changes from one state to another that give birth to crime, especially if those who suffer from them are surrounded by temptations, and are irritated by the continual sight of luxury and an inequality of fortune that makes them desperate.”[4]
In speaking of the three races that make up the population of France, Quetelet says:
“The most remarkable anomaly that the Celtic race seems to present is found in the departments that belong to the valley of the Seine, especially below Paris. Several causes contribute to bring this about. We shall note first that these departments are those which, by reason of their extent, contain most persons and things, and consequently offer most opportunities to commit crimes; it is there that there is most movement and that most vagrants flow in from all districts.… Finally, it is here also that we find most industrial establishments and these establishments support a congested population whose means of support are more precarious than in other vocations.… The commercial and industrial provinces of the Netherlands are likewise those in which most offenses are committed.”[5]
III.
Edw. Ducpetiaux.
One of the parts of his “Paupérisme dans les Flandres” treats of the criminality in the two provinces of that name. We quote the following from it: [[34]]
“Criminality is the inseparable companion of poverty. As the number of indigent persons increases, we see the number of crimes also increase. Hunger is a bad counselor. In the midst of crushing destitution, a man gradually loses the notion of justice and injustice, of good and bad; beset by needs that he cannot satisfy, he disregards the laws, and ends by recoiling from no attempt that appears capable of bettering his condition. Visiting a prison is enough to convince one of the influence of this cause upon the number and the nature of the offenses, and before even questioning the statistics that attest the progress of criminality in Flanders, we could be assured that this progress had coincided with that of pauperism. It is not then a demonstration (which we judge quite unnecessary) that we are about to offer here, it is only a series of facts that may serve to make the reader appreciate the greatness of the evil and the urgent necessity of attacking its source.
“The first of these facts is the high figure for convicts belonging to East and West Flanders, when compared with the total number of convicts in the central prisons.… In the ten years between 1838 and 1847, 23,075 convicts were received in the central prisons of the kingdom; 10,308 belonged to the two Flanders and 12,767 to the other provinces; the proportion, to 1000 convicts, was 447 for the first two provinces, and 553 for the seven others. Now this proportion is considerably in excess of that of the respective populations of the two divisions, since, to the thousand inhabitants, there are only 331 in Flanders and 669 in the rest of the kingdom. In other words, during the decennial period in question, one prisoner was received to 139 inhabitants in Flanders, and to 227 in the seven other provinces.
“The second fact is the increase in the number of persons arraigned and convicted in the Flemish provinces during the last few of these years, and particularly since the food shortage of 1845. In a space of seven years, the number of those arraigned in the two Flanders increased about in the ratio of 7 to 17; that of those condemned to imprisonment grew, during the same period from 35 to 123, or nearly quadrupled.
“These data are confirmed by an abstract of the numbers received into the jails and prisons of the two provinces, as well as by the average population of these establishments, during the period from 1839 to 1848: [[35]]
| Years. | Persons Received into the Jails and Prisons of | Totals. | Average Population of the Prisons. | |||
| West Flanders. | ||||||
| Bruges. | Courtrai. | Ypres. | Furnes. | |||
| 1839 | 1,578 | 592 | 572 | 169 | 2,911 | 233 |
| 1840 | 1,502 | 643 | 821 | 196 | 3,162 | 238 |
| 1841 | 1,377 | 795 | 599 | 175 | 2,946 | 311 |
| 1842 | 1,489 | 863 | 836 | 271 | 3,459 | 346 |
| 1843 | 1,478 | 922 | 790 | 298 | 3,488 | 374 |
| 1844 | 1,502 | 941 | 696 | 270 | 3,409 | 379 |
| 1845 | 1,876 | 935 | 600 | 254 | 3,665 | 376 |
| 1846 | 2,378 | 1,108 | 935 | 601 | 5,022 | 574 |
| 1847 | 3,751 | 2,012 | 1,238 | 909 | 7,910 | 820 |
| 1848 | 2,859 | 1,960 | 1,070 | 690 | 6,579 | 694 |
| East Flanders. | ||||||
| Ghent. | Audenarde. | Termonde. | ||||
| 1839 | 2,094 | 842 | 754 | 3,690 | 289 | |
| 1840 | 2,311 | 919 | 852 | 4,082 | 357 | |
| 1841 | 2,163 | 771 | 852 | 3,786 | 351 | |
| 1842 | 2,171 | 844 | 905 | 3,920 | 333 | |
| 1843 | 3,610 | 991 | 870 | 5,471 | 408 | |
| 1844 | 2,548 | 760 | 718 | 4,026 | 345 | |
| 1845 | 2,579 | 1,061 | 1,461 | 5,101 | 360 | |
| 1846 | 5,499 | 2,732 | 2,092 | 0,323 | 619 | |
| 1847 | 7,491 | 6,943 | 3,240 | 7,674 | 972 | |
| 1848 | 6,309 | 4,462 | 2,829 | 3,600 | 698 | |
“The increase in the numbers received into the jails and prisons of the two provinces took place especially in the years 1845, 1846, and 1847; in 1848 we note quite a pronounced decrease, which continues in 1849. Of all the signs to prove the existence and progress of pauperism, this is perhaps the most certain. During the disastrous years that had just elapsed, the prisons became in a sense annexes of the hospitals and almshouses; a great number of offenses were committed with the sole object of finding asylum.…
“As to the children, we shall understand the imminence of the danger when we realize that in the short space of three years, from 1845 to 1847, 26,247 children and young persons of both sexes under 18, were incarcerated in prison or were inmates of workhouses. Most of these children belonged to the two provinces of Flanders, and a great number were arrested outside the limits of their province. Here is the increase in the number of those received into the prisons [[36]]of Ghent and Bruges, and the jails of Audenarde, Termonde, Courtrai, Ypres, and Furnes:
| Cities. | Young Prisoners (under 18) Received in | Total during the 3 Yrs. | ||||
| 1845. | 1846. | 1847. | Boys. | Girls. | General Total. | |
| Prisons of E. Flanders. | ||||||
| Ghent | 350 | 1,345 | 1,898 | 2,671 | 922 | 3,593 |
| Audenarde | 207 | 315 | 674 | 929 | 267 | 1,196 |
| Termonde | 123 | 235 | 406 | 616 | 148 | 764 |
| Prisons of W. Flanders. | ||||||
| Bruges | 459 | 299 | 550 | 1,110 | 198 | 1,308 |
| Courtrai | 116 | 170 | 331 | 560 | 57 | 617 |
| Ypres | 70 | 184 | 250 | 414 | 90 | 504 |
| Furnes | 43 | 139 | 57 | 151 | 88 | 239 |
| Totals | 1,368 | 2,687 | 4,166 | 6,451 | 1,770 | 8,221 |
“This deplorable fact of the increase of criminality among the young is explained by the statistics of indigence. We see in fact that, among the indigent persons aided in East Flanders, in 1847, there were:
| In the Cities. | In the Country. | Total. | |
| Indigent persons under 6 yrs. | 6,693 | 34,637 | 41,530 |
| Indigent,, persons,, under,, 12 yrs.,, | 8,327 | 37,437 | 45,764 |
| Indigent,, persons,, under,, 18 yrs.,, | 5,597 | 20,060 | 25,653 |
| General total | 112,947 | ||
“Supposing that West Flanders, which has more dependents in proportion than East Flanders, has the same proportion of children, we arrive at a total for the two provinces, of 225,894 indigent persons whose age is not above 18. In this number there are 174,588 who have not passed their twelfth year! And there are thousands of orphans!
“Notwithstanding the improvement that begins to make itself felt, thanks to the resumption of work and the low price of provisions, many of these young unfortunates continue to give themselves up to begging and vagrancy. But lately driven from their homes by cold and hunger, they form a wandering population, incessantly buffeted from almshouse to almshouse, from prison to prison. [[37]]
“In Brussels at this present moment (July, 1849) there are still to be found in the annex of the prison, about 250 mendicants, among whom are 97 children below the age of 17. In the prisons of Ghent and Bruges their number is equally great.”[6]
“It is an established fact, then, that the increase of criminality in Flanders has gone hand in hand with the extension of poverty. The latter brings about the abandonment of homes; … from this come mendicity, vagrancy, marauding, and theft. The incarceration of so great a number of unfortunates brings the most disastrous consequences. The germs of corruption, brutality, and crime are continually injected into a large fraction of the population. The habit of working is lost, energy is relaxed, idleness becomes incurable. When we think especially of the mass of children who, during the last few years, have passed through the prisons and almshouses, we cannot picture without pity, mingled with fear, the future of this generation, initiated at an early age into the existence of criminals, and condemned to the dangers and evils inseparable from the abandonment and degradation to which they are a prey.”[7]
IV.
L. M. Moreau-Christophe.[8]
In speaking of England, after having sketched how industrialism, as it spread more and more, drew after it an increase of pauperism, the author says of the connection between criminality and economic conditions:
“Parallel with the ascending figure for pauperism, rises the growing figure for criminality. The number of persons arraigned at the assizes of England and Wales has increased as follows:
| Years. | Totals. | Annual Average. |
| 1814 to 1820 | 78,762 | 11,252 |
| 1821 to 1827 | 99,842 | 14,263 |
| 1828 to 1834 | 134,062 | 19,152 |
| 1834 to 1840 | 162,502 | 23,214 |
| 1841 to 1847 | 193,445 | 27,760 |
[[38]]
“Thus in a space of thirty-four years the number of crimes has more than doubled in England, while, in the same interval, the increase of the population has hardly passed 40%.
“The parallelism between the growing pauperism and growing criminality is even more striking when the comparison is applied to the delinquents under the summary jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. Up to the time of the establishment of the workhouses in 1834 the number of poor persons assisted increased progressively from year to year. Well, the number of persons arrested by the metropolitan police followed the same progression. This number was 72,824 in 1831, and 77,543 in 1832. In 1833 the new poor law with its terrible workhouses was approaching; consequently the number of arrests was no more than 69,959. In 1834 the law was promulgated, and up to 1838 was executed with great rigor; as a result the number of arrests fell to 64,269 in 1834, to 63,674 in 1835, and to 63,584 in 1836. In 1837 the severity began to relax; consequently the number of arrests increased to 64,416. In 1839 the laxity continued, and the number of arrests increased to 70,717. Laxity reached its height in 1842, and the number of arrests rose to 76,545; this was an arrest to each 25 of the population.
“In Newcastle in 1837 the magistrates sentenced 1 person to 24 of the whole population. In Leeds during a period of six years, from 1833 to 1838, there was one person arrested to 32 of the population. In Manchester in 1841 … the ratio of persons arrested, to the population, was as 1 to 21.… In 1831, ten years earlier, the proportion was still only 1 to 78. It almost quadrupled, then, in the interval. In Liverpool in 1840 there was one arrest to 12 inhabitants.”[9]
V.
G. Mayr.
The statistical data that form the basis of Dr. Mayr’s “Statistik der gerichtlichen Polizei im Königreiche Bayern und in einigen anderen Ländern” are different from those used in similar works. For, while generally only the number of crimes whose authors have been convicted, or that of delinquents punished, are considered, Dr. Mayr is of the opinion that to obtain a true picture of the morality of a people, it is necessary to take into account the number of crimes known to the police. “If we wish really to form an exact picture of [[39]]the moral condition of a people, we must first of all ask ourselves the question, how great is the number of the cases of crimes of different kinds that are of common notoriety, before we ask how great is the number of the individuals who are convicted of these crimes. The immorality of a people is determined not by the number of individuals convicted, but by the number of crimes committed; else that people would be most moral in which no offender ever let himself be caught, even if more crimes were committed there than elsewhere.”[10]
Bavaria.
The results of Dr. Mayr’s researches in regard to crime in this country are shown by him in a number of charts.[11]
Cis-Rhenal Territory. A comparison of the curves for crimes against property and those for crimes against persons shows us that the first descends as the other ascends, and vice versa. In seeking for the causes we find that in general the motives for the latter class of crime are, among others, coarseness, passion, and dissoluteness, while that of the first kind of crime is the desire to secure objects for direct use. The more difficult it is to gain a livelihood in a lawful manner, the more this tendency will develop.
According to the author, the fluctuation in the price of grain is one of the most important factors bearing upon criminality. And indeed, in examining his nine statistical charts the connection between the high or the low cost of grain, and the great or the small number of offenses against property comes out clearly. The curve for offenses against persons, on the other hand, falls when the price of grain rises, and vice versa. The improvement of living conditions, both subjectively (through having the means to purchase the necessaries) and objectively (through a fall in prices) must consequently exercise a considerable influence upon criminality. This is seen very well in the last years of the period 1835–61, when the price of grain was low, and wages very generally increased. Hence, from 1857 on, there was an increase in the crimes against persons, and a decrease in the crimes against property.
It ought to be remarked here that however just in itself Dr. Mayr’s [[40]]observation may be, we must beware of drawing the erroneous conclusion that those who feel most strongly the influence of the fall of prices and the rise in wages must necessarily, according to a law of nature, commit crimes against persons. This is true only for gross and uncultivated individuals who do not know how to occupy their leisure. But the degree of civilization of an individual depends above all upon the economic conditions under which he was placed by his birth. There are, then, economic causes for both kinds of crime.
Upper Bavaria. This district shows a higher figure for crime than any other province in Bavaria. It is especially the great increase since 1857–1858 that is most striking, and which is explained at least partially by the application of another system of examining offenses. The increase in the number of crimes against the person is the consequence of prosperous years, while the high figure for crimes against property is explained by the great influx of individuals from neighboring districts, who, from an economic standpoint, were not independent. In the period from 1837 to 1864 the population increased 49,128 by birth, and 66,299 by immigration.
Lower Bavaria. The connection between crimes against property and the price of grain is weaker in this province than in any of the others, because of its great production of cereals, which, for the most part, are destined for home consumption.
The upper Palatinate, Upper, Central, and Lower Franconia, and Swabia, all give convincing proofs of Dr. Mayr’s thesis, though in Franconia the truth is less apparent through the fact that bad years brought increased emigration, which cut down the normal increase in the number of crimes.
Where he treats of the different forms of crime, we read the following remarks, which are of interest in connection with our subject: “As we have just seen, crimes against persons increase when the price of grain goes up. We must except from this rule, however, two kinds of crime: infanticide and abortion.” The first of these crimes reached its maximum in the critical years 1854–55, and the second in 1853–1854.
As a proof of the coincidence of the fluctuations of crimes against property with those of the price of grain in the period preceding that which he studied especially, Dr. Mayr gives the following table: [[41]]
| Years. | Number of Crimes against Property to 100,000 of Population. | Price of Rye in Munich. | ||||
| District of the Isar. | District of the Lower Danube. | |||||
| 1818/19 | — | 138 | 8 | fl. | 15 | kr. |
| 19/20 | — | 148 | 6 | 31 | ||
| 20/21 | 233 | 157 | 7 | 28 | ||
| 21/22 | 297 | 200 | 7 | 58 | ||
| 22/23 | 267 | 195 | 7 | 57 | ||
| 23/24 | 276 | — | 6 | 2 | ||
| 24/25 | 295 | 166 | 6 | 59 | ||
| 25/26 | 317 | 157 | 6 | 18 | ||
| 26/27 | 315 | 144 | 6 | 55 | ||
| 27/28 | 463 | 241 | 11 | 11 | ||
| 28/29 | 416 | 234 | 11 | 6 | ||
| 29/30 | 401 | 216 | 10 | 48 | ||
| 30/31 | 427 | 264 | 11 | 12 | ||
| 31/32 | 530 | 302 | 12 | 35 | ||
| 32/33 | 493 | 313 | 8 | 21 | ||
| 33/34 | — | 318 | 8 | 42 | ||
| 34/35 | 487 | 318 | 7 | 47 | ||
In chapter IV (“Zahl und Bewegung der Polizeiübertretungen im Gebiete diesseits des Rheins”) Dr. Mayr gives some interesting information with regard to thefts of wood. The following table gives the figures for these crimes in this district compared with the others:
| Above the Average (Cis-Rhenal Territory). | Below the Average (Cis-Rhenal Territory). | ||
| The Upper Palatinate | 18 % | Central Franconia | 1 % |
| Upper Franconia | 80 %,, | Swabia | 63 %,, |
| Lower Franconia | 178 %,, | Upper Bavaria | 99.2 %,, |
| Lower Bavaria | 99.5 %,, | ||
The great difference between these figures is explained by the fact that in Lower Franconia only a quarter of the woods are privately owned (the rest belonging to corporations, etc.). In Upper Bavaria the private forests are 92%, and in Lower Bavaria 96½% of the whole. Besides, the price of wood is very high in Lower Franconia. Once more, then, economic conditions are the cause of crime.
Upon the movement of the figures for mendicity Dr. Mayr remarks that they are strongly influenced by the cost of the primary necessities. “The parallel movement of the food-price and mendicity offers little to astonish us if we learn from the statistics of crimes that the [[42]]objective difficulty or ease of getting food resulting from the fluctuations in price, exercises a direct influence upon increase and decrease of serious crimes against property. It is explicable that only a small portion of individuals who become economically dependent proceed to serious crime, while the majority fall into the minor misdemeanors involved in a living obtained through begging and vagrancy. The same force that appears in the increase and decrease of attacks upon property, must consequently appear much more intensively in the fluctuations of mendicity and vagrancy.”
Bavaria.[12]
| Years. | Price of Rye | Number of Mendicants and Vagrants Arrested to 100,000 of the Population. | |||||||||||
| Cis-Rhenal Territory. | Palatinate. | Bavaria. | Palatinate. | Upper Palatinate. | Franconia. | Swabia. | The Kingdom. | ||||||
| fl. | kr. | fl. | kr. | Upper | Lower | Upper | Central | Lower | |||||
| 1835/36 | 6 | 53 | 8 | 17 | 2696 | 1558 | 1542 | 1952 | 2165 | 1348 | 665 | 1456 | 1685 |
| 1836/37 | 7 | 31 | 10 | 26 | 2100 | 1839 | 2075 | 2277 | 2421 | 1229 | 711 | 1262 | 1727 |
| 1837/38 | 10 | 18 | 12 | 21 | 2065 | 2483 | 2472 | 2233 | 2255 | 1438 | 639 | 1306 | 1842 |
| 1838/39 | 11 | 30 | 13 | 40 | 2232 | 1989 | 2056 | 2076 | 2195 | 1435 | 519 | 1640 | 1771 |
| 1839/40 | 10 | 35 | 12 | 6 | 2032 | 1805 | 2238 | 2111 | 2584 | 1233 | 515 | 1829 | 1781 |
| 1840/41 | 8 | 49 | 10 | 4 | 1887 | 1608 | 1845 | 1711 | 1810 | 1006 | 410 | 1531 | 1467 |
| 1841/42 | 9 | 14 | 12 | 39 | 1777 | 1318 | 1878 | 1625 | 1814 | 1008 | 434 | 1599 | 1433 |
| 1842/43 | 14 | 10 | 15 | 19 | 1810 | 1757 | 2479 | 2365 | 2679 | 1450 | 615 | 2177 | 1893 |
| 1843/44 | 14 | 1 | 10 | 28 | 1905 | 1690 | 1970 | 2286 | 2264 | 1475 | 475 | 2151 | 1758 |
| 1844/45 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 30 | 1857 | 1698 | 2411 | 2364 | 1412 | 1119 | 423 | 1722 | 1622 |
| 1845/46 | 19 | 53 | 21 | 45 | 2182 | 1836 | 3528 | 2856 | 1447 | 1475 | 535 | 2332 | 2033 |
| 1846/47 | 21 | 36 | 22 | 44 | 2902 | 2166 | 4276 | 3757 | 1904 | 1850 | 949 | 2586 | 2584 |
| 1847/48 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 22 | 1916 | 1635 | 2704 | 2290 | 1348 | 1364 | 548 | 1985 | 1746 |
| 1848/49 | 7 | 34 | 8 | 46 | 2269 | 1439 | 2555 | 1360 | 1015 | 1270 | 586 | 1545 | 1563 |
| 1849/50 | 7 | 57 | 8 | 57 | 2346 | 1528 | 2801 | 1782 | 991 | 1351 | 716 | 1893 | 1686 |
| 1850/51 | 12 | 20 | 13 | 10 | 2213 | 1790 | 3269 | 1734 | 1096 | 1294 | 1002 | 2023 | 1845 |
| 1851/52 | 17 | 53 | 15 | 57 | 2927 | 2243 | 4562 | 3030 | 1637 | 2274 | 2236 | 2969 | 2705 |
| 1852/53 | 17 | 39 | 17 | 46 | 2572 | 1918 | 5010 | 2289 | 2017 | 1795 | 2165 | 2535 | 2592 |
| 1853/54 | 23 | 38 | 24 | 13 | 2932 | 2097 | 5854 | 2983 | 2127 | 2282 | 2894 | 2671 | 3027 |
| 1854/55 | 23 | 19 | 23 | 38 | 2964 | 2591 | 5026 | 3326 | 2470 | 2215 | 2831 | 2804 | 3229 |
| 1855/56 | 17 | 45 | 22 | 2 | 2423 | 1817 | 4637 | 2367 | 2050 | 1595 | 2515 | 1939 | 2443 |
| 1856/57 | 15 | 26 | 18 | 5 | 2157 | 1724 | 3265 | 2059 | 1176 | 1412 | 1931 | 1435 | 1922 |
| 1857/58 | 12 | 31 | 12 | 58 | 1956 | 1237 | 2595 | 1537 | 588 | 974 | 1621 | 1203 | 1505 |
| 1858/59 | 10 | 28 | 12 | 13 | 1949 | 1170 | 2309 | 1334 | 462 | 497 | 940 | 1029 | 1255 |
| 1859/60 | 11 | 45 | 15 | 15 | 2084 | 1219 | 2622 | 1538 | 525 | 890 | 994 | 1105 | 1419 |
| 1860/61 | 14 | 8 | 16 | 19 | 2055 | 1304 | 2580 | 1318 | 484 | 720 | 750 | 1069 | 1336 |
| Average | 13 | 35 | 14 | 44 | 2234 | 1741 | 3083 | 2155 | 1649 | 1388 | 1120 | 1842 | 1920 |
[[43]]
England.
In speaking of the influence of economic conditions upon mendicity Dr. Mayr gives the following table:
England and Wales.
| Years. | Price of Wheat (Quarter). | Number of Vagrants. | ||
| sh. | d. | |||
| 1858 | 44 | 2 | 22,559 | |
| 1859 | 43 | 10 | 23,353 | |
| 1860 | 53 | 3 | 22,666 | |
| 1861 | 55 | 4 | 24,001 | |
| 1862 | 55 | 5 | ½ | 29,504 |
| 1863 | 44 | 9 | 33,182 | |
| 1864 | 40 | 2 | 31,932 | |
However, in this case the increase of mendicity does not rest upon the high prices alone, but also upon the crisis which, owing to the depression of the cotton industry from 1860 on, lowered the plane of living of hundreds of thousands of workers, or drove them into the street.
England and Wales.
Number and Kind of Cases Tried by Jury.
| Years. | Offenses against Persons. | Offenses against Property with Violence. | Offenses against Property without Violence. | Forgery and Counterfeiting. | Violent Attacks against Property. | Other | Total. | ||||
| 1858 | 14 | 29 | 233 | 13 | 2 | .5 | 4 | .5 | 296 | ||
| 1859 | 13 | 22 | 209 | 11 | 3 | 5 | 263 | ||||
| 1860 | 11 | 20 | 207 | 8 | .5 | 2 | .5 | 4 | 253 | ||
| 1861 | 12 | 25 | 200 | 8 | .5 | 2 | .5 | 4 | 252 | ||
| 1862 | 12 | .5 | 28 | 203 | 9 | .5 | 3 | 6 | 262 | ||
| 1863 | 14 | .5 | 26 | 194 | 9 | 3 | .5 | 7 | 254 | ||
| 1864 | 15 | 24 | 190 | 6 | .5 | 3 | .5 | 7 | 246 | ||
| Average | 13 | 25 | 205 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 260 | ||||
Here the influence of the fall of prices is distinctly seen; offenses against property have decreased, those against persons, on the contrary, have increased. [[44]]
England and Wales.
Total Offenses Tried by Jury, and Offenses not Specified.
| Years. | Assaults upon Persons to 100,000 of the Population. | Attacks upon Property without Violence to 100,000 of the Population. |
| 1858 | 439 | 439 |
| 1859 | 438 | 399 |
| 1860 | 399 | 392 |
| 1861 | 383 | 415 |
| 1862 | 403 | 433 |
| 1863 | 436 | 392 |
| 1864 | 469 | 365 |
| Average | 426 | 405 |
The great fall in the price of grain in 1863–1864 is once more accompanied by a diminution of the offenses against property, and an increase in those against persons.
We might conclude from this table that the remark concerning crimes against property and those against persons is not applicable, since in 1858 the number of crimes against property was very high, notwithstanding the reduced price of grain. Here is Dr. Mayr’s explanation of it:
“The reason must be the following: The occasion for high spirits to be found in improved living conditions follows immediately upon any such improvement, and disappears at once when times grow worse. For this reason the fluctuation in attacks upon persons harmonizes exactly with the fluctuation in the price of food. The effects of hard times are only partially such as lead to punishable offenses; in most cases economic ruin occurs first, which leads only after an interval to attacks upon property. For this reason the effects of hard times continue to manifest themselves at a time when the hard times themselves are already practically over. This is the explanation both of the great number of attacks upon property in the year 1857, when the effects of the immediately preceding hard times were making themselves felt, as well as the gradual increase in the number of attacks against property in the years 1860–1862.”[13] [[45]]
Number of Persons against whom Action was Brought for Abandonment.
| Years. | To 100,000 of the Population. |
| 1858 | 20 |
| 1859 | 18 |
| 1860 | 17 |
| 1861 | 21 |
| 1862 | 21 |
| 1863 | 19 |
| 1864 | 18 |
| Average | 19 |
The fall in the price of grain in 1863–1864 was accompanied by a diminution in the number of crimes of this kind.
Violations of the Vagrant Act to 100,000 of the Population.
| Years. | Prostitutes. | Mendicants. | Without Means of Existence. | Furnished Burglar’s with Tools. | Presence in a Closed Building with Criminal Intent. | Presence in Public Places with Criminal Intent. | Incorrigible Vagabonds. | Other Offenses against the Vagrant Act. | Total. |
| 1858 | 51.4 | 50.2 | 18.9 | 0.3 | 14.2 | 18.0 | 2.0 | 13.0 | 168 |
| 1859 | 37.1 | 39.2 | 15.9 | 0.3 | 12.2 | 12.7 | 1.6 | 12.0 | 131 |
| 1860 | 33.6 | 37.9 | 15.2 | 0.2 | 11.5 | 10.1 | 1.2 | 9.4 | 119 |
| 1861 | 35.4 | 41.3 | 17.7 | 0.4 | 12.5 | 11.7 | 1.2 | 10.7 | 131 |
| 1862 | 41.4 | 55.4 | 20.1 | 0.4 | 14.0 | 14.5 | 2.1 | 12.8 | 161 |
| 1863 | 39.2 | 52.9 | 18.6 | 0.2 | 13.3 | 15.3 | 2.5 | 15.5 | 157 |
| 1864 | 35.8 | 46.0 | 18.0 | 0.2 | 13.3 | 14.8 | 2.2 | 12.7 | 143 |
| Average | 39.7 | 46.1 | 17.7 | 0.3 | 13.0 | 13.9 | 1.8 | 12.3 | 144 |
The maximum number of infractions of the Vagrant Act took place in 1858, when the harmful consequences of the rise in the price of grain, which took place immediately before, were still making themselves felt. The increase in 1861–1862 was the result of the high price of wheat, and of the crisis in the cotton industry. [[46]]
France.
| Years. | Arrests in the Department of the Seine to 100,000 of the Population. | Average Price of Grain per Hectolitre. |
| 1855 | 1222 | fr. 29.37 |
| 1856 | 1170 | 30.22 |
| 1857 | 1169 | 23.83 |
| 1858 | 1154 | 16.44 |
| 1859 | 1008 | 16.69 |
| 1860 | 1074 | 20.41 |
| 1861 | 1128 | 24.25 |
| 1862 | 1250 | 23.24 |
| 1863 | 1133 | 19.78 |
| 1864 | 1158 | 17.58 |
Here also the influence of price makes itself felt.
The following table gives the number of persons arrested in the department of the Seine, grouped according to the alleged crimes, and compared with the price of wheat. Group I contains offenses against the public order; Group II, offenses against persons; Group III, offenses against morals; group IV, offenses against property; Group V, miscellaneous. Taking 100 as the average figure for the price of grain as well as for crimes in the economically favorable years 1858–59, the proportion is as follows:
| Years. | Price of Wheat. | I. | II. | III. | IV. | V. | Total. | ||||
| Total. | For Vagabondage. | For Mendicity. | Total. | For Assault.[14] | Total. | Simple Theft. | |||||
| 1855 | 178 | 128 | 122 | 148 | 76 | 72 | 100 | 102 | 116 | 106 | 113 |
| 1856 | 182 | 117 | 118 | 114 | 81 | 80 | 104 | 106 | 121 | 92 | 108 |
| 1857 | 144 | 119 | 127 | 117 | 82 | 81 | 98 | 101 | 114 | 100 | 108 |
| 1860 | 123 | 96 | 90 | 134 | 103 | 106 | 100 | 110 | 123 | 80 | 99 |
| 1861 | 146 | 95 | 99 | 105 | 95 | 96 | 131 | 116 | 124 | 103 | 104 |
| 1862 | 140 | 120 | 128 | 147 | 94 | 98 | 108 | 116 | 131 | 108 | 116 |
| 1863 | 119 | 112 | 119 | 186 | 90 | 94 | 92 | 101 | 114 | 97 | 105 |
| 1864 | 106 | 115 | 124 | 176 | 84 | 87 | 85 | 111 | 123 | 84 | 107 |
[[47]]
Here it is to be observed:
a. that the movement of mendicity and vagrancy is not in direct correlation with that of the price of grain.
b. that Group IV shows only a slight correlation with the price of grain, since there are included in it many crimes whose causes are not of an economic nature.
c. that during the last years of this period the increase of crimes against property was greater than the figures for the price of grain would lead one to suppose; a fact which is explained, according to Dr. Mayr, by the lack of work resulting from the war of secession.
The law that crimes against persons increase with the fall of prices is confirmed by these statistics.
VI.
A. Corne.[15]
According to this author the laws regulating moral phenomena are at present hidden by thick clouds.
“We may await with confidence the dissipation of these clouds, when some great principle, about which our observations of detail will group themselves, will appear to us in a flood of light. Everything seems to indicate to me that this master principle is no other than the principle of activity. In fact, the first rudiments of social science have as yet been given us only by political economy, and its sole foundation is the affirmation of human activity. On the other hand, since giving myself up without any preconceptions to this special study of criminality I have been little by little led by a close examination of the facts, to find the general cause of crimes in the absence of this principle of activity.
“When we reflect upon this, it appears quite in the natural order of things that the development of criminality, that is to say of the spirit of destruction and dissolution, should manifest itself at the time of the weakening or disappearance of the generative principle of all production and of all society. There is here, then, if I am not deceived, more than a mere coincidence. There is a relationship which deserves to be noted so much the more since it is from the principle of activity that all physical laws also are derived today.”[16]
Let us accompany the author to the domain of facts. After having given an exposition of the movement of criminality in France in [[48]]comparison with that of other countries, he finally takes up the question of etiology. For the crowd, says the author, the criminal is a kind of monster in the midst of society, a monster predestined to crime because of his innate tendencies. Looked at in this way criminality is an individual evil. Corne, on the contrary, believes it to be a social evil. For, however much society may be developed in all respects, it is nevertheless always imperfect, since the ignorance and corruption of morals are great. The author lays stress upon two facts, namely, the corruption of morals in the upper classes, and militarism. Not only does militarism draw after it the ruin of peoples, and develop man’s violent instincts, but it has still other very serious moral consequences, by forcing celibacy upon young men at the passionate age.
The author admits that there are facts which might seem to give the lie to his opinion—the influence, for example, of the price of grain upon the decrease and increase of criminality.
| Years. | Average Price of a Hectolitre of Wheat. | Number of Persons Arraigned. | |
| fr. | c. | ||
| 1850 | 14 | 32 | 147,757 |
| 1851 | 14 | 48 | 146,368 |
| 1852 | 16 | 75 | 159,791 |
| 1853 | 22 | 39 | 171,351 |
| 1854 | 28 | 82 | 170,940 |
| 1855 | 29 | 32 | 163,748 |
| 1856 | 30 | 75 | 162,049 |
| 1857 | 24 | 37 | 161,556 |
| 1858 | 16 | 75 | 157,815 |
| 1859 | 16 | 75 | 150,948 |
| 1860 | 20 | 24 | 144,301 |
| 1861 | 24 | 55 | 151,112 |
| 1862 | 23 | 24 | 152,332 |
| 1863 | 19 | 78 | 144,072 |
| 1864 | 17 | 58 | 146,230 |
Although, according to Corne, the high price of grain may be only an accidental fact, there must yet be some importance attached to it in view of the disastrous consequences which may result from it to families that have in any case a hard time to make both ends meet. But the figures given above do not prove the influence to be very great. For prices rise sometimes although the other figures fall, and vice versa. And then the sudden increase of [detected] crime from 1849 to 1853 must be attributed to a better organization of the police. [[49]]
Then the author gives the following table:
| Years. | Price of a Hectolitre of Wheat. | Number of Persons Convicted (to 1000 of Population). | |
| fr. | c. | ||
| 1850 | 14 | 32 | 147,757 |
| 1851 | 14 | 48 | 146,368 |
| 1852 | 16 | 75 | 159,791 |
| 1853 | 22 | 39 | 171,351 |
| 1854 | 28 | 82 | 170,940 |
| 1855 | 29 | 32 | 163,748 |
| 1856 | 30 | 75 | 162,049 |
| 1857 | 24 | 37 | 161,556 |
| 1858 | 16 | 75 | 157,815 |
| 1859 | 16 | 75 | 150,948 |
| 1860 | 20 | 24 | 144,301 |
| 1861 | 24 | 55 | 151,112 |
| 1862 | 23 | 24 | 152,332 |
| 1863 | 19 | 78 | 144,072 |
| 1864 | 14 | 32 | 146,230 |
We see that the coincidence of the figures is here naturally greater than in the first table.
“The situation of criminals may be summed up in a word: isolation. Most of them hardly know what a family is. They are miserable, they have no home, no fixed occupation which attaches them little by little to men and things. They are immersed in the gloom of ignorance. Aside from what affects their immediate physical wants the rest of the world is for them as if it did not exist.”[17] They are alone, isolated from birth. For among juvenile prisoners there are reckoned not only many illegitimate and orphaned children, but also many who have been deserted. Out of 8006 young criminals in prison December 31st, 1864, 60% were illegitimate, orphaned, or deserted.
The author then depicts the environment in which the children of the proletariat ordinarily grow up—bad hygienic conditions, demoralizing surroundings, etc.—and points out the harmful effect of labor in factories upon the young. Corne also considers celibacy to be one of the causes of crime, since the individual has no one to care for him or be interested in his fate. Crime is developed much more in the great cities than in the country, for the reason, the author thinks, that men are much more isolated, much more left to themselves in the city than in rural neighborhoods. [[50]]
—Here I would remark that it is for economic reasons that men are prevented from marrying, and that the great criminality of cities is best explained by the marked difference in economic situation, and by the more frequent opportunities for wrong-doing found there.—
According to Corne one of the best preventives of crimes is property, since it engenders a feeling of responsibility. The property owner exerts himself to increase his wealth, and hence property has a moral influence.[18]
“Criminality comes from a lack of vitality. It is an anemia. In order to prevent it we must excite a desire for activity.” It is in this that the usefulness of education appears. The man who knows how to read and write, has in his hands an instrument which can multiply his means of action indefinitely.[19]
—As regards education, it has been proved that Corne and many others have exaggerated its importance for the etiology of crime. When education extends beyond the art of reading and writing, it has a civilizing influence, and causes a diminution of violent crimes, but it does not result in a decrease of criminality in general, since the economic causes of crime remain. Education changes, indeed, the nature of criminality, but not its extent.[20]—
The author concludes by saying “The man who has a family, who has property, who is educated, who is known by his fellow citizens and has his share of influence upon them, can not be the individual whom we have seen to be criminal, because of weakness and isolation … he has energy, determination, and can control his passions because he is surrounded and sustained, because a thousand bonds of interest and affection attach him to society, order, and property.”[21]
VII.
H. Von Valentini.
The work “Das Verbrecherthum im Preussischen Staat”, published in 1869 by Prison-director von Valentini, treats especially of the results obtained by the penal system then in force in Prussia, and of the means of improving it. [[51]]
Von Valentini sees in crime primarily the consequence of social conditions, at least he considers that the best means of combating it is for society to prevent the criminal tendency from manifesting itself, and make efforts to raise the moral level of the people. For, according to our author, 90% of the criminals are “purely material and entirely neglected” and ought to “undergo a spiritual regeneration.”[22]
After these general observations he proceeds to more particular observations upon the criminals themselves in society. He examines statistically the proportion of criminals in the population. Obtaining different proportions for different districts of Prussia he investigates the causes. For this purpose he classifies crimes as: first, crimes from personal interest, and second, crimes from passion. Finding then that the provinces of the East give 9% of crimes from personal interest more than the others, he thinks he has found the cause in “an existing destitution both material and intellectual, and in the arrangement of the prisons.”[23]
Chapter Three, upon the “Dimensionen des Nothstandes” contains detailed tables for each province, the great cities, and the rich and poor countries. He obtains, then, the following result for the eight provinces:
| Provinces. | Pauperism Number of Indigent Persons in the Poorest Districts. | To 100 of the Population. | Percentage of Property to 100,000 of the Population. | Ratio of the Percentage of against Property to that of Pauperism. |
| Posen | 536,495 | 36.1 | 32.89 | 0.91 : 1 |
| Prussia | 792,948 | 27.6 | 24.69 | 0.89 : 1 |
| Pomerania | 314,383 | 22.6 | 20.57 | 0.91 : 1 |
| Silesia | 517,528 | 15.2 | 36.94 | 2.43 : 1 |
| Total of Eastern group | 2,161,354 | 23.6 | 115.09 | 4.91 : 1 |
| Rhenish provinces | 397,350 | 12.0 | 5.59 | 0.46 : 1 |
| Brandenburg | 84,011 | 3.4 | 26.27 | 7.72 : 1 |
| Westphalia | 45,849 | 2.8 | 9.21 | 3.29 : 1 |
| Saxony | 259,901 | 1.3 | 18.33 | 14.10 : 1 |
| Total of Western group | 553,111 | 5.9 | 59.40 | 25.57 : 1 |
Another thing that strikes him is the influence of the small landed proprietor. “The possession of even a small piece of property in land … is no slight preventative of crime against property.”[24] The author gives the following statistical summary. [[52]]
He ranks in the class of small land holdings estates of 30 acres[25] and below. The total amounts to 10,655,460 acres to 1,716,535 estates, with an average of 6 acres.
There were in the following provinces:
| Posen | 57,519 | of these estates, or 1 to | 25 | inhabitants. |
| Prussia | 93,793 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 30 | inhabitants.,, |
| Pomerania | 61,752 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 22 | inhabitants.,, |
| Silesia | 230,710 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 14 | inhabitants.,, |
| Total of the Eastern group | 443,774 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 18 | inhabitants.,, |
| Rhenish provinces | 788,473 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 4 | inhabitants.,, |
| Brandenburg | 112,532 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 22 | inhabitants.,, |
| Westphalia | 197,383 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 8 | inhabitants.,, |
| Saxony | 174,373 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 11 | inhabitants.,, |
| Total of Western group | 1,272,761 | of,, these,, estates,,, or,, 1,, to,, | 8 | inhabitants.,, |
“The Rhenish provinces alone, then, have nearly twice as many as the four Eastern provinces together! This explains the figure, 5.59, for this district given in the table above, taken in connection with the noteworthy care given to the poor. Can the connection between the ratios given above and those of the occurrence of crimes against property be denied?”[26]
In this connection he treats of housing conditions, for which he gives the following figures.
Dwellings to 1 league:
| Posen | 258 | Rhenish Provinces | 901 |
| Prussia | 230 | Brandenburg | 304 |
| Pomerania | 218 | Westphalia | 579 |
| Silesia | 546 | Saxony | 529 |
| Total | 1252 | Total | 2313 |
A more detailed summary of the number of inhabitants shows us that there were:
| Posen. | Prussia. | Pomerania. | Silesia. | Rhenish Prov. | Brandenburg. | Westphalia. | Saxony. | |
| Inhab. | Inhab. | Inhab. | Inhab. | Inhab. | Inhab. | Inhab. | Inhab. | |
| In each dwelling | 9.8 | 9.8 | 10.1 | 7.9 | 6.9 | 10.0 | 7.2 | 7.5 |
| In the cities | 11.2 | 13.2 | 11.6 | 13.3 | 10.4 | 14.0 | 8.7 | 9.8 |
| In the hamlets | 8.8 | 10.6 | 10.0 | 8.1 | 6.1 | 9.6 | 7.0 | 6.8 |
| In the villages | 9.3 | 8.4 | 9.3 | 7.0 | 5.7 | 7.7 | 6.7 | 6.5 |
In these figures von Valentini sees a parallelism with those for small holdings, and draws the conclusion that this isolation of households is one of the best preventives of crimes against property. [[53]]
VIII.
A. Von Oettingen.[27]
In chapter IV (“Die ungeordnete Geschlechtsgemeinschaft und die Prostitution”), the author treats of the influence of the fluctuations of price in certain important articles of food upon crimes against property, against morals, against persons, and incendiary crimes (Prussia).[28]
Percentage.
| Year. | Offenses against Morals. | Arson. | Offenses against Property. | Offenses against Persons. | Combined Price per Bushel of Wheat, Rye, and Potatoes in Groschen. |
| 1854 | 2.26 | 0.43 | 88.41 | 8.90 | 218.1 |
| 1855 | 2.57 | 0.46 | 88.93 | 8.04 | 252.3 |
| 1856 | 2.65 | 0.43 | 87.60 | 9.32 | 203.3 |
| 1857 | 4.14 | 0.53 | 81.52 | 13.81 | 156.3 |
| 1858 | 4.45 | 0.60 | 77.92 | 17.03 | 149.3 |
| 1859 | 4.68 | 0.52 | 78.17 | 16.63 | 150.6 |
| Average | 3.34 | 0.48 | 84.42 | 11.76 | 188.2 |
This table shows then: first, that crimes against property diminish as prices fall; second, that under these same conditions crimes against morals and against persons increase.
—We must be on our guard, however, against drawing false conclusions from this second fact. The relationship in question is observed only during a certain period and in certain countries, and is not to be regarded as a law of nature, i.e., it must not be understood that an improvement in economic conditions invariably causes an increase in sexual and violent crimes. If this were the case, the well-to-do classes, who are always in a position to provide for all their needs, would furnish most of the criminals of this description. The facts show just the contrary to occur everywhere. (See Part Two, where I treat this subject fully.)—
In the chapter, “Die social ethische Lebensbethätigung in der bürgerlichen Rechtsphäre,” the author treats our subject more fully. Reasoning from different data taken from other authors, he points out the connection between economic conditions on the one hand and vagabondage and mendicity on the other. Having shown a considerable [[54]]increase in these offenses in the revolutionary period of 1848, he attributes this increase to the lack of social discipline, for the price of provisions was then low. We pass all this part of von Oettingen’s book in silence, his data being taken for the most part from other authors. We would merely point out his error in ranking the year 1848 among those economically favorable because of the fall in the price of food. As a matter of fact there was a terrible economic crisis in Europe at the time.
We take the following data from the section entitled “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität.”
To 100 complaints there were (in Prussia):
| Years. | Crimes against | Price of Rye per Bushel. | ||
| Property. | Persons. | |||
| % | % | Sgr. Pf. | ||
| 1862 | 44.3 | 15.8 | 63 | .10 |
| 1863 | 41.6 | 17.0 | 54 | .3 |
| 1864 | 41.6 | 18.4 | 45 | .6 |
| 1865 | 38.5 | 17.7 | 49 | .11 |
| 1866 | 44.4 | 14.5 | 58 | .5 |
| 1867 | 50.2 | 13.1 | 79 | .0 |
| 1868 | 52.3 | 13.8 | 78 | .8 |
| 1869 | 45.7 | 14.3 | 64 | .7 |
We find here this rule, that a rise in the price of food is accompanied by an increase in the crimes against property and a decrease in crimes against persons, and vice versa. This table also shows that, if a very pronounced rise in prices has caused a great increase in criminality, the later fall in prices does not make itself felt in the number of crimes until some time after its commencement. (See 1867–1868.)
This phenomenon is very distinctly shown by the following table:
| Years. | Cases Tried. | Total Price of a Bushel of Wheat, of Rye, and of Potatoes in Groschen. |
| 1854 | 644,483 | 221.6 |
| 1855 | 686,207 | 241.4 |
| 1856 | 766,628 | 228.4 |
| 1857 | 705,291 | 161.1 |
It was only in 1857, then, that the fall in prices, beginning in 1856, commenced to produce its effect.
In conclusion we call attention to the following tables: [[55]]
Saxony.
| Years. | Crimes Against | Price of Wheat, of Rye, and of Potatoes per Bushel. | |
| Property. | Persons. | ||
| Gr. | |||
| 1860 | 37.25 | 35.04 | 170 |
| 1861 | 40.28 | 33.10 | 181 |
| 1862 | 38.78 | 34.65 | 173 |
| 1863 | 36.56 | 35.09 | 147 |
Bavaria.
| Years. | Crimes Against | Price of Wheat, of Rye, and of Potatoes per Bushel. | |
| Property. | Persons. | ||
| Fl. Kr. | |||
| 1862/63 | 38.38 | 33.16 | 14,48 |
| 1863/64 | 36.16 | 37.72 | 12,16 |
| 1864/65 | 36.55 | 39.79 | 11,53 |
| 1865/66 | 33.42 | 41.18 | 10,57 |
Here is another proof of the rule, then, that crimes against property decrease and those against persons increase as prices fall.
IX.
H. Stursberg.
In the first part of a brochure edited in 1878 and entitled, “Die Zunahme der Vergehen und Verbrechen und ihre Ursache,” the author attempts, with the aid of statistics, to discover in what measure criminality increased or decreased in Germany during the years 1871–1877. As a result of these researches he finds a considerable increase in all Germany.[29]
As regards the causes of this increase, Stursberg, though not rejecting entirely the opinion of Quetelet that society prepares the crime and that the criminal is only the instrument that executes it, is nevertheless of the opinion that it is very necessary to take into account the personal factor, i.e. the presence or absence of religious and moral sentiments. [[56]]
There are those, says the author, who seek the cause in the consequences of the war against France. Although believing also that the war has had unfavorable effects upon criminality, it is impossible, in his opinion that this war should be the cause of the increase of criminality, since crime decreased after the wars of 1864 and 1866. He considers that one of the causes is the great mildness of the penalties imposed by the new penal code of the empire. But according to him, this is not important, for since 1871 there has been rather a diminution than an increase of recidivism. Nor can bad economic conditions be the cause, says Stursberg; for criminality had already begun to increase before the bad years, and it is not theft that has increased the most. Nevertheless, Stursberg recognizes that prolonged poverty weakens the moral sentiments, which shows that criminality and poverty are closely connected.
But there are, in his opinion, more serious causes. There follows a description of the impetus taken by industry in Germany during the early seventies, a description not easily surpassed in pointlessness, and in the naïve ignorance that it evinces. Without comprehending the significance of the really important events that are happening about him, the author fulminates against certain consequences of modern capitalism.
—This appears to him as the consequence of a suddenly awakened desire for riches. But why should this desire arise at this time? The author does not tell us. But notwithstanding this he has unquestionably discovered here one of the principal causes, since the prodigious increase of industry, shortly followed by the inevitable crisis, has infallibly caused an increase in criminality. Since Stursberg treats this question rather as a moralist than as a man of science, we have no interest in spending longer time upon it.—
In the first few pages of his brochure Stursberg speaks of the disastrous consequences of alcoholism, after the enactment of the law of 1869, which increased the number of spirit shops. Armed with quotations without number he combats in turn the cafés-chantants, immoral literature, etc., etc.; after which he introduces all at once the matter of professional liberty. He speaks of the “influence, impossible to estimate, which honest and pious masters exercised for centuries upon the journeymen and apprentices, who were like members of the family.” “The freedom of the trades came in and loosed the bonds of piety and discipline which had retained the journeyman and apprentices in the home of their master.” [[57]]
—As far as we can see, the ideas of the author are rather those of a writer of the Middle Ages, than of a contemporary of modern capitalism. It cannot be denied that there is truth at the bottom of this reasoning. For it is incontestable that in the time of the guilds the position of the journeymen was in general more favorable than that of the proletariat today. But it does not follow that the religion of the master was the cause of this. And a demonstration in which professional liberty is represented as being in fact a legislative error, and not the logical and inevitable consequence of the birth of modern capitalism, is so unscientific that it has no place in an investigation into the causes of the increase of criminality.—
Then he preaches more particularly against the greater and greater extension of the study of the natural sciences, against social democracy, the lack of respect for constituted authorities, etc., etc., without, however, alleging the slightest proof of the connection of all this with the increase of crime. But at the end he says, “the fundamental cause of the increase of crime is the rapid growth of irreligion, and the weakening of Christian sentiment in church and school.”[30]
X.
L. Fuld.
Before entering upon his special investigation, the author of “Der Einfluss der Lebensmittelpreise auf die Bewegung der strafbaren Handlungen” makes the following observation: Everywhere it is noted that assaults upon morals with acts of violence increase when the price of provisions falls. Adhering to the opinion of von Oettingen that “as the consequence of an increase of prosperity, the tendency to crime shows itself more by crimes against morals than by those against property”, Fuld also mentions the opinion of Valentini, that “in this case the people become audacious and commit these crimes more easily.”
Here are other salient facts; that the number of young criminals increases, and that the city produces more criminals than the country, although the sexual morality especially is far from ideal in the country. Finally in speaking of the influence of profession, Fuld mentions that the increase in the number of criminals which accompanies a rise in prices is greater for the first offenders than for recidivists. The following table which he gives to prove this point, however, plainly fails to do so: [[58]]
England.
| Years. | Good Character Hitherto. | Character Unknown. | Price of Wheat. | |
| Sh. | d. | |||
| 1858 | 153,576 | 138,388 | 43 | 11 |
| 1859 | 153,369 | 150,084 | 43 | 8 |
| 1860 | 137,574 | 144,485 | 52 | 9 |
| 1864 | 167,038 | 165,808 | 40 | 2 |
The author explains that the crimes against property are one of the consequences of the struggle for existence, a fact which accounts in part for the high figures for criminality in the great cities, where competition is most intense. The author treats of theft, and begins by saying that the connection between the price of provisions and theft is very close.
France.
| Years. | Thefts. | Price of Cereals. |
| fr. | ||
| 1856 | 18,222 | 16.75 |
| 1857 | 17,218 | 16.75,, |
| 1858 | 15,537 | 16.75,, |
| 1859 | 14,755 | 16.75,, |
| 1860 | 15,707 | 20.24 |
During the following years the prices fell. Nevertheless the number of thefts increased. According to Fuld we can draw the conclusion that the influence of price is only relative!—This table proves little. For, while in 1856 criminality attained its highest point, prices were lower than in 1860; and, while the figures for theft diminished greatly, prices remained constant.—
England.
| Years. | Thefts. | Price of Cereals. | ||
| With Violence. | Without Violence. | |||
| Sh. | d. | |||
| 1857 | 6471 | 43,397 | 42 | 10 |
| 1858 | 5723 | 45,618 | 43 | 11 |
| 1859 | 4433 | 41,370 | 43 | 8 |
| 1860 | 4065 | 41,151 | 52 | 9 |
| 1861 | 5062 | 40,242 | 55 | 4 |
| 1862 | 5746 | 40,191 | 55 | 5 |
| 1863 | 5433 | 39,801 | 44 | 9 |
| 1864 | 5022 | 39,481 | 40 | 2 |
| 1865 | 5160 | 40,383 | 41 | 10 |
| 1866 | 5088 | 39,731 | 43 | 10 |
| 1867 | 6355 | 46,502 | 49 | 10 |
[[59]]
Here there is some agreement between the number of thefts and prices. But it is not as great as Fuld would make out. For example, notwithstanding the sudden rise on prices in 1860, criminality diminished, while the year following there was a still further fall in the thefts without violence.
Prussia.
| Years. | Thefts of Wood. | Price of Rye. | |
| Sgr. Pf. | |||
| 1862 | 387,000 | 63 | .10 |
| 1863 | 354,276 | 54 | .3 |
| 1864 | 366,667 | 45 | .6 |
| 1865 | 426,336 | 49 | .11 |
| 1866 | 425,551 | 58 | .5 |
| 1867 | 412,165 | 79 | .0 |
| 1868 | 419,158 | 78 | .8 |
| 1869 | 406,662 | 64 | .7 |
| 1870 | 389,746 | 62 | .3 |
| 1871 | 439,288 | 66 | .0 |
| 1872 | 401,280 | 82 | .0 |
| 1873 | 337,112 | 93 | .0 |
| 1874 | 356,859 | 108 | .0 |
We can indeed find here some agreement between the two columns, but that is all that can be said.
Then the author says that differences in price are not as great as formerly, on account of the development of international commerce. He gives a table of comparative prices from 1870 to 1879 which shows that five staples show no consistent movement in price. But during the same period theft was continually on the increase. The number of male delinquents from 18 to 50 alone varies with prices; the figures for delinquents between 50 and 60 follow the course of prices but slightly. Other economic crimes show little conformity.
The final conclusion of Fuld upon crimes against property is: “The influence of the price of provisions upon these offenses is quite important.” Although not giving my opinion upon the correctness of this judgment at this time, I may say that the statistics furnished by Fuld give almost no proof of it.
The following part treats of crimes against life. It is evident that we are not concerned with crimes of passion. The only ones that enter into consideration are those that have an economic object. But since criminal statistics do not make this distinction, the results of the author’s investigation can be but small. He is indeed convinced [[60]]that the influence of the price of provisions is very perceptible, but he does not prove it. The same may be said with regard to sexual crimes.
XI.
B. Weisz.[31]
“The wants that man must satisfy are numerous, but there is none which makes itself felt so much as hunger. If he cannot satisfy his wants in a lawful fashion, necessity drives him to other means.”
To prove what he says Dr. Weisz produces the following table:
France.
| Years. | Accusations of Crime. | Price of Wheat. |
| 1845 | 5054 | 19.75 |
| 1846 | 5077 | 24.05 |
| 1847 | 5857 | 29.01 |
| 1848 | 4632 | 16.65 |
| 1849 | 4910 | 15.37 |
| 1850 | 5320 | 14.32 |
| 1851 | 5287 | 14.48 |
| 1852 | 5340 | 17.23 |
| 1853 | 5440 | 22.39 |
| 1854 | 5525 | 28.82 |
| 1855 | 4798 | 29.32 |
| 1856 | 4535 | 30.75 |
| 1857 | 4399 | 24.37 |
| 1858 | 4302 | 16.75 |
| 1859 | 3918 | 16.74 |
| 1860 | 3621 | 20.24 |
| 1861 | 3842 | 24.55 |
| 1862 | 3906 | 23.24 |
| 1863 | 3614 | 19.78 |
| 1864 | 3447 | 17.58 |
With but seven exceptions criminality here follows prices. When the figures for crimes against property are substituted for those for general criminality in the table, the agreement becomes greater: [[61]]
| 1847 | 4537 | 29.01 |
| 1848 | 3020 | 16.65 |
| 1849 | 2895 | 15.37 |
| 1850 | 3174 | 14.32 |
| 1851 | 3126 | 14.48 |
| 1852 | 3327 | 17.23 |
| 1853 | 3519 | 22.39 |
| 1854 | 3761 | 28.82 |
| 1855 | 3133 | 29.32 |
| 1856 | 2766 | 30.75 |
| 1857 | 2689 | 24.37 |
| 1858 | 2315 | 16.75 |
| 1859 | 2019 | 16.74 |
| 1861 | 2146 | 24.55 |
| 1862 | 2144 | 23.24 |
| 1863 | 1941 | 19.78 |
| 1864 | 1744 | 17.58 |
Belgium.
| Years. | Price of Wheat. | General Criminality. | Offenses against Property. |
| 1841 | 20.02 | 444 | 332 |
| 1842 | 22.17 | 468 | 361 |
| 1843 | 19.41 | 434 | 346 |
| 1844 | 17.75 | 455 | 336 |
| 1845 | 20.06 | 387 | 275 |
| 1846 | 24.53 | 616 | 498 |
| 1847 | 25.20 | 579 | 496 |
| 1848 | 17.37 | 529 | 427 |
| 1849 | 17.15 | 451 | 338 |
| 1850 | 16.15 | 270 | 168 |
| 1851 | 16.71 | 247 | 132 |
| 1852 | 20.16 | 290 | 140 |
| 1853 | 25.13 | 264 | 191 |
| 1854 | 31.48 | 336 | 238 |
| 1855 | 32.92 | 299 | 212 |
| 1856 | 30.73 | 332 | 268 |
| 1857 | 22.96 | 309 | 197 |
| 1858 | 23.55 | 278 | 167 |
| 1859 | 24.00 | 314 | 187 |
| 1860 | 31.15 | 254 | 161 |
It is to be noted here that in the years 1850–1860 the penal law was changed. The correlation is not constant but appears in many cases. The years of the crisis, 1846–1847, are especially interesting. [[62]]
| Years. | Infanticide. |
| 1845 | 5 |
| 1846 | 17 |
| 1852 | 7 |
| 1853 | 13 |
| 1854 | 12 |
| 1855 | 14 |
England.
| Years. | Price of Wheat. | Number of Criminal Offenders. | |
| 1816 | 78 | .6 | 9,091 |
| 1817 | 96 | .11 | 13,932 |
| 1846 | 54 | .8 | 20,072 |
| 1847 | 69 | .9 | 22,451 |
| 1852 | 40 | .9 | 24,443 |
| 1853 | 53 | .3 | 27,187 |
| 1854 | 72 | .5 | 27,760 |
| 1855 | 74 | .8 | 31,309 |
| 1856 | 69 | .2 | 29,591 |
| 1857 | 56 | .4 | 26,542 |
| 1858 | 44 | .2 | 24,303 |
—The value of Dr. Weisz’s information would be greater if he had given us the relation of the figures for criminality to those for population.—
XII.
W. Starke.[32]
The first chapter that interests us is Chapter V (“Die Umgestaltung des Volkslebens, ihre Einwirkung auf die Kriminalität,” etc.) Sec. 3 (“die Sorge für die nothwendigsten Lebensbedürfnisse und die Lebensmittelpreise”).
PLATE I. (STARKE)
Just as the influence of the price of food makes itself felt in the number of marriages and births, it is also visible in the figures for criminality. So, when the temperature of the winter is very low (e.g. 1855, ’56, ’65, and ’71), since men have greater wants than ordinary, criminality rises. Thefts of wood increase during these years, [[63]]for example. But it is in only one part of the year that the cold makes itself felt, while the high price of food lasts the whole year. Hence the latter has much more influence on criminality.
PLATE II. (STARKE)
In the first of the plates which the author gives (see Plates I–VI), the effect of the rise in prices is distinctly seen in the period 1849–1855. The fall that follows is also accompanied by a diminution in the number of crimes. When, at the close of 1858, the price of rye and potatoes begins to rise again, criminality also increases, though not so much. We do not see this agreement during the years 1861–1865. While prices rise in 1866, criminality declines as a consequence of the war with Austria, and of economic events.
The years 1870–1871, during which prices rose, show a fall in the figures for crime, a second exception to the rule therefore, since 1866. At the close of 1875 criminality increased greatly, although prices rose but little, and when, in 1877, prices begin to come down, the curve for criminality goes on rising. As for the years 1870–1871, the explanation is to be found in the war, which strengthened the feeling of solidarity (as in a less degree in 1866). Further, the development of manufacturing had already begun by the end of the war, and the war itself withdrew from ordinary life many persons who, without it, might have committed crime. The author mentions also the great diminution of crime in France during these years.
We note, however, that the French statisticians (Lafargue, for example) consider these years as of little importance in the study of criminality, since the police and the courts were then much less active than at ordinary times. The same causes may be supposed to have been active in Prussia also, though in a less degree than in France.
At the close of the middle of this century manufacturing was but slightly developed in Prussia. But after the war its development assumed gigantic proportions. Wealth increased, but was not evenly distributed, as the following table from the income tax returns shows:
| Persons. | Percentage. | ||||
| I. | Having an income of | 1000 | thalers | 139,556 | 1.2 |
| II. | Having,, an,, income,, of,, | 400–1000 | thalers,, | 643,628 | 5.6 |
| III. | Having,, an,, income,, of,, | 140–400 | thalers,, | 4,207,163 | 36.4 |
| Not liable to the income tax | |||||
| IV. | (Average income, 120 Th.) | 6,582,066 | 56.8 | ||
| Total | 11,572,413 | 100 | |||
| Total number of those having an income of 400 thalers or under, 93.2%. | |||||
[[64]]
Education (Men and Boys over 10).
| Classes. | Persons. | Percentage. | |
| I. | Higher education | 93,000 | 1.023 |
| II. | Intermediate education | 193,000 | 2.122 |
| III. | Elementary education | 7,885,423 | 86.703 |
| IV. | Illiterate | 923,274 | 10.152 |
| Total | 9,094,757 | 100.00 | |
There were 96% of the population, then, with no education or only an elementary one.
Little by little manufacturing so forged ahead of agriculture that the necessary food was no longer produced in the country. From this time dates the importation of large quantities of grain.
The year 1873 saw the beginning of the terrible reaction that made itself felt in all strata of the population. The number of marriages diminished as well as the number of births, and criminality increased. (See Plate I.)
At first the curves for theft and criminality in general run parallel in their rising and falling. But with 1854 they begin to diverge, and this divergence is especially plain from 1871 on. Consequently something else must have had an influence upon criminality. And this other thing, according to Starke, is the modification of the political position of the people. According to him the participation of the mass of the people in politics, made possible by the right of suffrage, has been one of the causes of the increase of the number of crimes against the authority of the state, as the socialistic movement has been a second cause.[33]
PLATE III. (STARKE)
—Without doubt the participation of all classes in the political life will lead to crimes, especially when in the strife of classes the propertied class makes use of violent means. The assertion that the socialistic movement causes many crimes has only a semblance of truth. It is rather because of the manner in which the socialists are treated, than because of their doctrine that they are driven to acts of [[65]]violence. For the socialists wish to attain their end by pacific and legal, political and economic means, and it is only when they are opposed by force that they are incited to the use of violent means.—
PLATE IV. (STARKE)
Starke finally draws the following conclusion as to the causes in the movement in criminality: “Hardly ever in the short space of a generation have so many mighty factors of different kinds influenced the life of our people, as in the years from 1848 to 1878; a complete metamorphosis of the courts and the police; so extraordinary an increase in the numbers and density of the population that the soil could no longer produce enough to feed such numbers; connected with this a great development of manufacturing with repeated crises, brought on by the high price of the necessaries of life, and by epidemics; the development of intercourse and commerce world-wide in extent; bloody wars, which, through the system of universal military service, disturb the whole population of every class; a politico-economic crisis so severe that there has been none like it hitherto; and in addition to and at the same time with all these factors, the entrance of the people into the exercise of political rights; and finally, dependent upon these, a deep-seated socialistic agitation.
“All these factors have their part in the moulding of the life of the people in good as well as bad directions and accordingly influence the movement of criminality. In the first rank stand the effects upon the physical life of the lack of warmth and nourishment. The great significance of the coldness of the winter upon the increase and decrease of the theft of wood has been noted. Much greater is the effect of the anxiety about daily bread, which finds expression in the movement of the price of provisions.… Parallel with the curve of food-prices runs that of thefts and the movement of the latter is again impressed upon the curve of crimes and misdemeanors in general.”[34] Let us consider now some of the important kinds of crime.
Offenses and contraventions against property.
“It is egoism which chiefly governs man, shows itself positively in the desire to acquire as much as possible, and negatively in the desire to lose as little as possible, and which reduces activity to insatiability, and economy to avarice.”[35] Now, cupidity leads to most of the crimes against property, while hatred, vengeance, etc. drive men to malicious mischief.
Examining now Plates II and III, the influence of the years of high prices (1856 and 1867), of the years of war (1866 and 1870–1871), and [[66]]of the years of crisis shows itself very plainly. It is to be noted that the curve of crimes of “malicious mischief” takes a course totally different from that of crimes against property committed from other motives. Plate III shows the great influence of economic events upon fraudulent bankruptcies (1857 and 1873 having been years of crisis).
Offenses against persons.
We see that the curves of these crimes shown upon Plates IV and V have a course quite different from that of the curves of the crimes against property. It is only in 1870 that both fall together. Starke deduces the rule, confirmed by many statisticians, that an improvement in economic conditions is accompanied by an increase in assaults, etc., and vice versa. The facts confirm this rule during the first part of the period that Starke has studied, but not later. (Compare Plates I and IV.)
In studying the curve of infanticide we note that it reaches the highest point in the bad years, 1857, 1863, 1866, 1867 (Eastern Prussia), and 1868. In 1857 the first commercial crisis took place, and in 1864 and 1866 the cholera raged and war was declared; a number of fathers of illegitimate children died, leaving the mothers unable to support the children.
A comparison between the curve of crimes of arson, with those of the crimes against property in Plate III, committed with the same end, shows a great resemblance; the increase in this crime also shows itself in bad years.
XIII.
Rettich.[36]
The part of this author’s work dealing with crimes and misdemeanors against property contains some observations which are of importance for our subject.
PLATE V. (STARKE)
I cannot show the views of the author better than by quoting the following: “That the number of offenses against property must be related to the prevailing economic conditions, seems to need no proof. For the man who lives in the possession of abundance, the motive for appropriating the property of others is lacking, even though the inclination to commit all possible crimes slumbers within him. It is a favorite expression of the Social-democrats, that the abolition of private property would cause all crimes against property to disappear. They forget, while maintaining this, the probability [[67]]that just as earlier private individuals were robbed, so under the new order the state would be, by people of the same kind—those who today, without living in want, still are not content with their lawful gains, and reach out after unlawful ones. The apostles of state-ownership, in order to make their contention credible, must at least offer proof that the offenses against property which are now punished, are entirely due to hunger and need on the part of those convicted. They cannot however, offer such proof. This is not because the government statistics … give no data with regard to the economic condition of the convicts, but because, as a matter of fact, the worst offenses against property are not committed by the hungry. The merchant who goes into a fraudulent bankruptcy, the banker who embezzles deposits, the worldling who forges drafts, have all taken the step into crime from a life, if not of abundance, at least of a competence. People of this kind will not disappear from the socialistic state. In their case the lack is not in the social system, but in their individual make-up.”[37]
PLATE VI. (STARKE)
—We have given this quotation simply to furnish a typical example of the incorrect way in which many authors represent the socialistic opinion with regard to the genesis of crime. What nonsense, to assert that according to the theory of socialism all crimes against property find their causes in hunger and misery! See the second part of this work, where the reader will find that socialists hold an entirely different opinion, and that they have facts to prove the truth of their theories.—
With regard to the relation between the movement of the price of certain important cereals and a great part of the crime against property, the author gives the following table:
| Years. | Average Price Per 200 Kilogr. in Marks. | Arrests for Theft to 10,000 Persons. | ||
| Wheat. | Grain. | Rye. | ||
| 1882 | 22.57 | 23.63 | 18.81 | 26.0 |
| 1883 | 19.04 | 19.29 | 16.30 | 25.2 |
| 1884 | 18.44 | 18.75 | 17.17 | 22.7 |
| 1885 | 17.92 | 18.11 | 16.17 | 21.5 |
| 1886 | 17.68 | 17.94 | 14.69 | 20.7 |
| 1887 | 18.88 | 18.95 | 15.26 | 20.5 |
| 1888 | 20.23 | 20.64 | 16.19 | 20.3 |
| 1889 | 20.03 | 20.52 | 16.50 | 21.4 |
| 1890 | 21.43 | 21.71 | 17.97 | 21.2 |
| 1891 | 22.48 | 22.92 | 19.26 | 19.3 |
[[68]]
There is at first a certain correlation between the figures in the different columns, but there is none in the later years. It is very probable that the diminution in crimes against property is due, during these years, to a combination of favorable economic circumstances at that time.
XIV.
A. Meyer.
The second section of the second chapter of the work, “Die Verbrechen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit dem wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhältnissen im Kanton Zürich”,[38] treats of the influence of the price of provisions and crop-returns (see Plate I).
The author first calls attention to the years 1853–1861. We see that the curves of the price of cereals and of offenses against property are then quite closely parallel. However, the curve of the price of cereals was lowest in 1858, and that of offenses in 1859. It is a well-known fact that economic phenomena make their influence upon criminality felt only after some time. Further, it is only by the following year that a part of the offenses are counted in the criminal statistics. Crimes against persons increase when prices fall, and vice versa. The less the price of food is influenced by bad industrial conditions, the more its influence upon criminality will strike the eye.
The section following is entitled: “Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkurs-statistik als Ausdruck der wirtschaftlichen Lage der Bevölkerung und Kriminalität.” When we examine Plate II for the period 1832–1852, we see that the curves of bankruptcy and of offenses against property are parallel. From Plate III (1852–1892) we note that offenses against property are influenced by failures as well as by the price of grain. At times the two forces act in the same direction and reënforce one another, and at times their direction is opposite, and they more or less neutralize each other. It must be remarked that in 1867 an epidemic of cholera raged in the canton, and that the relief fund which was then given out kept the figure for criminality below what the economic situation would have produced.
PLATE I (MEYER)
INFLUENCE OF PRICES AND CROPS ON CRIMINALITY
Dr. Meyer’s conclusion from what has been said is this: “The result of the researches proves that in the course of years the number of crimes against property is strictly bound up with material conditions; the greater the difficulty of getting a living, the more numerous [[69]]the crimes against property. The statistics of crimes against property show at the same time the degrees of the prosperity of the country, as the statistics of failures, for example, prove.”[39]
PLATE II (MEYER)
Plate IV gives a comparison of crimes against persons with economic conditions, and shows that these crimes increase when economic conditions improve, and that vintages more or less abundant are not without importance.
On page 44, the author commences his examination of the criminality in the different districts of the canton of Zürich, investigating its distribution, both as to where the crimes are committed, and where the criminals come from.
According to the first distribution the districts of Zürich, of Dielsdorf, and of Horgen have the highest figures; those of Hinweill, of Meilen, and of Pfäffikon the lowest. According to the second distribution it is again the districts of Dielsdorf and of Horgen that have the highest figures, while Hinweill, Meilen, and Pfäffikon take the last place here also. Zürich and Winterthür, which in the first distribution held the first place, in the second have the eighth and tenth. We see from this that, however great the number of crimes the last two districts produce, the authors of the crimes are outsiders.
Dr. Meyer then compares the districts of Hinweill and Pfäffikon, which have the lowest figures, with the districts of Horgen and Dielsdorf, which have the highest. He concludes that the two former districts are the poorest, and the two latter the most well-to-do, a conclusion which he bases upon different facts, among others upon the appropriations which the public charities of the different districts receive from the state. And according to him it follows that in this case the connection between criminality and economic conditions is not direct.
The author then explains the indirect connection as follows: “In Hinweill as in Pfäffikon, there exists a general impoverishment, caused by the unfavorable state of the soil and of the population, heavy mortgages, bad cultivation by the small farmers, the diminution of industry, the lack of education, etc,—an impoverishment that threatens the ruin of entire communities.”[40] Then, an increase of crime is not to be feared in countries where poverty strikes the whole population, for the thief has nothing to steal. Since in the well-to-do districts the differences of possessions are more marked, the opportunity for wrong-doing is greater, and it is this which makes criminality greater also. [[70]]
The conclusion of Dr. Meyer upon what has gone before is this: “Criminality is an historical product, and economic conditions are only one, though a significant, factor. Under like economic conditions … the number of crimes against property need not necessarily be like. It depends upon how the population has accommodated itself to the economic situation, whether it makes higher or lower demands upon life, what views it holds as to the end of human existence, etc.”[41]
As to the occupations of those convicted the data of Dr. Meyer are incomplete. The conclusion drawn from them is that the agricultural population is less criminal than the industrial proletariat. Here is the reason, according to Dr. Meyer: “An explanation of this phenomena that agrees fully with our investigations has already been given by von Valentini when he says: ‘Small holdings make direct and exhausting demands upon the labor of the whole family, while, on the other hand, they provide sufficiently for the immediate and indispensable needs of the household, so that idleness as well as anxiety about sustenance are generally both excluded from such a family.’ ”[42]
“It is otherwise in manufacturing. The greater independence of the industrial worker, his receiving his wages in money exclusively, the dependence of industry upon the conjunctures of the market, give instead of the stability of existence, enjoyed by agriculture, a life fluctuating and insecure. Abundance as well as want visits industrial workers, and each of the two begets in him a corresponding kind of crime.”[43]
—The expression “abundance” as describing the state in which the proletariat live, is a strange one. A man who is not indigent and has a few sous does not on that account live in abundance. The author adds a quotation from Garofalo to point out how the proletariat spend a great part of their “abundance” in the wine-shops. The reader is, however, referred to Part II of this work, where I have pointed out the social and economic causes of alcoholism.—
Dr. Meyer concludes his work by saying that he does not believe that an improvement of economic conditions will inevitably lead to an increase of crimes against persons, but that the causes of them are rather to be found in frivolity, grossness, and dissipation consequent upon an improvement of conditions.
PLATE III. (MEYER)
But—youth does not possess wisdom! It is only by advancing [[71]]in age that rash, rough youth becomes wise and gentle. Now, in the same way society will lose, one by one, the faults of its youth!
Plate IV. (MEYER)
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS COMPARED WITH THE PRICE OF PROVISIONS, WITH THE NUMBER OF FAILURES, AND WITH THE VINTAGE.
XV.
M. Tugan-Baranowsky.
“Die sozialen Wirkungen der Handelskrisen in England”,[44] by this author, aims to prove that the commercial crises in England in the years 1823–1850 had a much more violent character than those of the years 1871–1896, which occurred less suddenly, and made themselves felt for a long time afterwards. Since criminality is one of the social phenomena pointed out as caused by these crises, it is worth while giving a résumé of the work in question.
Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky has examined the influence that commercial crises have exercised, first, upon the agricultural counties, Cambridge, Essex, Norfolk, Oxford, Lincoln, Suffolk and Wilts (Diagrams 1 and 4); second, upon the industrial counties of Lancaster and Chester (Diagrams 2 and 5); third, upon all England (Diagrams 3 and 6).
Let us study the first three diagrams. The first shows that the commercial crisis of 1825 had a very slight effect upon criminality. It was the high price of grain in 1829 that made crime increase. The same effect was produced by the famous law of 1834 (by which not only was the aid given to poor working people very much limited, but which prescribed the placing in work-houses of those who were without means of support) and by the crisis of 1836. In 1844–1845, years of good harvests, criminality declined, after which the bad crops of 1847 brought about a contrary effect.
We note from Diagrams 2 and 3 that the effect of commercial crises was much greater in the manufacturing than in the agricultural counties (more plainly seen in 2 than in 3). The crisis of 1825 made the curve of criminality rise considerably; the favorable years 1833–1836 made it descend from 1834 on; while the crisis of 1836 caused a considerable increase in the number of crimes in 1837. The bad years 1840–1843 caused a formidable increase in the criminal population, which must also be attributed, at least in part, to the Chartist movement. The favorable period that followed had the contrary effect. It is interesting to compare the curves (in Diagram 3) of exports and crime, which cross continually. [[72]]
Let us consider now the last three diagrams. Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky attributes the descent of the curve of criminality in Diagram 4 to the improved condition of the agricultural population. Further, the number of crimes was greatly diminished by the alteration in the criminal procedure in 1879, and it goes without saying that this influence must also be taken into account in studying the last two diagrams. By Diagrams 5 and 6 we see that the influence of criminality is much less marked. Thus, for example, the diminution of criminality was not prevented by the crisis at the beginning of the period 1890–1896.
The final conclusion of Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky is this: “The first three diagrams give a picture of the life of the English people in the second quarter of this century [the nineteenth]. We see abrupt periodical changes of important phenomena in the life of the people, which are plainly connected with the changes in the industrial situation. Especially sudden are the variations in the life of the industrial population. Each crisis has a devastating effect upon the ranks of the working-classes, the workhouses are swamped with the unemployed, the prisons fill up as well, mortality mounts enormously, the mass of people out of work readily take up with any political agitation, and the years of crisis are likewise years of revolutionary movements.
“At the same time the manufacturing and commerce of the country increase rapidly. The enormous growth of exportation in England, the curve of which mounts continually, is in sharp contrast with the deterioration of the living-conditions of the working-class.
“The last three diagrams show us an entirely different picture. English exports no longer increase. In place of a steady rise of the curve with a sharp depression in the critical years, there are regular, wave-like variations in the same plane. The industrial development of the country proceeds at a slackening pace.
“And at the same time in the life of the people there are signs to be noticed of increasing well-being. Mortality, criminality, and pauperism fall quickly. Crises no longer have their former influence upon the condition of the people. Even in manufacturing districts business stagnation no longer has its former disastrous effect upon the working-class; crime and the death-rate no longer increase, and even the increase in the number of paupers is hardly noticeable. Organized labor supports even the unemployed. Wages are only a little lower in years of industrial depression than they are in a time of prosperity!”
DIAGRAM No. 1. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)
DIAGRAM No. 2. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)
DIAGRAM No. 3. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)
DIAGRAM No. 4. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)
DIAGRAM No. 5. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)
DIAGRAM No. 6. (TUGAN-BARANOWSKY)
[[73]]
XVI.
E. Tarnowsky.[45]
At the end of his study the author gives the following table, which contains some data upon the relation between the price of grain and abundance of the crops, on the one hand, and criminality on the other. The figures in the second column have to do with the different kinds of theft. The law of May 18th, 1882, having considerably modified the penal code, the figures for the years 1882 and 1883 cannot be compared with those of preceding years. This is why they have been suppressed.
| Years. | New Cases to 100,000 of the Population. | Price of a “Pud” of Rye in Kopecks. | Ratio of Cereal Crop to Average of 25 Years (= 100). |
| 1874 | 76 | 75 | 105 |
| 1875 | 77 | 73 | 90 |
| 1876 | 78 | 76 | 95 |
| 1877 | 86 | 80 | 103 |
| 1878 | 95 | 76 | 106 |
| 1879 | 90 | 86 | 93 |
| 1880 | 104 | 99 | 87 |
| 1881 | 103 | 129 | 105 |
| average 1874–81 | 89 | 87 | — |
| 1884 | 45 | 90 | 108 |
| 1885 | 46 | 77 | 90 |
| 1886 | 44 | 74 | 100 |
| 1887 | 45 | 67 | 114 |
| 1888 | 43 | 65 | 108 |
| 1889 | 43 | 70 | 83 |
| 1890 | 46 | 68 | 97 |
| 1891 | 52 | 129 | 73 |
| 1892 | 52 | 89 | 87 |
| 1893 | 50 | 61 | 104 |
| 1894 | 50 | 50 | 121 |
| average 1884–94 | 47 | 76 | — |
According to the author it may be doubted whether the years of poor harvests could cause an increase in the number of thefts in Russia. For the agricultural population is benefited by the high price of grain. [[74]]However, it is proved by the figures given above that these years have an unfavorable effect upon criminality, which can be understood if we take into account the fact that most of the Russian peasants only raise grain for their own consumption, and that bad crops accordingly affect them seriously.
XVII.
H. Müller.
In the introduction to his work, “Untersuchungen über die Bewegung der Criminalität in ihrem Zusammenhang mit dem wirtschaftlichen Verhältnissen”, Dr. Müller describes the result of his researches as follows: “In the course of our discussion it will appear that with time the state of industry, the greater or less chance to get work, the activity or depression of the general economic life, have gradually become of far more significance for the increase or decrease of crime, than a rise or fall in the price of provisions, and that at present these factors have reduced the economic meaning of the price of provisions to a minimum.”[46]
The period examined (1854–1895) is divided into two parts, because the criminal statistics of the empire, which are to be had from 1882 on, give the number of crimes and criminals, while the Prussian statistics give the number of new cases brought before the examining magistrate.
The figures for these years are as follows:
Prussia, 1854–1878. New Cases to 100,000 of the Population.
| Years. | Against Property. | Against Persons. | Against the State, Public Order, and Religion. |
| 1854 | 416 | 78 | — |
| 1855 | 436 | 78 | 41 |
| 1856 | 472 | 81 | 47 |
| 1857 | 324 | 95 | 55 |
| 1858 | 288 | 103 | 54 |
| 1859 | 295 | 103 | 51 |
| 1860 | 310 | 102 | 56 |
| 1861 | 314 | 93 | 52 |
| 1862 | 313 | 105 | 54 |
| 1863 | 288 | 111 | 53 |
| 1864 | 290 | 115 | 56 |
| 1865 | 325 | 121 | 58 |
| 1866 | 314 | 109 | 55[[75]] |
| 1867 | 360 | 112 | 51 |
| 1868 | 392 | 117 | 52 |
| 1869 | 338 | 126 | 53 |
| 1870 | 296 | 99 | 46 |
| 1871 | 254 | 75 | 41 |
| 1872 | 281 | 94 | 56 |
| 1873 | 266 | 106 | 64 |
| 1874 | 295 | 125 | 81 |
| 1875 | 284 | 135 | 84 |
| 1876 | 315 | 142 | 89 |
| 1877 | 341 | 160 | 87 |
| 1878 | 370 | 164 | 103 |
Prussia, 1882–1895. Persons Convicted to 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 Years.
| Years. | Against Property. | Against Persons. | Against the State, Public Order, and Religion. |
| 1882 | 545 | 328 | 180 |
| 1883 | 520 | 343 | 174 |
| 1884 | 527 | 382 | 188 |
| 1885 | 492 | 385 | 185 |
| 1886 | 488 | 402 | 196 |
| 1887 | 475 | 421 | 203 |
| 1888 | 466 | 404 | 200 |
| 1889 | 503 | 423 | 197 |
| 1890 | 496 | 449 | 199 |
| 1891 | 520 | 443 | 190 |
| 1892 | 575 | 458 | 199 |
| 1882–91 | 510 | 404 | 194 |
| 1894 | 528 | 527 | 219 |
Now, the causes that make crime increase when there is an economic depression are, according to the author, the following: “The instinct of self-preservation, which in its harmonious development is the motive for the lawful and moral struggle of men for existence, and in more restricted form is the principal ground for industrial activity, in its degeneration … demands a certain, often high, percentage of victims, who fall into crime, especially theft, fraud, embezzlement, and other offenses against property. And experience shows that the [[76]]greater the care to maintain existence, or often simply to procure daily bread, the greater is the number of offenses against property. When need appears, at the same time comes the instinct impelling a man to seize the property of another, better situated than himself. Infractions of property are in part to be ascribed to other motives. There is nothing to show, however, that these motives (greed and covetousness, for example) are stronger in one year and weaker in another throughout a whole people. We must rather ascribe to them a certain uniformity in their influence upon criminal activity. The determining factor in the increase and decrease of crimes remains the general well-being of a people, in earlier times the price of the necessities of life, at the present the opportunity for employment.”[47]
Let us study in the first place crimes and misdemeanors against property:
I. Offenses, against Property.
Prussia, 1854–1878. New Cases to 100,000 of the Population.
| Years. | Theft. | Embezzlement. | Robbery and Blackmail. | Receiving Stolen Goods, Etc. | Perjury, Etc. | Forgery. | Malicious Mischief. |
| 1854 | 334 | 28 | 1.0 | 40 | 17 | 5.4 | 10 |
| 1855 | 354 | 29 | 1.1 | 34 | 16 | 5.7 | 8 |
| 1856 | 386 | 31 | 1.1 | 43 | 17 | 6.0 | 8 |
| 1857 | 246 | 23 | 1.0 | 38 | 15 | 7.0 | 10 |
| 1858 | 213 | 22 | 0.8 | 30 | 12 | 7.3 | 11 |
| 1859 | 219 | 22 | 0.8 | 25 | 12 | 7.5 | 12 |
| 1860 | 229 | 24 | 0.8 | 30 | 13 | 7.7 | 12 |
| 1861 | 232 | 24 | 0.8 | 26 | 13 | 8.1 | 12 |
| 1862 | 229 | 24 | 0.9 | 25 | 13 | 8.2 | 14 |
| 1863 | 206 | 23 | 0.8 | 21 | 14 | 7.5 | 15 |
| 1864 | 206 | 24 | 1.0 | 25 | 13 | 7.4 | 17 |
| 1865 | 227 | 24 | 0.8 | 25 | 14 | 7.6 | 17 |
| 1866 | 222 | 23 | 0.8 | 24 | 14 | 7.2 | 17 |
| 1867 | 265 | 25 | 0.9 | 32 | 15 | 8.1 | 17 |
| 1868 | 293 | 27 | 1.2 | 36 | 16 | 8.0 | 17 |
| 1869 | 241 | 25 | 1.0 | 30 | 15 | 7.1 | 18 |
| 1870 | 211 | 22 | 0.9 | 27 | 14 | 6.4 | 17 |
| 1871 | 190 | 18 | 0.8 | 33 | 10 | 3.2 | 14 |
| 1872 | 209 | 20 | 1.4 | 46 | 11 | 3.4 | 17 |
| 1873 | 196 | 19 | 1.4 | 46 | 11 | 3.5 | 18 |
| 1874 | 216 | 22 | 1.7 | 50 | 13 | 3.7 | 19 |
| 1875 | 209 | 23 | 1.7 | 49 | 13 | 4.2 | 19 |
| 1876 | 223 | 25 | 1.9 | 50 | 16 | 4.9 | 21 |
| 1877 | 238 | 28 | 2.4 | 51 | 18 | 5.5 | 22 |
| 1878 | 257 | 30 | 2.4 | 55 | 20 | 5.6 | 24 |
[[77]]
Prussia, 1882–1896. Persons Convicted to 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 Years.
| Years. | Theft. | Embezzlement. | Robbery and Blackmail. | Receiving Stolen Goods, Etc. | Perjury, Etc. | Forgery. | Malicious Mischief. |
| 1882 | 337 | 44 | 1.5 | 30 | 29 | 8.0 | 38 |
| 1883 | 323 | 42 | 1.4 | 27 | 29 | 7.7 | 37 |
| 1884 | 322 | 44 | 1.7 | 27 | 31 | 8.4 | 41 |
| 1885 | 289 | 44 | 1.4 | 25 | 30 | 8.0 | 41 |
| 1886 | 282 | 43 | 1.5 | 24 | 32 | 8.3 | 41 |
| 1887 | 267 | 42 | 1.4 | 24 | 35 | 8.6 | 43 |
| 1888 | 262 | 43 | 1.2 | 23 | 36 | 8.6 | 38 |
| 1889 | 289 | 46 | 1.4 | 25 | 41 | 10.0 | 40 |
| 1890 | 278 | 46 | 1.5 | 25 | 41 | 10.0 | 42 |
| 1891 | 292 | 47 | 1.6 | 25 | 44 | 10.9 | 41 |
| 1892 | 329 | 52 | 1.6 | 30 | 48 | 11.7 | 42 |
| 1893 | 298 | 45 | 1.5 | 26 | 36 | 9.0 | 41 |
| 1894 | 276 | 51 | 1.4 | 25 | 51 | 12.9 | 47 |
| 1895 | 271 | 53 | — | 24 | 52 | 13.2 | — |
| 1896 | 259 | 50 | — | 22 | 50 | 12.8 | — |
The following table gives the prices of certain important foods (per 50 Kilogr.):
| Years. | Wheat. | Rye. | Potatoes. |
| 1848 | 7.49 | 4.82 | 1.84 |
| 1849 | 7.29 | 3.87 | 1.45 |
| 1850 | 6.91 | 4.55 | 1.55 |
| 1851 | 7.47 | 6.26 | 2.08 |
| 1852 | 8.59 | 7.72 | 2.48 |
| 1853 | 10.25 | 8.50 | 2.47 |
| 1854 | 12.90 | 10.40 | 3.17 |
| 1855 | 14.21 | 11.45 | 3.37 |
| 1856 | 13.51 | 10.64 | 3.13 |
| 1857 | 10.18 | 6.87 | 2.18 |
| 1858 | 9.08 | 6.38 | 1.91 |
| 1859 | 8.93 | 6.79 | 1.98 |
| 1860 | 10.48 | 7.65 | 2.41 |
| 1861 | 11.04 | 7.71 | 2.79 |
| 1862 | 10.68 | 7.79 | 2.47 |
| 1863 | 9.18 | 6.78 | 2.04 |
| 1864 | 7.95 | 5.69 | 2.10 |
| 1865 | 8.13 | 6.24 | 2.03 |
| 1866 | 9.80 | 7.30 | 2.05 |
| 1867 | 12.89 | 9.87 | 2.95 |
| 1868 | 12.48 | 9.84 | 2.62 |
| 1869 | 9.70 | 8.08 | 2.16[[78]] |
| 1870 | 10.14 | 7.78 | 2.58 |
| 1871 | 11.70 | 8.60 | 3.05 |
| 1872 | 12.10 | 8.40 | 2.95 |
| 1873 | 13.20 | 9.60 | 3.00 |
| 1874 | 12.00 | 9.90 | 3.35 |
| 1875 | 9.80 | 8.60 | 2.75 |
| 1876 | 10.50 | 8.70 | 2.82 |
| 1877 | 11.50 | 8.85 | 3.18 |
| 1878 | 10.10 | 7.15 | 2.82 |
| 1879 | 9.80 | 7.20 | 3.08 |
| 1880 | 10.95 | 9.65 | 3.25 |
| 1881 | 11.00 | 10.10 | 2.85 |
A comparison of these figures with those of crime will show that the crimes against property increase in the years of high prices up to 1855. In 1857 prices fell and crime decreased.
In the figures for foreign countries we see this relation much less clearly. Dr. Weisz has indeed succeeded in establishing a similar relation in France, but in Belgium it is much slighter. In England it is not possible to show that there is any parallelism between the curves of criminality and of the price of grain. In the years 1831–1840 and 1841–1850 the curve of crime even goes down, while provisions were then very dear. There must therefore be some other cause, and this is probably that England had a great industrial development long before any other country.
After an extremely rapid development up to 1847, manufacturing had to pass through a formidable crisis. While the average annual number of persons convicted in England and Wales was 20,455, and this figure fell to 18,100 and 17,400 in the prosperous years, 1845–1846, it rose during the years of crisis, 1847–1848, to 21,500 and 22,900, falling again to 21,000 in 1849, when business had resumed its normal course.
In the years following, industry received an enormous impetus, in consequence of the discovery of gold in California, the repeal of the Corn Laws, and many other causes. In 1857 came the panic, which affected all industrial countries, especially England. In 1856–1860 there was an annual average of 13,565 convictions; in 1857 it was 15,307, an increase of 12%. That the consequences of this crisis are not to be observed in the figures for crime in Prussia, is to be attributed to the fact that in that country manufacturing was little developed. [[79]]
After the very dear years 1852–1856 the price of grain remained fairly constant in Prussia. It was only in 1860–1862 that it rose a little and caused an increase in the cases of fraud and theft. 1867–1868 were years which were marked by an extraordinarily high price for grain, which had some influence upon crime, without equalling that of such years as 1852–1856.
Crime decreased in the years of war, 1866 and 1870–1871, due as Dr. Müller thinks, to two facts; first, that a great part of the population capable of committing crimes were then out of the country; and second, that the feeling of solidarity is stronger in time of war.
Notwithstanding the rise in the price of grain in 1871–1874, crime decreased greatly after the war of 1870. A modification of the penal law could not be the cause of it; its origin was deeper. Since 1871 Germany has seen its industries develop prodigiously. The period of prosperity was of short duration, for in the summer of 1873 came the crisis, which lasted till 1878. Now it is during these years that the crimes against property were much increased.
When we study this period in other countries, in Austria and England, for example, we see a great industrial development, accompanied by a decrease in crime. The average number of criminals in Austria for the years 1860–1870 was 32,800, and 26,900 for the years 1871–1875. In England the figures for the same period were 14,100 and 11,200 respectively. France alone was an exception, for in this country manufacturing did not begin to develop immediately after the war.[48] But in Austria and England the effects of the crisis upon crime were felt just as in Prussia. In Austria, for example, criminality increased 10%. From 1878 on, business improved in Prussia and in other countries also, and little by little the number of crimes against property decreased (between 1885 and 1890 7% in France, 9% in Austria, and 20% in England).
In 1889 there was another great disturbance in the economic field, which was prolonged till 1892. During these years there was a new increase of crime; in Austria, for example, the average number of convictions was 29,483 in 1890–1894, as against 28,834 for the five years preceding. In England we see the same phenomenon, and in Prussia as well.
Dr. Müller calls attention to the marked fall in the price of grain in 1892, and sees in it a proof that prices have no longer any great [[80]]influence. Since 1892 there has been a new period of prosperity, and at the same time a constant diminution of crimes against property.
Dr. Müller reminds us that preceding moralistic statisticians have brought out the fact that crimes against persons increase when the price of grain falls, and vice versa, as is distinctly seen in the tables for the years 1854–1860. But there is a change during the ten years following. In 1867–1868 the price of grain was high, but crimes against persons and the public order rose also. Crimes against persons decreased in the years of war, 1866 and 1870, just as crimes against property did. Since 1871 crimes against persons have in general diminished, principally because of favorable economic conditions. (The diminution of crimes against morals is chiefly due to a modification of the law, which prescribed that a case could not be [[81]]prosecuted except upon complaint. The increase after 1876 was caused by a revocation of this requirement.) The crimes in question increased anew considerably after the crisis of 1874. Here is an important exception, then, to the rule that the earlier statisticians laid down, namely that crimes against persons decrease when economic conditions grow worse. [[80]]
II. Crimes against Persons.
a. 1854–1878. New Cases to 100,000 Inhabitants.
| Years. | Offenses against Morals. | Insult. | Murder and Homicide. | Assault in General. | Bodily Injuries Punished as Crime. | Offenses against Personal Liberty. |
| 1854 | 8.7 | 32 | 1.1 | 34 | 6.7 | 0.9 |
| 1855 | 10.2 | 32 | 0.9 | 32 | 4.5 | 0.7 |
| 1856 | 10.8 | 34 | 0.9 | 37 | 3.0 | 0.8 |
| 1857 | 12.6 | 36 | 0.9 | 42 | 1.8 | 1.0 |
| 1858 | 12.5 | 40 | 0.8 | 46 | 1.8 | 1.1 |
| 1859 | 13.1 | 39 | 0.8 | 47 | 1.8 | 1.0 |
| 1860 | 12.4 | 40 | 0.9 | 46 | 1.5 | 0.8 |
| 1861 | 11.6 | 33 | 0.7 | 44 | 1.7 | 1.0 |
| 1862 | 12.9 | 39 | 0.8 | 49 | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 1863 | 14.2 | 40 | 0.7 | 53 | 1.6 | 1.2 |
| 1864 | 14.0 | 43 | 0.9 | 54 | 1.6 | 1.4 |
| 1865 | 14.9 | 44 | 0.8 | 58 | 1.7 | 1.3 |
| 1866 | 13.4 | 40 | 0.8 | 50 | 1.5 | 1.3 |
| 1867 | 14.0 | 44 | 0.9 | 50 | 1.6 | 1.0 |
| 1868 | 14.8 | 47 | 0.9 | 52 | 2.8 | 1.0 |
| 1869 | 14.9 | 45 | 1.0 | 58 | 2.8 | 1.3 |
| 1870 | 12.3 | 39 | 0.8 | 49 | 1.9 | 1.1 |
| 1871 | 5.3 | 26 | 0.7 | 39 | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 1872 | 6.2 | 34 | 0.8 | 50 | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| 1873 | 6.7 | 38 | 0.9 | 56 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| 1874 | 7.8 | 47 | 1.1 | 64 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
| 1875 | 8.2 | 50 | 1.2 | 65 | 2.9 | 3.6 |
| 1876 | 9.3 | 51 | 1.2 | 73 | 5.5 | 4.1 |
| 1877 | 11.1 | 54 | 1.3 | 86 | 5.0 | 4.7 |
| 1878 | 12.3 | 54 | 1.4 | 89 | 2.5 | 5.5 |
[[81]]
b. 1882–1895. Persons Convicted to 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 Years.
| Years. | Offenses against Morals. | Insult. | Murder and Homicide. | Assault in General. | Bodily Injuries Punished as Crime. | Offenses against Personal Liberty. |
| 1882 | 7.8 | 117 | 1.0 | 60 | 111 | 10 |
| 1883 | 7.6 | 119 | 1.0 | 63 | 121 | 11 |
| 1884 | 7.6 | 127 | 0.8 | 68 | 142 | 15 |
| 1885 | 7.6 | 119 | 0.9 | 65 | 151 | 17 |
| 1886 | 8.9 | 124 | 0.8 | 68 | 153 | 19 |
| 1887 | 8.8 | 133 | 0.8 | 68 | 163 | 19 |
| 1888 | 9.1 | 130 | 0.6 | 64 | 156 | 18 |
| 1889 | 8.4 | 131 | 0.6 | 68 | 166 | 21 |
| 1890 | 8.8 | 138 | 0.6 | 74 | 175 | 23 |
| 1891 | 8.5 | 133 | 0.6 | 74 | 173 | 24 |
| 1892 | 9.0 | 137 | 0.9 | 76 | 177 | 26 |
| 1882–91 | 8.3 | 129 | 0.8 | 68 | 153 | 18 |
| 1894 | 10.5 | 156 | 0.7 | 87 | 208 | 29 |
| 1895 | 10.9 | 161 | 0.7 | — | 220 | — |
| 1896 | 11.1 | 158 | 0.6 | — | 220 | — |
“The great economic crisis beginning in 1873 was accompanied by the characteristic phenomenon that dissatisfaction with the existing economic, social, and political conditions affected wider circles than heretofore, that this embittered people’s minds, and brought about sharp oppositions and struggles of the industrial classes against each other, especially the struggle of labor against capital. The need of an economic reform was more and more felt, which is to be attained, in the opinion of the powerful, by force, and in that of the thoughtful, by social legislation. All public life since the seventies has been dominated by this idea.”[49]
Here also economic conditions are causes of crime, and show themselves principally in resistance to officials, etc. The tables show also an increase in the cases of perjury, bodily injuries, and other crimes that are the consequences of grossness. The increase is due, according to Dr. Müller, to bad economic conditions. For as a consequence of these the number of civil cases rose from 60,000 (the average for [[83]]1871–1873) to 120,000 and 135,000 (1876–1877) and it is by these cases that perjury becomes possible. It is necessary to attribute to the same causes the great increase in the number of cases of crimes against personal liberty (also, since 1876, to the abolition of the requirement of a complaint for prosecution). [[82]]
III. Crimes against the Public Order.
a. 1854–1878. New Cases.
| Years. | Rebellion. | Offenses against Public Order. | Perjury. | Counterfeiting. | Leze-majesty. |
| 1854 | 18.6 | — | 3.0 | 0.83 | 0.63 |
| 1855 | 18.2 | 16.7 | 2.6 | 0.64 | 0.71 |
| 1856 | 18.0 | 23.2 | 2.7 | 0.71 | 0.40 |
| 1857 | 19.5 | 29.8 | 2.9 | 0.49 | 0.34 |
| 1858 | 19.7 | 28.7 | 2.7 | 0.50 | 0.53 |
| 1859 | 18.6 | 26.9 | 2.9 | 0.48 | 0.68 |
| 1860 | 19.7 | 30.2 | 3.0 | 0.39 | 0.51 |
| 1861 | 17.2 | 29.6 | 3.0 | 0.42 | 0.38 |
| 1862 | 19.9 | 29.0 | 3.0 | 0.50 | 0.47 |
| 1863 | 20.8 | 26.9 | 3.2 | 0.38 | 1.16 |
| 1864 | 23.1 | 26.6 | 3.2 | 0.40 | 1.00 |
| 1865 | 23.8 | 28.1 | 3.4 | 0.28 | 0.64 |
| 1866 | 23.4 | 24.2 | 3.1 | 0.39 | 1.94 |
| 1867 | 23.1 | 21.0 | 3.0 | 0.49 | 0.91 |
| 1868 | 22.5 | 22.8 | 3.4 | 0.57 | 0.54 |
| 1869 | 23.5 | 23.6 | 3.6 | 0.48 | 0.38 |
| 1870 | 19.0 | 21.7 | 3.1 | 0.36 | 0.66 |
| 1871 | 19.4 | 17.9 | 2.4 | 0.45 | 0.96 |
| 1872 | 23.6 | 26.4 | 3.2 | 0.38 | 0.67 |
| 1873 | 24.7 | 31.8 | 3.2 | 0.41 | 0.73 |
| 1874 | 28.6 | 43.7 | 3.7 | 0.45 | 1.23 |
| 1875 | 32.2 | 41.3 | 3.8 | 0.87 | 1.26 |
| 1876 | 32.7 | 47.0 | 4.2 | 1.21 | 0.86 |
| 1877 | 33.8 | 43.4 | 4.8 | 1.45 | 0.93 |
| 1878 | 33.7 | 49.6 | 5.5 | 2.24 | 9.93 |
b. 1882–1896. Persons Convicted.
| Years. | Violence to Officials. | Violation of Domicile. | Perjury. | Embezzlement in Military Service. |
| 1882 | 40 | 56 | 3.1 | 49 |
| 1883 | 39 | 52 | 2.7 | 54 |
| 1884 | 42 | 60 | 3.0 | 55 |
| 1885 | 40 | 57 | 3.0 | 57 |
| 1886 | 42 | 61 | 2.5 | 61 |
| 1887 | 43 | 58 | 8.8 | 66 |
| 1888 | 39 | 53 | 8.5 | 72 |
| 1889 | 39 | 58 | 8.6 | 61 |
| 1890 | 40 | 59 | 8.7 | 61 |
| 1891 | 40 | 57 | 8.5 | 56 |
| 1892 | 41 | 59 | 8.5 | 58 |
| 1882–91 | 41 | 58 | 8.8 | 60 |
| 1894 | 47 | 62 | 8.3 | 51 |
| 1895 | 47 | 65 | — | — |
| 1896 | 47 | 63 | — | — |
[[83]]
“The chief reasons why this crime (against personal liberty), like most crimes against persons, has constantly increased up to the present, in addition to the growing discontent with the present economic situation, are two; first, the effect of the spread of great manufactories in breaking up the family life, with concomitant lack of moral and religious education, and the too early necessity for self-supporting labor …; and second, the present inordinate desire for pleasure, whose results are seen not least in the harmful effects of the immoderate consumption of alcohol; for that this is a prolific source of the multiplication of crime can hardly be doubted.”[50]
Dr. Müller’s final conclusion is as follows: “We may regard it as an established truth that, in the last analysis, the cause for the increase and decrease of crime as a whole is to be found in the presence or absence of a chance for employment and gain, in the condition of individual lines of industry, and in the greater or less degree in which the population as a whole in consequence of this, are in a position to consume.”[51]
—Recently it has been proved that the conclusion of Dr. Müller with regard to the slight influence of the price of grain upon criminality was not entirely correct. Notwithstanding the growing influence of the industrial situation upon criminality, the price of grain has retained a certain influence.[52]— [[84]]
XVIII.
Criticism.
The authors treated of in this chapter, and many others whom I have had to put under other headings as belonging to some special school, all have this point in common, that they try to find the causes of crime by means of statistics. The first question that arises is this: do criminal statistics give a real and complete picture of criminality? The answer is categorically, No. To give only a few reasons, there are a great many crimes, naturally insignificant, which remain unknown even to the person injured; there are others of which justice never takes cognizance, because the injured party has filed no complaint, either because he has pardoned the offender, or fears the trouble of a criminal trial, etc.
In general, not all the cases known to justice are included in the criminal statistics but only those in which sentence is pronounced. An exception is found in Mayr’s book (§ VI of this chapter), in which all the crimes known to justice appear. In the first place the public officer dismisses many cases because of their insignificance (Germany is an exception—there the officer must prosecute); and in the second place there are a number of crimes whose authors remain unknown. Finally, only a part of those arraigned are convicted. Criminal statistics, therefore, cover only a part of the crime that exists.[53]
The enemies of statistics have drawn from the preceding fact the conclusion that criminal statistics are useless for the study of the etiology of crime. This is an absolutely false conclusion, as false as [[85]]it would be to claim that doctors cannot find the cause of a disease, because besides the thousands of cases known to them, there are at least as many that remain unknown. The only question that arises is the following: is the number known sufficient? is there a sufficiently large body of facts in hand for inductive studies? As far as criminality is concerned the answer can be perfectly positive. The number of offenses that do not appear in the criminal statistics is certainly large; they are, however, chiefly insignificant misdemeanors, such as insults, trifling assaults, petty thefts, etc. These would have little value in determining the etiology of crime, even if the statistics included them all. Serious crimes, on the other hand, in the majority of cases, without any doubt appear in the statistics. The great reason why criminal statistics suffice for etiological investigations is that the ratio of known crime to unknown remains relatively constant. The proofs of this are to be found in the criminal and judicial statistics themselves. The ratio between cases dismissed and those prosecuted, between convictions and acquittals, etc., etc., remains practically the same from one year to another. Further, every statistician of any experience is convinced that the law of averages rules more absolutely than any despot.
Finally it must be noted that the fact that there are a number of offenses which do not appear in the criminal statistics, does not mean that there are many criminals of whom the same can be said. It is the Italian school in particular that has maintained the proposition that in the struggle between the criminal and society it is the criminal that has the upper hand. This is a mistake; the criminal generally loses, and in the great majority of cases very quickly. Certainly the criminals are not punished for each crime, but the cases in which they remain unpunished are very rare. In the world of criminals itself there is no other opinion on this point.[54]
Although the value of statistics in studying the etiology of crime is certain, it must not be thought that they tell us everything.[55] I pass over here numerous things which most statistics still lack, for example, a classification by motive rather than according to the technical distinctions of the penal laws,[56]—and will simply call attention to the [[86]]difficulty of making international comparisons. The difference merely in the penal laws makes the comparison very difficult, and in many cases even impossible. Further, the dissimilarity of procedure, the differences in the organization of the police, etc., increase this difficulty.[57] In general, we can say that international comparisons give results where the nature of the crime (as homicide, for example) minimizes the difference between the codes, and where the figures show considerable differences. We can truly say that for the etiology of crime statics are much less important than dynamics. When we apply the dynamic method to a fairly long period, we have also to allow for the changes that have taken place in the penal codes and in the police organization, etc.
The statistical method certainly contains many sources of error. It goes without saying that this is not a reason for not using it at all, but simply for being careful. We must guard against conclusions too hastily drawn. If statistics show less criminality among the Jews—as is generally the case—it is not safe to say, therefore, that the innate morality of the Jew is greater than that of other men. If crime increases during a certain period together with irreligion, we have no right to conclude that there is a causal connection between the two. The connection between the movement of the price of grain and that of crimes against property has been proved many times, as we have seen; if this parallelism of the two curves no longer occurs, we cannot say on that account that economic conditions no longer play a part in the etiology of these crimes; we have seen that in manufacturing countries the industrial situation in general dominates the course of economic criminality. Similar examples could easily be multiplied.
The statistical method is one of the most effective for discovering the etiology of crime, and my readers will see that I use it much of the time. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that this method, however important, is only one among several. It is chiefly valuable in finding the direct causes of crime; as to indirect causes it gives us much less information. I would call attention to the following example: several authors have proved that there is an inverse connection between economic conditions and crimes against persons, i.e. [[87]]that these crimes increase in times of prosperity (this does not apply to recent times, however). The conclusion has often been drawn from these facts that an improvement in the lot of the working-class would lead, as a law of nature, to an increase in crimes of violence. This is a typical example of the insufficiency of the statistical method alone. When we seek for the cause of this phenomenon in another way, in the structure of society, we discover that it is to be found in the low moral and intellectual condition of the working-classes. There can be no law of nature at the root of the matter, else the well-to-do classes would be the violent criminals “par excellence.” It goes without saying that just the contrary is the case.
To sum up, I conclude that statistics furnish a powerful means of discovering the causes of crime, provided they are used critically and carefully. The statistical method is not the only one; to be a good criminologist, it is necessary to be a statistician, but it is necessary to be a sociologist also.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon the relation between sociology and statistics see also Žižek, “Soziologie und Statistik.”
In recent years there has been a violent controversy over the statistical method. It was opened by Hoegel in his “Die Grenzen der Kriminalstatistik” and “Kriminalstatistik und Kriminalaetiologie”; then came Wassermann with his “Begriff und Grenzen der Kriminalstatistik”, and “Georg v. Mayr als Kriminalstatistiker und Kriminalsoziologe und die moderne Methodenlehre”, which goes farther and denies almost all value to the statistical method. On the other side, we find v. Mayr in his “Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre”, II, p. 441, “Forschungsgebiet und Forschungsziel der Kriminalstatistik”, “Kriminalstatistik und Kriminalaetiologie”, and Wadler in his “Erkenntnistheorie und Kriminalstatistik.”] [[88]]
[8] “Du Problème de la Misère et de sa solution chez les peuples anciens et modernes”, III (“Peuples modernes”). See also by the same: “Le monde des coquins.” [↑]
[11] [The charts being unnecessarily detailed for the purposes of this work, and the results being sufficiently summed up in the paragraphs which follow, they are omitted in this translation, though given by Dr. Bonger.—Transl.] [↑]
[14] [To avoid awkwardness of expression the term assault will be used for assaults other than those peculiarly against women, the original being about equivalent to our “assault and battery.”—Transl.] [↑]
[15] “Essai sur la criminalité” (“Journal des Economistes”, 1868). [↑]
[18] See Part II of this work, where I have shown that in my opinion the influence of property upon morality is much more complex than Corne has suggested, and quite different. [↑]
[20] See Guerry, “Essai sur la statistique morale de la France,” p. 51, and L. del Baere, “De invloed van opvoeding en onderwijs.” [↑]
[25] [“Arpents de Magdebourg.”—Transl.] [↑]
[27] “Die Moralstatistik in ihrer Bedeutung für eine Socialethik.” [↑]
[29] On p. 442 of his “Moralstatistik,” von Oettingen criticises Stursberg for basing his comparison upon the year 1871 in which the figures were very low as a consequence of the war, and for not having taken into account that in the year 1876 the new penal code was put into effect. [↑]
[31] “Ueber einige wirthschaftliche und moralische Wirkungen hoher Getreidepreise.” [↑]
[32] “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen 1854–1878.” This book (especially the statistical material) has been severely criticized by Mittelstadt (“Zeitschrift für die ges. Strafrechtswissenschaft”, 1884), Aschrott (“Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, etc.” von Schmoller, 1884), and Illing (“Zeitschrift des Königlich Preussischen statistischen Bureaus”, 1885). Körner has refuted their views (“Jahrbücher für d. Nat. Oek. u. Stat. Neue Folge”, Vol. XIII). [↑]
[33] It is not possible for me to treat this question at length here. The reader is referred to my studies: “Misdaad en socialisme. Tegelijk eene bijdrage tot de studie der criminaliteit in Nederland” (“Nieuwe Tijd”, XVI), and “Verbrechen und Sozialismus. Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Studium der Kriminalität in Deutschland” (“Neue Zeit”, XXX, 2), where I have proved in a decisive manner, as it seems to me, that the socialistic movement is not productive of crime, but the contrary. [↑]
[36] “Die Würtembergische Kriminalität.” [↑]
[38] See upon this book the criticism of Professor F. Tönnies in “Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik”, 1896. [↑]
[44] Cf. by the same: “Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte der Handelskrisen in England”, II, Chap. I, where still more explicit data are given. [↑]
[45] “La delinquenza e la vita sociale in Russia.” Another publication by the same author is entitled: “Upon the relations between criminality and the price of cereals” (published in Russian). Cf. also: “Le mouvement de la criminalité en Russie, 1874–1894” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, XIII.), and “Répartition géographique de la criminalité en Russie” (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.”, XVI.). [↑]
[48] See Lafargue, “Die Kriminalität in Frankreich, 1840–86.” In France the development of manufacturing did not receive an impetus till 1874, from which year the decrease in crime dates. [↑]
[52] Cf. H. Berg, “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland seit 1882”, and my study already cited, “Verbrechen und Socialismus”, pp. 805, 806.
See also: Whitworth Russell, “Abstract of the Statistics of Crime in England and Wales, from 1839 to 1843”; J. Fletcher, “Moral and Educational Statistics of England and Wales”; G. R. Porter, “The Influence of Education Shown by Facts Recorded in the Criminal Tables for 1845 and 1846”; L. Faucher, “Mémoire sur le caractère et sur le mouvement de la criminalité en Angleterre”; J. Clay, “On the Effect of Good or Bad Times on Committals to Prison”; R. Everest, “On the Influence of Social Degradation in Producing Pauperism and Crime, as Exemplified in the Free Coloured Citizens and Foreigners in the United States”; “Criminality Promoted by Distress” (“The Economist”, 1856); R. H. Walsh, “A Deduction from the Statistics of Crime for the Last Ten Years”; W. Westgarth, “Statistics of Crime in Australia”; Bernard, “De la criminalité en France depuis 1826 et de la répression pénale au point de vue de l’amendement des prisonniers”; J. H. Elliot, “The Increase of Material Prosperity and of Moral Agents Compared with the State of Crime and Pauperism”; E. Levasseur, “La population française”, II pp. 442–444; Prof. Dr. B. Földes, “Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik”, pp. 544 ff.; G. F. Kolb, “Handbuch [[84]]der vergleichenden Statistik”, pp. 516, 517; M. A. de Malarce, “Moralité comparée des diverses parties de la France d’après la criminalité”; J. E. Wappäus, “Allgemeine Bevölkerungsstatistik”, II, pp. 429, 430; Mayhew and Binny, “The Criminal Prisons of London”, pp. 450, 451; E. Bertrand, “Essai sur la moralité comparative des diverses classes de la population et principalement des classes ouvrières”; G. Lindenberg, “Ergebnisse der deutschen Kriminalstatistik”, 1882–1892, pp. 718 ff.
[Note to the American Edition: See the following recent statistical studies: For Germany: H. Berg, “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland seit 1882”; R. Wassermann, “Beruf, Konfession, und Verbrechen”; G. Schnapper-Arndt, “Sozialstatistik”, pp. 624 ff.; P. Alterthum, “Das Problem der Arbeitslosigkeit und die Kapitalistische Wirtschaftsentwicklung”, pp. 47 ff.; W. A. Bonger, “Verbrechen und Sozialismus.” For Austria: H. Herr, “Verbrechen und Verbrechertum in Oesterreich.” For the Balkan States: A. Wadler, “Die Verbrechensbewegung im östlichen Europa”, I. For Belgium: C. Jacquart, “La criminalité Belge, 1868–1909.” For the Netherlands: J. R. B. de Roos, “Inleiding tot de beoefening der crimineele aetiologie”; W. A. Bonger, “Misdaad en Socialisme, etc.”; C. A. Verrijn Stuart, “Inleiding tot de beoefening der statistiek”, II, pp. 223 ff.] [↑]
[53] See Wulffen, “Psychologie des Verbrechers”, I, p. 369. [↑]
[54] See (with regard to the social factors of crime and their importance in comparison with individual causes) my study: “Over de maatschappelijke factoren van de misdaad en hunne beteekenis in vergelijking met de individueele oorzaken” (“Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht”, XXIII, pp. 413 ff.). [↑]
[55] See further H. v. Schul, “Kriminalstatistik” (“Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschafte”, VI, p. 246). [↑]
[56] See v. Liszt, “Kriminalpolitische Aufgaben” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, IX). [↑]
[57] See Levasseur, “La population française”, p. 445; also v. Oettingen, “Moralstatistik”, p. 445; Dr. E. Würzburger, “Ueber die Vergleichbarkeit kriminalstatistischer Daten” (“Jahrb. f. Nationalökonomie u. Statistik”, 1887); Tarde, “Penal Philosophy”, pp. 72, 73 (The Modern Criminal Science Series, Little, Brown, & Co., 1912); Földes, “Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, XI, pp. 517–518); de Roos, op. cit., pp. 192 ff. [↑]
CHAPTER III.
THE ITALIAN SCHOOL.[1]
I.
C. Lombroso.
In “Crime, Its Causes and Remedies”,[2] one of his last works, Professor Lombroso treats, among other things, of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality.
Chapter VI, bearing the title, “Subsistence (famine, price of bread)”, is the first in which we find any observations especially interesting to us. By the aid of data from von Oettingen, Starke, Corre, and Fornasari di Verce, which we treat separately, the author calls attention to the fact that the course of criminality is very little influenced by the price of provisions. He closes by drawing the following conclusion:
“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account [[89]]of the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the 100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater influence of heredity, climate, and race.”[3]
The circumstance that the thefts of food represent hardly 1% of the total cases of theft (according to Guerry), that in London bread occupies only the 43d place among 43 categories of articles stolen, and that Joly has shown that the cases of theft of money are much more numerous than those of meal, domestic animals, etc.—all of this leads the author to the conclusion that the proportion of crimes caused by lack of food and real misery is not so great as has been supposed.
—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr. G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr. Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first, that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime.[4]—
In the second part of the chapter Professor Lombroso tries to show that the effect of hunger upon revolts is not very great. He cites a number of cases where there were no revolts although prices were high and work scarce. Thus, for example, in Strasburg from 1451 to 1500 and from 1601 to 1625, the price of beef rose 134% and that of pork 92%, and during many years wages fell 10%; and yet there was no insurrection.
—I must vigorously protest against any such argument, which, in my opinion, has no value. I will leave out of consideration the last example, which proves but little, since during these periods the price of bread may have been very low, neutralizing the effect of low wages [[90]](it is quite problematical whether the poorer classes of the population were great consumers of beef and pork!). But it is inaccurate to conclude from the fact “that prices were high and there was no insurrection” an absence of influence of the economic conditions. There may have been a number of factors working in the opposite direction, which prevented the manifestation of the economic factor. To cite but one example, it may be that during those times an excessively severe penal law was in force, threatening the least attempt at insurrection with cruel death.—
We shall next sum up Chapter IX, “Influence of Economic Conditions—Wealth.” After saying that it is difficult to estimate the wealth of a country at all accurately, the author produces the following data in the first section of the chapter. He divides the provinces of Italy into three groups according to the total wealth (estimated from taxes on consumption, direct taxes, and taxes on business), and compares the figures thus gained with some of the principal kinds of crimes, reaching the following results:
| Wealth, 1885–86. | Wealth, 1890–93 (Bodio). | |||||
| Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. | Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. | |
| Fraud | 70.6 | 66.0 | 43.0 | 55.13 | 39.45 | 37.39 |
| Sexual crimes | 15.6 | 13.4 | 19.4 | 16.15 | 15.28 | 21.49 |
| Thefts | 206.0 | 143.0 | 148.0 | 361.28 | 329.51 | 419.05[5] |
| Homicides | 11.3 | 17.0 | 23.0 | 8.34 | 13.39 | 15.40 |
Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth is least; and this last is always true of homicides.”[6]
“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of wealth.”[7]
Another way of estimating the wealth of a country is by means of the inheritance tax. For different Italian provinces the following results are thus obtained: [[91]]
(Indictments. Average to 100,000 Population, 1887–89.)
| Average Wealth. | Thefts. | Frauds. | Highway Robberies. | Homicides. | Assaults. | ||
| Latium | 3333 | 639 | 116 | 18 | 25 | 513 | |
| Piedmont |  | 2746 | 267 | 44 | 7 | 7 | 164 |
| Liguria | |||||||
| Lombardy | 2400 | 227 | 44 | 3 | 3 | 124 | |
| Tuscany | 2164 | 211 | 34 | 6 | 7 | 165 | |
| Venice | 1935 | 389 | 43 | 3 | 4 | 98 | |
| Reggio | 1870 | 320 | 49 | 7 | 13 | 287 | |
| Emilia | 1762 | 250 | 38 | 6 | 6 | 130 | |
| Sicily | 1471 | 346 | 65 | 16 | 26 | 410 | |
| Naples | 1333 | 435 | 47 | 6 | 21 | 531 | |
| Marches | | 1227 | 222 | 33 | 3 | 10 | 239 |
| Umbria | |||||||
| Sardinia | — | 670 | 113 | 14 | 20 | 277 | |
This table gives very little information as to the influence of wealth upon criminality, since we can draw from it the most contradictory conclusions. Note, for example, that the highest figures for theft are to be found in the regions of Latium and Sardinia, i.e. in the richest and the poorest provinces, etc., etc.
—I have more than once had occasion to show that the value of such researches is fictitious. It is not the total amount of wealth but its distribution that bears upon criminality. (See, for example, Quetelet and Colajanni)—
In the 3d section the author treats of the effect of involuntary unemployment. Wright tells us that in Massachusetts of every 220 persons convicted, 147 are without regular work, and that 68% of criminals have no occupation. According to Professor Lombroso this is easily explained by the fact that criminals do not like to work. According to Bosco there were only 18% of murderers in the United States without work (—the proportion not being given for non-criminals, these figures have little value—). Finally, Professor Lombroso mentions the opinion of Coghlan, who says that unemployment has no influence upon criminality in New South Wales (—upon what he bases his opinion, we do not know—).
—Such data as these (to a subject of such high importance as this the author gives but thirty lines) suffice for the conclusion that the phenomenon in question has little significance for criminality. I have only to recall the extensive studies of Mayr, Denis, Müller, [[93]]Lafargue, and others, upon this subject, to prove the inaccuracy of this idea.— [[92]]
| Days of Work Equivalent to a Year’s Food. | Number of Persons (to the 100,000 Inhabitants) convicted for: | |||||||||
| Homicide. | Assault. | Sexual Offenses. | Theft. | |||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| England and Wales |  | 127 | Scotland | 0.51 | England + Wales | 2.67 | Spain | 1.03 | Spain | 59.63 |
| Scotland | England + Wales | 0.56 | Ireland | 6.24 | Ireland | 0.85 | Belgium | 110.44 | ||
| Ireland | Ireland | 1.06 | Scotland | 11.59 | Scotland | 1.41 | France | 110.95 | ||
| Belgium | 130 | Germany | 1.11 | Spain | 43.17 | England + Wales | 1.66 | Italy | 165.89 | |
| France | 132 | Belgium | 1.44 | France | 63.40 | Italy | 4.01 | Ireland | 65.81 | |
| Germany | 148 | France | 1.53 | Germany | 126.40 | Austria | 9.33 | England + Wales | 165.63 | |
| Austria | 152 | Austria | 2.43 | Italy | 155.35 | France | 10.26 | Scotland | 208.39 | |
| Italy | 153 | Spain | 8.25 | Belgium | 175.39 | Belgium | 13.83 | Germany | 226.02 | |
| Spain | 154 | Italy | 9.53 | Austria | 230.45 | Germany | 14.87 | |||
Note.—Column 1 is taken from Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics (quoted by Coghlan, op. cit.); and columns 2–5 are figured from the data published by the Director of Italian Statistics (“Movimento della Delinquenza secondo le Statistiche degli Anni 1873–83”, Rome, 1886). [[93]]
In the table on the preceding page the figures for criminality of different countries are compared with the number of days’ wages equivalent to the annual cost of food for one individual. These figures give us a composite picture of the price of food and the wage-scale.
This table shows; first, that excessive labor with a low wage, i.e. with a lack of proper nutrition, has a certain correspondence with homicide; second, there is also a certain correspondence with assaults (Spain and Belgium furnishing exceptions); third, sexual crimes are most common where we find the fewest days’ work and vice versa (Great Britain and some other countries being exceptions); fourth, that theft shows no correspondence.[8]
In another way Lombroso attempts to compare the economic conditions of different countries and their criminality, namely, by means of the number of savings-bank books. For Europe the figures are as follows (taken from Coghlan):
| Persons to Each Savings-bank Book. | Crimes to 100,000 Inhabitants. | ||||
| Homicide. | Theft. | ||||
| Switzerland | 4 | .5 | 16 | 114 | |
| Denmark | 5 | 13 | 114 | ||
| Sweden | 7 | 13 | — | ||
| England | 10 | 5 | .6 | 163 | |
| Prussia | 10 | 5 | .7 | 246 | |
| France | 12 | 18 | 103 | ||
| Austria | 14 | 25 | 103 | ||
| Italy | 25 | 96 | 150 | ||
These figures show how homicides move in inverse ratio to the number of savings-bank books, while the contrary is the case with thefts. The author forgets to point out that there are five exceptions to this rule.
In Italy the greatest number of accounts corresponds to the smallest number of homicides, as the following table shows: [[94]]
| Average Number of Crimes in 20 Provinces in which the Wealth (According to the Number of Savings-Bank Books) is: | |||||
| Maximum. | Intermediate. | Minimum. | |||
| Fraudulent crimes | 57 | 45 | 45 | ||
| Sexual crimes | 11 | 12 | .6 | 20 | |
| Thefts | 132 | 133 | 160 | ||
| Homicides | 10 | 12 | .6 | 27 | .4 |
There are several exceptions to this rule; for example, the richest, like Palermo, Rome, Naples, and Leghorn, give very high figures for homicides. According to Professor Lombroso the explanation in the case of Palermo and Naples is to be found in the geographical situation; in the case of Palermo, in race and the abuse of alcohol; and in the case of Rome, in race, the abuse of alcohol, and in the political situation.
For France we get the following results:
| In Departments where the Degree of Wealth is: | Average Number of: | ||
| Homicides. | Thefts. | Rapes. | |
| Minimum | 64 | 83 | 17 |
| Medium | 86 | 99 | 26 |
| Maximum | 89 | 186 | 29 |
Here is just the opposite of what we get in Italy. The author explains this in the following manner: first, the richest districts are those that are industrial, where the influx of immigrants is greatest (these latter committing four times as many crimes as the French); second, because of ethnic and climatic factors; third, because of the greater wealth of France, which is four times as rich as Italy; and fourth, because of the demoralizing influence of quickly acquired wealth.[9]
The industrial activity of a country causes a considerable increase of criminality, especially when it displaces agriculture. Of 42 agricultural departments only 11, or 26%, go beyond the average number of assassinations in France; while the average is exceeded by [[95]]10 out of the 26 departments of mixed industry, or 38%, and by 7 out of 17 manufacturing departments, or 41%. Rapes upon adults and crimes against persons show similar results.[10]
Percentage of departments exceeding the average of all France in:
| Rapes. | Crimes against Persons. | |
| Agricultural Departments (42) | 33% | 48% |
| Mixed (26) | 39% | 39% |
| Manufacturing (17) | 52% | 59% |
Not only poverty, but often wealth as well may cause crime. This is why some very wealthy districts show a figure for criminality as high as do the very poor. “The cause of all this is only too clear. On the one side poverty and the lack of absolute necessities impel toward the theft of indispensable things for the satisfaction of the individuals’ own needs. This is the first cord binding poverty and assaults upon property. On the other hand, poverty makes men impulsive through the cortical irritation following the abuse of wine and alcohol, that terrible poison to which so many of the poor resort to still the pangs of hunger. Account must be taken also of the degeneration produced by scurvy, scrofula, anemia, and alcoholism in the parents, which often transforms itself into epilepsy and moral insanity. Poverty also drives men to commit brutal eliminations of individuals who are an unwelcome burden upon the family, … Poverty is indirectly a cause of sexual crimes, on account of the difficulty which the poor have of obtaining satisfaction through prostitution; on account of precocious promiscuity in factories and mines; etc., … On the other hand, when a slight temptation toward evil is presented to an individual in comfortable circumstances, he is rendered physically and morally stronger by sufficient nutrition and a sounder moral training, and is less pressed by need, so that while he feels the impulsion to do evil, he can more easily resist it.
“But wealth, in its turn, is a source of degeneration from other causes, such as syphilis, exhaustion, etc. It drives men to crime through vanity, in order to surpass others, and from a fatal ambition to cut a figure in the world.”[11] It may be asked why it happens then that the inmates of prisons are almost always poor and rarely rich. The answer, according to the author, is that because of the influence [[96]]of his fortune, family, etc., the rich man can more easily extricate himself from the clutches of the law than the poor man, who knows no one, cannot employ a famous lawyer, etc. etc.
Professor Lombroso sums up his opinion as follows: “The economic factor has a great influence upon crime, not, however, that poverty is the principal cause of it, for excessive wealth, or money too quickly acquired, plays a large part as well; and poverty and wealth are frequently neutralized by the effect of race and climate.”[12]
II.
R. Garofalo.
In Chapter III of his “Criminologie”, and more especially in the first part, bearing the title “la Misère”, this author treats of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality.[13] The question which must be answered with regard to this subject, according to Garofalo, is the following: “Whether the so-called ‘economic iniquity’, a condition by which all citizens are either proprietors or proletarians, is the chief cause or, at least, one of the most important causes, of criminality.”[14]
It may be that a workman, i.e. a person who can only provide for his own needs and those of his family by selling his labor, can find no work, and for that reason falls into theft; but the author is of the opinion that in our days this almost never happens (leaving aside periods of crisis), and that if it happens the worker will generally find some one ready to help him, and that crime is therefore not a necessity. There is, indeed, absolute poverty, but it is almost always the result of a lack of courage and energy, and not due to a lack of work. It is not hunger, but a desire to procure the same pleasures as those enjoyed by the favored of fortune, that impels the working-man to commit crime. But this is not only the case with the working class but with other classes as well. For this desire belongs to every man; the millionaire envies the multimillionaire, etc. In order that this desire should lead to crime, it is not necessary that there should be a particular economic situation, but only a particular psychic condition[[97]]—the individual must have his sense of honesty weakened or wanting. Desire will cease to lead to crime only when there is no longer any advantage to be gained by it, and since this is inconceivable, crime will always exist. This explains why the number of crimes committed by the proletariat is very great, but at the same time why the cases of forgery, bankruptcy, etc. are very numerous among the other classes. In 1880 the figure for crimes against property (and analogous crimes) committed in Italy by proletarians, compared with those committed by property-owners, was as 88 to 12, while the ratio of the number of proletarians to that of property-owners was as 90 to 10. These proportions are nearly the same, which proves that as regards these crimes the proletarian class is no more criminal than the others.
Some authors are of the opinion that crimes against persons are equally caused in large measure by bad economic conditions, since bad education, lack of discretion, etc. are consequences of these conditions. In Garofalo’s opinion this idea is inaccurate, since the bad conditions in which the proletariat live lead indeed to roughness, i.e. make them insensible to the suffering of others, but it does not follow that the proletarians are totally deprived of moral sentiments. The criminal statistics of Italy show that 16% of the correctional criminality was committed by property-owners, though they form but 10% to 11% of the population. Garofalo attempts to prove the truth of his thesis also by a classification of criminals by trades. The agricultural class in Italy, the poorest and most ignorant, form 25.39% of those brought before the correctional tribunals, while those engaged in manufacturing, commerce, the army, etc., those with some education, therefore, who are much less numerous in the population, form 13.58%. In 1881 the Italian population included 67.25% of illiterates, and in 1880 68.09% of those correctionally convicted were illiterate. Further it has been proved many times that an improvement in economic conditions is accompanied by an increase of crime. In France, for example, wages have risen, the consumption of cereals, like that of meat, has increased, and the number of children enjoying the advantages of a primary education is more extensive and yet criminality has grown greatly in the same period. To the possible objection “that many authors, like Mayr, have proved that the rise in the price of grain is accompanied by an increase of crimes against property, and vice versa, and that economic conditions are consequently an important cause of crime”, Garofalo responds that crimes against persons increase with the fall in the price of grain, and that consequently, by the changes in the economic life there has been [[98]]brought about a change in the kind, but not in the extent, of criminality. Exceptional occurrences, such as famines, commercial crises, etc., increase crime only in appearance. If the question is probed to the bottom (the author appears not to have done so himself, at least he does not record any results) it is probable that it will be discovered that what happens is only that the form of crime becomes more serious, that the vagrant, for example, becomes a highway-man, etc.
The conclusions that the author draws are the following:
“First. The present economic order, that is to say, the distribution of wealth as it exists today, is not a cause of criminality in general.
“Second. The fluctuations which are wont to occur in the economic order may bring about an increase in one form of criminality, but this increase is compensated for by the diminution of another form. These fluctuations are, therefore, possible causes of specific criminality.”[15]
—My criticism of what has gone before will be limited to some principal points only.
First. The author dodges the question when he includes under economic conditions poverty only, and this in the very limited sense of the lack of the absolute necessities. He who writes upon the connection between crime and economic conditions must analyze the whole present economic system, and not stop with one of the consequences of that system, the poverty in which the proletarians find themselves. Consequently Garofalo’s whole argument, tending to show that the bourgeoisie have a great part in the crimes against property, is beside the mark, for capitalism results in great uncertainty of existence for the bourgeoisie also. It is then quite comprehensible that this class should be guilty of crimes of this kind. According to Fornasari di Verce, however, the Italian statistics show that the well-to-do class take less part in crime than the poor. According to him 13% of all those convicted in 1887 were well-to-do, a class which, roughly speaking, forms 40% of the whole population. (See also Colajanni, “La Sociologia Criminale”, II, pp. 536 ff.)
In consequence of this arbitrary restriction of the subject the author’s remarks are of little value. But aside from this there are still serious charges to be made against his manner of treating the subject.
Second. The assertion of Garofalo that in general in our present society he who wishes to work can find work, is not worth combating in a serious book. To say that machinery does not every day make [[99]]some workers unnecessary, that there are no industrial crises causing an enormous amount of involuntary unemployment, is conclusive proof that one does not know the present mode of production. The existence of a group of the population, the so-called lower proletariat (“bas-prolétariat”, “Lumpen-proletariat”) cannot be a natural phenomenon, since it has not been always and everywhere present; it is strictly bound up with certain modes of production.
Third. As I have had occasion to show already in more than one place, the increase of crimes against persons during periods of prosperity has a very great, though indirect, connection with economic conditions.
Fourth. That poverty in the strict sense of the word is not the sole cause of economic criminality, that cupidity plays also an important rôle, I do not wish to deny. Only, this cupidity is not an innate quality of man, present everywhere and always, but is awakened only under certain economic conditions. This is especially the case in our present society.
Fifth. According to the author there are certain circumstances which may lead to the commission of a crime, but the true cause of crime is to be found in the absence or weakness of the instinct of honesty. That there exists such an “instinct of honesty” is one of numerous assertions made by Garofalo for which he produces no proof, and, in accordance with the general opinion of sociologists, I class it among the most profound errors. A moral disposition is innate in man, and varies greatly with individuals, but moral concepts—for example, that it is forbidden to steal—are certainly not innate. The very way in which Garofalo puts the question is wrong; we must not set the circumstances that have influenced a man at a certain moment over against an innate quality of honesty (fictitious besides) but must examine all the conditions which have influenced his innate moral disposition through the whole of his life, as well as his environment at a given moment.
To say that the influence of environment cannot be great, because persons well brought up sometimes commit crimes, is very superficial. Upon this point there is something deeper and more important to be said.—
III.
E. Ferri.
In order to present Professor Ferri’s views, I shall analyze “Socialismo e criminalità” and a passage connected with our subject, taken [[100]]from “Sociologia criminale.”[16] This analysis will be more detailed than that of most of the other authors, since in reality the opinion of Professor Ferri is the synthesis of the opinions of many other authorities. For this reason and others it is of the highest importance.
“Socialismo e criminalità” is a polemic work directed in part against “Il delitto e la questione sociale” of Turati, and in part as Professor Ferri himself says in “Socialismo e scienza positiva”, against socialism as far as that involves the revolutionary method and the concomitant “nebulous romanticism.”
In his “Preliminari” the author gives some definitions of socialism; combats socialism of every kind, declares it to be unscientific, and sets in opposition to it sociology, which is entirely scientific.[17] We pass over this part of the work in silence, since it has little importance for our subject, and turn our attention to the end of the “Preliminari”, where the author gives an exposition of the ideas which the socialists, according to him, have about crime:
“I. The origin of the phenomenon of crime is to be found in society as at present constituted.
“II. More especially, the economic disorder of the population caused by the unjust inequality of individuals and classes, is the cause of every other disorder, moral or intellectual, and therefore of crime also.
“III. When the social transformation or revolution which the socialists desire has taken place, the social atmosphere will be most favorable.
“IV. In the socialistic order the individual also will be much superior to the man corrupted or demoralized by present conditions.
“V. And then crime, like poverty, ignorance, prostitution, and immorality in general, will have ended its unhappy tyranny over the human race.”
—It is not certain that an adherent of scientific socialism would agree that these theses are entirely accurate; for example, the second, that the bad economic condition of the population is the cause of crime—for the expression “economic condition” has here too limited a meaning, namely that of poverty, misery, etc. In place of this he [[101]]would rather make use of the expression, “mode of production.” It is this which, in the last analysis, rules the whole social life, according to the Marxists.—
The first chapter of Professor Ferri’s work, bearing the title of “la genesi sociale e individuale del delitto”, begins by remarking that the socialists blame society as the cause of all evils, including poverty and crime. On the one hand, they do this because of their “strategy of propaganda”, on the other hand it is a reaction against the extreme individualism which sprang from the French Revolution. They generally pay no attention to individual factors, or perhaps recognize them in part, but attribute their origin to society also. Between these two extremes is to be found criminal sociology, which says that the causes of crime are manifold.
According to the author there are three groups of the factors of crime: the anthropological or individual factors, the cosmic or physical factors, and the social factors. Since many authors, wholly or partially, share this view, which constitutes an attack against the very foundation of the idea of the social origin of crime, we will examine it here fully.
We take from “Sociologie criminelle”, where this doctrine is best set forth, the following statement of it. “Every crime is the resultant of individual, physical, and social conditions.”[18] The individual factor is, according to the author, the most important, the primordial factor, so to speak, for he says: “The social environment gives form to the crime; but this has its origin in an anti-social biological constitution (organic or psychic).”[19] The factors pointed out are the following:
“The anthropological factors, inherent in the person of the criminal, are the first condition of crime, and divide themselves into three subclasses, according as the person of the criminal is looked at from an organic, psychic, or social point of view.
“The organic constitution of the criminal constitutes the first subclass of anthropological factors and includes all the anomalies of the skull, brain, viscera, sensibility, reflex activity, and all bodily characteristics in general, such as physiognomy, tattooing, etc.
“The psychical constitution of the criminal includes anomalies of intelligence and feeling, especially of the moral sense and the peculiarities of the criminal dialect and literature.
“The personal characteristics of the criminal include the purely [[102]]biological features of his condition, such as race, age, sex; and the bio-social features, such as civil status, profession, residence, social class, and education, which have been up to this time the almost exclusive subject of criminal statistics.
“The physical factors of crime are the climate, nature of the soil, length of nights and days, the seasons, the annual temperature, meteorological conditions, and agricultural production.
“The social factors include the density of population; public opinion, morals, religion; condition of the family; the educational system; industrial production; alcoholism; economic and political conditions; public administration, the courts, the police; and in general the legislative, civil, and penal organization:—that is to say, a medley of latent causes, which interlace and combine in all parts of the social organism, and almost always escape the attention of … criminologists and legislators.”[20]
ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTORS.
Let us consider first the “personal characteristics of the criminal.” Professor Ferri draws the following conclusions with regard to the existence of anthropological factors in general: “In fact, if crime were the product of the social environment exclusively, how could the fact be explained, that in the same social environment and in like circumstances of poverty, abandonment, and lack of education, out of 100 individuals, 60 commit no crime, and of the 40 that remain, 5 prefer suicide to crime, 5 become insane, 5 become beggars or non-dangerous vagrants, and only the 25 others become real criminals? And why is it that among these, while some limit themselves to theft without violence, others commit robberies, and even, before the victim resists, or threatens, or calls for help, commit a murder with the sole aim of theft?”[21]
—It seems to me that there are many objections to be made to this rather carelessly drawn conclusion. In the first place, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that it may be assumed that it will be easy to find groups of persons only a quarter of whom become criminal, though they all live in the same bad environment. Leaving out of account the individuals who, because of their physical condition are incapable of crime, I do not believe that there are, for example, 60% who have never been convicted. However, even admitting that this assertion is accurate, then, that out of 100 persons living in the same environment, only one part will fall into crime, I believe that it [[103]]is impossible to find even two persons who live, and have lived, in an environment exactly similar, and whose parents also have always lived in the same surroundings. In this way only can the question be clearly put. It is not only present conditions that influence a man; all past conditions have their part in the motives of present acts. It cannot be denied that the present includes the past. Nor ought the conditions which have influenced the parents to be excluded. Let us put the following case: A, B, and C live in the same very bad surroundings. A commits suicide, B becomes crazy, C commits a crime. The parents of A were well-to-do, gave their child a good education, and accustomed him to consider many things as necessities. Fallen into poverty, then weakened and become incapable of good work, A believes that it is impossible for him to restore himself. His moral ideas, acquired in his youth, are opposed to his engaging in crime. And then the few francs that he would be able to steal would not be sufficient to maintain him in the life to which he has been accustomed. Consequently he commits suicide. B is the child of a father who became an alcoholic from actual poverty. Inferior on this account, B cannot keep up the struggle for existence and becomes insane. The parents of C were indigent. He received no education; moral ideas are totally unknown to him; he has never lived in anything but poverty, and commits a theft when the opportunity presents itself without any hesitation. In these three cases, which occur daily, circumstances are the only factor that enters into consideration.
I have said above that there are no two persons who live in exactly the same circumstances. This word “exactly” is not used by Professor Ferri, and in this, in my opinion, he is wrong. In ordinary life we speak of great and small causes. But in treating of scientific questions this is surely forbidden. For no one is ignorant that what is apparently the least important occurrence may have the most extensive consequences.
May I here be permitted to make a quotation from an interesting page of Professor Manouvrier upon this question: “That the effect of environment is generally understood in too limited a way, we see proved every day in the appreciation expressed, of the causes that have determined certain differences of productive power or moral conduct. It is a question, perhaps, of two brothers. It is said that they have been brought up exactly in the same manner, that they have received exactly the same education, and that the question of environment is thus settled. Immediately the doctors begin to call in [[104]]atavism, to feel the bumps of the head, to study facial asymmetry, etc. Anatomy must be appealed to, since the influence of environment has been eliminated. It can be put down to bad luck if some bump, some depression, some asymmetry is not found that will serve, whether or no, to account for a solution of the question. There remains always, further, the resource of invoking invisible, hypothetical vices of the internal constitution. The phrenologists were in a relatively difficult situation; they had to find a fixed anatomical character, a bump for a function specified in advance, or they were obliged to imagine a conflict of bump with bump. The present method is less exacting; it is enough to find no matter what deviation from morphological perfection, without its being necessary to show the connection between this deviation and the physiological inferiority to be explained. But what am I saying? The question is often of an inferiority of a sociological order, and trouble is not even taken to make sure, to begin with, that this corresponds to a psychological inferiority. Yet however indispensable this may be as a preliminary, it is not enough; it must be ascertained that this inferiority implies a functional trouble before calling in pathological anatomy at all hazards.
“The statement is made that the two brothers have been subjected to the same environmental influences merely because they have been brought up in the same house, taught in the same school, fed and clothed alike. Yet the mere fact of having been born first or second is not without importance. To have been reared with an older or with a younger brother constitutes a difference of environment that may contribute powerfully to differentiate character. Add to this the differences of environment proceeding from nurses, servants, diseases, games, etc., and you will have opened headings under which may be classed differences innumerable. There are no small things in such a matter. Biographies as now written are no more than outlines when one thinks of what truly psychological biographies ought to be. To have been taught in the same college in the case of two brothers is a similarity that may, and certainly does, conceal the greatest differences. They have not had the same teachers, the same fellow-pupils, nor, above all, the same comrades. Between the education given, and that actually received, the difference may be great.…
“The influences that act upon the child outside of the curriculum have the more chance to be effective, since the curriculum is carried out in the less agreeable manner.”[22] [[105]]
In consequence of what has been said, I believe that the conclusion of Professor Ferri that there are anthropological factors of crime, is too hasty. But there are still other objections to be urged to it.
Let us suppose that two persons who live, and have lived, in the same circumstances are in a position to commit a very advantageous crime, and their morality does not prevent. At the moment when the time comes to act, one commits the crime and the other does not—he lacks the courage. Courage, then, is a factor of crime, and the lack of it a factor of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. In another case, he who commits a crime is stupid, and does not consider the risk, and he who does not commit it is a crafty man. Stupidity, then, is a factor of crime, and craft of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. The reverse is also true, probably more true still. Thousands of great criminals so far from being stupid have had something of the genius in them.
The famous individual factors are only ordinary human qualities, like courage, strength, needs, intelligence, etc. etc.,[23] which men possess in differing degrees, and which in like circumstances lead the one rather than the other to commit a crime. These qualities in themselves, however, have nothing to do with crime. Professor Manouvrier expresses my thought on this subject in the following: “There are, however, certain individuals more moved to crime than others, in circumstances otherwise equal. Certainly, as man is more given to crime than woman, as a robust and bold man is more given to crimes of violence than one who is miserable and timid, etc., yet each type of character finds some kind of crime practicable, if only arson. The athlete will be more inclined to strike, the smooth talker to play the confidence man, but we do not for that reason indict muscular strength, nor ready speech, nor boldness, nor agility, nor address. No more do we indict violence or trickery, qualities defined from the vicious use made of qualities valuable for honest purposes.”[24]
The reasoning of Professor Ferri, that there is in every crime, besides others, an anthropological factor, is only the statement of the fact, known long before the rise of modern criminology, that the predisposition to crime is not the same with all men. This predisposition, as we have seen, considered by itself, has nothing to do with crime as such. So much the more is the conclusion of Professor Ferri and the Italian school in general absolutely false, when they deduce from the undeniable fact that the predisposition is not the [[106]]same for all, the notion that this predisposition is by nature pathological.
Thus we have finally come to two other groups of anthropological factors: the organic constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of the skull, brain, etc. and the psychical constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of intelligence and feeling.[25] This is the special territory of the Italian school: the criminal is a being apart—“genus homo criminalis”—with special stigmata peculiar to him; there is a criminal type, anatomically recognizable; most criminals are born-criminals, etc. The explanation of this special character is to be found in atavism, an hypothesis later replaced by that of epilepsy; finally it has been claimed that the character of the criminal is in general of a pathological nature.
In our purely sociological work, though it combats in an indirect way the hypothesis of the Italian school, we do not have to concern ourselves with the conflict between the different anthropological schools, with regard to the origin of crime. We demonstrate merely, what no one who judges fairly will attempt to deny, that the hypothesis of the Italian school is erroneous. The anthropological authorities like Manouvrier, Baer, Näcke, and others, have broken this doctrine down.[26] There are no stigmata belonging to criminals only, nor is there any criminal type; the atavistic hypothesis is one of the profoundest errors.
Although the doctrine of Lombroso and his school is in general abandoned by anthropologists, it still persists in the acceptance of one fact, to which it is its immortal merit to have called attention, namely that there are a number of criminals (though a very limited number) who show a truly pathological nature, and whose criminal character can only be explained by this pathological nature. For example, when someone in an epileptic condition commits a murder, without any motive; or the case in which a well-to-do individual steals continually useless articles, of little value, etc., etc. Even in most of these instances, which are a small minority in the colossal mass of criminality, the social environment plays its part; but it must be recognized without reserve that here we have to do with true individual factors, peculiar to certain individuals. The hypothesis of the [[107]]Italian school is, then, accurate for the exception, but false as a rule.—
PHYSICAL FACTORS.
It is evident that the nature of the soil, the climate, the physical environment in a word, must have an important influence upon the mode of production, and consequently upon society.[27]
It is easily understood why those who inhabit the regions of Siberia covered with snow have not become agriculturists; and why Holland, without mines of iron and coal has not become a great manufacturing country, but instead, situated upon the sea and traversed by great rivers, has become commercial. But these physical factors have remained constant or nearly constant during historical periods, while the organization of society has undergone changes that have great effects. We cannot explain these changes by a constant factor.
Plechanow formulates this very well in his “Beiträge der Geschichte des Materialismus.” He says: “The character of man’s natural environment determines the character of his productive activity, of his means of production. The means of production, however, determines the reciprocal relationships of men in the process of production as inevitably as the equipment of an army determines its entire organization, and all the relationships of the individuals of which it is made up. Now the reciprocal relations of men in the social process of production determine the entire structure of society. The influence of the natural environment upon this structure is therefore incontestable. The character of the natural environment determines that of the social environment. For example: ‘The necessity of computing the time of the rising of the Nile, created Egyptian astronomy and with it the domination of the priestly caste as guides in agriculture.’
“But this is only one side of the matter. Another side must also be considered if one is not to draw entirely false conclusions. The circumstances of production are the result, the productive forces are the cause. But the effect becomes a cause in its turn; the circumstances of production become a new source of the development of the productive forces. This leads to a double result.
“1. The mutual influence of the circumstances of production and the productive forces causes a social movement, which has its own logic and a law of its own, independent of the natural environment. [[108]]For example: Private property in the primitive phase of its development is always the fruit of the labor of the property-holder himself, as may be very well observed in the Russian villages. There necessarily comes a time, however, when it becomes the reverse of what it was before: it supposes the work of another, and becomes capitalistic private property, as we can likewise see any day in the Russian villages. This phenomenon is the effect of the immanent law of the evolution of private property. All that the natural environment can accomplish in this case consists in accelerating this movement through favoring the development of the productive forces.
“2. Since the social evolution has its own logic, independent of any direct influence from the natural environment, it may happen that a people, though inhabiting the same land and retaining almost the same physical peculiarities, may have at different epochs of its history social and political institutions which are very little similar, or even totally different one from another.”[28]
Crime being a social phenomenon, and society being influenced, as we have seen, by the physical environment, one might say that this environment is a factor in criminality. He who reasons thus would have to grant that the physical environment is only an indirect factor, and therefore a very remote cause. It would be as fair to say that the invention of gunpowder was one of the causes of all murders committed with fire-arms. However, in reasoning thus I believe we forget that crime is an historic phenomenon, modifying itself according to the condition of society, and consequently regulated by laws that are independent of the physical environment. In other words, the environment is the reason why a people provides for its needs by working the material that nature has furnished; but the manner in which this work is done is independent of this environment. And it is upon this manner of working that criminality depends. An example taken from practice will make clear what I have been saying.
From the nature of the soil of Sicily it is possible to work sulphur mines there. The criminality of Sicily is very great, especially in the parts where the mines are found, and many murders particularly are committed there. We might be disposed to believe that here the physical factors came into play. Now it is true that the nature of the soil is the cause of the exploiting of the mines, but the criminality is dependent entirely upon the way in which the exploiting is done, and this has nothing to do with the physical environment. To particularize: these mines are exploited in the capitalistic fashion, i.e., [[109]]with the aim of getting as much profit as possible, which brings it about that the workers are untaught, demoralized and made degenerate by ill-paid labor, excessively severe, and carried on in an unwholesome atmosphere. Hence come the higher figures for criminality.[29]
Most authors who have concerned themselves with the influence of these physical factors, have only observed their direct influence upon man. Many of them have paid no attention to the importance that these factors may have for the character of society, and they have taken no account of the fact that society develops according to laws independent of the physical environment. Phenomena have been ascribed to the direct influence of the physical environment, which have no such relationship. It is a fact pretty generally recognized, for example, that the number of violent crimes is greater in the South than in the North. The cause frequently given is the obvious one that it is the difference of climate. But this overlooks the fact that the phase of social development reached in the southern countries is totally different from that in the northern countries, and this difference explains that of the criminality against persons. Upon this subject Professor Tarde says: “Statistics compiled in epochs when, civilization not having passed from the South to the North, the North was more barbarous, would certainly have shown that crimes of blood were more numerous in the northern climates, where now they are more rare, and would have induced the Quetelets of that day to formulate a law precisely the reverse of the one now stated. For example, if we divide Italy into three zones, Lombardy, Central, and Southern Italy, we shall find that at present there are in the first 3 homicides to the 100,000 inhabitants annually, in the second nearly 10, and in the third more than 16. But shall we estimate that in the palmy days of Grecia Major, when Crotona and Sybaris flourished in the south of a peninsula which, in the North, was totally peopled with brigands and barbarians, except for the Etruscans, the proportion of bloody crimes would not have been reversed? At present there are in Italy, in proportion to the population, sixteen times as many homicides as in England, nine times as many as in Belgium, and five times as many as in France. But we could swear that under the Roman Empire it was quite otherwise, and that the savage Britons, and even the Belgians and the Gauls surpassed the effeminate Romans in habitual ferocity of manners, in vindictive fury and bravery. [[110]]According to Maine the Scandinavian literature shows that homicide during the period of barbarism was a ‘daily accident’ with these peoples of the North, at present the mildest and most inoffensive in Europe.”[30]
It is plain from what has gone before that I have not wished to deny the direct influence of the physical environment upon man. Indeed, it is a fact which the whole world has observed. According to many persons, then—and a number of scientific researches have proved it—a high degree of criminality against persons proceeds from a hot temperature, while a low temperature, on the other hand, leads to many crimes against property. This implies not only that the kind of crime is different in hot countries from that in cold, but also that the change of the seasons with their variations in temperature have the corresponding effects.
I will not fatigue the reader by citing an unlimited number of examples to prove that the exceptions to this rule are very numerous. We cannot find a greater number of crimes against persons and a smaller number of crimes against property with each degree nearer the equator. If this were the case dishonesty would be unknown at the equator, and everyone there would be very violent. There are countries which, though in the same latitude, are very different as to crime, as there are others, much alike as to crime though situated far from each other, etc., etc.[31] The adherents of the theory of the “physical environment” explain these exceptions by saying that they are caused by the “social environment.” By so doing they recognize that the latter may entirely alter and even annihilate the influence of the former. Let us concern ourselves rather with the different kinds of crime, and investigate the influence which the physical environment exercises upon it.
In the first place, as to the assertion that cold increases the number of crimes against property it is unnecessary to speak at length, for nearly all authors are agreed that not physical but economic causes come into play here. Cold increases men’s needs; they must have warmer clothing and a well heated dwelling. But it is clear that all this is no motive for stealing. For the person of means gets what he wants with his own money. It is the present social organization that, [[111]]during the severe weather, does not permit people to provide for the needs that are more numerous then, for the opportunity to work is more often lacking in winter than in summer.
As to crimes against persons Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the direct influence of temperature is as follows: “The increase of acts of violence to persons, which is observed in connection with higher temperatures, must be chiefly dependent upon the direct physiological effect of heat upon the human organism. For by the greater warmth the consumption of material for the production of animal heat is cut down, and hence a surplus of force is stored up capable of being used for other purposes. But this, in union with the heightened irritability of temper, may easily degenerate into that criminal activity which shows itself in acts of violence to persons. With this psychological effect of the heat, it is true, there is coupled, in the case of the poorer classes who form the majority of the population, the effect of more easily obtained and more plentiful food, but this social cause in this connection is of less importance than the direct biological influence.”[32]
The first explanation of Professor Ferri is astonishing because everyone feels that the heat has a different effect upon himself than the one given. The fact that during hot weather the consumption of bodily fuel is not so great as in cold weather cannot be considered as the most important point in treating of the question of crime. Heat enervates men, weakens their organism, and is the cause of men’s doing as little as possible. It has, then, just the opposite effect to that ascribed to it.[33]
More than once I have had occasion to point out that it is unjust to say that the improved food of the poorer classes in summer can be the cause of the greater criminality during that season. If this were the case the persons who are well nourished at all times would furnish the greatest number of violent criminals. Now we know that just the contrary is the case. In my opinion the explanation is to be sought in the fact that in summer people come into contact with one another more, and consequently there is more opportunity for evil doing.[34] But this in itself cannot naturally explain the increase of crimes. Watering-places, where the bourgeoisie attempt to escape from the effects of the heat, are not places where crimes against persons [[112]]occur in great numbers. Yet the concentration of many people in a limited space is there very great. The degree of cultivation of the people determines the greater or less ease with which quarrels arise. And what proves that this degree need not be very high is the fact that acts of violence are very rare among the bourgeois, the greater number of whom have only a superficial culture.
The most convincing proof that the increase of violent crimes in spring has no direct connection with the heat, is found in the fact that this increase is already very great in the months in which in the North of Europe there is absolutely no question of heat properly so called (i.e. in March and April); and in the second place the course of crimes during the week must be noted, with the maximum on Sunday, when naturally the heat is no greater than on other days; and in the third place, the maximum is not to be found at the hottest time of the day.[35]
The increase of sexual crimes in hot seasons is in part only apparent, because those who commit these crimes then operate more out of doors, and a greater number of arrests results. For the rest, it must be conceded that the sexual instinct in general is quickened a little during the spring and summer, and as a consequence sexual acts increase. But this does not mean that these acts are therefore criminal. The principal reason why sexual crimes increase during the hot weather is to be found in opportunity, which occurs much more frequently than in cold weather. The proverb says: “opportunity makes the thief”, and this is still more applicable to sexual criminals.[36]
I am therefore of the opinion that the social factors must not be included in the etiology of crime. They have their influence upon the structure of society, they have also their influence upon man, but it depends upon social conditions whether this influence takes a criminal direction or not.[37] [[113]]
Before taking up our analysis of “Socialismo e criminalità”, I would remark that this division of the factors into three groups has to do exclusively with the individual criminal, and thus loses sight of the question why such an action in any place whatever, at any time whatever, is regarded as criminal? Such a query brings out the fact that we are here concerned with social factors only.
Let us take up now the exposition of Chapter I of “Socialismo e criminalità.” Turati, in his “Il delitto e la questione sociale” has made the following objections to Professor Ferri’s theses. Professor Ferri distinguishes five categories of criminals: insane criminals, incorrigible born-criminals, habitual criminals, criminals from passion, and occasional criminals. In the first two categories individual factors play a very important rôle; however, according to Professor Ferri’s investigations these two groups include but 20% to 25% of the whole number of criminals, and deducting the insane, only 10% remain. Since criminals form only the minority of the population, and physical factors have only a slight influence, it follows that these factors influence rather the form than the cause of the crime. The three factors work nearly all the time. It is clear, therefore, that the two other factors alone will not be strong enough to produce crime at a time when the social factor is eliminated, as has been proved by the socialistic colony at New Lanark, which preserved an exemplary morality for four years. Then, without taking account of the crimes that are the consequence of viciousness of life or of the abnormal economic condition, the authors of great crimes (except technical and professional ones) are less numerous among the well-to-do than among the lower classes, where the anthropological elements are nearly the same. And if the different classes show anthropological differences, this is not because these differences are innate in individuals on account of being born in the lower classes, but because they are produced and brought about by poverty, bad education, etc. The true causes of crime are consequently social conditions, and in the last analysis economic conditions.
Professor Ferri’s argument against what has just been said may be summed up as follows: Will there be no social atmosphere in a socialistic state? Or rather, will this atmosphere be so perfect that the germ of the smallest social factor of crime will be absent? Do we suppose that when poverty is suppressed, jealousy will disappear at the same time? If legal marriage is abolished will that prevent an ugly man from violating or killing a beautiful woman who refuses to accept him? It may be objected that in this case the man is not [[114]]an habitual or an occasional criminal, but a born-criminal, or an insane criminal, or a criminal from passion. Well and good, but then in this future state we shall still be far removed from an earthly paradise.
Turati commits the following errors in his reasoning: First, he sets aside the insane criminals; wrongly, according to Professor Ferri, for, although insane, they are criminals. Second, 20%, the figure to which born and insane criminals count up, is a very large number out of 60,000 prisoners. Third, Professor Ferri claims that it is incorrect to say that the other causes are reduced to zero the moment the social factors of crime are suppressed. For even with occasional criminals, where the environment plays a very important part, an individual factor must make its effect felt, or the individual would not become criminal.
Professor Ferri asks, on the other hand: How does it happen that out of a hundred working-men living in the same environment, only a very few fall into crime? This can be explained only by admitting individual and physical causes. When socialists say that these individual differences are innate simply in consequence of the poverty in which ancestors of the persons in question have lived for thousands of years, the author admits this reasoning in great part, but thinks nevertheless that he is right in maintaining that these qualities are innate in certain individuals at the present time.
With regard to the fact that a very high morality was maintained in New Lanark, the author says: first, that he would very much like to convince himself with his own eyes, especially since he has read that in this colony the habit of celebrating Christmas eve with excessive drinking was kept up; second, that he knows that crimes were committed in a communistic colony of that time; further we are not to forget that difficulties are increased in a great city.
The following chapter is entitled: “Benessere e criminalità.” To the unproved assertion of the socialists that bad economic conditions are the principal if not the only cause of crime, the author opposes some facts to prove that this statement is largely incorrect. To this end he divides crimes into three groups: first, crimes against property, second, crimes against persons or crimes of blood, and third, crimes against morals. Besides these three categories there are many crimes which have neither directly nor indirectly any connection with bad economic conditions; for example, crimes against honor, insults, or abuse of power.
First, then, the crimes against property. The author recognizes [[115]]that most of these crimes are caused by bad economic conditions. But it is an exaggeration, he says, to say that all these crimes result from such conditions. This is to overlook crimes against property committed out of revenge. However, in a communistic society there would necessarily be cases of theft still, without taking into account kleptomania, etc. For the articles of consumption would still remain private property; and why should one not rob his fellow-citizen from jealousy? Or is it not probable that someone would prefer to take from his neighbor the thing he needs rather than make a trip of some miles to get it from a central store? But if we admit that the bad economic conditions of the time are the cause of the crimes against property, it remains to find the causes of the crimes of the other groups. Though he recognizes that economic conditions occupy a place in the etiology of these last crimes, as, for example, murder from cupidity, the author does not believe that this can be made a general rule. When socialists object that the man of the future will be morally improved, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that at the present moment we have to do with the men of today and not with the men of the future.
The study of criminality in France during the years 1825–80 has shown an extraordinary increase in crimes against persons and against morals during the years 1848–52. A minute examination shows the author that it was due to the great increase in the consumption of meat and wine, both very cheap at this time, and also to a rise in wages. The result of the betterment in economic conditions was, therefore, an increase in the crimes mentioned.
Professor Ferri finds another proof in the following table:
Number of Persons Arraigned to 100,000 of Each Class (France).
| Crimes. | Agricultural Class. | Manufacturing Class. | Arts and Trades. | Other Professions. | Without Occupation, Vagrants, Etc. |
| Thefts | 6.6 | 12.9 | 18.1 | 11.1 | 136.3 |
| Forgery | 0.7 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 8.3 |
| Arson | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 5.2 |
| Infanticide | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 4.1 |
| Serious assaults | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 2.7 |
| Homicide | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 2.4 |
| Murder | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 5.8 |
| Sexual crimes with violence | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.9 |
| Sexual,, crimes,, against children | 0.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 5.5 |
| Average of all crimes | 13.9 | 23.0 | 32.5 | 22.4 | 193.0 |
[[116]]
It follows from this table that the farming class, which, if you except vagabonds, is the class with the least means, shows the figure relatively lowest, and that the assertion of the socialists, that those who are brought to the bar of justice are almost all from the proletariat, is inaccurate.
—I shall not discuss the question, whether the proletariat furnishes a disproportionately large contingent of criminals. The arguments of Professor Ferri do not seem very strong to me. “Agricultural class”, for example, is too vague a distinction. What an enormous distinction between the rich farmer and the poor day-laborer, who earns only a few francs a week! Yet both are included in the first group.—
When we examine the course of crime in France during the period 1826–80, we see a considerable increase in the crimes against property, morals, and persons, while the economic conditions have improved during these years even for the proletariat. To what cause is this increase to be ascribed? It is impossible to attribute it to a relaxation of the strictness of the police and the courts, for the activity of these has become greater. Further, where it is evident that there are such strong causes of crime, it would be madness to think that a greater severity of penalties leads to a diminution of criminality. It is for this reason that the school to which the author belongs insists not upon the increase of penalties, but rather upon the elimination of causes. Hence the doctrine of “penal substitutes.”
The true cause is the following: The more abundantly a man is nourished, the more his organic forces are developed; there is, therefore, a greater activity which may express itself in more acts of honest labor, but may also express itself in an increased number of unlawful acts. And then we must not lose sight, especially with regard to sexual crimes, of the existence of a biological and of a sociological law, namely, first, that the generative force of animals and of man increases in proportion to the abundance and ease of nutrition; second, that by a continual development of foresight, the nations which follow the advice of Malthus are more and more giving the lie to the law that he formulated, since with them population shows a tendency to increase less rapidly than the means of existence, and almost in inverse proportion to wealth. This is why criminality is increasing in France, where the system of foresight is greatly developed, and where the population enjoys better nutrition than formerly.
Professor Ferri is of the opinion that we can derive from the observed [[117]]facts the following rules: first, criminality increases in extent but diminishes in violence; second, scarcity makes crimes against property increase, and decreases those against persons, while abundance has the opposite effect; third, civilization decreases the number of homicides, but increases that of suicides; fourth, a development of foresight with regard to births prevents an excessive increase of the population, and consequently an excessive increase of pauperism, but increases the figures for sexual crimes.
Turati makes the following objections to these statements: In the first place, in civilized countries, crimes against persons are much less numerous than crimes against property, and just in proportion to the degree of civilization. Why is it not likely that in the end the criminogenous influence of nutrition will disappear in consequence of the law in accordance with which crimes increase in number, but decrease in grossness and intensity? Further, it is doubtful whether this influence is so strong. The true cause is not good nutrition but the Malthusian check, and it is this last which leads to crime, precisely in the proletariat, since in this class prostitution cannot act as a safety valve; and bad economic conditions are the cause of the “moral restraint.”
Professor Ferri recognizes that there is a partial truth in this reasoning, but makes the following objections: that crimes of blood are more numerous than crimes against morals and yet have no relation to the Malthusian check; that, as regards crimes against morals, it is not correct to say that the proletariat are driven to them by economic causes; that it is the proletarians that multiply the fastest, and the well-to-do classes who do not wish to have many children; and that the individual and biological factors would always remain, and lead to crimes against persons, even if the aforesaid cause of sexual crimes were to disappear. In the following chapters the author treats of the assertion of Turati that an improvement in education and the new “social atmosphere” will bring about a change.
—The criticism of the chapter of which I have just been speaking may be summed up as follows: Like so many other authors, Professor Ferri understands the expression, “economic conditions”, in a very limited sense. He includes only direct influences, and in this way it is very easy to prove that they explain only a part of criminality. But this interpretation is very incomplete, since all social life is influenced by economic conditions. In proving, therefore, like many other authors, that while an improvement in the economic condition [[118]]of the working-class is accompanied by a decrease in crimes against property, it is also accompanied by an increase of sexual crimes and crimes against persons, Professor Ferri forgets not only that the lack of education leads to crimes of violence, but also that in our present society the possibility of satisfying the sexual appetites depends upon the social position of the individual. The argument, in opposition to Turati, “that Malthusianism is applied chiefly by persons of some means” is not a happy one for one who wants to prove that economic conditions have not a considerable influence. For the reason of this is just the difficulty of procuring a good position for many children, and, in the case of landholders, the desire to avoid a too great division of the land. These are purely economic causes.—
“Educazione e criminalità” is the title of the third chapter. The human brain is an organic mechanism, similar (but with numerous exceptions) to an inorganic mechanism in this, that it is subject to the great law of the conservation of energy, which manifests itself, among other ways, in inertia. From which it comes that man at all times has had an irresistible tendency to make use of a general principle as a basis for his logical structures. Without this he would always be forced to build each new structure from the ground up, which would involve the waste of too much cerebral energy. Opposed to this law is another which teaches us that life is impossible in a state of absolute repose, but that it requires a perpetual changing of the organic and physio-psychic materials. Hence it comes that eternal and absolute truths change at different epochs, and that they seem stable only when compared with the secondary truths, which are subject to the fashions of the time.
According to the author, then, there are truths that are more general and nearly inalterable, but there are others which, though general also, are more secondary, only retain their force during several generations, and end by being changed. Such, for example, are the views concerning human life, formulated by the great thinkers, then accepted by the majority, and finally supplanted by other truths. This is why science makes progress by dogmas. It is modern science that has made the great step in recognizing that these dogmas are relative and alterable.
Against this reasoning two objections can be alleged. First, that Spencer has given the name “hypothesis” to his doctrine of evolution, while Professor Ferri calls it a dogma. The author on the other hand thinks that his opinions and those of Spencer are exactly alike, [[119]]for he calls the doctrine in question a relative and alterable dogma, and Spencer says of it: what I have given is an hypothesis; but so long as there is nothing better, that will explain a greater number of facts, I have a right to consider it as the image of the knowable truth, until the contrary is proved. In the second place, it may be asked: “Does man always oscillate between truth and error; will he never know an absolute and eternal truth?” According to Professor Ferri the answer to this question is not difficult. The origin as well as the aim of faith is the effort to give to men a relatively stable support, which they cannot find elsewhere. All discussion with the adherents of a theological opinion is excluded; and as for the others, ought they not to recognize that the life of human thought is just the constant proof of the continual modification of the so-called eternal verities?
After this introduction the author enters upon the subject itself. At the beginning of the 19th century the dogma was dominant, that instruction was the panacea for all crimes. Later many of the publicists, including the socialists, advanced the opinion that the true remedy for criminality was education. Just as the first theory was incorrect, Professor Ferri would show that the second is equally so.
The question is, can education lead man to good or to evil; and if it can, how far can it lead him? The scientific pedagogues have not treated this question, as far as the author knows. Without furnishing proofs the socialists admit that education can modify man in many respects. Owen, for example, says: “every child may be brought up to have in his later life only good habits, or bad, or a mixture of the two, according to his education.”
It is necessary to distinguish three kinds of education—physical, intellectual, and moral. First, a general observation applicable to all kinds of education. In his physical, intellectual, and moral make-up, each individual is the product of a countless number of ancestors, to whom he is bound by unchangeable laws of heredity. From this it is clear that the power of education, which acts only during a limited number of years, is small compared to that of the influences to which a man’s ancestors have been subjected for thousands of years. The question becomes, then: “what are the limits of such modification?” Further it is necessary to determine just how far this modification is due to education, and how far to environment. For education, properly so called, i.e. the direct and methodical influence of the educator upon his pupil, differs in many respects from that of the physical and social environment. This is why the author treats this latter in a special chapter, and limits himself now [[120]]to education alone. The question is therefore reduced to this: “how far can a man (the educator) modify the constitution of another man (the pupil)?”
One more observation should precede the study of the question, namely that a force, or a complexus of forces, can be influenced only by other homogeneous forces. Now when we examine how far physical or biological education can make its influence felt, we see that this influence may be very great, though naturally limited, in proportion to the knowledge we have of the structure and functioning of the organs which it is attempted to modify. As to intellectual education, the results are much less, since the knowledge of the organs involved is much smaller. As to moral education, the following question is one to which pedagogues have given little attention: “how far do morality or immorality, good or bad character, depend upon the education received at home and in school?”
Spencer lays down the fundamental rule that the moral conduct of man can be studied scientifically only on condition of being considered as forming part of the conduct in general, and also of the activity in general, of all living beings. Sergi is of the same opinion. And this is correct, Professor Ferri thinks, if, as these two authors do, one studies the conduct and character of man in their constituent elements, in their genesis and development, without taking into consideration the variability of the character, and consequently of the conduct, of man because of his education. In our case, in studying the constituent elements, the genesis, the development, and the variability of the moral part of the character and conduct of man, it is necessary to separate these parts, and to limit ourselves to a special study of one of them.
All psychologists are agreed that the moral conduct of a man (including criminal conduct) although having naturally a certain relationship with his muscular and intellectual condition, depends directly and intimately upon the condition of his feelings, emotions, and passions in their moral aspect. Hence it is clear that the problem is: “how far can these feelings be modified by education?”
Let us first of all note that the expression, “a man of good (or bad) birth”, does not imply that there are persons who are totally good or totally bad, for these two qualities always appear in combination. It only indicates whether the good or the bad qualities predominate.
It is certain that some persons have become criminals from lack of moral education, added to bad surroundings. In this case this lack of education has favored the greater development of the bad [[121]]germs, which, however, gives us no right to conclude that the converse would be true: that education can improve the moral character, strengthening the good germs to such a point that they have the mastery over the bad. For we must not lose sight of two things: first, that the bad germs that show themselves in our present society are the anti-social instincts, opposed to the sociability and sympathy upon which life is based, while the good germs are the social instincts; second, that, since individuals reproduce morphologically and physiologically during life the different phases that man and animal have gone through, it is in the lowest strata of his character that man preserves the savage and anti-social feelings that are the consequences of the condition in which the race has lived heretofore, while the germs of the modern social ideas are to be found in the higher and more recent parts. Hence it follows that the anti-social instincts, being of a more ancient date than the social instincts, are stronger than they and are not stifled by them. And then, the environment, the present civilization, is also partly the cause. This is why the author agrees with Sergi that in our present society there are individuals who are constantly driven to crime by their organic and psychical constitution, made up in great part of the deeper, anti-social strata (the born-criminals and incorrigibles), and that there are others whose constitution is formed primarily of the more recent, social strata, and who become criminal only under extraordinary impulses, in consequence of a volcanic eruption, as it were, from the deeper, anti-social strata (criminals from passion). While Sergi is of the opinion that the anti-social instincts will little by little become latent, lose their force, and cease to act, Professor Ferri thinks that this will be the case only with the minority of men.
Now in order to weaken the anti-social tendencies, it is, according to the author, necessary to know, first, their seat; second, their composition. Up to the present, psychology has made no study of the human passions, emotions, and feelings, and consequently cannot give us this information. It must therefore be considered as impossible that education should so stifle the existing bad germs and strengthen the good ones that these last should finally have the upper hand.
Moral education consists only of a series of auditory and visual sensations, impressed upon the individual by means of advice and example, which brings it about that it is more especially a moral instruction, which makes its mark in the intellect, but leaves intact the seat of the passions and feelings, which are the true motive forces [[122]]of the moral conduct. Moral education becomes little by little more systematic, bases itself more than formerly upon the biological principle that each organ and function is developed by exercise, and consequently is improving. The author believes that we must nevertheless not deceive ourselves into fancying that too much has been accomplished, so long as the origin and condition of the moral and immoral germs are unknown. Further, he is of the opinion that the product of centuries is not to be destroyed in a few years.
In order to prove what has just been said the author cites the following example, which, according to him, is not uncommon. A family includes four or five children; all are reared with the greatest care, each in a different manner according to his character. The result is that three or four of them become more or less good and industrious citizens, while one becomes an incorrigible vagabond. This difference does not depend upon education.
Now it will be asked: is education, then, always and altogether useless? Here a distinction must be made. There is one small category of persons who are good and honorable and remain so under all circumstances, and this exclusively from their organic condition. Opposed to this is another group who are always bad and show anti-social instincts. These last are such from an innate organic and psychic anomaly. Between these two is to be found the very numerous class of individuals in whom the good and bad qualities are combined. For this last class education may be of some importance, but environment is still more so. Hence, in order to lower the number of occasional criminals, criminal sociology demands “penal substitutes.” For it is from this intermediate class that criminals are recruited. However, environment and education are of less importance for this category than heredity.
The conclusions drawn by the author are, then: first, that a development of the physiology and psychology of the human passions is very desirable, in order to improve the means at the disposal of education; and second, that the opinion of Owen, that education can make a bad man good, is incorrect.
—In my criticism I shall limit myself to the principal questions. In the first place I believe that the argument of Professor Ferri, based on the supposition that scientific socialists believe that “education is the omnipotent fact”, is futile. For scientific socialists do not hold this opinion. Owen (who belongs to the Utopists) might be thought to hold it, though he does not use the word education in [[123]]the narrow sense given by Professor Ferri, but it will be very difficult to find such an opinion in Marx, or Engels, or any of their followers. Although holding that circumstances have a very great influence upon the individual, they do not attribute this to the systematic, conscious influence of one individual upon another, which is what is commonly meant by education. For the purposes of Professor Ferri’s argument it may be very useful to make a nice distinction between education and atmosphere, but this distinction is not therefore justified. The impressions gained by a child whether from the atmosphere in which he lives or deliberately impressed upon him by his teacher, are hardly distinguishable. Just out of class he plays with his comrades, and this easily makes him forget the moral lessons he has just received. A mother forbids her child to do a certain thing, and a little later he sees an older member of the family do with impunity what has been forbidden in his own case. It is because of this over-nice distinction that the argument of the author loses much of its value.
In the second place, as the author himself partly admits, the influence that education may exert cannot be exactly fixed, no matter what progress pedagogical science may make, for the following reasons. It is only in school that the scientific pedagogical method is applied, and plainly in an incomplete and imperfect manner. In order that children shall be taught and developed they must be well fed and well clothed. Without this the results will be very small, but pupils insufficiently fed and clothed are to be counted by thousands. It is also necessary that a class include as few pupils as possible, in order that the instructor may not have to divide his attention too much. Yet how many cases are there where this is found? For these reasons, to which might be added others, all of an exclusively economic nature, the school does not contribute as much as it might to moral education. The advantage of the education given in school over that furnished by the parents consists in its practical application, at least in part, according to pedagogical rules. The parents who set themselves to bring up their children on scientific principles are so few as to be easily counted. Almost all are novices in this very difficult trade; little attention is paid to whether parents are ignorant or educated, good or bad, patient or irascible, capable or incapable, in short, of bringing up their children. The present organization of society is based upon the fiction that the person who gives life to a child is also fitted to bring it up. Further, existing social conditions put many parents, however capable they [[124]]might otherwise be, in a position where they cannot give their children any care, on account of the long working-day, the labor of married women, etc. These remarks, it seems to me, are in themselves enough to show that we cannot just now come to a definite conclusion, that the influence of education may extend to such and such a point, but no further.
In the third place, it remains to make valid objections to the principal thesis that forms the foundation of the chapter. Here it is in brief. There was a time when men lived in anti-social conditions; all were enemies one of another. This situation lasted for ages until the social sentiments grew up and civilization developed. But these anti-social germs having lasted for ages, while the social germs are only of recent date, it follows that the former are generally much stronger than the latter. This is why the tendency to evil has predominated in man, and why crime has such enormous dimensions.
I am of the opinion that this argument is based upon an error. In Part II of this work I shall attempt to show that the opinion of Professor Ferri (and other authors), that in the early ages all men were enemies and animated by anti-social feelings, is false. I shall endeavor also to show that the present constitution of society does not give rise to social feelings, but anti-social. Finally it is very problematical whether the hypothesis the author uses, namely that acquired characteristics may be inherited, is defensible; the contrary is coming more and more to be believed. But we cannot in any case admit the transmission of morality itself by heredity, as Professor Ferri does, when he speaks of men who remain good under all circumstances, and consequently of men who must have been born with innate moral prescriptions. A child is never born with positive knowledge; he is born with a brain more or less fitted for the reception and development of knowledge. There was never a child who, from his birth, knew the rules “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not kill”, etc. But the organs destined to become the seat of morality differ with each individual like other organs. When the author says, then, that there are men who remain good under all circumstances, he says, in effect, that there are men whose moral organs are very susceptible, and who consequently remain better than men whose organs are less susceptible. Therefore the accumulation of anti-social feelings in man of the present day, through heredity, is imaginary. Finally, Professor Ferri neglects to note the difference in nature and intensity between the needs of different men. For this is the cause of the great inequality of results obtained from the same [[125]]education given to persons of equal capacity for receiving moral impressions. If a man has great needs it takes a much more intense moral effort to keep him from satisfying them in an immoral manner, than is the case with a man whose needs are slight.—
The following chapter, “Ambiente e criminalità”, begins with the assertion of Professor Ferri that the thesis of the socialists concerning the influence of the social atmosphere upon all the manifestations of human activity, and consequently upon criminality, is in great measure correct. The difference between the views of socialism and of sociology, therefore, is here only a question of limits.
According to the author here is the thesis in question: as soon as the social revolution or transformation which the socialists desire has taken place, the social atmosphere will become excellent, and man will then be morally higher than he is at present. He then examines the parts of this statement one by one.
First, Professor Ferri gives the classic formula of historic materialism, set forth by Marx in his “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, taken by the author, however, from Loria’s criticism of the work of Puviani in the “Rivista critica delle scienze giuridiche e sociali.” “In the memorable preface to the Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, published in 1859, Marx sets forth for the first time the daring theory that all the manifestations of mankind, in the juridic order as well as in the religious, philosophical, artistic, criminal, etc., are exclusively determined by economic relations, so that to each phase of these there corresponds a different form of human manifestations, as its necessary product.”
Just as in biology the phenomena of nutrition are related to the other vital phenomena, so is the economic aspect of human activity related to the other aspects. Economic conditions have, then, a great influence on the social life, but the author believes it an exaggeration to say that economic conditions fix it exclusively. Further, in this statement no attention is paid to the fact that the other phenomena react in their turn upon the economic conditions, and therefore become determining factors.
Then it is said that man will be morally better when he finds himself in a purified atmosphere. This the author admits in part—how far he admits it will be easily understood by one who knows his opinion with regard to the physical, individual, and social factors of crime, and his ideas about education.
Like most of the statements of the socialists, this has, according [[126]]to Professor Ferri, the fault of being too simple and consequently too absolute. Human life is already so complicated (and social life still more so) that only very little can be explained by simple formulae. It is easy to say, “Abolish private property and all the cases of theft will disappear”; “abolish legal marriage, and adultery, uxoricide, infanticide, and the other crimes against morality will disappear.” But it is not therefore true. For, even in a communistic society a born-vagabond, who has a constitutional aversion to work, will commit thefts just the same. To all this it may be objected that these cases are pathological, and that these persons should be shut up in an insane asylum—but in reasoning thus one admits at the same time that such a society would not yet be an earthly paradise. Further it is pure metaphysics to believe that social institutions like property and the family are the consequences of a caprice of man or of a dominant class, and can therefore be abolished by a stroke of the pen. Everything that exists, in nature as in society, is the result of causes that are only the links in an infinite chain. Hence it is impossible to modify society at a stroke, in accordance with a plan drawn up by a theorist. This does not mean that every modification of society is excluded; but the situation predicted by the socialists is so much more beautiful than the present that it would not be a step, but a leap, forward. And by their prediction they deny evolution, for they constantly preach to the proletariat that the whole will be realized in the very near future.
We come now to the major premise of the socialistic thesis, namely the social revolution or transformation. The question which Professor Ferri puts to the socialists in regard to the matter is this: how long will it take you to realize your projects? There are two answers to be given according as one believes this realization possible by revolution or by evolution.
First, that by revolution. Leaving out of consideration the fact that a revolution could not take place without cruel acts being committed, with a consequent upsetting of the moral feelings, it must first of all be asked whether it is easy to bring about a revolution. The author is of the opinion that Laveleye is perfectly right when he says: “that a revolution has become an easy thing; that a social evolution is inevitable; but that a social revolution is impossible, since one cannot change by force in a single day the economic constitution of society.”
Neither the word nor the fact of revolution inspires the author with [[127]]fear. He recognizes that it may be in the line of evolution, although it remains an exception and is in fact a pathological manifestation of evolution. Nevertheless the question arises, what does the revolution of a day, a month, or even a year signify in comparison with the evolution that goes on during thousands of years? Does not a revolution always lead to a reaction? Suppose, however, that this reaction does not happen; will the whole people have become more moral at a single shock? What did the great French Revolution accomplish? Much, in appearance; in reality, little. It follows from what has gone before that we can modify the environment in a way and with a rapidity that will seem great to one generation but not at all great to the whole of humanity.
Now the solution by evolution. As we have already remarked, Professor Ferri recognizes that criminality will be diminished by an improvement of the environment. However, since it is impossible to make all at once general and substantial changes, it is necessary to make every effort to obtain partial improvements. This is why the positive penal school defends the doctrine of “penal substitutes.” In his “Il delitto, etc.”, Turati calls them palliatives; he says that it is impossible to find a specific remedy for each crime; that there is only one universal remedy: the equal distribution of wealth, education, and the happiness coming from love and knowledge, in so far as this will be socially possible. Professor Ferri thinks that Turati’s objections are not based upon good reasons, because, first, the theory of penal substitutes is not limited to the designation of special means of treating special crimes, but it gives also universal means for all kinds of crimes; second, the improvements suggested by the author and his adherents have the great advantage of having been drawn up according to scientific researches, and of being immediately practicable. How could the desired transformation ever be reached if the whole system of penal substitutes were only a useless palliative?
There are only two roads leading to success; that of a violent revolution—which Turati rejects—and that of successive improvements. But it is just this which the positive penal school desires, and this is why the difference between this school and the scientific socialists has entirely disappeared. However, the error of the socialists is always that they want to get everything at one blow, and they attach too little value to what is within reach. There are many socialists who fear that the bourgeoisie will never give up their privileges without force, and who consequently have still much sympathy [[128]]with revolution. However, this fear is not well founded. For most social improvements have been made by the dominant class without being compelled by revolutionary force.
Professor Ferri draws the conclusion that the social environment is circumscribed by economic conditions for the most part, and that these have a very great influence upon criminality. The socialists and the evolutionary sociologists differ, then, in this, that the first believe they can make themselves useful by protesting and prophesying, while the others think that it is more practical and more scientific to apply themselves to partial improvements.
—One cannot read this chapter without being astonished at the decided tone with which the author declares himself against a theory which he only knows from what he has heard said about it. The classic formula of historic materialism is quoted at second hand from a criticism of Professor Loria upon a work of Puviani, who says that the economic evolution is in its turn determined by the constant increase of the population (a theory entirely opposed to that of Marx).
And how the idea of this theory is treated! Let the reader judge for himself. In the original we read: “In the social production of their life men enter into fixed, necessary relationships in production, independent of their will, relationships which correspond to a definite stage in the development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relationships forms the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the juristic and political superstructure is erected, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. The form of production of the material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of mankind that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”[38] 3
It is unnecessary for us to linger over this point. Professor Loria has stated the theory inaccurately, and Professor Ferri, who has depended upon Loria, combats something that Marx never said, and thinks that he has discovered the further error that account is not taken of the fact that each cause is in its turn an effect, and vice versa. This too it is an injustice to impute to the founders of historic materialism. Engels says upon this subject: “… according to the materialistic conception of history, production and reproduction [[129]]of the material life are, in the last analysis, the determining factors in history. Marx and I have never claimed more. When the proposition is distorted thus: the economic factor is the sole determinant, the proposition is transformed into one devoid of sense, abstract, absurd. The economic situation is the basis, but the different factors of the superstructure—political forms of the struggle of the classes and its results—constitutions imposed by the victorious class after the battle has been won, etc.—juridical forms, and also the reflections of all these actual conflicts in the minds of those who have taken part in them, political, juridical, and philosophical theories, religious conceptions, and their ulterior development into systems of dogmas, have also their influence upon the march of the historic struggles, and especially in many cases determine the form of it. All these factors act the one upon the other, and finally the economic movement ends necessarily by dominating over the infinite crowd of chances.… Without this the application of the theory to any historic period would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the second degree.”[39]
Among the reproaches that Professor Ferri throws at the head of the socialists there is also that they wrongly believe it possible to change society at a single stroke. The author adds here some observations upon revolution and evolution. It is necessary to take up this question, since again Professor Ferri does not correctly represent the opinions of the Marxists. There is no question that Marx and his adherents do not suppose that they can change society at a stroke. Although evolutionists, Marx and his followers call themselves revolutionists. Many of their adversaries consider this a contradiction. I think that they are wrong, and that on the contrary the opposite is true, that every evolutionist in social matters who is not a revolutionist, has not the courage to support the consequences of his doctrine. For he who believes that society constantly undergoes quantitative changes ought to recognize that these must lead in the long run to a qualitative difference, in which case a revolution has taken place. The Marxists are consequently at once evolutionists and revolutionists, since, recognizing that there are continual quantitative changes, they strive for the total overturning of society as based upon the capitalistic system, and consequently for the foundation of the socialistic order. All this relates, then, only to an economic and social revolution. It follows, then, logically from what has [[130]]gone before that the scientific socialists do not aspire primarily to a political revolution; on the contrary they wish to attain their ends as far as possible by legal means; as far as possible, which means, if the ruling classes do not prevent them from obtaining by legal means what they want. But in the contrary case they do not dread undertaking even a political revolution as soon as the proletariat shall be sufficiently prepared and organized. Professor Ferri is further of the opinion that there is no longer any difference between the socialists who are at the same time evolutionists, and the sociologists, since all reach out toward quantitative changes. However, Professor Ferri forgets to say that the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production is not one of his “penal substitutes”, and that there is consequently a fundamental difference, since socialists advocate only the modifications which accord with the tendencies of collectivism.
Finally, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the bourgeoisie will voluntarily relinquish their privileges, as the ruling classes have often already done. For this tremendous assertion he does not give any proofs, and would find it difficult to do so.—
The title of the fifth chapter is: “L’avvenire morale dell’umanità.” The socialists—so the author begins—believe that there is a great difference between them and the positivist sociologists, in that the latter consider crime as an inevitable social evil, while the socialists see in it only a passing phenomenon. Professor Ferri, on the contrary, claims that crime, that is, the act which endangers the conditions of existence, as well as the penalty, the corresponding reaction, defensive or preventive, both have their roots in the animal kingdom, and are consequently phenomena more or less inseparable from humanity. However, this sociological induction is not to be taken in an absolute, but in this relative sense: first, that in criminality it is necessary to distinguish two divisions, of which the one is determined by the normal saturation, and the second by the abnormal super-saturation; second, that the author and his adherents do not understand by the “absolute necessity” of crime that crime will always exist, but only that it will exist in the immediate future (19th and 20th centuries), and that they retain this expression because they regard it as useless and impossible to make predictions concerning times more remote than this.
With regard to future morality Professor Ferri considers in this chapter the two following socialistic theses: [[131]]
I. The struggle for existence which has hitherto reigned among men, will find no place in the socialistic society.
II. In the socialistic society, egoism, which has been the basis of the moral and social life, will have to give place to altruism.
First, then, the question of the permanence of the struggle for existence. Professor Ferri cites here the opinions of Labusquière (“Rivista internazionale del socialismo,” 1880) and of Professor Loria (“Discorso sur Carlo Darwin,” 1882). Abridged, Labusquière says as follows: Is the struggle for existence, an integral part of the evolution of animals, also a “conditio sine qua non” of the development of humanity? No, since it prevents the total development by putting the majority of men in a most precarious situation. We cannot picture man as living all alone. He has always lived and will always live in a society. This demands a certain solidarity, without which a society is not imaginable. We cannot admit, then, the necessity of a continual struggle—at least we cannot admit the necessity, on the part of some, of receiving the fruits of the labor of others. The struggle for existence is necessary among animals, since they are not able to produce, and consequently must live upon such fruits as nature gives. But man can produce, and the productive forces increase just as men support one another more.
The opinion of Professor Loria is summed up as follows: the thesis that the Darwinian theory is entirely applicable to political economy is false. It is said that it justifies social inequality; nature being aristocratic, in society also the aristocracy occupies the place that belongs to it. According to Professor Loria this argument is as without sense as the argument that, since nature is a murderess, murder is justifiable. The view in question is not a legitimate conclusion from the theory as advanced by Darwin, but is simply a false interpretation made by some of his followers. There are no reasons why this struggle should always exist, but we are quite justified in supposing that it will disappear, having been but a transitory stage. For as long as egoism was the sole human motive, the struggle for existence was a necessary condition of initiative and progress. But altruism is more and more developing, and it is not Utopian to believe that some day man will reach out after physical and moral perfection, not with the aim of conquering his less-favored fellows, but with the higher aim of self-development. We forget too much how different is the struggle for existence among animals and among men. While in nature it is the strongest, hardiest, and most skilful who come out of the contest victorious, and consequently survive, [[132]]in the present contest it is not the best (the workers and the capitalists who introduce improved methods of work), but those who are enriched by the labor of others, who are the conquerors. In the social struggle we perceive three phenomena which do not appear in the struggle in nature: military selection (which is an obstacle to the perfection of the human race); sexual selection (in which not strength and beauty, but money and class-prejudice determine the choice); and the economic system (which by the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, forces the workers to lead a life that exhausts them, and is the reason why the ill-nourished classes form the majority). This is why the results of the struggle for existence are so different for man from those of the combat in nature.
Professor Ferri makes the following objections to what has been said above: In treating questions like these it is necessary not to confuse two theories, that of Spencer and that of Darwin. For the latter is connected with the former as a part with the whole. Darwinism is expressed in the law of natural selection, while the theory of Spencer is that of evolution, a law which rules not only the animal and human world, but also the whole knowable universe.
After this introductory observation he attacks the theses that Labusquière and Loria have developed. The great error committed by Labusquière and by most of the socialists is their failing to grasp the idea of the continuity and naturalness of social phenomena. There results in such cases an erroneous distinction between societies of man and those of animals; hence they do not see that the combat, proved as always existing in the case of animals and men as well, is a natural law. And then Labusquière and his followers forget that while the sociologists explain this combat, that is not at all saying that they justify it. In any case the assertion of the socialists that it will be possible to make this combat cease at once, after only a very brief delay, is false. As to the question of knowing whether it will ever cease, this will be examined later.
Then Professor Ferri remarks that we must not confuse the principle of a natural law with its manifestations. In the case in question this would be saying that in recognizing that the struggle for existence is a law which rules in the animal kingdom and among men, it is necessary also to think that the forms of the combat have been, and remain, the same. The author believes, for example, that it would be desirable to mitigate the present economic combat and to carry it to a higher plane, without therefore being an adherent of the maxim, [[133]]“each one according to his needs”, the application of which would ruin the human race entirely.
In criticising the law of the struggle for existence, we very often forget that it does not stand alone, but that there is another beside it, which in the long run levels all the inequalities produced by this conflict. We see thus that individuals, families, and races raise themselves above the general plane, reach the maximum of power, wealth, and intelligence, to fall again below the average.
We cannot admit that the struggle for existence, which is a principle of life, and the cause of human and animal evolution, will disappear some day because men, animated by humanitarian ideas, ardently desire it. The opinion that in the course of time this struggle is becoming and will become less and less violent and brutal, is scientifically more correct and humanitarian as well. It may be that after centuries and centuries a day will come when every individual will have his material existence assured. But the struggle for moral existence will not yet disappear on that account. For every need satisfied causes in its turn new needs to spring up, and rekindles the conflict. The socialists evince great one-sidedness in understanding by the struggle for existence only the struggle for food, forgetting that there is a struggle in every sphere.
It is claimed that there is a great difference between the struggle for existence among men and that among animals, and that consequently the results differ; that in the animal kingdom it is the strongest who remain victorious, while among men it is only a small minority of the weaker and less industrious who rule over the majority making up the ill-nourished classes. According to Professor Ferri this opinion also is incorrect; otherwise the consequences of the conflict would have a result entirely contrary to that in the animal kingdom; the human race would deteriorate instead of advancing. And the facts prove that the human race has made progress, organic, mental, social, and economic. The survival of the weaker, the less industrious, is only partial and apparent. Malon says that in our present society it is not those who are individually superior who conquer, but those who have the exclusive disposition of the social forces. But how have these forces fallen into the hands of these few? Only because in this phase of human evolution, they were the stronger, the best fitted. It is forgotten that there is not only a struggle between classes, but also between individuals, and that, by the greater and greater increase of altruism it is also the more altruistic workmen and employers who conquer. For an altruistic [[134]]workman, who works with zeal and has his employer’s interests at heart, and an altruistic employer who treats his employes well, will be more able to maintain themselves than those who act differently. It is only in appearance, then, that the less strong and industrious property-owners are the victors; if this were the case it would soon cease to be so.
The conclusion of the author, then, is that the struggle for existence, which is a normal aspect of honorable activity, and an abnormal aspect in criminal activity, is the supreme law of the human race in the past and in the present, and consequently in the future; but this struggle will be carried on by means less and less rude and bloody.
The second part of the chapter treats of egoism and altruism. The individual, considered as such, is only egoistic; but considered as a member of a community he is also altruistic. We must therefore interpret the subject in the following manner: that a gradual evolution is taking place from egoism to altruism, between which, accordingly, is found ego-altruism.
There are now two questions that must be answered, first, will man ever come to be purely altruistic? second, if so, how long will it take to bring it about?
According to the author every evolutionist must answer affirmatively to the first question (at least if we exclude the absolute form in which it is put by many socialists, namely that egoism will disappear entirely), for the slow and continual evolution of morality teaches us that egoism is always decreasing and altruism increasing. But how much time is needed to realize this moral paradise? The answers made to this question by the socialists and by the sociologists differ greatly. The former are of the opinion that this will be possible almost immediately, or at least in a little while, while the latter think that it is impossible that it should take place so quickly. Since the author has busied himself in the preceding chapters with the influence of education upon morality he limits himself now to treating the question, how much time is needed for this moral progress?
According to Professor Ferri we do not properly grasp this question if we do not recognize that the evolution of morals has progressed but very slowly during the past centuries. Doubtless much has been accomplished, but not enough to justify the prediction of the socialists. Soury is quite right when he says: “we deceive ourselves [[135]]greatly if we think that the man of the present day differs much from the man of antiquity, from the barbarian, and the savage.” When we examine the period of barbarism we see that homicide, cannibalism, and theft form the greater part of the criminality, while the first two are not often punished by the tribe, or are even obligatory. Impetuosity of the passions, ferocity, insensibility to pain in self or others, disloyalty, implacable revenge, improvidence, and superstition form the principal part of the moral life. All these traits still exist, though less strongly than formerly, in the man of the present, and especially in the individual born in the lower classes. Except in pathological cases cannibalism no longer appears in the civilized world, but this does not make it impossible that it would reappear in time of great famine. However, the high moral qualities which present-day man can show, are also to be found among savages, only with gradual differences.[40] The number of honorable and moral persons has increased relatively, which makes it certain that in the future morality will rise higher than at present, but this will not take place quickly, but very slowly, like all the other changes that have taken place.
It is therefore impossible that the predictions of the socialists should come true in a short time, and that crime, poverty, ignorance, and immorality should disappear as soon as society is transformed and revolutionized. It will only be the sublime end toward which the human race must always aspire.
—In order to avoid repetitions I will make no criticism of this chapter, since I should have to refute almost all the theses here laid down, but will treat of the questions of the struggle for existence, and egoism and altruism, in Part II of this work.—
In his “Conclusione”[41] Professor Ferri compares society to a sick person at whose bedside there meet three friends of his, who all wish him well. The first declares confidently that the soul dominates the body and that consequently material remedies are of no avail. The second says, on the contrary, that it is only a total change of the environment in which he is living that can cure the invalid. The third also believes that modifications are necessary, but he contents himself [[136]]with partial improvements, though the second friend calls them only palliatives. The first is the spiritualist,[42] the second the socialist, and the third the sociologist.
—Having given my opinion after each chapter, a general criticism of “Socialismo e Criminalità” is superfluous. The impression that the book makes is strange. The author attacks the socialists as “excessively anti-scientific and sentimental”, while he vaunts the “great scientific character of the sociologists.” Yet these last, notwithstanding their great scientific character, combat a doctrine which they know only in part or not at all. Scientific socialism is left out of the discussion.
The best proof of the weakness of his attack against socialism is to be found in the fact that the author has for several years ranked himself among the socialists, of whom he has become one of the most fervent and intelligent chiefs.
As regards his opinion on the criminal question Professor Ferri has made no change, or almost none.[43]—
IV.
H. Kurella.
This author gives some pages of his “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers” to the subject we have in hand. What he says may be summed up as follows.
The attempts to draw parallels between the fluctuations of the price of grain and those of the figures for criminality, according to the author, prove nothing, inasmuch as it is impossible to compare them with the statistics of wages and of forced unemployment. In fact any one who tries to show in this way the correlation between criminality and economic conditions, begs the question, that poverty is the principal cause of crime. Further, the hypothesis that the regularity with which human acts occur is fixed by the condition of the society in which they take place, is little by little giving [[137]]way. From personal examinations, and from the information given by Ferri and von Oettingen (this proves that the literature of our subject is little known to the author) Dr. Kurella thinks he can draw the conclusion that insufficient food, caused by scarcity or low wages, does not cause the commission of crimes. Malnutrition may perhaps influence criminality indirectly; that is it may cause degeneration after some successive generations, which in its turn predisposes to crime.
A priori it is incontestable that we cannot picture to ourselves a society, if established by the socialists,[44] in which cupidity, hatred, and the instinct of the oppressor, the principal motives of crime, will have been annihilated or deprived of their influence because of social institutions. Nevertheless it is of importance that Morrison, Garofalo, and Ferri[45] have, according to the author, shown that poverty is not a factor of crime. At the International Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Brussels, the attempt was made to defend the contrary, but, according to Dr. Kurella, without success. (According to him it can only be in case of being suddenly thrown out of work that a person hitherto honest commits a crime from indigence.)
The necessity of the moment being consequently only rarely a cause of criminality, not only do the present social anomalies produce an increase of degeneracy, as has been said above, but also there are a number of persons who live in badly built and unsanitary dwellings, so that the family life is injured, and the development of feelings of honesty, modesty, etc., is interfered with. And it is also the social anomalies that strongly influence alcoholism, which is one of the important factors of crime.
The author draws the following conclusion: “As little as a change of environmental conditions can change an individual of one kind immediately into an individual of another kind, as little as we ever, under however modified circumstances, see a chimpanzee change himself into a gorilla, so little do social factors change a normally endowed man into a criminal. In isolated cases it may appear as if passion or opportunity had caused a crime; social forces do indeed have their effect upon the individual, but they do not essentially change his fundamental attributes—which include his character; [[138]]the slight modifications through environment that individuals experience, must constantly recur, heap themselves up in the course of generations, until a socially significant change of type has arisen. Accordingly it is the permanent social distresses, the chronic evils of society which influence criminality, because by unnoticeable influences they go on for generations gnawing at the inmost kernel of man; misery and intellectual and moral neglect must be as long continued as in the Papal States, in the Kingdom of Naples, in Ireland, and among the Poles, drained by the territorial nobility for centuries, before an entire people becomes inoculated with the ‘penchant for crime.’ ”[46]
—I will refrain from making any criticism. One does not argue with a man who gives convincing proofs that even the meaning of criminal sociology is unknown to him. Assertions, for example, that the character of man is invariable, that the distance between the honest man and the dishonest man is as great as that between the chimpanzee and the gorilla, are only absurdities. What author will deny at this time that the differences between men are, in the last analysis, only quantitative?
In general, Dr. Kurella still shares the opinions of the Italian school (cf., for example, “Anthropologie und Strafrecht”, which appeared in 1912); nevertheless he should have recognized, when he wrote “die Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, that he was not familiar with the social factors of crime. He has written the following remarkable words, which do him honor. “I do not hesitate to confess that deeper socio-political studies, which became possible to me only after the publication of that work [“Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”] show me today the social factors of crime more plainly and sharply, than I was able to recognize them ten years ago” (Vorrede, “Zurechnungsfähigkeit, Kriminalanthropologie”).—
V.
E. Fornasari di Verce.[47]
In the first chapter (on poverty and criminality in Italy) the author calls attention to the following facts. According to the statistics [[139]]of 1881 there were in Italy to the thousand (of both sexes over nine years of age) 390.66 persons who were rich, well-to-do, moderately well-off, or with enough to live on, and 609.34 who had scarcely the necessities of life. Out of 100 persons convicted there were:
| 1887 | 1888 | 1889 | |
| 56.34 | 57.45 | 56.00 | Necessitous |
| 22.99 | 30.77 | 32.15 | Having only the bare necessities |
| 11.54 | 9.98 | 10.13 | Moderately well-off |
| 2.13 | 1.80 | 1.72 | Well-to-do or rich |
Here the favorable influence of means comes out distinctly. For 40% of the population had some means and 60% were in need; but among those convicted there were 13% with means and nearly 87% who were poor.
Then the author gives a sketch of the influence of poverty in causing degeneracy among the proletariat and predisposing them to crime, for poverty is very destructive to men’s mental faculties. He cites in support of this many authors of weight.
By comparing the different Italian districts, grouped about the average figure for wealth per capita, with the number of prisoners to the 100,000 of the population, grouped according to the place from which they came, the following result is obtained.
| Wealth. | Prisoners according to the Place from which they Came. | ||||
| (3.333) | Latium. | VII | — | ||
| — | VI | — | |||
| — | V | — | |||
| (2.746) | Piedmont-Liguria. | IV | — | ||
| (2.400) | Lombardy. | III |  | Lombardy (43) | |
| Piedmont-Liguria (51) | |||||
| Venice (53) | |||||
| — | II | Tuscany (76) | |||
| (2.164) | Tuscany. | I | Emilia (95) | ||
| (1.935) | Venice, | | Average. | | Kingdom (118) |
| (1.876) | Kingdom. | ||||
| (1.762) | Emilia. | ||||
| — | 1st | Marches-Umbria (137) | |||
| (1.471) | Sicily. | | 2d |  | Sardinia (167) |
| (1.333) | Naples | ||||
| (1.227) | Marches-Umbria | 3d | Naples (173) | ||
| (?) | Sardinia | 4th | — | ||
| 5th | Sicily (212) | ||||
| 6th | — | ||||
| 7th | Latium (250) | ||||
According to the author this table shows that wealth and criminality present a certain symmetry, to this extent, that the wealthy [[140]]regions have in general a lower criminality than the poor ones. It is only Latium that forms an exception, which is explained, according to Dr. Fornasari di Verce, first, by the circumstance that the capital is situated in that district, second, by the climate, and third, chiefly by the fact that the absolute wealth of a country gives no indication of the distribution of wealth. We can properly expect to find that where great wealth is heaped up there will also be considerable pauperism.
Not only does poverty predispose to crime, but it also furnishes the motives for it. Leading to alcoholism it is the cause of violent crimes; it drives persons who cannot find work to vagrancy and mendicity, which in their turn are the preparatory school for greater crimes; it puts the great number of those who cannot provide honestly for their needs to the necessity of stealing. And when these factors act upon a man already predisposed, they even lead as far as homicide.
In the following table the different Italian districts, as well as the crimes committed, have been grouped about their average figures.
| Wealth. | Crimes. | ||||
| (3.333) | Latium | VII | — | ||
| — | VI | — | |||
| — | V | — | |||
| (2.747) | Piedmont-Liguria | IV | — | ||
| (2.400) | Lombardy | III | — | ||
| — | II | — | |||
| (2.164) | Tuscany | I | Lombardy (649) | ||
| Tuscany (710) | |||||
| Piedmont-Liguria (732) | |||||
| Emilia (749) | |||||
| Marches-Umbria (774) | |||||
| (1.935) | Venice | | Average. | | Venice (857) |
| (1.876) | Kingdom | Kingdom (926) | |||
| (1.762) | Emilia | Sicily (1021) | |||
| — | 1st | Naples (1150) | |||
| (1.471) | Sicily | | 2d | | Sardinia (1440) |
| (1.333) | Naples | ||||
| (1.227) | Marches-Umbria | 3d | — | ||
| Sardinia | 4th | Latium (1797) | |||
According to the author it appears from this table that, with the exception of Latium, the districts with wealth above the average have a number of crimes below the average. Nevertheless the regions with a figure for wealth above the average, i.e. Piedmont-Liguria, Lombardy, and Latium, show a greater number of crimes than one would expect, while Sicily, Naples, Marches-Umbria, and Sardinia [[141]]show lower figures for crime than would be supposed. This contradiction is only apparent, according to the author, and is to be explained as follows: first, because where there is wealth there is also poverty and frequent opportunities to steal; second, because dangerous individuals migrate less to districts where there is less wealth; third, because, as John Stuart Mill says, it results from the social conditions of our day that the education of the poor is nil and that of the rich bad.
The second chapter, having as its title, “Il fattore economico e la delinquenza.—Dinamica”, contains some data upon the trend of criminality in the period in question. Criminality in general is increasing; serious crimes remain nearly stationary, while less serious crimes increase. As Ferri observes, criminality is decreasing, even in Italy, as to its intensity and violence, but increasing as to its extent.
Finally, the author considers the influence of emigration. It is chiefly the crimes against property that feel the favorable effects of it, as murder does among crimes against persons. The cause of this favorable influence is easily explained. Emigration removes a number of persons who, not having the means of existence, would easily become criminals.
The consequences of agricultural vicissitudes are as follows: the years of abundant harvests show a decrease in criminality, bad years, on the contrary, an increase; good vintages, however, lead to the same result. It is chiefly crimes against property (especially rural thefts) that yield to the influence of the degree of the abundance of the harvest; while among crimes against persons it is principally assaults that show the effect of the character of the crops. It is plain that the agricultural class is that which especially shows the effect of a bad harvest. During the years 1887–1889 the proportion of the farming class among those convicted rose from 35.3% to 37.8% and 38.2%.
The effect of the fluctuation of the price of food is the following: criminality in general shows the influence of it greatly. When prices fall crime diminishes, and vice versa. This is more clearly to be seen in crimes against property. Crimes against persons increase especially when the price of wine is low, and vice versa. When a fall in the price of food coincides with a fall in the price of wine, the increase of crimes against persons is great.
According to Dr. Fornasari di Verce the cause of the increase of crimes against persons in the case of low food prices is not to be found [[142]]in the improved nutrition that results, but in the greater consumption of alcohol. The other crimes feel the effect of the fluctuations in the price of provisions less.
The author then takes up manufacturing. (As a consequence of the defectiveness of the official statistics the data are incomplete.) During the period of which the author speaks, manufacturing increased enormously, and crime in general increased also. The serious forms, however, decreased while the less serious ones increased. Industrial crises bring an increase chiefly of crimes against persons.
The condition of the working-people. According to the author it would be of the highest importance to establish for each year the number of industrial workers. For this has a greater importance for criminality than the price of food or the rate of wages. In default of official data such an investigation cannot take place, and he has to limit himself to an examination of wages. With some few exceptions these wages increased about 35% during the period 1873–1889. However, to obtain a clearer picture of the condition of the working-class, the author has combined the fluctuation of wages with those of the price of grain; that is, he has made a calculation of the number of hours each man has had to work to get 100 kilograms of grain.
After having called attention to the fact that the average wage of the Italian workman is lower than in other industrial countries, the author gives the following results of his researches: the influence of the fluctuation of wages upon crime in general is less than, and almost always subordinated to, that of the fluctuation of food-prices. However, it must not be forgotten here that wages do not always represent exactly the condition of the majority of the proletariat. With some few exceptions, all crimes against property decrease when wages rise (in combination with the price of grain). This influence is not noted in commercial crimes and counterfeiting. Crimes against persons increase a little when wages rise; but when this rise coincides with a low price of wine, they increase considerably.
The influence of strikes is exclusively limited to the crime of rebellion.
From the investigation into criminality and commercial occurrences we learn that fraudulent bankruptcy, and also forgery in great measure, are almost entirely independent of economic occurrences; and the fluctuations of the number of commercial crimes, in so far as they are not influenced by other economic facts, are explained in great part by commercial occurrences. [[143]]
Financial occurrences (credit and deposits) do not make themselves felt in criminality in general, but in crimes against property and commercial crimes.
The author concludes finally from the increase shown by private fortunes and the rise in wages, that there is a correlation of these phenomena with a decrease of certain serious forms of crime.
The results of the study are summarized in the following table:
| CRIMES. | Subject to the Influence of Economic Occurrences and varying with Them. | Inversely. | Much. |  | a. | Thefts of all kinds. | |||
| b. | Embezzlement, cheating, and other frauds. | ||||||||
| c. | Crimes against property (coming before the magistrate).[48] | ||||||||
| d. | Commercial crimes.[49] | ||||||||
| Moderately. | | e. | Blackmail, extortion, and robbery. | ||||||
| f. | Crimes against the order of the family. | ||||||||
| g. | Crimes against persons (coming before the magistrate). | ||||||||
| Little. | | h. | Crimes against the public order. | ||||||
| i. | Crimes against the public administration.[50] | ||||||||
| j. | Forgery and counterfeiting. | ||||||||
| Crimes over which the Influence of Alcohol is Predominant. | | I. | Assault and extortion (with homicide). | ||||||
| Directly. | | II. | Rebellion, and violence to the public authorities. | ||||||
| III. | Homicide of every kind. | ||||||||
| IV. | Assaults and intentional injuries. | ||||||||
| — | Sexual crimes. | ||||||||
| Outside of the Influence of Economic Occurrences. |  | Hardly at All. | | k. | Attacks upon the safety of the state. | ||||
| l. | Perjury, etc. | ||||||||
| Not at All. | | m. | Fraudulent bankruptcy. | ||||||
| n. | Insults, and defamation of character. | ||||||||
| o. | Crimes against religion. | ||||||||
| p. | Arson and malicious mischief. | ||||||||
According to the author it follows from his investigation, that the economic factors fill a very important place in the etiology of crime, but that all crime is not to be explained by that means. He is of the opinion that if we are to combat crime effectively we must make use of the “penal substitutes” recommended by Professor Ferri.
The author treats the influence of economic occurrences upon criminality in Great Britain and Ireland in the same way. Here are his results: [[144]]
| CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. |  | Subject to the Influence of Economic Occurrences and varying with Them. | Inversely. | | Much. | { | Crimes against property without violence. | |
| Moderately. | { | Crimes against property with violence. | ||||||
| Little. | | Crimes against property with premeditated destruction. | ||||||
| Crimes other than those named above and those against persons and against the currency. | ||||||||
| Directly. | { | Crimes over which the Influence of Alcohol is Predominant. | { | Crimes against persons. | ||||
| Not subject to the Influence of Economic Occurrences. | | Not at All. | { | Misdemeanors and contraventions. | ||||
| Only Slightly. | { | Forgery and counterfeiting. | ||||||
His investigation gives the following results for New South Wales:
| CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. | Subject to the Influence of Economic Occurrences and varying with Them. | Inversely. | Much. | | 1. | Theft and receiving stolen goods. | |||
| 2. | Petty larceny. | ||||||||
| 3. | Horse-stealing. | ||||||||
| Moderately. | | 4. | Minor offenses against property. | ||||||
| 5. | Domiciliary thefts. | ||||||||
| 6. | Sheep-stealing. | ||||||||
| 7. | Forgery. | ||||||||
| Little. | { | 8. | Cattle-stealing. | ||||||
| Crimes and Misdemeanors over which the Influence of Alcohol is Predominant. | 9. | Murder. | |||||||
| 10. | Arson. | ||||||||
| 11. | Homicide. | ||||||||
| 12. | Assaults. | ||||||||
| 13. | Extortion. | ||||||||
| 14. | Robbery. | ||||||||
| 15. | Other minor offenses. | ||||||||
| Directly. | | I. | Offenses against public decency. | ||||||
| II. | Offenses against morals (homosexuality). | ||||||||
| III. | Offenses against morals. | ||||||||
| IV. | Minor offenses against persons. | ||||||||
| Not subject to the Influence of Economic Occurrences. | | A. | Blackmail and cheating. | ||||||
| B. | Perjury. | ||||||||
—It is incontestable that the researches of Dr. Fornasari di Verce must be placed in the front rank of the works that show the correctness of the thesis that the economic factors are the most important factors of criminality. An objection may be made, however, that the question has been conceived in too mechanical a fashion, in consequence of the exclusive use of the statistical method. He seeks the correlation between criminality and each economic phenomenon separately, in place of that of the ensemble of these phenomena. For [[145]]the economic life does not exist in reality as separated and isolated parts, but forms a great whole, a compact mass, of which the parts fit in together. When an important economic occurrence takes place, in case the expected effect upon crime is not observed, we must not be too quick to say that it has no importance for criminality, for it may be that it is neutralized by something else.
With this remark is connected a final objection. The author has not proved the truth of his conclusion that criminality cannot be explained exclusively by means of economic conditions. For, although his researches include very important economic factors, the author leaves out many economic factors and, with one exception (the degenerating influence of poverty), the numerous consequences of economic conditions, which are of the highest importance for the question in hand. In other words the author has not called attention to the fact that we live under an economic system of a comparatively recent date, having peculiar characteristics that are of great significance for criminality. He has indicated some very important consequences of the system, but he has not analyzed the system itself.
I am of the opinion that the work that I have been treating, and which has a great value for the subject, shows that economic conditions are of great importance for criminality. However, it does not prove that this influence is not greater than is shown by statistics.—
VI.
A. Niceforo.
In the first part of his study, “Criminalità e condizioni economiche in Sicilia”, the author calls attention to the fact that Sicily is one of the Italian districts where crime is greatest and is increasing most rapidly. One could draw upon the map lines enclosing a definite criminal zone, taking in the provinces of Caltanissetta, Girgenti, and Catania. This zone might, in its turn, be divided into two others, one of which would give a high figure for robberies and homicides, and the other chiefly for crimes against property and against morals.
The author divides the economic causes into direct and indirect. In speaking of direct factors he treats successively:
a. Large real-estate holdings. The landed proprietor rents his lands to the “gabelletto”, who in turn sublets them to the laborers. This system exhausts the latter. The proprietor rids himself of all expense by charging it to the “gabelletto”, and makes his profit; the “gabelletto” does the same by the laborer and makes his profit. The latter is always [[146]]the person that suffers. Then the “gabelletto” advances the necessary provisions to the laborer until the harvest comes in; but since he does so at a high rate, the laborer is bowed down by the burden of his debts. In consequence of this system the agricultural population is ill-nourished and degenerate. The consequences of this system as it affects criminality are apparent. In the province of Caltanissetta, where large land-holdings are the rule, crimes against property, and especially rural thefts, cattle-stealing, vagrancy, etc., are the most numerous.
b. Small holdings. However, it is not only the agricultural population dependent upon great property-holders that lives in poverty, for the small farmers also have a hard life. They raise chiefly grapes and citrous fruits. The price of citrous fruits has fallen greatly through overproduction and foreign competition. Wine also has gone down in price, and the cultivators have had enormous losses from phylloxera besides. Consequently the small farmers are crushed with debts; failures are the order of the day; their situation, then, is most unfortunate. But that of the non-property-holders is still worse if possible. For the small holder also often rents his land to others, and from this follows a kind of “sweating-system.”
At the end of these observations the author gives, in the following table, the movement of some prices in relation to criminality:
| Years. | Price of Wheat per 1000 Kilos. | Price of Wine per Hectolitre. (Sicily.) | Price of Meat per Kilo. (Sicily.) | Homicides Prosecuted. | Robberies, Extortion, Blackmail. |
| 1875 | 27.42 | 13.00 | 3.09 | — | 658 |
| 1876 | 28.78 | 21.62 | 2.91 | — | 1,039 |
| 1877 | 33.66 | 30.38 | 2.98 | — | 777 |
| 1878 | 31.43 | 29.04 | 2.89 | — | 1,110 |
| 1879 | 31.35 | 19.03 | 2.80 | — | 1,138 |
| 1880 | 32.27 | 29.65 | 2.74 | 1,063 | 829 |
| 1881 | 26.36 | 30.92 | 2.74 | 1,001 | 708 |
| 1882 | 20.42 | 28.35 | 2.80 | 938 | 560 |
| 1883 | 23.11 | 22.11 | 2.75 | 943 | 419 |
| 1884 | 21.52 | 17.95 | 2.77 | 949 | 340 |
| 1885 | 21.24 | 31.84 | 2.76 | 822 | 330 |
| 1886 | 21.28 | 35.63 | 2.42 | 859 | 418 |
| 1887 | 21.48 | 15.66 | 2.44 | 863 | 446 |
| 1888 | 21.50 | 11.85 | 2.46 | 899 | 485 |
| 1889 | 22.83 | 15.06 | 2.40 | 865 | 478 |
| 1890 | 22.63 | 22.07 | 2.46 | 869 | 547 |
| 1891 | 24.60 | 16.92 | 2.77 | 966 | 710 |
| 1892 | 24.32 | 14.32 | 2.87 | 1,117 | 677 |
| 1893 | 21.08 | 15.76 | 2.95 | 1,066 | 902 |
| 1894 | 18.77 | 18.38 | 2.98 | — | — |
| 1895 | 20.30 | 18.42 | 2.75 | — | — |
[[147]]
c. The mining zone. The production of sulphur, formerly of great importance, when Sicily was the principal source of supply for Europe and America, has decreased greatly now that sulphur is manufactured from chemical products. The condition of the miners is pitiful. The mines are often exploited by middle-men, which makes the condition of the laborers worse. Degeneracy has consequently taken on enormous proportions. When we compare the change in wages with the number of thefts, we see that thefts decrease when wages rise, and vice versa, and that the price of grain also influences criminality. It is the provinces of Sicily where the sulphur mines are found that give the highest figures for criminality in general, and homicide in particular.
d. The class-conflict. The property owners, whose economic position is already very influential, also control the political forces, and consequently the case of those who have nothing is made much worse. Taxes, indirect for the most part, weigh most heavily upon the poor; public property is exploited for the benefit of the rich, etc., etc. Hence it follows that in the districts where the non-possessors are unconsciously struggling against the possessors, this strife of classes engenders class-hatred, and consequent crimes.
In the last part of his study the author speaks of indirect economic factors, among which he includes:
a. The increasing decline in the altruistic feelings. The miner and the laborer, both ill-nourished, humiliated, and despised, dwelling in miserable hovels, are pariahs far removed from any feeling for their fellow men.
b. Organic degeneracy. As a consequence of the economic conditions named, degeneracy is always increasing more and more among the poor, especially among the miners. This degeneracy becomes in its turn a factor of criminality, since it predisposes individuals to crime.
See also: Virgilio Rossi: “Influence de la température et de l’alimentation sur la criminalité en Italie, de 1875 à 1883” (“Rapport Ier Congrès d’Anthropologie Criminelle. Actes”, pp. 295 ff.); N. Pinsero: “Miseria e Delitto” (“Scuola Positiva”, 1898). [[148]]
[1] The opinions of partisans of the Italian school with regard to the correlation between criminality and economic conditions are very different. Garofalo and Ferri especially are not in agreement upon this point. Nevertheless, I have thought that I ought to class them together, because of the uniformity of their point of view with regard to criminality in general. [↑]
[2] The Modern Criminal Science Series. Translated by Horton. Boston, Little, Brown, & Co., 1911. [↑]
[4] See Battaglia, “La dinamica del delitto”, pp. 227, 228. [↑]
[5] Bodio includes rural thefts. [↑]
[8] As the author himself observes, the conclusions drawn from this table must be taken with reserve, because of the great difference in the penal laws of these countries. [↑]
[9] My exposition would be too long if I should examine this explanation (which seems insufficient to me) at length. For the chief explanation of the great number of murders in countries that are intellectually backward, see “L’homicide en Italie”, by Colajanni (“Revue socialiste”, 1901). [↑]
[13] American edition, “Criminology” (The Modern Criminal Science Series; Little, Brown, & Co., 1913), from which quotations are made. See by the same author, “La superstition socialiste”, and “Le Crime comme phénomène social” (“Annales de l’Inst. intern. de Sociologie”, II).
[Note to the American Edition: See also his report to the Congress of Cologne, “L’influence des prédispositions et du milieu dans la criminalité.”] [↑]
[16] See also “Studi sulla Criminalità in Francia (1826–1876).” [↑]
[17] Although I do not wish to attack the proposition that socialism in Italy at that period (preceding 1880) was unscientific, I cannot conceal my astonishment that Professor Ferri should fulminate against socialism in general “because of its lack of the scientific spirit”, apparently quite ignorant of the scientific socialism of Marx and Engels, which had existed since the middle of the century! [↑]
[18] “Sociologie criminelle”, p. 161. [↑]
[21] “Soc. crim.”, p. 157. [↑]
[22] “Les aptitudes et les actes”, pp. 328, 329. [↑]
[23] Upon crime and sex see Pt. II, Ch. II, § I, C., d. [↑]
[24] “Genèse normale du crime”, p. 451. [↑]
[25] Among the anthropological factors Professor Ferri includes also education, profession, civil status, etc., called all together the bio-social conditions. I am of the opinion that these factors ought not to be classed as anthropological, but as social. [↑]
[26] [Note to the American Edition: Among the recent works against the Italian school must be named that of Dr. S. Ettinger, “Das Verbrecherproblem”.] [↑]
[27] It is not correct, in my opinion, to class agricultural production among the physical factors as Professor Ferri does. It is rather one of the social factors. [↑]
[29] See Niceforo; “Criminalità e condizioni economiche in Sicilia” (“Rivista scientifica del diretto”, 1897), and Colajanni, “L’homicide en Italie” (“Revue Socialiste”, July, 1901). [↑]
[30] “Criminalité comparée”, p. 153. [↑]
[31] It is Colajanni in particular who, in his “Sociologia criminale”, II, has cited a great number of examples of this kind. See Chs. VII, VIII, IX. See also his “Oscillations thermométriques et délits contre les personnes” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, 1886). See also Földes, “Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, XI, p. 544). [↑]
[32] “Das Verbrechen in seiner Abhängigkeit von dem jährlichen Temperaturwechsel” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, II, p. 13). [↑]
[33] See Colajanni, “Soc. crim.”, II, pp. 427 ff. [↑]
[34] See: Tarde, “Penal Philosophy”, p. 303; Quetelet, “Physique sociale”, II, p. 288; Colajanni, “Soc. Crim.”, II, pp. 431 ff. [↑]
[35] See “Introduction to the Criminal Statistics of England and Wales, 1905”, p. 53. [↑]
[36] Besides the authors cited, see also, as regards the influence of physical factors, Mischler, “Hauptergebnisse in moralischer Hinsicht” (“Handbuch des Gefängniswesens”, II, p. 485); Fr. von Liszt, “Die sozialpolitische Auffassung des Verbrechens” (“Sozialpolitisches Centralblatt”, 1892). [↑]
[37] [Note to the American Edition: Upon the relation between criminality and the physical environment see also the recent works: Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, pp. 13 ff.; de Roos, “Quelques recherches sur les causes de l’augmentation des vols pendant l’hiver et des coups et blessures pendant l’été” (“Compte rendu du VIe Congrès internat. d’anthrop. crim.”); Wulffen, “Psychologie des Verbrechers”, I, pp. 381 ff.; P. Gaedeken, “Contribution statistique à la réaction de l’organisme sous l’influence physico-chimique des agents météorologiques” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, XXIV); Verrijn-Stuart, op. cit., pp. 176 ff.; v. Mayr, “Statistik u. Gesellschaftslehre”, pp. 605 ff. [↑]
[38] “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, Preface, p. xi. [↑]
[39] “La conception matérialiste de l’histoire”, pp. 229, 230 (“Devenir Social”, 1897). [↑]
[40] See the examples given by Professor Ferri, pp. 197–201. [↑]
[41] I will not speak of Ch. VI, which is only a repetition of a theme treated of several times, “how much more scientific the sociologists are than the socialists.” [↑]
[42] [See the author’s explanation of his use of this word, in the preface.—Transl.] [↑]
[43] See “Le crime comme phénomène social” (“Annales de l’institut international de Sociologie”, 1896, p. 414), and “Kriminelle Anthropologie und Sozialismus” (“Neue Zeit”, 1895–96, II).
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. the recent work of C. Manes (a disciple of Ferri), “Capitalismo e criminalità.”] [↑]
[44] P. 217. The author insinuates, without bringing the slightest proof, that persons with criminal dispositions have often contributed to the formation of the socialistic theories. [↑]
[45] See my criticisms upon these authors. It is not clear why Ferri is cited as an adherent of the opinion expressed by Dr. Kurella; for he gives an important place in the etiology of crime to economic factors. [↑]
[47] “La criminalità e le vicende economiche d’Italia dal 1873 al 1890 e osservazioni sommarie per il Regno Unito della Gran Bretagna e Irlanda (1840–1890) e per la Nova Galles del Sud (1882–1891).” [↑]
[48] Excepting rural thefts, included under a. [↑]
[49] Excepting fraudulent bankruptcy. [↑]
[50] Excepting rebellion and violence to public authorities. [↑]
CHAPTER IV.
THE FRENCH SCHOOL (THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT).
I.
A. Lacassagne.
While the Italian school reigned supreme at the first congress of criminal anthropology at Rome, Professor Lacassagne opposed it with his so-called “hypothesis of the environment” in the following terms: “The important thing is the social environment. Allow me to make a comparison borrowed from a modern theory. The social environment is the bouillon for the culture of criminality; the microbe, that is the criminal, is an element which is only of importance when it has found a medium in which it can grow.
“The criminal with anthropometric and other characteristics seems to us to have only a moderate importance. All these characteristics may be found elsewhere among honest men.
“But you should look at the different social consequences of these two points of view. On the one hand is the fatalism which flows inevitably from the anthropometric theory; and on the other, social initiative. If the social environment is everything, and if it is so defective as to favor the growth of vicious or criminal natures, it is to this environment and its conditions of functioning that our reforms must be directed.
“… This phrase … sums up my whole thought, and is, so to speak, the conclusion of what I have been saying; societies have the criminals they deserve.”[1]
In his “Marche de la criminalité en France, 1825–1880”, the author points out, among other things, the connection between criminality and economic conditions. An examination of the movement [[149]]of crimes against property shows that the great fluctuations to be observed there are intimately connected with economic conditions. The number of crimes against property corresponds almost exactly with the fluctuation in the price of wheat; and all the economic crises make their influence felt.
During the years 1828, 1835–1837, 1847, 1848–1854, 1865–1868, and 1872–1876, in which the price of wheat was high, there were also a great number of crimes against property. The year 1855 was the sole exception, for then crimes against property did not increase, although the price of grain was very high. This is to be explained by the fact that the government then took measures to lessen the consequences of this calamity. Further, other provisions were then very cheap. From 1860 on the number of crimes against property decreases, which, according to the author, is to be explained by the importation of grain, which increased greatly at this time.
The influence of the production and consumption of alcohol is strongly felt in crimes against persons, especially in assaults.
I would further call attention to the report made by Professor Lacassagne to the Fourth Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Geneva, entitled, “Les vols à l’étalage et dans les grands magasins”, in which he shows how the display of goods on the counters in the great bazaars, which are meant to fascinate visitors, and force them to buy, so to speak, leads to crime in individuals predisposed to kleptomania.
Professor Lacassagne has always remained faithful to the judgment that he pronounced at Rome; at the Congress at Brussels,[2] and at Amsterdam as well[3], he repeated: “Societies have the criminals they deserve.”
II.
G. Tarde.
This author considers criminality as being preëminently a social phenomenon, which, like all social phenomena, is to be explained by imitation.
“All the important acts of the social life are performed under the sway of example. One begets, or one does not beget, through imitation; the statistics of births have shown us that. One kills, or one does not kill, through imitation; should we have the idea today [[150]]of fighting a duel, or declaring war, if we did not know that this is always done in the country where we live? One kills himself, or he does not kill himself, through imitation; it is recognized that suicide is an imitative phenomenon in the highest degree.… How can we doubt, then, that a man steals or does not steal, murders or does not murder, through imitation?”[4]
Imitation, says the author, is governed by two laws, namely, that men imitate one another more the more closely they come together, and that imitation of the high by the low is what most often takes place (that the customs of the nobility are imitated by the people, etc.). If we test these rules in their application to crime, we shall find that they hold good there also. The author gives the following examples, among others, in support of this:
“Vagrancy, under its thousand actual forms, is an offense essentially plebeian; but if we go back into the past it will not be difficult to connect our tramps and street singers with the noble pilgrims and minstrels of the Middle Ages. Poaching, another nursery of criminals, which in the past, together with smuggling, has played a part comparable with vagrancy in the present, is still more directly connected with the life of the lord of the manor.”[5] “Arson, a crime of the lowest classes today, was once the prerogative of the feudal nobility. Was not the Margrave of Brandenburg heard to boast one day that he had burned in his life 170 villages? Counterfeiting takes refuge at present in mountain caverns, or subcellars in the city, but we know that coining was long a royal monopoly.
“Finally, theft, so degrading in our day, has had a brilliant past. Montaigne tells us, without being very indignant at it, that many young gentlemen of his acquaintance, whose fathers did not give them enough money, procured more by stealing.”[6]
There was a time, then, when criminality extended itself from the higher classes to the lower; at present new forms of crime take their rise in the great cities and spread out into the country. The increase of crime in the cities is very considerable, and it is very probable that, in accordance with the law cited, criminality will at length increase in the country as greatly. It is especially the crimes of assassination, sexual crimes against minors, abortion, and infanticide, that have increased. So the opinion of several Italian criminologists, “that crimes against persons decrease where crimes against property increase, and vice versa”, is wrong, according to Professor Tarde, since both kinds of crime increase in the great cities. [[151]]
“To sum up, the prolonged action of the great cities upon criminality is manifest, it seems to us, in the gradual substitution, not exactly of trickery for violence, but of covetous, crafty, and voluptuous violence, for vindictive and brutal violence.”[7]
Nevertheless, civilization improves men, and the growing criminality is in opposition to the greater and greater increase of civilization. This contradiction is explained by the author by means of another law of imitation; the law of insertion, i.e. the alternate passage from fashion to custom.
“All industry is thus fed by a stream of improvements, innovations today, traditions tomorrow; every science, every art, every language, every religion obeys this law of the passage from custom to fashion and of the return from fashion to custom, but to an enlarged custom.
“For at each of these steps in advance the territorial domain of imitation increases; the field of social assimilation, of human brotherhood, extends itself, and this is not, as we know, the least salutary effect of imitative action from the moral point of view.”[8]
After having mentioned how these different currents of imitation meet, the author applies the idea set forth above to the influence of education upon criminality. He shows that instruction, by itself, is not a remedy for crime, since it may furnish new means for committing crimes, and hence may only change the character of criminality. Finally the author points out the influence of labor upon criminality, combating the theory of Poletti, who says that it is necessary to take into account the economic development (for example, if during the period 1826–78 criminality in France increased in the ratio of 100 to 254, and productive activity was quadrupled, criminality did not increase, but really diminished). The fundamental error in Poletti’s argument, according to Professor Tarde is, that he considers crime as a regular, permanent, and inevitable effect of industrialism.
“Only, there is labor and labor; and if in a more laborious class the work is badly divided, excessive for some, whom it enervates and disorders, insufficient for others, who become dissipated, or if it is badly directed, turned toward deleterious compositions and reading which excite the senses …—in this case it will probably happen that progress in labor is accompanied by a growing lack of discipline and by academic vices of different kinds. An analogous phenomenon takes place in our cities, where the mad chase for luxury outruns the rise of wages, and where sexual crimes are sextupled or septupled [[152]]while wealth is tripled and quadrupled. The socialists, then, are right in imputing, in part, to unjust distribution and to the objectionable direction of the productive activity, the moral evil that has grown with it, and which, further, does not decrease when productive activity becomes weaker. For since the period when Poletti made his observations upon the prosperity of France, this has ceased to grow, and has even decreased rapidly, as we know only too well, but crime has continued its onward march with a more marked impetus.
“In short, there remains nothing of the law laid down by this distinguished writer, and all the statistics contradict him. Delinquency, as Garofalo remarks, is so little proportional to commercial activity that England, where crime is on the decrease, is the nation most remarkable for the increase of its commerce, and that Spain and Italy, where the criminality is greater than that of the other principal states of Europe, are far behind them in business development. We may add that in France the most hard-working class is without any doubt the peasant class, and this shows the smallest proportionate number of delinquents, notwithstanding unfavorable conditions. We may conclude that work is in itself the adversary of crime, that if it favors it it is by indirect, not necessary action, and that its relation to crime is like that between two antagonistic forms of work.”[9]
In the following section the author treats the influence of wealth and of poverty upon the criminal. He mentions the different opinions of Turati and of Colajanni on the one hand, and of Ferri and Garofalo on the other. The former tried to prove that poverty is often a cause of a poor man’s becoming a criminal. Garofalo tries to disprove it by calling attention, among other things, to the fact that, according to the criminal statistics of Italy for 1880, property owners committed as many crimes in proportion as the proletariat did.
In opposition to this Professor Tarde points out that the French criminal statistics in 1887 show that there were, out of 100,000 of each class of the population, the following number of persons arraigned: 20 out of the class of domestics, one of the poorest classes; 12 from the liberal professions including persons of independent income; 139 from the class of vagrants and persons without occupation (the most necessitous class, therefore); 21 from commerce; 26 from manufacturing (a very high figure considering the profits of that year); and 14 from the farming class (a very low figure considering their relative poverty). [[153]]
The author explains these contradictions as follows: “Let us not forget that, the desire for wealth being the ordinary motive and more and more the preponderating motive of crime as it is the only motive of industrial labor, the possession of wealth must keep the most dishonest man from crime as it does the most laborious man from industrial labor—for it is impossible to desire what one has—at least if the satisfaction of this desire has not meant the over-exciting of it.… Now in business circles, where on account of men’s throwing one another into a fever, a constant gaining of wealth, rather than wealth itself, is the end pursued, a fortune is like those peppered liqueurs which arouse thirst more than they quench it. Hence it comes, doubtless, as well as from the excitement prevailing in these circles, that criminality there is as great as among domestic servants. In the same way, in the licentious environments, in the great cities, where there are masses of working people, sexual crimes are as much more numerous as the pleasures of the senses are there more easily come by. But we can lay it down as a principle that where wealth is an obstacle to activity it is also an obstacle to crime, very much as political power ceases to be dangerous at the moment when it ceases to be ambitious. This is the situation among the rural proprietors, small and great, among stockholders, and even in the majority of the liberal professions …; content with his relative well-being, man indulges in an intellectual half-labor, artistic rather than mechanical, honorable rather than mercenary, and abstains from flagitious means of obtaining an increase of income which he desires moderately. The French peasant, in general, partakes of this moderation of desires, and, rich from his sobriety, his stoicism, his frugality, his plot of ground at last acquired, he is happier than the feverish millionaire, financier, or politician, driven by his very millions to sow the seed of his rotten speculations, rascalities, and extortions upon a vast scale. Further the well-to-do agriculturists are in general the most honest people. Let us not speak of wealth and poverty, to tell the truth, not even of well-being and the reverse, but rather of happiness and unhappiness, and be careful how we deny this truth, as old as the world, that the wicked man’s excuse is often to be found in his being unhappy. Children of this century … let us confess that under its brilliant exterior our society is not happy, and if we had no other assurances of its great evils than its numerous crimes, without giving a thought to its suicides, and its increasing cases of insanity, without lending an ear to the cries of envy, of suffering, and of hatred … we should not be able to call its woes in question. [[154]]
“From what does it suffer? From its internal trouble, from its illogical and unstable condition, from intestine contradictions, stirred up by the success even of its unheard-of discoveries and inventions, piling one on top of the other, the material for contrary theories, the source of unbridled, egoistic, and antagonistic desires. Upon this obscure gestation, a great Credo, a great common end awaits; it is creation before the Fiat Lux. Science multiplies its notions, it elaborates a high conception of the universe; … but where is the high conception of life, of human life, that it is ready to make prevalent? Industry multiplies its products, but where is the collective work that it brings to birth? The preëstablished harmony of interests was a dream of Bastiat, the shadow of a dream of Leibnitz. The citizens of a state exchange information, scientific and otherwise, through books, newspapers, or conversation, but to the profit of their contradictory beliefs; they exchange services, but to the profit of their rival interests; the more they assist one another, therefore, the more they nourish their essential contradictions, which may have been as profound at other times, but were never so conscious, never so painful, and consequently never so dangerous.”[10]
Suppose, asks the author, there was no more foreign war, how could we avoid civil war? There have, indeed been historic periods when there existed a common aim uniting individuals, as the faith did in the Middle Ages. In our days this aim can be nothing but “art, philosophy, the higher cultivation of the mind and imagination, the æsthetic life.”
In order to be able to answer the question whether civilization (the collective name for education, religion, science, arts, manufacturing, wealth, public order, etc.) causes a diminution of criminality, it is necessary to discriminate between two stages of civilization. In the first there is an afflux of inventions; this is the stage at which Europe is at the present time. In the second this afflux decreases and it forms itself into a coherent whole. A civilization may be very rich, then, and but little coherent, or very coherent and not very rich, like that of the commune in the Middle Ages.
“But is it by its wealth or by its cohesion that civilization makes crime recede? By its cohesion without any doubt. This cohesion of religion, of science, of all forms of work and of power, of all kinds of different innovations, mutually confirming one another, in reality or in appearance, is a true implicit coalition against crime, and even when each of these fruitful branches of the social tree combats but [[155]]feebly the gourmand branch, their agreement will suffice to divert all the sap from it.”[11]
—This is not the place to criticise the theory of imitation in general, with which Professor Tarde thinks that we can explain every social phenomenon. In my opinion, this theory, in so far as it is new is not correct, and in so far as it is correct is not new. It is true as explaining how a social phenomenon, having taken its rise in a locality, has been rapidly propagated, or why it still persists when the original causes have ceased to operate.
However, it is plain that by means of imitation one can give but a partial explanation of the phenomena mentioned. Other factors must be pointed out to explain, for example, why something spreads everywhere in consequence of imitation, at a certain moment, while before it passed unperceived, etc.
I agree, then, that the significance of imitation and tradition is very important in explaining social phenomena, but I am of the opinion that imitation and tradition represent the conservative element, and give us no information with regard to the birth of new social phenomena.[12]
In the domain of criminality also imitation plays a great part. Children brought up in a vicious environment, easily contract bad habits by imitation; the harmful influence of prison is proverbial; a sensational crime often leads to analogous crimes. It is also by imitation that we can explain, in part at least, the existence of the Mafia and the Camorra, of which Professor Lombroso says, among other things: “The long persistence and obstinacy of such associations as the Mafia, the Camorra, and brigandage, seem to proceed in the first place from the antiquity of their existence, for the long repetition of the same acts transforms them into a habit, and consequently into a law. History teaches us that ethnic phenomena of long duration are not to be eradicated easily at a stroke.”[13]
Since the phenomena named remain permanent, there must be other important social factors which have nothing to do with imitation. Thus, for example, faith, whose prevalence is based to a great extent upon tradition, would have disappeared long since, notwithstanding [[156]]tradition, if there had been no factors in the present society to make it persist.
Admitting what has gone before, there is no reason to see in most of the examples cited by the author in support of his theory, anything else than his great knowledge of historic details of little or no importance for the question of criminality. Where, for example, is the connection between the minstrels of the Middle Ages and the vagrants of our own days? There is certainly none but this, that both went from place to place. But even if there had never been wandering minstrels, the social phenomenon called “vagrancy” would have existed all the same. It has nothing to do with imitation, but on the contrary has everything to do with the existing social organization. It could thus be proved by many examples that Professor Tarde exaggerates the extent of the influence of imitation. We must not lose sight of the fact that imitation teaches us nothing of the essential causes of a social phenomenon. When we seek the causes of a disease that some one has, we frequently see that it is the result of a contagion; we know, then, that the disease is contagious, and this knowledge will point out precautions to be taken to limit or prevent the spread of the disease; but as to the causes of the disease itself we still know nothing.
It is the same way with regard to crime. It is certain that immoral ideas and customs are easily contracted by children. The removal of children from a harmful environment is therefore a preventive of the extension of crime. But we are still ignorant of everything that concerns the rise of these immoral ideas and customs, which is, however, the essential thing.
With regard to the remarks of the author upon the influence of labor, wealth, poverty, and civilization, I simply observe that these very important and very complicated questions occupy but a few pages in his work. It will be, then, quite superfluous to note in detail how the whole has been treated in a very incomplete manner, although very true remarks are found there (for example, those upon the bad distribution of labor, upon the desire for wealth as a cause of crime, etc.).—
Beside an article that appeared in the “Revue Philosophique” (1890), entitled “Misère et criminalité”, Professor Tarde has taken up his subject again in a report: “La criminalité et les phénomènes économiques” (Fifth Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Amsterdam). Of this report we give a synopsis. [[157]]
According to Professor Tarde, since it has been recognized that the social factors of criminality are the most important, there has been a manifest tendency to exaggerate the importance of economic factors. Their high importance, which is incontestable, does not at all justify our forgetting the stronger and more decisive action of the beliefs and feelings in the aberrations of the will. Which of the two sources of criminality is the more important, the economic or the religious (or intellectual)? That cannot be decided. But it is much more important to know in what phases, from what sides the economic life is criminogenous.
Each economic phase, as, for example, domestic economy or urban economy, has its special form of criminality. But political and religious changes, whether they correspond or not to the transformations in the mode of production, have, perhaps, a much greater part in criminality than have the economic transformations. The domestic economy, for example, gives rise to different crimes in which no economic factor comes into play; as uxoricide, for example.
Neither poverty alone nor wealth alone is an obstacle to honesty. Poor peoples or classes, accustomed to poverty, are often very honest, nor is there any more need that great differences of wealth should lead to crime. But it is the abrupt passing from wealth to poverty and from poverty to wealth that is dangerous to morality.
“In short, criminality and morality are less dependent upon the economic state of a country, than upon its economic transformations. It is not capitalism as such that is demoralizing, it is the moral crisis that accompanies the passage from artisan production to capitalistic production, or from some particular mode of the latter to some other mode.
“Economic phenomena may be regarded from three points of view: first, from the point of view of their repetition, which has to do chiefly with the propagation of habits of consumption, called needs, and of the corresponding habits of labor; second, from the point of view of their opposition, which includes principally the contests of producers among themselves by acute or chronic competition, during strikes, or crises of overproduction,—or contests of consumers among themselves, through sumptuary laws, aristocratic or democratic, or monopolies of consumption over which they dispute in a thousand ways, in time of famine, or scarcity, or any form of underproduction,—or contests of producers with consumers, through their attempts to exploit one another, monopolize prices, or laws regulating the maximum price, municipal tariffs, or protectionist rights, etc.; [[158]]third, finally from the point of view of their adaptation, always being renewed and always incomplete, which embraces the series of successful inventions, fortunate associations of ideas from which proceed all fruitful associations of men, from the division of labor and of commerce, an association spontaneous and implicit, to industrial, commercial, financial, and syndical societies, etc.”[14]
It is through the second aspect that the economic life can give a direct explanation of crime; that which is given by the other two is only an indirect explanation. That is to say, each invention gives rise to a contest among producers, and the progress of manufacturing creates the possibility of satisfying needs, but at the same time makes those who for want of the means cannot satisfy them, feel their needs all the more strongly.
Every individual must satisfy a certain number of needs which have their marked recurrences. A peaceful and honest society will be one in which the great majority of the persons who compose it have, in measure, the means of satisfying these needs. “Regular habits of consumption and production form the first condition for good moral health whether individual or collective, just as regular digestion is the foundation of good physical health. Those who are irregular become easily the ‘déclassés.’ Nothing is more contagious than disorder.”[15]
Hence, then, comes the importance for criminality of social crises, since during these production and consumption are deranged.
According to Professor Tarde, the social contradictions, which are the chronic crises of societies, can be the sole causes of criminality. If a society succeeds in avoiding every internal contradiction there can hardly be any further question of crime.
Our opinions can always harmonize with those of the people around us, while we are foreign to them in desire and feeling. “The criminal is he who, undergoing conformity to the ideas of the community in which he lives, yet escapes from conforming to the feelings and acts of the community. He acts contrary to his own principles, which are those of society.” “It is, then, not to a social crisis that we must mount, but to a psychological crisis that we must descend, to explain crime.”[16]
Social crises are of two kinds: politico-religious, and economic. In opposition to divers statisticians, who are of the opinion that the former class cause a diminution in criminality, the author thinks that this diminution is only apparent, and that in reality the number [[159]]of crimes increases at these times; which is shown, for example, for France by the addition of cases not prosecuted to those prosecuted.
As to the effect of economic crises, statisticians, Professor Tarde claims, have not yet examined it. It seems to him that there is no parallelism between economic crises and criminality.
The struggle of classes, which springs up and grows during the periods of crisis, is a great danger to public morals, since it gives rise to a class spirit, and consequently increases the contempt for the rights of individuals of another class. However, the class struggle does not increase the number of individual crimes, but only the number of collective crimes.
To sum up, Professor Tarde is of the opinion, then, that social crises in general, and economic crises in particular, are not the only source nor a continual source of crime. The question of what is the cause of economic crises remains unexplained. To solve this we must call in all political economy. The causes of these economic crises are in brief: first, unlimited competition; second, unforeseen disasters. “We may add that these acute conflicts lead to suicide more than to crime; they are a factor of crime much less important than the sullen conflicts, the low but continuous fevers of troubled epochs in quest of a stable state. And these are then less the conflicts of production with itself, or of production with consumption, than the conflicts of consumption with itself, i.e. the conflicts of needs that have grown but cannot be satisfied at the time, within the limits of the always insufficient wages or profits, a fertile source of criminal suggestions. When labor no longer suffices to satisfy the legitimate needs in accordance with the prevailing standards, the desire of gain without labor invades the heart and becomes general. The only remedy for this danger would be the advancement of manufacturing and its reorganization upon a vaster and better conceived plan than the present one, if, at the same time that any industrial progress gave more wealth for less labor, it did not give rise to still more new wants. The individual organization of wants, their hierarchization, by virtue of a certain unanimity of fundamental principles, must precede the social organization of labor, if we wish this latter really to make for peace and morals.”[17]
—Professor Tarde’s report is characterized by many very true observations (as, for example, that every economic phase has its own form of criminality; that sudden transitions from wealth to poverty, and [[160]]vice versa, are morally more dangerous than slow changes; etc., etc.), but at the same time is still more marked by a certain elasticity and lack of close reasoning. Hence it is almost impossible to frame a criticism of the report that will follow it step by step.
However there are some things to be noted. According to the author there are two sources of criminality, the one economic, the other intellectual. I consider that this distinction is not correct. Every crime has an intellectual source, in this sense, that it is an act conceived by the intellect. It is impossible, therefore, to see beside this source an economic cause. But the intellect considered by itself is empty; it is from the environment that it must draw the material which it will transform into ideas. Consequently the question becomes this: how far is the economic environment the cause of the formation of criminal thoughts. Intellect and economic conditions do not stand side by side but the one follows upon the other. It is only making use of a commonplace to say that crime has an intellectual source; that explains nothing.
In reading the first pages of the report one expects, after the historical exposition which says that every economic phase has its own form of criminality, to find an exposition of the present economic system, and an inquiry into how far the criminality of our own day is bound up with it. This would have been, I think, most important, and would have advanced the subject. The most serious criticism that I have to make is that nothing of the kind is attempted. What follows is only a series of isolated remarks, which are correct only in part, and in which the whole question is reduced to a matter of economic crises, although the title speaks of economic conditions.
It is incorrect to say that the statisticians have not investigated the influence of economic crises, as the second chapter of this work proves. In it I have analyzed the works of the different authors who have especially treated of this subject. Finally, I would call attention to the fact that he furnishes no proof of his assertion that the class struggle takes its rise in times of crisis—and would find it difficult to do so.
What Professor Tarde means in speaking of “the advancement of manufacturing and its reorganization upon a vaster and better conceived plan”, is not clear. But it is certain that the final observation that there must be “an individual organization of wants”, is purely Utopian. For it is one of the characteristic phenomena of our present society that it has strongly excited the cupidity of men, and that this will disappear only when its cause has ceased to exist.
All Professor Tarde’s works upon criminality convince us of the [[161]]great knowledge of their author. The report of which I have been speaking contains also ideas that are often very original, but this does not prevent the necessity of confessing that it does not contribute much to the solution of the problem that it treats.—
III.
A. Corre.
In the third book of his “Crime et suicide” the author treats of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality, beginning with “labor, wages, and needs.”
Dr. Corre notes first the true condition of the free workman. No one is obliged to give him work or bread, and it is forbidden to beg [[162]]or even to be idle. “There is no opinion more monstrous, more revolting, and more cowardly. It is a social crime as well as the most dangerous of follies. For it is necessary to be logical. If you oblige a man under all circumstances to live by his own means, in the midst of a limited circle, where the places are distributed in advance, the land divided to the smallest fragments, if you refuse him the right to alms after having refused him work … you drive him to suicide or crime.”[18] We must give work to everyone who wants to work, in order that he may support himself and his family, and help must be given to those to whom work cannot be given, as in the case of workmen not longer able to work because of sickness or old age. On the other hand idleness must be punished as well as professional crime. Wages must be so high that they are sufficient not only for the strict necessities, but for others as well; for example, for a progressive education, without, however, arousing in the laboring class the desire for luxury that always corrupts morals. Though naming a single exception, Dr. Corre is of the opinion that wages are in general very insufficient, especially if we take into account the fact that there are times of unemployment, sickness, etc., during which nothing is earned. The question of wages is one of great importance, then, for the etiology of criminality. Nevertheless all the improvement of the material condition of the working class will accomplish nothing unless there is at the same time a moral improvement.
As other authors have already proved, the price of bread also has an influence upon the course of criminality.
Under the heading “economic conditions”, he calls attention, in the second place to “assistance, savings, property.” When we study the effect of charity upon criminality in the departments of France, we see that mendicity and vagrancy decrease, and that crimes are only of moderate frequency, in places where the official assistance given is the smallest, while criminality is pretty prevalent and even on the increase where the greatest amount of official assistance is given. “Thus very limited assistance will do less harm than if it were more extensive. Such is the interpretation the mind gathers from a comparison of the economic and judicial statistics. Excess in alms-giving, with difficulty separable from a bad distribution of wealth, will therefore have a demoralizing influence; it enervates and sterilizes, and its fruits would appear more bitter if it were possible to unveil the little secrets of assistance under the thousand forms that it wears.”[19]
“Saving enlarges the field of the needs of the laborer, gives him [[163]]security for the future, strengthens his independence with regard to the state, and his dignity in his relations with other citizens; it permits him to surround his family with a greater degree of comfort, and through education to raise his children into the professional hierarchy. It is therefore useful, and has a moralizing influence.”[20]
However, exaggerated saving is very prejudicial to morality for it degenerates into avarice and thus becomes the cause of crime. We often find the average number of depositors in savings-banks in the departments that gave the lowest figure for crime. The departments with a number of depositors above or below this average are apt to have high figures for crime.
“It is possible to criticise academically the famous saying of Proudhon, ‘property is theft.’ To refute it will be at times difficult. I do not mean to say that all property is theft, but I maintain that property in a measure that can be fixed is nothing else. As it is organized with use, it is often immoral and one of the most active factors in anti-social crime, latent or actual.”[21] According to the author, one who owns property is a supporter of the state. For this reason the number of small proprietors ought to be increased, even if this is possible only by dividing great estates, which, however, have almost always been gotten together by immoral means, by pillaging, by paying very small wages in manufacturing, by gambling, etc. “They are all, in the first instance, the fruit of a skill and a want of scruple which would never obtain the sanction of a really equitable society; at their blaze, which scorns poverty, the passion for gain is kindled, and dull rage begins to develop the germ of reprisals. How shall we make men who have nothing, and exhaust themselves to gain the bare necessaries of life, satisfied that the persons who do no work and only amuse themselves possess everything? You may talk of legal limitations as much as you like, but conscience will revolt against a doctrine that makes stolen property sacred after a certain period of impunity, and leads to the cynical conclusion that any article or piece of land, acquired by crime, is the legitimate possession of the bandit if during 5, 10, 20, 30 years he succeeds in warding off the attacks of the law.”[22] Not only has property often been acquired in an illegal manner, but the transmission of it is also immoral. For it is by this means that persons have acquired great fortunes which they would never have earned by their labor. It would be preferable to make private fortunes accrue to the state, after provision had been made for the widow and children “to provide for the needs of persons who [[164]]are useful but made unproductive by poverty, and to reënforce the collective labor.” In this way a general prosperity would replace great fortunes; this would increase the feeling of solidarity, while great fortunes only awaken cupidity and lead to the commission of crimes. The richest departments give the highest figures for criminality. By the suppression or limitation of inheritance we should suppress also the numerous crimes against life resulting from it.
In the sixth chapter, in which Dr. Corre examines the relative importance of the principal sociological factors, he sums up his opinion as to the influence of economic conditions upon criminality. Too great wealth and too great poverty are both causes of crime. “The first corrupts and the second degrades; both lead to crime through lessening the resistance to temptation that promises the satisfaction of wants fictitious or real, and when they both appear in the same environment, they give more energy to bad impulses, more violence to conflicts.”[23] This is why the agricultural class, in which moderate prosperity prevails, is the least criminal. The means by which this condition of things is to be improved is complex: “it is not altogether to be found in the solution of the question of wages; it is chiefly to be found in a better system for making the masses moral, in the reduction of the influences which tempt them to improvidence and idleness, lead them to drunkenness and alcoholism.”[24]
—The second part of this work will show sufficiently why, in my opinion, the treatment of Dr. Corre is confused and incomplete, notwithstanding the truth of some observations made by him with regard to the subject which concerns us. The criticism of the author upon the organization of society at present is that of the petty bourgeoisie; he expects salvation only from the multiplication of small holdings, and hopes that this will make mankind happier. However, the development of large industries makes me believe that this hope will never be realized.—
IV.
L. Manouvrier.
Of all the adherents of the “hypothesis of the environment,” Professor Manouvrier is undoubtedly the one who has set forth this doctrine in the clearest manner. Being an anthropologist it is evident that he has not given his attention more especially to economic conditions. [[165]]But it seems to me that what he says in opposition to the theory of Professor Lombroso, and in support of that of the environment, is of the greatest importance. I will give a résumé, therefore, of his “Genèse normale du crime”,[25] and in doing so will quote his own words as far as possible, in order to give their full value. Although there is no connection between the doctrine of Professor Lombroso and his adherents, and this work, I shall be forced to follow his whole demonstration, because of the interlacing of the theories of the Italian school and the detailed exposition of the doctrine of the “environment.”
The doctrine of the innate character of crime and the phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim are closely connected. Gall thought that he had discovered in the brain the organs of homicide and theft, without, however, denying the importance of surroundings, so that he explained a case of theft by means of circumstances when the bump of theft was wanting in the thief.
This doctrine has been entirely supplanted by the theories of Lamarck and Darwin. “In the place of attributing to the environment the rôle of a simple player of a hand-organ, Lamarck sees in it a true musician playing upon his instrument any airs suited to its complexity and qualities. Further, the quality and characteristics of the instrument can be modified, transformed under the influence of this marvelous musician and that of the music executed. This was the ruin of craniomancy. The diagnostics of phrenology found themselves limited at once and for always to the faculties, the elementary dispositions that Gall and Spurzheim had tried in vain to discover, and which are consistent with the execution of acts indefinitely variable.
“The phrenologists are right in connecting the ‘properties of the soul and mind’ with organization, but they are wrong in connecting such acts as theft and homicide with organic causes, as if these acts had the value of real, irreducible functions.”[26]
Notwithstanding the bond between phrenology and the positivist school, this school does not rely upon the theory in question, but upon the transformist theory, i.e. upon the theory that gives its attention to environment. The cause of this is that the fundamental error that forms the point of departure is still universally prevalent. “This error consists in believing that acts sociologically defined, like crimes, [[166]]can be connected with the anatomical conformation, without being first referred by a psychological analysis to their psychological elements, the only ones, whether normal or pathological, that depend directly upon anatomy. The same error consists in confusing the combinations of aptitudes formed under the influence of environment, with the elementary aptitudes resulting from the native organization or its successive modifications. It also leads to a misunderstanding of the primary fact that two individuals similarly constituted can be led, in consequence of the influence of dissimilar environments to which they have been subjected since their birth, to conduct themselves in different, and even quite opposite, ways, without their acts ceasing to be, on that account, conformed to their anatomical constitution.”[27]
It is a fact well known to biologists that in all living beings qualities often occur that did not appear in their immediate forebears but in more remote generations. This reappearance of qualities is called atavism. Its importance has been too much exaggerated, however, and it has been made into a magic word with which, it has been thought, everything could be explained, including crime. The line of reasoning has been as follows: crime is one of the ordinary phenomena among savage peoples, and must therefore have been so among the ancestors of the civilized peoples. It is observed that among the criminals of our day there are more of the anatomical stigmata indicating atavism than among non-criminals; consequently crime is a phenomenon of atavism! There are numerous errors in this reasoning. “Since we are treating the question of crime, we must first of all know what is understood by crime, must give a definition of it indicating what crime corresponds to physiologically, and to what order of anatomical characteristics the physiological tendency to crime corresponds. Considered in themselves, these acts suppose only the existence of a conformation permitting, and of needs demanding, their accomplishment. If such a conformation and such needs no longer exist in the normal state among civilized peoples, where nevertheless the acts are frequent, it would be proper to examine the authors of them for abnormal characteristics; not merely any abnormal characteristics, but characteristics, anatomical or physiological, that it would be possible to connect with these aptitudes and needs that have become abnormal.”[28]
Among the anatomical stigmata observed in criminals in prison there are several which, considered by themselves, have nothing [[167]]abnormal about them; none of them would serve to characterize criminals. We often find, for example, that murderers have relatively large jaws, which are ordinarily thus an index of a conformation disposed to brutality; “but this brutality is absolutely of the same order as that of men compared with women; it is a masculine characteristic, and the masculine conformation is indubitably favorable to crimes of violence much more than the feminine; but happily it happens that most men, in civilized countries, live under conditions in which their natural brutality does not prevent their being very peaceable citizens, though it would be imprudent to molest them. Very vigorous men are ordinarily endowed with square and very solid jaws; they are men for attack or defense, who may be very useful to society or very harmful, as the case may be. Given to acting vigorously and brutally, this they may be, but inclined to crime they are not, any more than the men with small jaws, whose mildness is often the effect of muscular weakness, and who, though little given to striking and breaking down doors, nevertheless know how to be brutal and violent in their own way.”[29]
However, it might be thought that these anatomical characteristics, though not dangerous in themselves, are nevertheless an indication of a tendency on their part to act like savages. But this is not the case; these characteristics “are morphological accidents that are purely local and are compatible with the most fortunate conformation.” But this is not saying that every peculiarity must remain unutilized. Thus, for example, there are persons who are able to move their ears. “If murder and theft were acts as little complicated, and of as little importance as moving the ears, and if these acts, having become criminal, did not suppose very complex anatomical and psychological coördinations; if there were, in other words, as Gall supposed, cerebral organs specially and innately fitted for murder and theft, we could believe that the mere atavistic presence of these organs would constitute a tendency to commit these crimes; but neither anatomo-physiological analysis, nor psychology will justify today so simple a conception.”[30]
And then it has not been proved that murder and theft were habitual with our ancestors; they had recourse to them only under stress of circumstances, quite like any normal man of today. Considered from an anatomical point of view our means of injuring our fellows have decreased; on the other hand we have now other means at our disposal (firearms, etc.). “As to the need of pleasure and of [[168]]life, this can only have increased, and never can cupidity have been more aroused than in our civilized society. Never have the temptations to appropriate the goods of others been stronger and more frequent. Civilization tends to develop wants and appetites, whence there comes this colossal extension of the means of repression and of coercion employed to make criminal attempts dangerous, in order that crime may not be too easy a means of acquiring fortune. Except for purely pathological cases, the criminal is moved by his wants, by wants that have nothing extraordinary about them; when a man has an interest, or thinks he has an interest in committing a crime, he brings into play muscular and cerebral aptitudes which every normal man possesses, the same elementary aptitudes as those he might have made use of, under other circumstances, to pursue and punish a criminal.”[31]
Some biological facts are to be explained by atavism; their explanation nevertheless remains mysterious. But atavism loses all its importance as a means of explanation as soon as we know how to explain a fact by actually existing causes, as is the case with crime. “We should understand that it would be a question of atavistic tendencies if assassins killed for the sole pleasure of killing, if thieves stole for the pleasure of stealing. Now we know well that theft and murder are only means, and that their use is called ‘work’ by professional criminals. If they prefer this kind of work it is because it is quicker and less painful than regular work.”[32]
It might be objected here that the horror of blood being natural to most men it would be necessary just the same to have recourse to atavism to explain murder. This horror of blood is assuredly found in most men, but only so far as their interest requires. Not a single surgeon or butcher pursues his bloody trade through atavism, but only because forced to it by his interests. More than one born-bourgeois thinks that he would never eat meat rather than have to kill cattle himself, but this is only pure illusion or an unconscious hypocrisy. For he would do it without any doubt if he could not gain his livelihood in any other way. Do not the bourgeoisie shoot their inoffensive fellow citizens who revolt against a social condition that no one would dare to call ideal? Do they not mow down savages with machine guns in order to divide up their country? Or do they not make war against other states in order to protect their own commercial interests? It will be objected that these things are not crimes; this is a question of definition, but assuredly they are similar to crime. [[169]]
“It is not only in the prisons that we find born-criminals; but we are all such, if we understand by this abusive expression the possession of hereditary tendencies to enjoy things ourselves, in case of need, to the detriment of our fellows. The human crimes to which I have just alluded indicate chiefly the cruelty and ferocity of the species, and of ethnic collectivities, social or otherwise. As to the individual equivalents of crime, I will recall further that they are not difficult to discover in the conduct of honest men, most of whom do not trouble themselves to make use of means as harmful and immoral as those which criminals do. The equivalents of crime among honest men present, it is true, the great advantage of remaining more or less unperceived by the penal code, by the police at least, and the psychologists of the New School; but they are nevertheless recognized as immoral and harmful by those who have recourse to them, and they suffice to show in what way honest men would conduct themselves if the conditions in which they live and have lived had not driven them away from crime, legally so-called, with as much force as the opposite environmental conditions have driven others to it.”[33]
Having made fuller remarks to the effect that the cruel and repugnant professions referred to above are not practiced because of atavistic tendencies, but solely from necessity, the author ends this part of his article as follows: “There nevertheless remains a tremendous difference between the killing of an animal and the killing of a man, from a moral point of view, of course, but also from the point of view of the motives generally fitted to prevent the killing. But it must be remarked that these motives are connected with environmental influences which are exceedingly variable, and which, for too many persons, are considerably diminished and at the same time replaced by influences of the opposite environment. Most assassins have received a certain culture appropriate to the conception of murder and to its realization, and this is simply facilitated by their conformation, which is in no wise exceptional. If we had only to twirl our thumb to get rid of an enemy we should have to put forth all our efforts to harm no one. Already too many respectable men can order murders that they would not be courageous enough to execute. Let us congratulate ourselves that self-interest more often deters men from murder than drives them to it, for every normal man possesses the cerebral and muscular qualities necessary to conceive, prepare, and execute the crime. It is not necessary to call in the return to animal instincts through atavism. The continuity of man and the animals is much [[170]]more perfect than the atavistic school pretends. Man is always an animal; the most dangerous of all because he is the most intelligent and because he can utilize his faculties in all sorts of ways, harmful or useful to his fellows according to his own interest. The formula to be applied is to arrange things so that every man will find more advantage in being useful to his fellows than in injuring them. Progress in this regard would be more rapid without this unfortunate predilection for occult causes, which leads so many excellent minds to seek in the clouds for explanations that lie under their noses, but which have to be found just where they are.
“Those ferocious instincts which seem the return of another world, in brawls or in times of revolution, are not returning at all, because they have never disappeared. During a certain time they do not manifest themselves in the individual or the family, because there is no need that they should; or possibly they manifest themselves in ways less dangerous, in connection with ordinary circumstances and relatively favorable to tranquillity. But let there arise any need, no matter what, of a “mobilization of the offensive and defensive forces”, then the mobilization takes place, and the most civilized man appears under the form of the dangerous animal he has never ceased to be, happily for himself and his species. This man whom you take for an atavistic throw-back, appears such to you only because you have failed to recognize in their mild form, in yourself and in others, the fundamental brutality and egoism of the human species. Notwithstanding the civilizing influences in the midst of which you have lived, notwithstanding the peaceable habits that you have contracted, and all the horror with which you are inspired by the contrary habits of which you fear to fall the victim, it is enough that you should be worked upon rather strongly by a combination of annoying circumstances, that even you should become a dangerous individual. When we wish to study crime as anthropologists or as psychologists, we must not be afraid to look the truth in the face, and it is important to clear our minds beforehand, as far as possible, of the illusions of self-love, and of deceptive conventions.”[34]
Then Professor Manouvrier criticises in a manner as just as it is witty, the hypothesis of the “delinquent man.” He demonstrates that, according to the method of the New School, a work could be written upon the “hunting man” also, full of scientific observations upon his argot, his boasting, etc., etc., upon all sorts of signs, in short, which go to show that a taste for hunting is an atavistic phenomenon. [[171]]The explanation of crime by atavism is no more true than this other, for both can be explained by the environment.
If we hold absolutely to the expression: “born-criminal”, every man is one, just as every dog is a born-swimmer. Every dog knows how to swim very well, but this does not prevent a number of dogs from never swimming, since ordinarily there are more convenient ways of crossing the water. In the same way every man is a born-criminal, but most men refrain from becoming actual criminals, since that course is more advantageous to them than the other.
“No one is ignorant that the educational influences to which one is subjected during his whole life and especially during infancy, and the solicitations of self-interest, are exceedingly variable under different circumstances and for different individuals; and that the educational influences and the solicitations of self-interest unite very generally to furnish the motive for criminal conduct and for honest conduct as well. And it is this that governs every man’s manner of acting in his relations with others; and it must not be forgotten in treating of anthropology, whether anatomical, physio-psychological, or sociological. It is never forgotten in practical life.
“We all know that, whatever our fundamental character may be and the honest habits that we have been able to form, our manner of conducting ourselves may vary considerably under the influence of changes in our environment, and in proportion to those changes. It is a temptation to which the most austere man would greatly dread to be exposed, and to which he would never voluntarily expose himself, because he knows that the tendencies imputed to criminals (said to be atavistic, but all simply human) are not lacking in himself. These tendencies, when they have found abundant and honorable means of satisfaction during long years, become so much the more to be dreaded on this account, and run great danger of becoming criminal as soon the legal means of satisfaction disappear. The man who comes to lack these means finds himself in a much more dangerous situation as far as the likelihood of his becoming a criminal is concerned, than one who had become accustomed to privations.”[35]
Professor Manouvrier begins the last section of his study by asking what is the significance of the anatomical peculiarities observed in the so-called born-criminals. “The truth probably is that we do find in a number of criminals in prison more of the lower or abnormal characteristics than in a like number of persons chosen at random. But this in no wise proves that those among the criminals who have such [[172]]characteristics, have been predestined to crime from their physical make-up. Those among them who are not so constituted are nevertheless criminals, and honest men who bear the criminal marks have nevertheless remained honest.
“The truth is that the ‘new school’ consider as criminals only the refuse of this class, the prisoners; just as, when they wanted to depict prostitutes, they took poor syphilitic girls who had been at least three years in brothels, that is to say, the refuse of refuse. Under what family and social conditions these criminals and prostitutes lived during childhood and afterward, it is easy for anyone to imagine who has caught but a glimpse of the slums of manufacturing towns. In order to escape crime and prostitution or mendicity when one has grown up in such an environment, it is necessary to have virtues that are extremely rare among respectable people, so much the more so since, to the temptations that come from poverty in the midst of luxury, is ordinarily added the effect of example, and even of education of the particular kind that is called criminal education. All this may be resisted for some time, but it is only the first step that costs. The good qualities themselves that one possesses become the causes of crime. It may even be maintained that physical excellencies themselves drive men to crime more strongly than defects, when once the external conditions become favorable for crime.”[36]
The fact that we generally find more inferior individuals among the criminals imprisoned than among other men must be attributed to the two following circumstances: first, that criminals who have not been arrested, owe their liberty generally to the fact that they are better endowed; and second, that in all social classes a selection goes on by which those best constituted are always in possession of the most desirable and least painful means of existence, while to those less privileged fall the lowest professions, and they “end sooner or later by falling into the ditch where the influences that drive men to crime reach their maximum frequency and power, while the contrary motives are proportionately weak.” Those who have known better days sometimes prefer suicide to crime; but those who are born in the ditch, know no other life, and are consequently led into crime.
What is much more astonishing than crime is the fact that workmen labor courageously and patiently for ten or twelve hours a day, and notwithstanding this lead only a miserable life. The reason is that they have known nothing but labor since infancy and have always [[173]]had to be content with very simple amusements. It goes without saying that one man is more moved to commit crimes than another, although the conditions under which they are living are the same, just as an athlete will use violence quicker than a weakling. But this is no reason to declare strength a factor of crime, since it serves for useful acts as well. Acts which are contrary to the proper working of society are, therefore, called abnormal and those are called normal that are in harmony with it. But it is not therefore permissible to transfer this distinction to the field of biology, and call the criminal abnormal. “Aptitudes that are very normal physiologically, may be employed for acts that are equally normal physiologically, but which, from a social point of view are classed as abnormal, because contrary to the social prosperity. Yet this is an abuse of the word ‘abnormal’, because society as at present constituted is, in its normal functioning, consistent with innumerable causes of conflict between its own interests and those of individuals. And just as the annoying consequences of our mistakes often make us recognize the truth, so crimes very often serve to indicate to societies the reforms they ought to bring about in order to perfect themselves.
“Every individual has wants to satisfy, wants primordial or secondary, that may become infinitely complicated and clothed in forms as much more various as the environment becomes more complex. Now it happens in every society, and especially in very civilized societies, that the different individuals do not find the same facilities, and further, do not possess the same means of action. There is an evident disproportion between the existing needs and the milder means of satisfying them; whence the struggle for existence and well-being.
“In our estimating the intrinsic worth of criminals, we must not fail to take account of this fact, that most honest men do not deprive themselves of any of the pleasures which are the aim of criminals, and that most criminals, in order to escape crime would have had to have rare virtue. Among the legal means of satisfaction offered by society there are those that are easy and agreeable, among others that of drawing the income from capital amassed by one’s parents. There are also difficult and painful ones, which are the lot of those whom pecuniary heredity has not secured against the so-called criminal heredity. In order to share legally in the pleasures of which they are witnesses, those whom we may call disinherited by fortune, must make efforts of which those born to wealth have no idea. This is why, if the disinherited seek a short-cut, we must ask ourselves, [[174]]before we consider them as monstrous beings, whether under the same circumstances we should be able to keep to the legal path.
“The struggle for existence and well-being is regulated by social laws. If these were perfect, each individual could satisfy his wants in an equitable measure, that is to say in the measure of his faculties, his labor, and the service he renders to the community. Crimes would then be diminished in an enormous proportion, but they would not be suppressed, for there would still be inevitable competitions, and the time will probably never come when, on the one hand, each individual will have just the wants that his social worth will permit him to satisfy legally, and, on the other, will have sufficient virtue to renounce the satisfaction of wants, even factitious ones, which he has once contracted without being able to comply with the conditions which the most just law imposes for this satisfaction.”[37]
The penal law is one of the means the object of which is combating the illegal satisfaction of wants. Everyone knows, however, that this means does not always attain the end sought. The penal law will, in fact, produce a diminution of criminality only when it shall have brought about profound penal changes,—when punishment shall be no more than the useful and necessary reaction against acts that are harmful to the well-being of the community and to the development of society.
It is to be proved that there is, besides the normal, or ordinary, origin of crime, a pathological, or extraordinary, origin. “It is quite superfluous to bring in tendencies atavistically recalled by pathological degeneracy, in order to explain the harmful effects of this degeneracy, and of mental diseases, upon the way in which the degenerate and mentally diseased act. The least functional trouble is enough to alter our sensations, our judgment, our imagination, our deliberations, and consequently, to make us act wrongly.”[38]
The theory of the innate character of crime through atavism is consequently quite erroneous. “It would be unseemly on my part to refer it, through atavism, to original sin or to the call of the blood of the ancient melodramas. I will not even say that it is derived through tradition, which is an environmental influence, from the old phrenological doctrine, although that is an error of the same kind. Errors, in fact, are like crimes; they have no need of atavism nor of immediate heredity, nor even of tradition, in order to repeat themselves. Causes of error or causes of crime, the springs are far from being dried up. They always flow abundantly. It is necessary in [[175]]science to react against errors, and in society to react against crimes. But it must never be forgotten that every man is normally exposed to commit both errors and crimes.”[39]
—I shall make only a few observations upon Professor Manouvrier’s study, a work which, in my opinion, is one of the best, not to say the best, upon the origin of crime, and in about fifty pages says more than many a bulky volume.
In the first place Professor Manouvrier shows that in our days wants have increased greatly, and he believes that civilization is the cause of it. I am of the opinion that this last assertion is not correct and that civilization has nothing to do with it. Many writers commit this error of confusing civilization and the present mode of production, and it is just for this reason that it is useful and necessary to correct it. All the evils that have been brought upon the peoples of Africa and of China, war, alcohol, etc., etc., have been called by the collective name of “civilization.” In reality it is those who have brought all these calamities upon these countries, and have tried to destroy a veritable, age-long civilization like that of China, who are the barbarians. It is not a civilizing instinct that has driven European states to a policy of expansion, but rather cupidity, eagerness for gain on the part of the owning class, who are seeking a new outlet for their merchandise; in short, it is the present mode of production, capitalism.
The same is true with regard to the constant increase of wants; it is the present system which creates wants. New methods of procuring profit are invented, and it is only with this in view that many inventions are made, most of them useless, often even harmful. And on the other hand there is a class of persons who grasp at any means, even the most absurd, of passing the time, and have the money to procure these means. And these wants spring up in other persons also, and the impossibility of satisfying them makes men the more eager. Consequently it is not civilization, but capitalism, which must be designated as the cause of this phenomenon.
In the second place, Professor Manouvrier thinks that criminality would diminish enormously, but without disappearing entirely, if the social laws were perfected so that each individual could satisfy his wants according to his capacities, his labor, and his services to the community. This is, in my opinion, entirely correct; but the maxim of Saint-Simon, “to every man according to his capacities, to each [[176]]capacity according to its works”, which, in Professor Manouvrier’s opinion, is perfect, by many others is not thought to be so, though superior to the present distribution of commodities. We can set over against this the rule, “that each shall work according to his faculties and his strength, and receive according to his needs.” If this were realized, crime would become almost unimaginable. Many persons are of the opinion that such a thing could never be realized. But they forget that it is exclusively from the environment that the enormous differences in wants arise (the wife of the millionaire has perhaps a thousand times as many needs as the wife of the proletarian). If these two persons had been born and brought up in the same environment, the wants of the one would have been to those of the other perhaps as 1 to 3, or even less, but certainly not more. And then those who believe in a future distribution according to needs, are of the opinion (and think they can prove it) that, if in the present organization of society egoism is omnipotent, the feeling of solidarity will be so strengthened in the future social organization, that the man endowed with great abilities and much energy, will not begrudge his fellow less highly endowed, the satisfaction of all his wants.
I would, at the same time, make a remark concerning the environmental school in general, a remark not to be considered as a criticism, for I agree perfectly that it is the environment that makes the criminal. It is this: it is not enough for the treatment of the question of criminality, to furnish proof of the assertion that the cause of crime is not inherent in man; it is also necessary to show in what respects the environment is criminogenous, and in what way it can be improved. Now the French School has given but little attention to this.—
V.
A. Baer.
The work of Dr. Baer, “Der Verbrecher in anthropologischer Beziehung”, has only an indirect importance for our subject, as the title indicates. Since his medical and anthropological studies lead him to the conclusion that the social atmosphere is the fundamental cause of crime, it is worth while to note his opinion. For this it will be sufficient to quote the following: “For us crime is, as Prins excellently expresses it, not an individual phenomenon, but a social one. ‘Criminality is made up of the elements of human society itself, it is not transcendent but immanent. We can see in it a kind of degeneration [[177]]of the social organism.… The criminal and the honest man are each dependent upon their environment. There are social conditions that are favorable to moral health, where there is no tendency, no inclination toward crime; there is a social environment where the atmosphere is corrupt, where unwholesome elements have accumulated, where crime settles as soot does in a flue, where the tendency toward crime bears fruit.’ Though Ferri has recently advocated the opinion that the criminal is the result of three factors, operative at the same time, and that these three causes are individual (i.e. anthropological), physical,[40] and social; in our opinion, on the other hand, these three causes are actually to be reduced to a single one, if, as he himself points out, we take into consideration the fact that the first two are both dependent upon social conditions. The anthropological and physical stigmata of criminals are, as we have endeavored to show above, in most cases wholly conditioned by the influences and circumstances of their environment.
“Crime, we will close this work by saying, is not the consequence of a special organization of the criminal, an organization which is peculiar to the criminal alone, and which forces him to the commission of criminal acts. The criminal, such by habit and apparently born as such, bears many marks of bodily and mental deformity, which have, however, neither in their totality nor singly, so marked and peculiar a character as to differentiate the criminal from his fellows as a distinct type. The criminal bears the traces of degeneracy that are to be found in abundance among the lower classes from which he mostly takes his rise. These traces, acquired through social conditions and transmitted, in his case at times emerge in stronger form. Whoever would do away with crime must do away with the social wrongs in which crime takes root and grows, and, in establishing and applying forms of punishment, must give more weight to the individuality of the criminal than to the category under which the crime falls.”[41] [[178]]
[3] “Compte rendu”, p. 232.
[Note to the American Edition: See also Professor Lacassagne’s preface to Laurent’s “Le criminel.”] [↑]
[4] “Penal Philosophy”, p. 322. [↑]
[8] Op. cit., pp. 362, 363. [↑]
[9] Op. cit., pp. 383, 384. [↑]
[10] Op. cit., pp. 389–391. [↑]
[12] On this subject see Kautsky, “Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und der psychologische Antrieb”, p. 655 (“Neue Zeit”, 1895–1896, II). See the criticism of the imitation theory by Professor Ferri, in the “Devenir Social”, 1895, entitled “La théorie sociologique de M. Tarde.” [↑]
[14] “Compte Rendu”, p. 199. [↑]
[25] See also by the same author: “Les crânes des suppliciés”, “Les aptitudes et les actes”, “L’atavisme et le crime”, and his reports to the Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Paris and at Brussels. [↑]
[40] [“Somatisch.” Though capable of being translated thus, this word is plainly not “physical” in the sense in which that is used for one of Ferri’s three causes.—Transl.] [↑]
[41] Pp. 410, 411.
See also: Dr. A. Bournet, “De la criminalité en France et en Italie”; G. Richard, “Les crises sociales et la criminalité” (“L’année sociologique”, 1898–99); L. Gumplowicz, “Das Verbrechen als soziale Erscheinung” (“Soziologische Essays”).
[Note to the American Edition: Compare further the recent works of the French school: E. Laurent, “Le criminel”; J. L. de Lanessan, “La lutte contre le crime”; J. Maxwell, “Le crime et la société.”] [↑]
CHAPTER V.
THE BIO-SOCIOLOGISTS.
I.
Ad. Prins.
I cannot better give Professor Prins’s opinion upon the subject of my work than by quoting what he says in his book, “Criminalité et répression”, and especially in his first chapter entitled “De la criminalité en général. Des classes criminelles. Des délinquants d’accident et des délinquants de profession.” There we read: “There exists no abstract type of a moral man, nor of a guilty man; crime is not an individual phenomenon, but a social phenomenon. Criminality proceeds from the very elements of humanity itself; it is not transcendent, but immanent; we can see in it a sort of degeneration of the social organism.”[1]
There is an environment favorable to moral health, where the tendency to crime is almost wholly lacking; there is a social environment where the atmosphere is corrupt, where unwholesome elements are heaped up, where the most vigorous perish, where criminality spreads like the mould in the dunghill; the tendency toward crime there is formidable, and we can say in this sense that it is a social fact with a social cause, and that it is in intimate connection with a given social organization.
Let us consider our own epoch for a moment. A century of progress and refinement is a century of vices; the increasing complexity of our mechanism creates, with new temptations, new occasions of falling. The car of civilization, like that of Juggernaut, destroys many of those who throw themselves under its wheels. The world has enormous appetites that it cannot satisfy: sensuality, greed of gain, a taste for and facility in speculation; the contrast between [[179]]great wealth and extreme poverty; the brutal necessities of the struggle for existence in the face of the concentration of property and of capital; the defects of the industrial organization, which abandons the proletariat to chance, keeps no watch over apprenticeship, and leaves the child of the working-man to the excitations of the streets and the promiscuity of the workshop, and finally sharpens everywhere the obscure instincts of animalism; all this recoils upon criminality with deplorable certainty. How far wrong we should be in such an environment simply to contrast the delinquent with the honest man! It is two social states that are contrasted; the one is based upon comfortable means, sociability, mutual protection, useful work, and thrift; the other upon poverty, isolation, egoism, and unproductive labor. And in the great urban agglomerations, pauperism, mendicity and vagrancy, idleness, the spirit of adventure, prostitution, the dissipation of strength, everything, in short, naturally concurs in developing social anemia.
“Take any district whatsoever, however poor, uncivilized, and wild, and you will always find in the great cities, London or Paris, New York or San Francisco, a worse environment and greater depravity. It is here, in the lowest slums, where never a glimmer of physical or moral well-being penetrates, that the disinherited live. They get a glimpse of the splendor of luxury only to hate it; they respect neither property nor life, because neither property nor life has any real value for them; they are born, grow pale, struggle, and die, without suspecting that for certain persons existence is good fortune, property a right, virtue a habit, and calm a constant state. Such is the natural and fatal home of criminality.
“In a quarter subjected to detestable hygiene, built upon marshy soil, devoid of drainage and potable water, furrowed with narrow and filthy streets, covered with hovels without life or air, where an atrophied population vegetates, epidemics are inevitable and propagate themselves with great intensity. In the same way, crime finds an easy and certain prey in the environment of the poor of a great city. The illegitimate and abandoned children, the children of convicts and prostitutes, the vagrants, etc. are so many designated recruits. Without family, without traditions, without fixed home or settled occupation, without relations with the ruling classes, what wonder that they have no other motive than complete egoism, no other activity than selfish and transitory efforts for the immediate satisfaction of their material appetites? The emigration from the country to the city still further increases this army and multiplies the chances of [[180]]crime. When the sons of peasants leave the plow for the workshop and come to seek fortune in the furnace of great cities, they follow the spirit of adventure; they must have, at any price, a means of subsistence, and as competition is great and temptations arise at every step, the prisons profit by this overplus that the country gives to the city. Another consequence of the immigration from the country is that the population becomes excessive, places are lacking, and wages fall below the living expenses. Ducpetiaux showed, in 1856, that the budget of the working-man in the great cities is lower than the sum representing the budget of the working-man in prison. This situation has not changed, and the laboring class, badly lodged, badly nourished, vegetate at the mercy of economic crises. The working-man is always on the verge of vagrancy, the vagrant always on the verge of crime. The whole proletariat is thus exposed in the front rank, and whether it is a question of sickness or crime, it is the first to fall.”[2]
“Such are the conditions of the development of the criminal classes, that is to say of the classes where we meet the tendency to crime. And it is of importance to remark that we can determine their legal character; they are the vagrants and delinquents by profession. They are clearly differentiated from the vagabonds and delinquents by accident. This distinction, which modern statistics has brought into relief, is now the basis of penal science, and the judge can no longer overlook it.
“The occasional delinquents constitute the minority, their life is regular, their instincts are right; a sudden passion, an unpremeditated outburst, a passing depression of the will, leads them into crime; a sort of fever dominates them and, the fit once past, their normal life takes up its course again.
“On the other hand, the professional delinquents, who make up the largest part of the population of the prisons, are really the criminal class. They are the hardened, the incorrigible, the recidivists. They form, by the side of regular society, the great rebel tribe, where gather and mingle poverty, ignorance, vice, idleness, and prostitution. The soldiers of this army obey, not a momentary desire, but a permanent tendency. They do not always commit crime for crime’s sake, but the most trivial incident drives them to it; they profit by every opportunity, and we can say that, as in certain circles virtue is a reflex act, so crime is a reflex act with them. Further, they have, quite like the civilized world, a public opinion which supports them, [[181]]arouses them, gives them their own kind of popularity, and constitutes, in a word, an incentive for the heroes of vice, just as the other public opinion encourages the soldiers of duty.
“What is true of criminal society as a whole, is equally true of the individual as such. In each infraction of the law, besides the accidental factor, i.e. age, character, temperament, in a word, the personal disposition, there is the collective or social factor, i.e. the environment, the permanent conditions, the general laws. With the occasional delinquent the individual factor predominates, it is especially the man that appears. With the habitual delinquent, it is the social factor, the collectivity that comes upon the scene.
“In the well-to-do, polished, educated classes, who have lacked nothing and have had the benefit of civilizing influences from the cradle, the fault is chiefly personal, and it is the exception. In the lower strata, where everything is lacking, where, to combat evil, men have neither in the present, social protection, nor in the past, the generations of ancestors who have enjoyed power, wealth, and education, it is chiefly collective. In this sense, then, the collective forces have a dominant action in criminality; in order to combat it these must be attacked, and the legislator finds in the law only a blunted weapon if he does not understand this supreme truth, the social character of criminality.”[3]
II.
W. D. Morrison.
The preface to “Crime and its Causes” contains an abridgment of the opinion of the author upon the influence of economic conditions. He says there:
“Economic prosperity, however widely diffused, will not extinguish crime. Many people imagine that all the evils afflicting society spring from want, but this is only partially true. A small number of crimes are probably due to sheer lack of food, but it has to be borne in mind that crime would still remain an evil of enormous magnitude even if there were no such calamities as destitution and distress. As a matter of fact easy circumstances have less influence on conduct than is generally believed; prosperity generates criminal inclinations as well as adversity, and on the whole the rich are just as much addicted to crime as the poor.”[4]
The chapter “Climate and Crime” contains some observations that [[182]]are of interest in connection with our subject. In speaking of the great number of crimes against persons in Italy, the author says:
“Nor can it be said to be entirely due to economic distress. A condition of social misery has undoubtedly something to do with the production of crime. In countries where there is much wealth side by side with much misery, as in France and England, adverse social circumstances drive a certain portion of the community into criminal courses. But where this great inequality of social conditions does not exist—where all are poor as in Ireland or Italy—poverty alone is not a weighty factor in ordinary crime. In Ireland, for example, there is almost as much poverty as exists in Italy, and if the amount of crime were determined by economic circumstances alone, Ireland ought to have as black a record as her southern sister. Instead of that she is on the whole as free from crime as the most prosperous countries of Europe.”[5]
—This quotation is one of the best samples of Morrison’s logic and knowledge of facts! Italy is poor; Ireland is poor; the former has many crimes, the latter few. Hence, economic conditions are not an important factor. To say nothing of the care necessary in comparing two countries where the penal law, police, courts, etc. are very different, there is an error of logic in the quotation. For poverty may be in one of these countries a determinant that leads to a certain phenomenon, while in another country it does not lead to it, because neutralized by a counter-determinant. And then, the knowledge of facts that Morrison gives evidence of here, is not great. It is not at all true that in Italy every one is poor. On the contrary, there is plenty of wealth in that country, while Ireland, on the other hand, is drained by landlords who live elsewhere.[6]—
The chapter that interests us next is that entitled “Destitution and Crime.” “A ‘destitute person’ is a person who is without house or home, who has no work, who is able and willing to work but can get none, and has nothing but starvation staring him in the face.”[7]
According to Morrison there are two kinds of crime of which a destitute person may be guilty, namely theft and mendicity. Two questions must be answered, then, first, what percentage is there of these crimes? second, how far can one attribute theft and mendicity to destitution?
During the years 1887–1888 the number of cases tried in England [[183]]and Wales was 726,698, of which 8% were crimes against property and 7% offenses against the “Vagrancy Acts.” Consequently 15% of all the crimes might have been committed because of destitution. From investigations made by himself, half the thieves had work and were earning something at the time they committed their crimes.
Now we still have to explain the other half of the cases of theft. Those who committed these thefts were without work, then; but there were among them habitual criminals, and these could probably have found work, but did not want to work. Therefore they were not “destitute persons.” This leaves still 25% of the thieves. Among these destitution is now truly the direct cause. However lack of work is not the sole cause, but the fact that children of proletarians are left to themselves when their parents are sick or dead, enters in. And then many aged working-men become criminals because they are too old to work and no one supports them. Drunkards also at times come to commit crimes because of poverty, since they find it difficult to work. The estimate is, then, as follows:
| Proportion of criminals earning at the time of arrest | 4% |
| Proportion,, of,, criminals,, habitual thieves | 2% |
| Proportion,, of,, criminals,, adults without shelter and old men | 1% |
| Proportion,, of,, drunkards, vagrants | 1% |
| Proportion,, of,, crimes against property compared with total number of crimes | 8% |
Then come the infractions of the “Vagrancy Acts.” The offenses that are punished under these laws are chiefly prostitution, presence in public places with criminal intentions, presence in a particular house with criminal intentions, and carrying burglars’ implements. Prostitution aside, destitution ought not to be considered as the cause of these infractions, according to the author, because the guilty persons are those who ordinarily will not work and would not change their lot for anyone else’s. The class of vagrants is no more unhappy than any other; it has even its own philosophy. (—Who could be unhappy, then? This statement of the case gives one a great desire to ask the author how it happens that no people of means have adopted this enviable career.—) The same reasoning applies to most of the mendicants (45% of those who break the vagrancy laws), they do not want to work. Another fraction is made up of those who cannot find work; their number is difficult to determine; according to Morrison’s opinion it is not very high (he estimates it at 2% for mendicants). It is especially aged persons who belong to this class. There are two principal reasons for this. [[184]]
First, the increasing use of machines, which throw workmen out of employment, while increasing the possibility of utilizing the labor of women and children.
—However true this observation, it is nevertheless very incomplete. It is not the machine that is the cause, but the system of free labor, which throws everyone on his own resources when he can work no longer, whether this is from lack of work or from the disability of the worker.—
A second cause of vagrancy and mendicity is to be found in the Trades Unions. For these Unions have been able to obtain a uniform wage, and aged workmen must, in accordance with their rules, earn as much as the young ones although not able to do as much work. The employers, not being able to afford to give them the whole amount, discharge them.
The circumstance that there are more male than female beggars is a proof to the author that economic conditions are not the cause of mendicity, etc., for women ordinarily live under worse conditions than men.
“The only possible explanation of this state of thing is that vagrancy is, to a very large extent, entirely unconnected with economic conditions; the position of trade either for good or evil is a very secondary factor in producing this disease in the body politic; its extirpation would not be effected by the advent of an economic millennium; its roots are, as a rule, in the disposition of the individual and not to any serious degree in the industrial constitution of society.”[8]
After having stated that, in his opinion, prostitution also has little to do with economic conditions, Morrison arrives at the conclusion that 14% of the delinquents under the Vagrancy Acts have been made so by destitution; as such delinquents constitute 7% of the total of the criminal population, these destitute persons form 2% of the whole.[9] Adding these 2% to the 2% of destitute persons among the thieves, we get a total of 4%. Further, the author estimates the destitute persons among the other criminals (those not punished for theft or infractions of the Vagrancy Acts) at 1%. Of all criminals, then, 5% have become such from destitution, according to Morrison.
—I shall not insist upon proving that these calculations have little value. In the first place all the figures are only estimates, [[185]]without any indication of what they are based on. In the second place Morrison has only proved, supposing his estimates are correct, that 5% of the criminals belong to a category defined by the author himself. All this gives him absolutely no right to conclude that economic conditions are not a powerful factor in crime. Just where the writer believes that the question has been solved the difficulties properly commence. If we wish to treat the question of vagrancy in a scientific manner we must ask: how does it happen that with the present mode of production there are found persons who prefer vagrancy to work? This is one of the questions that must be answered, yet for Morrison it does not exist. The causes of professional theft, alcoholism, etc. seem, according to the author, to have nothing to do with economic conditions. I shall show in the second part of this work how far wrong he is.—
The following chapter treats of “poverty and crime.” To prove the slightness of the causal connection between the two, Morrison gives the following table:
| Italy | 1880–84 | New cases of theft per an. to 100,000 inh. | 221 |
| France | 1879–83 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 121 |
| Belgium | 1876–80 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 143 |
| Germany | 1882–83 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 262 |
| England | 1880–84 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 228 |
| Scotland | 1880–84 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 289 |
| Ireland | 1880–84 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 101 |
| Hungary | 1876–80 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 82 |
| Spain | 1883–84 | New,, cases,, of,, theft,, per,, an.,, to,, 100,000,, inh.,, | 74 |
England is six times as rich as Italy, and the figure for theft is greater; hence, economic conditions are not causes, etc. etc.[10]
—It has been some years since Quetelet pointed out (see Chap. II, Sec. II, of this work) that absolute wealth throws no light on the criminal question, because the total wealth of a country gives no idea of its distribution. Yet Morrison thinks that the preceding table proves the correctness of his statement!—
The author sees a second proof in support of his reasoning in the fact that during the prosperous period of 1870–74 criminality in England was greater than during the period of economic depression from 1884 to 1888. (—See our summaries of the works of Tugan-Baranowsky and of Müller, where it is shown that the economic conditions [[186]]of that period do have a relation to criminality. There is perhaps no country where the connection between crime and the course of economic events is so close as in England; and it is surprising that there are authors like Morrison who are so little in touch with the situation, and who yet express themselves so decidedly.—)
In America the immigrants commit fewer crimes on the average than those who are born in the country; the position of these last being better, economic conditions are not causes of crime. (—As if assertions as vague as this: “the American has a better position than the immigrant”, could have any value!—)
Morrison sees another proof in the fact that the criminality in the English colony of Victoria, where prosperity is fairly general, differs little from that of other countries where the prosperity is less. (—See A. Sutherland, “Résultats de la déportation en Australie”, Compte Rendu du Ve Congr. d’Anthr. Crim., p. 270, where it is shown that criminality in Australia on account of the deportation of English criminals is great, but has fallen continually since 1850, and now is not so high as in Italy, Sweden, Saxony, and Prussia. So this proof given by the author is not convincing.—)
Then the author draws attention to the fact that, according to him, the number of criminals in the different classes of society in England is proportional to the respective numbers of individuals in each of these classes. Finally he also thinks that his thesis is supported by the fact that during the summer months the prisons in England are more populated than in winter.
—The author deceives himself, for to find out that more crimes are committed in winter than in summer one has only to consult, not the statistics of the prisons, but those of the courts; the former give no information as to the time when the offense was committed; it is even probable that a part of the prisoners incarcerated in summer committed their offenses in winter. Many writers who have not fallen into this error have come to the conclusion that crimes and misdemeanors against property, which are those chiefly in question, increase in winter and decrease in summer.
If one wished to make a complete criticism of Morrison’s work it would be necessary to write a whole book, so great is the number of his errors and omissions, which is why I refer to the second part of my work.
The fundamental error of the author is that he believes that the question of how far economic conditions lead to crime is exhausted when the effect of poverty has been investigated. This is only [[187]]a part (though an important one) of the question, which though apparently simple is in reality very complicated.
Finally, I must protest against the unmerited reproach that the English Trades Unions are the cause of criminality among aged working-men. We live in a society in which a great proportion of the men wear themselves out for a small wage in order to enrich others, and where aged working-men who can now do little or no work are tossed aside like oranges from which the juice has been squeezed. When they commit crimes, therefore, it is society that is the cause of it, and not the unions, which, after years of struggle, have succeeded in getting higher wages for their members than those of non-union labor.[11]—
III.
F. Von Liszt.
The following quotation, taken from “Die gesellschaftlichen Ursachen des Verbrechens”,[12] gives the opinion of this author in a few words:
“Crime is the necessary result of the joint action of two groups of conditions. The first group is due, partly to the innate, partly to the acquired character of the agent; the other to the environment surrounding him. The microbe of crime flourishes only in the culture medium of society. This sentence, which has gradually become a commonplace, indicates the significance of social conditions for the origination and development of criminality.”[13]
“It is obvious that a diminution in the number of certain crimes may be brought about by an improvement in the social order. The impulse toward crime is undoubtedly quickly strengthened by social conditions, and also quickly made weaker. Political and religious offenses become so much the more numerous, the more definitely and relentlessly the dominant opinion takes its stand against diverse persuasions. If today a certain tendency in art were to attain state recognition and the protection of the criminal law, tomorrow the aesthetic heretic would be persecuted as the religious heretics were persecuted in earlier centuries. The sexual instinct will constantly long for satisfaction and take it where it finds it. If you prohibit the possibility of such satisfaction within the bounds of legality, the [[188]]instinct will break the bonds and lead to crime. And whoever finds neither bread nor work will, in the great majority of cases, be able to discover ways and means of securing the one without the other at the expense of society.… ‘The beast in man’ is in all circles, in all strata of our society.… But the beast, with all its wild passions, with rage and hate, with covetousness and envy, with thirst for blood and insatiable vanity, is it not derived from father or mother, who have drained the pleasures of life or the woes of life to the dregs, who were corrupted in blood through their own fault, or without their own fault, before they gave life to the germ to which they imparted the curse of their forefathers as a heritage?
“A reorganization of our social order will materially lessen the impulsion to crime in the men who are living today, but infinitely more important and infinitely more permanent will be its effect upon coming generations. While diminishing the number of those tainted by heredity it will tame the beast in man. This is no Utopia. It will be easier, perhaps, to underestimate the effect of such a transformation, than to appreciate its full value.
“But which transformation? That is the question that we must answer, if we are not to be pushed aside as harmless visionaries.
“Our entire education, in school as in life, rests upon suggestion. What keeps us from crime is the inhibitory ideas, which are instilled into us until they permeate our flesh and blood and control our actions, without our being conscious of it. ‘Thou shalt’, ‘thou shalt not’, these general prescriptions of right and morality, of religion and philanthropy, or whatever you choose to call it, must determine our conduct, unless we stop to consider, hesitate, and delay.…
“The inhibitory ideas, however, retain their force only if we live in the community of our fellows, the enclosed circle held together by like views and a community of interests. Put upon his own resources, the true man makes himself known. But the men who can do this are rare. The great majority of us need outside support. Who has not seen in his own experience how the judgment and prejudice, the beliefs and superstitions of his associates have a determining effect upon him; how he supports others and is supported by them? Break up the enclosed circle and you weaken or annihilate the inhibitory ideas; shatter society to atoms, so that each stands by himself in the war of all against all, and you set loose whatever evil instincts have their roots in us; ‘declass’ man and you have driven him into the arms of crime.
“And this declassing has been most abundantly provided for by [[189]]our present economic system. It has unshackled egoism without setting any bounds to it. It reaps what it sows. In the proletariat it has created the very medium in which the microbe of crime flourishes. Next to the wealth of individuals lies the misery of the masses. Do we still wonder, then, that the criminal-statistician laments an increasing number of cases. Every society has the criminals that it deserves.”[14]
—The opinion of Professor von Liszt and of other bio-sociologists with regard to crime is a union of the doctrine of the Italian and French schools. Having already given a criticism of these schools I will limit myself to a few remarks.
The formula, “every crime is the product of an individual factor on the one side, and of social factors on the other”, is of little value for the question, being applicable to every act, even the most laudable, and explains very little of what is peculiar to crime. A more special examination of the so-called individual factor of crime shows that it is formed, for example, of great needs, of highly developed muscular strength—in short, of things which do not belong to crime alone; or it may be a lack of moral conceptions (the result of an unfavorable environment, of bad education, etc.). A veritable individual factor is to be found only in some special cases, where crime is the result of a predisposition, resulting from a morbid mental condition, combined with unfavorable circumstances. At times, then, crime is the resultant of an individual factor with a social factor; in most cases this is not so. In maintaining that it is always these two together which give birth to crime, one makes use of a commonplace, since by individual factors are understood conditions necessary to every act; or else the statement is quite inaccurate.
Finally it may be said also that most of the bio-sociologists, while recognizing the great influence exercised by environment do not give any description of this environment. It is not enough to name social imperfections existing in our days, and to demand their reform, one after another; we must first of all find out whether these imperfections are connected with the present economic system, and can be removed without attacking the system itself.[15]— [[190]]
IV.
P. Näcke.[16]
In his work, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, Dr. Näcke treats the criminal question from the medico-anthropological point of view. However, his remarks upon the connection which exists between economic conditions and crime are very important. In the fifth chapter, entitled, “Die anthropologisch-biologischen Beziehungen zum Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, he puts the question: can one fix the idea of “crime” anatomically?
According to him the answer must be an absolute negative. “Semal is right when he says: ‘The moral sense is a slow and gradual acquisition of the ages.… The conscience of peoples like that of the individual, calls every act moral that is useful to the agent himself or to others.…’ Every people, then, fixes the concept ‘crime’ according to the moral code prevailing among them at the time; it is consequently not rooted in man physiologically, but is as Manouvrier brilliantly demonstrates, purely sociological. It is therefore really nonsense to seek for anthropological stigmata for a sociological concept.
“But another consideration also leads us to the same result. The stability of a people demands the establishing of certain boundaries, called ‘laws’, the transgression of which might disturb the social order, and therefore must be punished. But the laws form only single boundary marks, not a tight enclosure, so that between them many, consciously or not, pass through without being caught or [[191]]punished. Besides, the laws of a higher morality do not always correspond with the prevailing legal system, so that many things are offenses in the eyes of the moral code that are not such in the eyes of the law, a fact which, as is well known, the conscienceless take advantage of. It is plain, therefore, that there are innumerable transgressions that are not punished, innumerable criminals who pass as honest men, so that we cannot really speak of criminals and honest men, but simply of the punished and the unpunished.
“Punishment is, however, as we have already seen, a poor criterion. Habitual criminals are often not nearly so depraved as many persons of good reputation, especially in certain districts whose moral concepts are of a very elastic kind; or as others who have, to be sure, been punished but once, but who, in all their actions, have always been crafty criminals.”[17]
“As there is to be found no such thing as absolute bodily and mental soundness, so there is no such thing as an absolutely ‘honest’ man. ‘We are altogether sinners’, say the Scriptures with entire truth—and not in thought only—none of us is proof against becoming a criminal, and under certain circumstances, even a great one.”[18]
“There is an unbroken gradation from the purest to the worst man. When we speak simply of ‘criminals’ we mean only those standing on the farthest step, who are not always, however, the worst. It is a question, then, of the refuse of the world, and not of real crime. In every environment there are always individuals who become evil-doers exclusively or chiefly through circumstances—this possibility no mortal can escape—and on the other hand there are those who owe this in part (seldom, however, exclusively) to their inferior psychic personality, which allows them to run counter to the prevailing morality and drives them to breach of the law; these last constitute the criminals in the narrow sense.”[19]
In chapter VI, “Zusammenhang von Verbrechen und Wahnsinn”, the author explains that in case an individual factor exists, it is not ordinarily this alone that leads to crime, but it must be coupled with a social factor.
This is what Dr. Näcke says of the causes of this individual factor: “Indeed it is even probable that in the last analysis the individual factor is dependent upon the environment, since this so influenced the parents, grandparents, etc. that the germ of the next generation must have been injured directly or later through corrupted blood [[192]]or narrow pelvis on the part of the mother (both again dependent upon the environment).”[20]
Further along he makes this idea more specific, when he is examining the different causes of crime. Among these causes the author cites the following:
- 1. Lesion of the germ (favored especially by the marriage of degenerates).
- 2. Alcoholism.
- 3. Syphilis.
- 4. Malnutrition and unhealthy mode of life.
- 5. Excessive labor of women and children.
- 6. Bad domestic life.
- 7. Desertion in which children under age are left.
The author sums up in the following terms: “In what has gone before we have attempted to pick out and follow up some threads of the complex social fabric, in the firm persuasion that only an improvement of the environment in its thousand-fold ramifications will be able effectively to combat crime, and gradually to exert a favorable influence upon the individual factors, which are certainly not to be undervalued.
“If we survey the whole matter, everything comes in the end to the stomach-question; only so long as this is not solved—and perhaps it never can be satisfactorily solved—must we keep the point of view given above practically before us, which, upon the solution of the matter, becomes in large measure no longer necessary.”[21]
V.
Havelock Ellis.[22]
The work of Dr. Havelock Ellis, entitled “The Criminal”, contains only one passage which is of importance for the question of [[193]]criminality considered from the economic point of view. Like most bio-sociologists he considers the social factors as the most important. This is the passage in question:
“The problem of criminality is not an isolated one that can be dealt with by fixing our attention on that and that alone. It is a problem that on closer view is found to merge itself very largely into all those problems of our social life that are now pressing for solution, and in settling them we shall to a great extent settle it. The rising flood of criminality is not an argument for pessimism or despair. It is merely an additional spur to that great task of social organization to which during the coming century we are called.
“It is useless, or worse than useless, to occupy ourselves with methods for improving the treatment of criminals, so long as the conditions of life render the prison a welcome and desired shelter. So long as we foster the growth of reckless classes we foster the growth of criminality. So long as there are a large body of women in the East of London, and in other large centers, who are prepared to say, ‘It’s Jack the Ripper or the bridge with me. What’s the odds?’ there will be a still larger number of persons who will willingly accept the risks of prison. ‘What’s the odds?’ Liberty is dear to every man who is fed and clothed and housed, and he will not usually enter a career of crime unless he has carefully calculated the risks of losing his liberty, and found them small; but food and shelter are even more precious than liberty, and these may be secured in prison. As things are, the asylum and the workhouse, against which there is a deep prejudice, ingrained and irrational, would have a greater deterring effect than the prison. There are every morning in Paris 50,000 persons who do not know how they will eat or where they will sleep. It is the same in every great city; for such the prison can be nothing but a home. It is well known that the life of the convict, miserable as it is, with its dull routine and perpetual surveillance, is yet easier, less laborious, and far more healthy than that to which thousands of honest working-men are condemned throughout Great Britain.”[23]
VI.
Carroll D. Wright.
The author of the brochure, “The Relation of Economic Conditions to the Causes of Crime”, begins by declaring that there are two kinds [[194]]of criminals; persons who have become such from their psycho-physical constitution, and others who have become such from circumstances.
“I believe the criminal is an undeveloped man in all his elements, whether you think of him as a worker or as a moral and intellectual being. His faculties are all undeveloped, not only those which enable him to labor honestly and faithfully for the care and support of himself and his family, but also all his moral and intellectual faculties. He is not a fallen being: he is an undeveloped individual.”[24]
The author then continues by saying that since there is a relation more or less close between all the important social questions and the labor question, it is necessary to take that up also in studying the criminal question.
We know that there are three great systems of labor: the system resting upon slavery, the feudal system, and the system now in force, i.e. that of free labor. In the first two, which intrinsically do not differ much, crime had a totally different character from what it has under the last. Under the feudal system the peasants lived in the most deplorable condition, without hope of betterment. In many countries conditions were so bad that great bands of thieves and brigands overran them. During the reign of Henry VIII, which lasted 38 years, 72,000 criminals were executed. “Pauperism, therefore, did not attract legislation, and crime, the offspring of pauperism and idleness, was brutally treated; and these conditions, betokening an unsound social condition, existed until progress made pauperism, and crime as well, the disgrace of the nation, and it was then that pauperism began to be recognized as a condition that might be relieved through legislation.”[25]
In the end the feudal system was overthrown and that of free labor, the present system, became general. Since then the differences between poverty and wealth have appeared more distinctly.
“Carry industry to a country not given to mechanical production or to any systematic form of labor, employ three-fourths of its inhabitants, give them a taste of education, of civilization, make them feel the power of moral forces even in a slight degree, and the misery of the other fourth can be gauged by the progress of the three-fourths, and a class of paupers and resultant criminals will be observed. We have in our own day a most emphatic illustration of this in the emancipation of slaves in this country (America). Under the old system the negro slave was physically comfortable, as a rule. He was [[195]]cared for, he was nursed in sickness, fed and clothed, and in old age his physical comforts were continued. He had no responsibility, and, indeed, exercised no skill beyond what was taught him. To eat, to work and to sleep were all that was expected of him, and, unless he had a cruel master, he lived the life that belongs to the animal. Since his emancipation and his endowment with citizenship he has been obliged to support himself and his family, and to contend with all obstacles belonging to a person in a state of freedom. Under the system of villeinage in the old country it could not be said that there were any general poor, for the master and the lord of the manor took care of the laborers their whole lives; and in our Southern towns, during slavery, this was true, so that in the South there were few, if any, poorhouses, and few, if any, inmates of penal institutions. The South today knows what pauperism is, as England learned when the system of villeinage departed. Southern prisons have become active, and all that belongs to the defective, the dependent, and the delinquent classes has come to be familiar to the South.…” “But so far as the modern industrial order superinduces idleness or unemployment, in so far it must be considered as having a direct relation to the causes of crime.”[26]
After having tried to show, by the aid of some historical examples, that the conditions in the system which preceded ours were of a nature much more serious than those of our own day, he continues as follows:
“In the study of economic conditions, and whatever bearing they may have upon crime, I can do no better than to repeat, as a general idea, a statement made some years ago by Mr. Ira Steward, of Massachusetts, one of the leading labor reformers in that state in his day. He said: ‘Starting in the labor problem from whatever point we may, we reach, as the ultimate cause of our industrial, social, moral, and material difficulties, the terrible fact of poverty. By poverty we mean something more than pauperism. The latter is a condition of entire dependence upon charity, while the former is a condition of want, of lack, of being without, though not necessarily a condition of complete dependence.’
“It is in this view that the proper understanding of the subject given me, in its comprehensiveness and the development of the principles which underlie it, means the consideration of the abolition of pauperism and the eradication of crime; and the definitions given by Mr. Steward carry with them all the elements of those great [[196]]special inquiries embodied in the very existence of our vast charitable, penal, and reformatory institutions, ‘How shall poverty be abolished, and crime be eradicated?’ ”[27]
Let the circumstances be favorable or unfavorable, let the governments be liberal or despotic, let the religion and commercial systems be what they may, crime has always existed. This is why it would exist even if there were no longer any unemployment, if everyone had received an education, if the efforts of temperance societies and social reformers had been realized, and Christianity were universal. But all these good influences together would certainly reduce crime to the minimum.
Criminality will decrease but little if the improvements have to do simply with the physical condition and not at the same time with moral and intellectual conditions. It is, on the other hand, not to be disputed, according to the author, that a development of these last qualities will have a favorable influence upon criminality. For the man who has received an education will betake himself to crime less quickly than the ignorant man, while on account of his education he will generally be able to find work to protect him against poverty and crime. The lack of work is an important cause of crime; for example, among the convicts of Massachusetts there were 68% who had been without work, and in the whole United States in 1890, 74% of the murderers had been without work. This lack of employment may have been because of an antipathy to work or of a lack of opportunity. And it is this last case especially that occurs only too often in the present social organization.
Great improvements are urgently demanded; living conditions must become better and more sanitary, and work must be better paid. The fundamental complaint of the writer against political economy is that it has not considered moral forces as one of its elements. As soon as it shall have considered them as such it will have entered upon the way that leads to real improvements.
After having indicated what these improvements ought to be, the author goes on in these terms: “In a state in which labor had all its rights there would be, of course, little pauperism and little crime. On the other hand, the undue subjection of the laboring man must tend to make paupers and criminals, and entail a financial burden upon wealth which it would have been easier to prevent than to endure; and this prevention must come in a large degree through educated labor. [[197]]
“Do not understand me as desiring to give the impression that I believe crime to be a necessary accompaniment of our industrial system. I have labored in other places and at other times to prove the reverse, and I believe the reverse to be true. Our sober, industrious working men and women are as free from vicious and criminal courses as any other class. What I am contending for, relates entirely to conditions affecting the few. The great volume of crime is found outside the real ranks of industry.”[28]
It might still be asked whether civilization favors crime. The answer would have to be at once affirmative and negative. Affirmative in exceptional times, otherwise negative. The more civilization advances, the better the condition of the working people will become, the more equitable will be the division of profits, and the more crime will diminish. The attempts of Robert Owen and many others prove the truth of this.
The author closes his study with these words: “Trade instruction, technical education, manual training—all these are efficient elements in the reduction of crime, because they all help to better and truer economic conditions. I think, from what I have said, the elements of solution are clearly discernible. Justice to labor, equitable distribution of profits under some system which I feel sure will supersede the present, and without resorting to socialism, instruction in trades by which a man can earn his living outside a penal institution, the practical application of the great moral law in all business relations—all these elements, with the more enlightened treatment of the criminal when apprehended, will lead to a reduction in the volume of crime, but not to the millennium; for ‘human experience from time immemorial tells us that the earth neither was, nor is, nor ever will be, a heaven, nor yet a hell’, (Dr. A. Schäffle) but the endeavor of right-minded men and women, the endeavor of every government, should be to make it less a hell and more a heaven.”[29]
—The study of Carroll D. Wright contains some very true observations upon the relation between crime and economic conditions (for example, upon the difference between the slave and the free laborer, whose liberty consists chiefly in this, that he can die of hunger if he cannot find work or is no longer able to work). But in general the work gives the impression of vagueness and hesitation proper to the school of economists and sociologists to which the writer belongs. They condemn certain manifestations of capitalism, but [[198]]wish to maintain the “causa causarum”, the system itself. This is not the place to speak of this more fully and I will confine myself to pointing out some historical errors of the author.
In the first place, a classification of economic systems into only three is incomplete. It is very surprising that this error should have been made by an American. For the North American Indians neither lived under the feudal system nor under that of free labor, and for the most part never knew slavery; the author has forgotten to mention the primitive-communistic mode of production.
In the second place, it is incorrect to call all those who lived under the feudal system “poor.”
In the third place it was not to the feudal system that the famous executions under Henry VIII belong, but rather to incipient capitalism which, by dispossessing a great number of peasants, made them poor. (Compare More, “Utopia”, and Marx, “Capital.”)—
Among the partisans of the bio-sociological doctrine, I think that certain other authors should also be classed, for example: L. Gordon Rylands, “Crime, Its Causes and Remedy”; Dallemagne (see p. 224 of the “Actes du IIIme Congrès d’Anthrop. Crimin.”); Drill (see “Des principes fondamentaux de l’école d’anthropologie criminelle” and “Les fondements et le but de la responsabilité pénale”); Kovalewsky, “La psychologie criminelle”; Orchanski, “Les criminels russes.” With regard to Russian criminologists see Frassati, “Die neue positive Schule des Strafrechts in Russland.”
The Dutch criminologists must be reckoned as among the bio-sociologists.
G. A. v. Hamel, “De tegenwoordige beweging op het gebied van het strafrecht”, and “L’anarchisme et le combat contre l’anarchisme au point de vue de l’anthropologie criminelle”; G. Jelgersma, “De geboren misdadiger”; A. Aletrino, “Twee opstellen over crimineele anthropologie”, and “Handleiding bij de studie der crimineele anthropologie”; S. R. Steinmetz, “De ziekten der maatschappij.” Dr. C. Winkler inclines, as it seems to me, rather toward the opinion of the Italian criminologists. See: “Iets over crimineele anthropologie.”
[Note to the American Edition: Of the recent literature there should be mentioned: in Germany, especially Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, and Wulffen, “Psychologie des Verbrechens.” In Holland the authors already named, van Kan, and de Roos are to be classed among the bio-sociologists. For Russia there should be added von Bechterew, “Das Verbrechertum im Lichte der objektiven Psychologie.” In America it seems to me more reliance is placed upon the Italian theory than in Europe; see, for example, Henderson, “Introduction into the Study of the Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes.” Upon the recent development of criminology in Holland, England, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Greece, and Servia see the study already cited of von Thót, “Die positive Strafrechtsschule in einigen europäischen Ländern.”] [[199]]
[6] Cf. Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, II, p. 558. [↑]
[9] [14% of 7% is about 1%, of course. The mistake is Morrison’s.—Transl.] [↑]
[10] In his article, “The Interpretation of Criminal Statistics” (“Journal of the Royal Statistical Society”), 1897, Morrison says: “I am inclined to agree … that the attempt to institute … comparisons (of international character) is at present impracticable” (p. 15). It would have been well if he had not forgotten this opinion when he wrote “Crime and its Causes.” [↑]
[11] See, by the same author: “Juvenile Offenders” (chaps. VII and VIII). [↑]
[12] See, by the same author, “Das Verbrechen als sozial-pathologische Erscheinung.” [↑]
[15] [Note to the American Edition: I am glad to be able to call the reader’s attention to the fact that Professor von Liszt has changed his opinion with regard to the bio-sociological hypothesis of crime, and must now be ranked with the partisans of the environmental school. (See “Die gesellschaftlichen Faktoren der Kriminalität”, pp. 438–439, “Strafrechtliche Aufsätze und Vorträge”, II.)
Chiefly on account of Professor von Liszt’s initiative, there has appeared [[190]]in Germany a series of monographs upon the criminality of a province, of a district, etc. (criminal topography). Here are the titles in chronological order: K. Böhmert, “Die sächsische Kriminalstatistik mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Jahre 1882–1887” (“Zeitschr. d. K. Sächsische Statistischen Bureaus”, XXXV; Damme, “Die Kriminalität in ihre Zusammenhänge in der Provinz Schleswig-Holstein vom Januar 1882 bis dahin 1890” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrechtsw.”, XII.); W. Weidemann, “Die Ursachen der Kriminalität im Herzogtum Sachsen-Meiningen”; B. Blau, “Kriminalstatistische Untersuchung der Kreise Marienwerder und Thorn”; P. Frauenstädt, “Kriminalistische Heimatkunde” (“Zeitschr. f. Socialwissenschaft”, VI.); E. Peterselie, “Untersuchungen über die Kriminalität in der Provinz Sachsen”; F. Dochow, “Die Kriminalität im Amtsbezirk Heidelberg”; F. Galle, “Untersuchung über die Kriminalität in der Provinz Schlesien” (“Gerichtssaal” LXXI, LXXII); W. Stöwesand, “Die Kriminalität in der Provinz Posen und ihre Ursachen”; A. Sauer, “Frauenkriminalität in Amtsbezirk Mannheim”.] [↑]
[16] To my great satisfaction Dr. Näcke says, in a criticism of my book, that through reading it, from a bio-sociologist he has almost become an out-and-out follower of the environmental theory (of the French school) (“Archiv f. Krim.-anthr. u. Kriminalstatistik,” XXI, p. 188). [↑]
[21] P. 208.
See also, by the same author: “Die neueren Erscheinungen auf kriminal-anthropologischen Gebiete und ihre Bedeutung” (“Zeitschrift f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, XIV.).
[Note to the American Edition: See also Näcke’s “Die Ueberbleibsel der Lombrosischen kriminalanthropologischen Theorien” (“Archiv f. Krim.-anthr. u. Kriminalität”, L. (1912), pp. 326 ff.)] [↑]
[22] In his introduction this author distinguishes three groups of factors: the cosmic, the biological, and the social. Consequently he can be ranked in the same category with Professor Ferri. However, I have thought that he ought rather to be classed among the bio-sociologists, because he gives a preponderating importance to the social factors. As he himself says (p. vii of the introduction), his work is one of the proofs that the divergences of opinions of the schools of criminologists is not great. [↑]
CHAPTER VI.
THE SPIRITUALISTS.[1]
I.
H. Joly.
It is in the second chapter of his “France criminelle”, bearing the title of “Richesse et misère”, that the author gives his opinion of the connection between criminality and economic conditions.[2]
According to Joly, the opinion expressed by many persons that poverty is the great factor in criminality, appears to be true, at least at first sight; for the problem is, in fact, very complex and difficult.
In the first place a distinction must be made between voluntary and involuntary poverty. “With vagrants by profession, beggars from choice and speculation, drunkards, those who have made up their minds to live no matter how, gamblers who have systematically used up their capital and that of their family, workmen who have given up work only from rebellion against society, yes, with all these poverty leads to crime.”[3] The second kind of poverty springs from disease, accidents, etc., i.e. from causes independent of the will of man.
“There are, then, evidently innocent poor people; and there are others so much the more pardonable as the consequences have been aggravated by the fault of others. Is it then in the intermediate region that we must seek for the influences that lead to evil? It may be. This region is not unknown to us. Let us seek here, without taking sides in any way, and examine the facts as well as we can.”[4]
In opposition to the continual increase of criminality the author shows that the national wealth has increased, although—and this should not be forgotten—real property, with the exception of small [[200]]holdings, has decreased; the condition of the rural workers, on the contrary, has improved.
In the second place Joly calls attention to the condition of working-men in the cities. According to him the question of whether it has grown worse must be answered in the negative, for the emigration from the country to the city always keeps up. Notwithstanding their higher wages men are no better off there, since they spend upon amusements their additional earnings. If criminality increases among them it is not, then, in involuntary poverty that the cause is to be found.
At the same time with the increase of wages the price of food must be noted. In most of the departments of France these prices have risen in the same proportion as wages. Consequently the working-man has not become better off. He has new needs, but when he has met these he has not enough left for the primary necessities. It is not economic factors, but moral factors, that come into play here.
The proportional increase of wages and the price of food, of which mention has been made above, in the different departments of France, is not met with in the departments of Morbihan, Vendée, Bouches-du-Rhône, and Hérault. In the first two, prices have risen much more than wages, while the contrary appears in the last two. As regards criminality, the first two take their place among those that show the lowest figures, the last two among those that show the highest. Joly draws from this the conclusion that social life is too complicated for us to be able to learn the morality of persons merely from the rise or fall of wages. In any case it is certain, according to him, that the increase of criminality that has been shown is not due to poverty, and that consequently we have not the right to say that poverty in general is one of the primary causes of crime.
However, it must not be lost sight of that in speaking of the increase of wealth and the rise in wages, we are speaking only of average figures, and that there are many individuals whose wages remain below this average. “Now, where do we see the greatest differences, and where are they most felt? Exactly in wealthy epochs and in wealthy surroundings. So it is in the poor departments that crimes against property develop the least. There are two reasons for this, psychological and social. What any man feels the most is not being or having absolutely; it is being or having more or less than those who surround him. What must drive men to crime chiefly, then, is the comparison of wealth with poverty.”[5] [[201]]
Joly thinks he can produce further data upon the connection between crime and poverty by checking up the kind of articles that are most frequently stolen. Out of 1000 cases of theft (assizes, 1830–1860) there were 395 cases of theft of money, next came thefts of personal property, then clothing, etc., then successively, different kinds of merchandise, jewelry and table-ware, food, grain, etc., and living domestic animals. This information does not teach us much about the relationship in question. For the articles stolen can be sold, which prevents our discovering the motives of the crime.
The analysis of the value of the objects stolen also gives us little information. During a period of 25 years the cases of theft of 10 to 50 francs were the most numerous (about 30%), next those of 100 to 1000 francs, then those of less than 10 francs. Ten years later the most numerous were those of 100 to 1000 francs (33%).
However, on the strength of the statements of an old police officer, Joly thinks he can draw the conclusion that poverty enters only to a small extent into the etiology of crime. Nevertheless the established fact that a rise in the price of grain is associated with an increase of criminality, contradicts this. But according to Joly the contradiction is only apparent. “Famines are exceptional; theft is constant and while famines are always decreasing, theft is always increasing. Suppose that in ordinary years people did not steal or stole very little; the difficult moments would find them more patient, more resolute to have recourse to legal and permissible means; we should not see them so prompt to extricate themselves from their difficulties by simply taking the property of others. But what resistance can we count on from those who have long had the habit of stealing from fancy, cupidity, or a desire to gormandize? What resistance can be hoped for, especially when the habit has begun in youth? Now, we have seen that a third of the thefts are committed by minor children.”[6]
The weakness of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality is, according to Joly, further proved by the fact that times of prosperity are not accompanied by a decrease in the number but by a change in the kind of crime committed (as Prins and Garofalo have shown). Cheap wine makes most crimes against persons increase. But the low price of grain has the same effect, since the working-man, when his condition has improved even a little, spends his additional earnings in all kinds of amusements, which, in their turn, may be the source of crime. This is proved, for example, by the fact that in Marseilles suicides are most numerous on Sunday and Monday, and [[202]]fewest on Friday and Saturday, a fact explained by the pay-days of the working people. This is also applicable to crimes against persons.
To prove his thesis the author reminds us of the fact that domestics, although not subject to privations, furnish a large percentage of the thefts; that the percentage of thefts committed by unmarried persons continually increases; and finally, that the investigation (of 107 cases tried in 10 years before the assizes at Rheims), made by a magistrate (Ch. Vuébat), has proved that economic factors have little importance for criminality, and moral factors much. “To sum up, it is not the increase of poverty that is the cause of the increase of crime; it is not property in general that leads to crime against property. This is not saying that poverty, and innocent poverty, does not exist, nor that it is not a bad counselor, nor that it is not the duty of the upper classes and of the government to concern themselves with the lot of the poor. It does mean that a man is less led into evil-doing by the faults of others or by the fault of destiny than by his personal faults.”[7]
—If one considers the study of the question by Joly from a critical point of view, the thing that most strikes the attention is this; that he puts economic causes by the side of the moral causes of criminality. As I have already more than once remarked, this is not sound. Every crime finds its origin in moral causes, or better, in the lack of moral ideas dominant at a certain period. But one of the principal questions to be answered is this; how far do these moral ideas find their origin in definite economic conditions? Joly, being a spiritualist, has not succeeded in formulating this problem well, still less in solving it.
His entire treatment of the relation between criminality and economic conditions is characterized by a striking narrowness. He speaks of poverty and wealth as if they were the most natural things in the world, and had no need to be explained. Then he makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary poverty, and excludes the former from the discussion as having nothing to do with the problem in question. This manner of reasoning has rather the air of a penitential sermon than of a scientific investigation. “Voluntary poverty”[8] [[203]]is a contradiction in terms. For a man tries as far as possible to spare himself suffering and to gain happiness. There can never be any such thing then as voluntary poverty.
Though his terms are unhappily chosen, Joly only wishes to point out that poverty may originate in circumstances or in the person himself. But in treating this problem he should not have been silent on a very important, and very difficult point, namely how far these individual causes of poverty are based upon the present economic system.
If the question treated by Joly is incomplete, what he says neither has any great value, nor does it prove at all his statement that the influence of economic conditions is small. He gives but a few pages to the very difficult question of whether the standard of living of the working class has been raised. He brings out the universally observed fact that the wants of all classes have increased, but he seems not to have noted that this is intimately bound up with the present mode of production. He cites the testimony of an old police officer, and the investigations of a magistrate (investigations, it may be said in passing, that reached the colossal number of 107 cases) in order to prove that most crimes are not committed as a consequence of immediate privations—as if this were enough to solve the question of how far economic conditions enter into the causes of crime.—[9]
II.
L. Proal.[10]
In his ninth chapter, entitled “Le crime et la misère,” this author gives some pages to our subject. It is incontestable, according to him, that poverty exerts an influence upon criminality. The number of crimes increases in the years of poor crops, or when there is a lack of work owing to industrial or agricultural crises. Thus, criminality reached high figures in 1840, 1847, and 1854, when the price of grain was high.
In consequence of this and of his personal experience (the author is a magistrate) he thinks the opinion of Garofalo is incorrect, that poverty only gives crime its form and is not a cause of it. For indigence not only puts morality in danger by depriving some persons of the bare necessities, but it also causes the children of the poor in the great cities to be brought up in a pitiable manner. [[204]]
Although the author is of this opinion, however, he does not subscribe to the view that “the poor man is dedicated to crime.” On the contrary, a great proportion of the poor are as honest as possible, and have honorable toil as their only means of support. Judicial statistics show that the rich are as guilty of crime as the poor.
“We see, then, that even if all the citizens had means and education, there would always be criminals; the number of them would be a little less, but not much. There would always be traders practising deception with regard to the quantity and quality of their goods, merchants adulterating food, employes abusing the confidence of their employers, notaries embezzling the funds entrusted to them; there would always be wives poisoning their husbands, and husbands killing their wives, and teachers of lay and denominational schools committing sexual crimes.”[11]
Most crimes are not committed to escape from want, but rather to procure luxury and pleasure. Hence the rich as well as the poor commit them. “To sum up, I do not believe that the rich are less tempted to take the property of others than the poor. The more wealth one has the more he wants; further, the more wealth increases, the more factitious wants increase, and if one’s wealth becomes insufficient to satisfy these wants, the thought of increasing it by any means is not slow in coming. Admitting that some day all men may be rich and educated, though that seems to me to be an impossible dream, cupidity will always make thieves, rogues, and forgers; hatred and revenge will always inspire homicide, murder, and arson; debauchery will always lead to sexual crimes. Material and intellectual progress will never suppress the passions and will not free men from the struggle that must be maintained against them. It will always be necessary to repress anger and sensuality, to put a bridle upon cupidity, and, in a word, to set the soul free from its passions. The increase of well-being and education will never make the police and the penal code unnecessary.”[12]
—It will be superfluous to give a criticism of this discussion. We have already met several authors who took this point of view. Proal is like the others who do not even know how to put the question of the influence of economic conditions clearly, who do not comprehend that poverty and riches are both the inevitable consequences of the same system.— [[205]]
III.
M. de Baets.[13]
“It is an incontestable fact that the influence of poverty upon criminality is immense.” It is thus that the author expresses himself in the introduction to his work. I shall set forth his manner of defending this thesis in the following lines.
The most disastrous consequence of poverty is the temptation to procure illicitly what is needed for one’s well-being. We can see this in the crimes of crowds as well as in individual crimes. At the 3d Congress of Criminal Anthropology, Professor H. Denis gave certain facts with regard to the correlation between crime and the economic status.[14] During the years from 1845 to 1849 the curve of criminality coincides exactly with that of the price of wheat. But at the close of 1850 the two curves diverge, when the curve of wheat is replaced by that of staple foods in general. If we follow the trend of wages attentively we shall note that they also are higher in the last years. The increase of criminality is no longer to be explained, therefore, by this rise. To what, then, is it due?
In the author’s opinion we must note, first, that forced unemployment is increasing; second, that poverty and wealth have force only by comparison.
The well-being of the working man has increased, but that of men in general much more so. This explains only a part of the phenomena given above. The rest of his explanation is as follows: “There are, in fact, other elements, which may neutralize the influence of the environment. To all the solicitations of vice and crime man can offer resistance, finding his refuge and support in moral force.
“Now, go to the poor and unhappy, and ask them what prevents them from quickly slipping downhill into crime, and you will find in their mouths the expression, naïve, but strong, of the idea of duty; and this idea of duty you will find precisely and clearly only in that of submission to an absolute, incontestable, unconditioned authority, that of God. A man whom no one would suspect of any extraordinary good-will toward religion, M. Jules Simon, said a few months ago, ‘The peoples must be brought to God if we want justice and order to reign.’
“Must not even those who do not themselves believe, recognize in [[206]]this idea of duty, of law imposed by a God, the creator, an ‘idée-force,’ a source in itself of energy and activity against evil and for good?
“It is in the diminution of this energy, in the efforts that have been made to tear out of the hearts of the poor this root, whose flower is hope, and whose fruit is virtue, that I am inclined to see one of the causes of the frightful increase of crime, which all concede, some with surprise and all with dismay.”[15]
In the second part of his discussion the author brings up the degenerating influence of poverty. Although a man has a free will at his disposal, it is necessary that he should also have an organism capable of putting the will into action. Hence it is that degeneracy makes its effect felt upon man.
“Now, misery is just the totality of the most imperious desires remaining unsatisfied; it is the love of life, the love of well-being left without gratification; it is the suffering of the wife one would like to see happy, the hunger of the children to whom one would like to give bread. And if crime can give this bread that one cannot find, if crime can satisfy all these appetites, all these desires, it will present itself with the most powerful attractions, with the charm of fascination. Will the unfortunate man have the supreme energy to prefer duty to enjoyment?”[16]
Poverty is a bad preparatory school for this contest; a weakened organism will succumb more easily to temptation. And generally this is accompanied by a lack of education and of the development of the higher faculties.
In following the course of life of a proletarian we see that the child of the proletariat carries, often from his birth, the signs of degeneracy, since his mother was forced to work hard during her pregnancy. From his childhood he is ill nourished, and grows up in an unhealthful environment. There can hardly be any question of education, for his father and mother work in the shop, which prevents any family life. The child is not attached to the dwelling of his parents and wanders in the street, where he picks up bad habits. Arrived at adolescence, he enters the factory to pass the greater part of his time in monotonous occupations. And once full grown, life for him consists only in routine labor, monotonous and without end. “However, this man has a soul, he has a mind! But it slumbers in a perpetual inertia. Nothing in his life has awakened what is grand, noble, and divine in this reasonable being. How can we hope to have the moral energy and the sublime ambition for good survive in him?”[17] [[207]]
However unhappy this manner of life may be, there is still lacking the greatest misfortune that can befall the proletarian; forced inaction. This is one of the chief causes that can drive him to commit crime! And then there is another scourge of the working class, alcoholism. “Source of poverty without any doubt, but fruit of poverty incontestably.” Finally, of all the proletarians the most unhappy are the women. Low wages and the monotony of tiresome work too often make prostitutes of them.
To all these criminogenous causes the Christian must oppose the moral sentiments which are drawn from his religion. His motto must be, “rather death than dishonor.” But for that he must have heroic courage, which most people lack. Perhaps before God these sinners will find grace.
But all this cannot be a reason for society to allow to exist these scandalous conditions, which, in a few words, are as follows: “Insufficiency of the means of subsistence; work too long continued, as measured by the exhaustion resulting from it; work demanded of mothers of families; excessive and unsuitable labor expected of children; improper conditions in certain industries.”[18]
This must be changed, and it is possible to do so. Not, however, with the aid of the state, for then industry would lose the elasticity so necessary to it. But the change must be brought about by association of the proletarians. “In the forced individualism of the laborers is to be found the cause of their ruin; the salvation must be found in association.” The author closes by referring to the encyclical, “Rerum novarum”, in which it is said that Christian workmen must band together, and by encouraging the rich to help their less privileged brothers.[19]
IV.
Criticism.
The authors of whom I have just been speaking, together with others, like von Oettingen and Stursberg, of whom I have spoken in Chap. II, have this idea in common, that the continually growing irreligion is a cause of the increase in criminality; in other words, that [[208]]irreligion is a powerful factor of crime and that the irreligious are predisposed to crime.
What proofs have been given by these authors in support of their thesis, their very serious accusation against those who are no longer religious? Most of them have not even tried to prove it. It is a dogma, with which, therefore, we have nothing to do. An increase of irreligion had been shown, also an increase in criminality, therefore there is a causal connection. Protest must be made against any such methods of reasoning. If there is a parallelism upon the chart between two curves that do not undulate, we must be very careful about drawing the conclusion that there is a connection, much more a causal one. That irreligion has increased is certain; is the same thing true of criminality? Certainly not. The trend of criminality as a whole is very rarely uniform, there is almost always a divergence; for example, economic criminality and violent criminality very rarely keep pace with each other. If we wish to give a general idea of the trend of criminality, we can only say that it is decreasing rather than increasing. The spiritualist authors often cite Germany in support of their thesis. This is no longer possible, for, after an increase in the total figures up to the end of the nineteenth century, there is now a fluctuating decrease.
In the Netherlands we can estimate the increase of irreligion;[20] according to the censuses of 1879 and 1909, the percentage of those who are not members of any church has increased enormously, from 0.31 to 4.97, an increase of 1500% in 30 years! What an increase of crime must we look for! The reality is very different. The curve of crime has fallen without any doubt.[21] The facts and the thesis do not agree.
Another way of examining the question is to be found in “criminal geography.” Since irreligion shows enormous differences in the different parts of a country, we ought to find considerable criminality in the provinces where the lack of religion is most in evidence. For the Netherlands, in my study already referred to, I have given detailed tables with the result that there is no connection between the phenomena in question. In general we have even the right to say that the provinces with the lowest figures for irreligion show a high criminality, and vice versa! [[209]]
The best means of settling the question is by a direct statistical study. I have made calculations, based upon the criminal statistics, of more than 126,000 individuals sentenced during the period from 1901 to 1909, in the Netherlands. Here are the results:
Netherlands, 1901–1909.
| Offenses. | Number Sentenced to 100,000 of the Population Over 10 Years Old. | ||||
| Protestant. | Catholic. | Jew. | Not Members of Any Religion. | Total | |
| All offenses | 308.6 | 416.5 | 212.7 | 84.2 | 337.3 |
| Theft | 40.0 | 54.8 | 25.5 | 9.6 | 43.9 |
| Aggravated theft | 19.9 | 24.0 | 12.7 | 5.2 | 20.7 |
| Receiving stolen goods | 2.6 | 3.5 | 9.2 | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| Embezzlement | 8.6 | 9.3 | 13.1 | 1.9 | 8.7 |
| Fraud | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 2.4 |
| Offenses against public decency | 1.9 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 2.4 |
| Minor sexual offenses | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.0 |
| Rape | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.8 |
| Sexual crimes with persons under 16 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 |
| All sexual crimes | 5.1 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 5.7 |
| Rebellion | 25.9 | 37.0 | 13.2 | 12.2 | 29.0 |
| Assaults | 74.4 | 98.2 | 43.2 | 20.1 | 80.1 |
| Serious assaults | 8.5 | 11.0 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 9.1 |
| Homicide and murder | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
The results are the following, then: the first place is almost always occupied by the Catholics, the second by the Protestants, and then come the Jews (except in cases of receiving stolen goods, embezzlement, and fraud), and the minimum of criminality (in all crimes without exception) is shown by the irreligious!
Here we have not the task of explaining this fact, we only bring it out; and we have the right to declare that the thesis: “irreligion leads to crime”, is not correct. [[210]]
[1] [See the author’s explanation of his use of this term in the preface.—Transl.] [↑]
[2] See also Chaps. II and IV. [↑]
[8] [“Misère.” The word may mean misery, of course, as the author has interpreted it in proving a contradiction of terms, but Joly seems to use it, as it is generally used, to describe an external condition rather than a mental state. In any case, all that Joly seems to mean is that there are those who deliberately prefer effortless indigence to a competence acquired by toil, being willing to put up with the indigence for the sake of the wished for escape from effort.—Transl.] [↑]
[9] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. “La Belgique criminelle”, by the same author.] [↑]
[10] “Le crime et la peine.” [↑]
[13] “Les influences de la misère sur la criminalité.” See also “L’école d’anthropologie criminelle”, by the same author. [↑]
[14] See the following chapter. [↑]
[19] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. also the following authors: Dr. G. von Rohden, “Von den sozialen Motiven des Verbrechens” and “Verbrechensbekämpfung und Verbrechensvorbeugung” (“Zeitschr. f. Socialwissenschaft”, VII and IX), and F. A. K. Krauss, “Der Kampf gegen die Verbrechensursachen.”] [↑]
[20] [Throughout this section the author uses “religion” as meaning a professed connection with a cult and “irreligion” as the repudiation of any such connection. This is not the use we commonly make of these terms in English, but I know of no others that more accurately express Dr. Bonger’s meaning.—Transl.] [↑]
[21] See Bonger, “Geloof en misdaad” (Religion and crime), p. 6. [↑]
CHAPTER VII.
THE THIRD SCHOOL[1] AND THE SOCIALISTS.
I.
F. Turati.
In the first chapter of his “Il delitto e la questione sociale”, the author shows that among the numerous misfortunes from which the proletariat suffers, this must be reckoned, that it is almost exclusively from its ranks that criminals are recruited. “The criminal tribute is the almost exclusive privilege of one social class. And as the bourgeoisie has so far thought out no better plan than to oppose the degradation of crime with another degradation called punishment, it has come about that to the monopoly of the criminal tribute is added, for the poor, the monopoly of the penal tribute.”[2] [[211]]
After having spoken, in the following chapter, of “free will”, Dr. Turati gives his attention to an opinion of Dr. Lelorrain, who says that we must modify man if we wish to make criminality disappear or decrease. Dr. Turati objects that it is exceedingly difficult to change man, and that there is an easier and more effective way, namely to change society. In a society where everything is bad, where the exploitation of one by the other is the rule, where the enjoyment of some goes on at the detriment of others, and this under the protection of the law—in such a society there is a perpetual incitement to crime. It is the ideal of socialism to create a society in which crime shall be neither necessary nor advantageous. However short its duration, the colony of New Lanark founded by Owen, is one of the best proofs of the correctness of this idea. In a society formed in accordance with this socialistic ideal, crime would appear only exceptionally, by atavism, for example, and would cease to be a general and always threatening danger.
“The social penal question is a question above all of social transformation.” Many objections have been made to this statement. The school of Lombroso and Ferri sets up in opposition its theory of the triplex character of the factors of crime; cosmic, individual, and social. When society is so modified that the interests of the individual are identical with those of the community, it would be only one part of crime that would disappear; one could not, for example, prevent an extraordinary heat from causing crimes against morals.
According to Dr. Turati it is not impossible to refute this objection, though it may be difficult to do so. In the first place Ferri recognizes the social causes as more important than the other two put together. He estimates that the number of persons driven to crime by social reasons (passion and occasion) is more than 60%; the others (insane or half-insane criminals, born-incorrigibles, and habituals) form a minority, then. But among these there are many criminals by habit, who were not born as such, but have become such from force of circumstances. Dr. Turati estimates that from 70% to 75% of criminals have come to commit their crimes from social causes. When we take account further of the fact that about 18% of the prisoners are insane, the number of real criminals who have become such from other than social causes is reduced to 10% at the most.
According to Dr. Turati the physical and anthropological factors exert an influence upon the form, but not upon the nature, of the crime. Further, these three causes are present in every crime, but [[212]]almost no crime would be committed without the social cause. It is this last that is always the predominant factor. When it is removed, then, the other two are reduced to zero. The facts have proved this. Owen’s colony was not made up of peculiar material, and the physical surroundings were neither better nor “more honest” than any other. Nevertheless, crime was unknown there. But the author furnishes still further proofs in support of his thesis that physical and anthropological causes amount to nothing in comparison with social causes, which in turn are dependent upon economic conditions. With the exception of crimes committed by the propertied class, which are in general the result of excessive cupidity, or a commercial uneasiness, and which will “ipso facto” disappear without any doubt when once society is otherwise organized, the greatest contingent of criminals is furnished by the class of non-possessors. Now all the physical influences, such as climate, act upon the two classes in the same way, nor are there anthropological differences between the two classes, yet the difference between them as regards criminal tendencies is great. It is the social factors, then, that explain the difference.
However, another observation must be made here. Ferri cites in a mass, as social factors, the increase of population, emigration, public opinion, customs, etc. But when we examine and classify these factors minutely, it becomes clear that in reality they are based upon economic conditions alone.
However, this observation is not applicable to “criminals by passion”, since in their case the influence of the environment appears to be but weak. Lombroso estimates that they form 5% of all criminals, and Ferri is of the opinion that it is only 5% of those who commit crimes against persons who are criminals by passion.
One of the anthropological causes of crime is “man”, and one of the cosmic causes is “the universe.” But neither has anything to do with crime as such. Otherwise the air we breathe and the food that we eat would be causes of crime. On the contrary, it is the organization of society that is the cause of crime, and physical and anthropological influences are only conditions. (Speaking scientifically we do not separate causes and conditions, but this is the common usage.) If the causes ceased to exist the conditions would have no further importance.
Next, Dr. Turati treats of certain kinds of crime. First, crimes against property. As almost every criminologist will admit, these crimes are intimately connected with the unequal division of property. “But,” an opponent will object, “it is not possible, by means [[213]]of social institutions, to change cosmic influences, such as a low temperature, or the failure of the crops, both of which cause an increase of the crimes against property.” Those who are of this opinion forget, however, that a man does not become criminal because he is cold, but he who is cold becomes criminal only if society neglects to provide for the needs born of the cold.
The influence of society is not seen so distinctly when crimes against persons are in question. Nevertheless it is very great; the economic conditions of our day work in two ways, through poverty on the one side, and injustice on the other. Poverty injures not only the physique but also the morals of a man, since it leaves him in ignorance and grossness, and does not develop his moral sentiments. And then it is harder to bear the evils caused by society than those caused by nature. In the second place, economic inequality stifles the sense of justice in man, since it accustoms him to this inequality. “The law is equal for all”, is only a phrase, for all are not socially equal.
One of the most wide-spread objections to the proposition that crimes spring from social conditions is that if an improvement in these conditions leads to a decrease of the crimes against property, the crimes against persons increase. This is urged by Ferri, among others, as one of the most effective arguments against Turati and his partisans. But against this may be urged another fact brought out by Ferri, namely that while crime is increasing, it is becoming less intense and less brutal. We see clearly, then, that it is possible to have a powerful counter-determinant to the tendency to commit crimes against persons, i.e. education.
As to sexual crimes, they increase when the food supply increases. This is the cause: sexual needs have a direct relation to nutrition. An increase of the sexual needs, however, has nothing to do with criminality. It is only the social organization that changes these needs that have become more intense, into crimes, by subordinating the satisfaction of them to economic considerations. There are, besides, other social causes, like bad housing etc., that lead the proletariat to commit the crimes in question.
The author then points out the enormous influence of the abuse of alcohol upon criminality, the causes of this abuse being also found in the social organization.
Another argument of Ferri’s must be refuted, i.e. that Turati and his followers attach too much weight to education. Notwithstanding the equality in the education of two brothers, says Ferri, one becomes a scamp and the other a hero. To which the author replies that we [[214]]can say with just as good right, thanks to education the brother of a scamp becomes a hero.
But in speaking of education Ferri has in mind that of the bourgeoisie, which is in opposition to morality, and can consequently have but little influence. From the day when the state of society shall have become sound, and the interests of all taken to heart, morality can be in harmony with reality.
“The true, all-inclusive penal substitute is the equal diffusion, so far as is socially possible, of well-being and education, of the joys of love and thought.”
II.
B. Battaglia.
Before speaking of the influence of economic factors upon criminality, I feel obliged to point out, by the following quotation, what the author of “La dinamica del delitto” understands by crime: “Primarily it must be noted that crime is not, in itself, a phenomenon that assumes the criminal character from its own nature; but the criminal character is affirmed or denied according to certain purely accessory circumstances that accompany the act; and in all cases the crime is such with reference to social relations.”[3]
“From the human point of view a crime represents the satisfaction of a need of the criminal, like the satisfaction of any other need, and comes under the law of the struggle for existence. In fact, a need not satisfied constitutes a pain, and pain, whatever its nature be, first excites and then depresses and exhausts the functional power of the organism. The organism, under the influence of pain, loses a quantity of phosphates proportional to the intensity of the pain; the physiological equilibrium is broken, and some functions important for the internal economy are neutralized. The organism, because of the law of conservation, is called upon to relieve the pain. Often it can do this without injury to others; at other times it comes into collision with social interests, and in such a case falls into crime.”[4]
After having spoken of the anatomical and physiological characteristics that have been observed in criminals, Dr. Battaglia comes to the investigation into the causes that produce crime. In examining the factors of crime we see, according to the author, that they consist of two great groups, first, criminogenous factors, and second, occasional factors. These last are important only when they are [[215]]present with the first. Among the occasional factors are to be classed in the first place, age, meteorological occurrences, etc., in short, the influences to which the whole population are subjected. In the second place, sex, economic conditions, education, etc. i.e. influences which have a less universal sphere. However, none of the occasional factors can, by itself, cause a crime to arise. Otherwise a whole population would be criminal in the same way, since some factors, climate for instance, exercise their influence upon the whole population. In order to lead to crime these factors must exert their influence upon intellectual faculties especially disposed toward crime.
The factors really criminogenous, are those which create certain physico-psychical conditions, from the complexus of which results the personal capacity for crime, such as the diseases and defects of development and nutrition, cranial and intracranial; improper education; psychical heredity; and atavistic reversions.
“When these factors have prepared the mental condition, by making it different from that of all others, any opportunity whatever is a sufficient psychical factor, and a crime is committed. Therefore the criminogenous factors are those that have the real social importance, because they prepare inevitably for delinquency.
“It is true, on the other hand, that any of the occasional factors, acting in a certain way, and with a certain intensity and persistency, can produce criminogenous factors, like education or alimentation.”[5]
The author then treats some of the so-called “occasional factors”, such as age, sex, and religion. I shall speak only of what Dr. Battaglia says upon the influence of alcoholism and poverty upon criminality, since this is pertinent to my work.
Alcoholism is a cause of crime in two ways, first, direct, i.e. when crimes are committed under the actual influence of intoxication; second, indirect, since chronic alcoholism causes demoralization and degeneracy. As evidence in support of this the author cites the opinions of Baer, Virgilio, and others.
As to poverty, Dr. Battaglia remarks that the opinion of Professor Lombroso on this subject cannot be correct. The latter believes that the importance of the fact that crimes against property decrease when prices fall, is weakened by the circumstance that, according to Guerry, the theft of food holds only the hundredth place in the table of articles stolen. According to Dr. Battaglia this has no weight in a critical examination of the influence of poverty. For anyone who is driven to crime by hunger tries by preference to seize articles that [[216]]are of great value and little volume, since he can at once exchange them for other articles that are directly consumable. Further it must not be forgotten that alcoholism and bad education are intimately connected with poverty, and lead in their turn to crime. Not only does acute hunger incite to theft indirectly, it may lead to it directly, for it may (according to Professor Follet) bring on a delirium. Chronic hunger and malnutrition may cause pellagra, rachitis, tuberculosis, scrofula, etc., or predispose to these diseases, which may cause crime in their turn.
In the second part of “La dinamica del delitto” the author makes an examination of what he has called the “criminogenous factors.” Crime is a phenomenon that develops itself in society in accordance with certain constant laws. Consequently the criminogenous factors must be found in society. To discover them, then, it is necessary to examine the different social institutions.
The family. In nature and in primitive society there rules a natural selection by which the weak and sickly are prevented from reproducing themselves, or from reproducing themselves as freely as those who are stronger. But at present this selection is no longer felt; even the most wretched, the most diseased can procreate, since it happens constantly that marriages take place with a secondary object. Hence transmission of degeneracy may go on from one generation to another, and consequently, the indirect propagation of crime.
The social position of woman. The inferior position in which woman finds herself in general (the cause of this is in social conditions, since the position of woman varies among different people) occasions crimes in different ways. First, since woman takes no part in the public life, she is circumscribed in intellect, and consequently, vain, egoistic, and ignorant. It follows that her influence upon her children is often very bad. Then, because of her inferior position she easily becomes the victim of unscrupulous men, who seduce her, so that she is often driven to prostitution. In consequence of her ignorance she often marries a man who has asked for her in marriage with an interested motive. Further, her manner of living (lack of healthful work, etc.) may bring on neuroses that are transmissible to her children.
Human reproduction. As an animal, man must satisfy two predominant necessities, that of feeding himself, and that of procreating. Though this last is not as strong as the other, it must nevertheless be satisfied, and without this the human organism would experience very painful consequences. Celibacy is very harmful to morality; it leads to prostitution (with its consequences, like syphilis), to misconduct, [[217]]and hence to the abuse of alcohol, etc.—in short, it favors the birth of anti-social sentiments.
The present laws governing the relations between man and woman are also harmful to morality. The author here refers to the indissolubility of marriage. When the motive for a marriage has ceased to exist, namely when mutual love no longer exists, the marriage ought to be dissolved. The harmful consequences of this indissolubility are numerous. Adultery and many homicides flow from it; the education of children suffers from it enormously; and finally if the mother expects a child, the vexation consequent upon discord may exercise an unfavorable influence upon the newly born.
Education. The development of the intellect and especially of the feelings is of the highest importance to morality. For example, where a disagreement will be settled in an amicable manner among persons who are well brought up, the same disagreement among persons ill-trained will often lead to brawls. Education is a very complex and difficult task, requiring much tact and knowledge. It is not astonishing that as practised it leaves much to be desired. And the consequences of this absence of a good education are exceedingly favorable to the development of criminality. However, it must not be forgotten that some persons, in consequence of qualities transmitted by heredity, become immoral despite the best imaginable education. The answer to the question “should education be left to the parents, i.e. to private persons, who can consequently corrupt their pupils entirely, and not be under public control?” must, according to Dr. Battaglia, be absolutely negative. In order that education may be effective in the family it must be supplemented by the moral influence of the environment, which also plays an important part in the education of the child. The great congestion of persons in the cities, for example, should disappear, because of its bad influence.
Instruction. The double end of instruction is in the first place to strengthen the intellect by exercising it, from which it will result that it will have a greater power over the feelings; and in the second place to furnish a certain amount of positive knowledge, by which the individual is put into a position to adapt himself to his environment and to foresee the consequences of his acts. From this it follows that instruction is of great importance in dealing with criminality. Those who deny this mean by the “instructed man” one who has learned to read and write; but it is evident that such instruction is not enough to exercise an influence of any real importance. It is undeniable that persons well reared may also become criminals, but in every case their [[218]]crimes have a less ferocious character than those of persons without education.
Religion and State. Religion is opposed to progress, to the development of the faculties, and to the general dissemination of knowledge that improves men and increases solidarity; and it incites to intolerance. Further, the confessional instruction is harmful to the intellectual faculties of children. The state puts obstacles in the way of the free movements of individuals; maintains civil marriage; prevents free discussion, one of the primary requirements for progress; it sets up compulsory education, but does not prevent the population’s being brought up in error; by drafting great armies, it withdraws the best forces from agriculture and manufacturing, so that the vigorous individuals marry late, and prostitution is thereby encouraged; it tolerates stock exchanges and lotteries; it favors crowding into great cities, something that is very favorable, directly and indirectly, to crime (bad housing conditions, alcoholism, etc.).
In the chapter that follows, Professor Battaglia reduces the factors that he has just named “criminogenous”, to economic elements. “All the inconveniences, the anomalies, the errors, the disorders, found in the family, in the state, in social and religious relationships, etc., are provoked by the economic situation in which society finds itself.…”[6]
Civil Status. In the communistic villages of Russia it is advantageous for the father of a family to have many children, for the work in the common fields is then performed more easily. Hence the marriages of persons less than 20 years old are numerous. In the rest of Europe the situation is entirely different. By marrying, a man makes himself worse off, and at the birth of each child his cares increase. Hence marriages are put off (especially among professional men) when the man cannot provide for the needs of his family. For analogous reasons some deny their sexual desires and contract a marriage to better their position. In both cases economic conditions exercise an unfavorable influence. When his income is not sufficient to support himself and his family properly, the workman is obliged to labor longer than his strength permits; he and his family are not well enough fed, their dwelling is bad; consequently their physical condition deteriorates. The effects are not only diseases, like scrofula, pellagra, phthisis, anemia, etc., but also a great predisposition to contract them. Poverty undermines the organism and exhausts its strength. [[219]]
In consequence of present economic conditions it is possible to amass enormous wealth; but wants are still further increased relatively, which brings it about that frauds, embezzlements, etc., are often committed by persons of means, especially since the moral sentiments are lost when one thinks only of gaining money. But wealth is inconstant; he who has plenty today may be very poor tomorrow. This is what causes the disquiet and agitation that characterizes the bourgeoisie, and the neuroses that often follow. Finally the author dwells upon the work of women and children, so harmful to morality and to health.
Alcoholism. The inevitable consequence of poverty is the abuse of alcoholic drinks. One who works too much and eats too little, who is badly housed and ill-clad, and has no intellectual occupation, finds in alcohol a means of forgetting his poverty. The life led by a great part of the bourgeoisie leads also to alcoholism. The harmful consequences of alcoholism are numerous, especially as regards criminality, because, first, it leads directly to violent crimes, and, secondly, it indirectly favors degeneracy.
Fatherhood. It is only for economic reasons that legal marriage, its indissolubility, and all that belongs to it, are maintained. If each of the parents kept his or her economic independence, there would be no reason to take up the matter of legal regulation, and thus the question of whether the father of the child is or is not the legal husband of the mother would no longer concern the State.
Prostitution. Most prostitutes come from the lower strata of society. Like the criminals they present signs of degeneracy, and from the sole fact of degeneracy have taken on larger proportions in the proletariat than in the other classes, though the chance that these women will recruit themselves in this class is already greater. The other causes of prostitution are of an economic nature, such as exploitation by parents, bad housing, etc. In consequence of prostitution syphilis spreads and in its turn favors degeneracy. Further, from the weakening of their moral sentiments prostitutes are more easily led to commit crimes.
Ignorance. The cause of the great ignorance of the working-people—an important factor in criminality—is of an economic nature. The workers have to exhaust their strength, and have neither the leisure nor the means, for mental development.
Laxity of morals. In indigent families all the members sleep in one room, often even in one bed. Hence it comes that sexual morality is lacking. The parents, often absent on account of their work, [[220]]leave their children to their fate. These latter do not know how to look after themselves, and easily learn bad habits from other children. The education of the children of the bourgeoisie is no more favorable. Often they learn only that they must make money, or acquire a social position, or make a “good” marriage, a thing which leads them to all sorts of deceits and intrigues to arrive at their end.
Plutocracy. The great armaments and wars of European powers are the consequence of the present system of competition, which obliges the constant search for new outlets for commerce.
Plutocracy of the Church. It is only upon its economic resources that the great power of the Church rests.
Corollary. Poverty alone causes many moral situations from which crime must logically result. The majority of criminals are in fact recruited among the less privileged classes.
But the bourgeoisie is not happy simply because the proletariat is unhappy. The cause of the unhappiness of both is in the present economic conditions, by which the great majority of the population vegetate in the blackest misery, while the others are immersed in idle luxury. There is only one remedy for this injustice; it is to divide the total product of labor among the workers, and not among the capitalists.
III.
N. Colajanni.
The whole of the first volume and the first chapters of the second volume of “La sociologia criminale”[7] contain a criticism of the theses of the Italian school. The author denies the correctness of these, since he believes that we must consider the anthropological and physical causes as having little or no importance. This he demonstrates in detail. In his last chapters Dr. Colajanni treats of social and economic factors.
While admitting that economic conditions are of the highest importance in the development of the whole social life, and consequently in the matter of criminality, the author does not agree with Marx and Loria, who consider every social occurrence, whether political, or religious, or æsthetic, or moral, as the unique and direct product of an economic phenomenon.[8] [[221]]
According to the author, this assertion is carried too far, since the feelings and passions of superior people, who do not think of material profits, influence the masses at certain moments.
A great number of philosophers, moralists, poets, statisticians, and economists have seen in economic conditions the “causa causarum” of morality, and consequently also of crime. Pietro Ellero, among others, says very decisively: “From private property are derived all crimes, or almost all. Property engenders cupidity and haughtiness on the one side and depravity on the other, even when it does not produce the perfect tyranny of the one class and the degradation of the other. It is the cause of most of the evil passions, faults, and crimes that are committed, of the troubles, anxieties, sadness, and rancor from which both rich and poor suffer alike. The immoral influence of property is continued afterwards, and that terribly, in the present organization of the family, constructed, as it is, almost always upon the basis of calculation!”[9]
It is incontestable that economic conditions have a direct influence upon the origin of crime. The lack of the means of satisfying the numerous wants of a man is already a goad to incite him to procure these means in any way whatever, honest or dishonest. And it is the dishonest way that one will choose by preference when society makes it difficult or impossible to act otherwise. A London pickpocket gets $1500 a year on the average; on the other hand, the misery of those who wish to earn their living honestly is indescribable. Further, the honest man’s chance of being killed or becoming incapable of working is greater than the thief’s chance of being punished. Honest work results in fewer advantages and more dangers than dishonest work.
The indirect influence is not less important than the direct. War, our present industry, the family, marriage, political institutions, revolutions, vagrancy, prostitution, education, etc. are important causes of crime, but they can all be reduced to economic causes. According to many persons education is the one means of preventing moral evils, but John Stuart Mill has already said: in our present society the poor have no education, and that of the rich is bad. There is no possibility of a good education if a certain material well-being is lacking. Hence those who expect everything from education under the present conditions are wrong.
But where does well-being cease and poverty begin? Both are only relative conceptions; consequently we cannot fix their limits. [[222]]In order to attain the minimum of criminality in any given society there must be the certainty of the means of subsistence, stability of economic conditions, and equality in the distribution of wealth.
Some authors deny that political revolutions have their causes in economic conditions. Lombroso and Laschi, for example, attempt to explain them chiefly by physical influences; which is the more astonishing, because in the general opinion it is from economic causes that they are derived. They adduce, among other things, to support their opinion, the fact that out of 147 revolts that took place in Europe between 1793 and 1880, only a third were attributable to economic conditions. It goes without saying that this does not at all prove the correctness of their thesis, since in all these cases the authors are speaking only of direct causes, while most military revolutions, revolts against the royal power, etc., spring from economic conditions, even if indirectly. It is true that in the 19th century the direct revolutionary influence of crises and famines has decreased, because of the measures taken by the governments. This does not however prevent there having been revolts occasioned by such conditions (Lyons in 1831, etc.). The frequent revolts in Belgium and France, rich countries, do not furnish any proof against the thesis of Dr. Colajanni; for notwithstanding the great wealth of these countries, nothing proves that it is equally divided. As soon as the poverty of a people has passed certain limits, we see in that country neither crimes, revolutions, nor suicides, since all energy is then extinct.
Another question is this: how far is there a correlation between the progress made by socialism and the increase of criminality.[10] Several authors, like Garofalo, are of the opinion that there is an intimate connection between the two. But they do not furnish any facts as proofs in support of their assertion, to which, on the contrary, the facts give the lie.
The countries where socialism is most widely spread do not show the greatest criminality; rather the contrary. The German and Italian districts where there are the most socialists are no longer the most criminal. How could it be otherwise? While socialism is the conscious and collective reaction against the existing order, crime is the unconscious and individual reaction against that order.
Next, Dr. Colajanni turns his attention to idleness and vagrancy, which are both causes of crime. Out of 32,943 thefts in Paris in 1882, 57% were committed by vagrants. [[223]]
But are idleness and vagrancy considered in themselves also offenses? Any man is harmful to his species, says Féré, when he does not collaborate, either materially or intellectually, in production. According to Dr. Colajanni, idleness and vagrancy, viewed from such a high social point of view, are really offenses. But then the idle rich are also guilty of these offenses. Finally, what are the causes of these crimes? Spencer, Féré, and Sergi say: the vagrants are the weak, the degenerate, the parasites of society. The question is this, then: do these phenomena find their origin inside or outside of the human organism? Romagnosi says that vagrancy and idleness ought to be punished only when they are not excusable. To make them inexcusable it would be necessary to procure employment for every man who was willing to work. Spencer, Sergi, and Garofalo, on the contrary, are of the opinion that these crimes are almost always to be imputed to the same persons. However, Spencer should not have forgotten that in his own country, aside from industrial crises, numerous occurrences have forced a great number of persons to become idlers and vagrants through no fault of their own, as for example, the Irish and Scotch farmers driven from their lands by the landlords.
And Garofalo should have known that it is capitalism that has made the work of men superfluous by employing women and children, and that the cause does not rest with those who suffer from it; on the contrary, the cause of economic crises is not in their victims, but in the system that is in force.
An examination of the causes of these two phenomena obliges us to distinguish between habitual and accidental, or forced, vagrancy. However—and this is too often forgotten—the latter transforms itself into the former, for the taste for work is, like morality, an acquired social product. This is why this quality is lost when one is long without work.
One of the most important causes of the possible transformation of a worker into a vagrant is a long illness. Having lost the habit of work, and being enfeebled, a man will find great difficulty in going to work again. If he does not succeed he descends step by step until he comes finally to mendicity. But it is chiefly the economic transformations, inventions, overproduction, that must be called the “causa causarum” of the phenomena cited above.[11]
Prostitution, which occupies so important a place in the etiology of [[224]]crime, in almost every case finds its origin in poverty, in a bad education, in a corrupting environment, as is proved by the official investigations and the writings of specialists, like Parent-Duchatelet, Fiaux, Augagneur, and many others.[12]
The correlation that exists between crimes against property and economic conditions is very evident, and is direct. This causality appears also with regard to crimes against persons. Only it is then indirect. The influence of poverty upon criminality is especially great when it has been of long duration. Proudhon is quite right when he says: “Hunger that is every instant present, during the whole year, during the whole life, hunger which does not kill in a day, but is composed of all deprivations and all griefs, and unceasingly consumes the body, ruins the spirit, demoralizes the conscience, corrupts the race, generates all vices and diseases (drunkenness, among others), and an aversion towards work and thrift, baseness of spirit, callousness of conscience, laziness, and prostitution together with theft.”[13]
The fact that the number of thefts of provisions is relatively small has little importance, since the thief always tries to steal some article of small bulk and great value. Also it must not be forgotten that little thefts of food often pass unnoticed, or without complaint being made, because the party injured does not consider the act a crime, since committed from necessity.
Another convincing proof of the influence of economic conditions is the incontestable fact that it continually happens that a person will declare himself guilty of a crime that has not been committed, with the sole purpose of obtaining a lodging in jail. The great percentage made up of crimes committed from cupidity, as well as the fact that the number of recidivists is greater for crimes against property than for others, shows the great influence of economic conditions.
The study of the morality of primitive peoples shows us that the crimes of abortion, for example, of infanticide, and homicide upon the aged, have their origin in economic conditions exclusively, the means of subsistence not being sufficient to support a large population. When these crimes occur among civilized peoples they have the same causes. For example, cases of infanticide are very common in Trevise, one of the poorest provinces in Italy. The lack of education or the influence of other factors opposed to education are the reason why the corrupting influence of which we have been speaking often rages in the lower classes with all its force.
To prove the assertion that economic conditions have little influence [[225]]upon criminality, some authors cite the fact that England, with its great wealth, shows a greater number of crimes against property than Italy, which is much poorer. He who reasons in this way forgets that the absolute wealth of a country may be very great, but the distribution of that wealth not proportional. England gives us the proof of this; in no other country is the difference between rich and poor more pronounced, and without the presence of other important and opposing factors, the criminality would be much greater than it is now.
One might also bring up the difference between the criminality of Ireland, which is smaller despite the proverbial poverty there, and the great criminality of Italy. However, when we study conditions in the two countries we find that those in Italy are still more undesirable than those in Ireland, which explains the greater criminality against property in Italy. The mysterious assassinations of large landholders and their agents in Ireland have also their cause in the bad distribution of the land. In Belgium criminality is greatest where well-being is least (in Flanders). According to the researches of Liszt and Starcke, the poorest districts of Germany are also those that are most criminal, etc.
Upon the economic condition of criminals the author gives the following data: In 1870–71 there were among the prisoners at Neufchâtel 10% who had some property, and 89% who had only their work for their support (in the non-criminal population the percentage of these is much smaller). According to the data of Stevens the prisoners in Belgium were divided as follows: 1% of well-to-do persons, 11% of persons with some income, and 88% of indigent persons.
The statistics of recidivists in Sweden from 1870 to 1872 give the following information:
| Well-to-do | 0.64 % | |
| With sufficient | means of subsistence | 10.08 %,, |
| With,, insufficient | means,, of,, subsistence,, | 43.54 %,, |
| With,, miserable | means,, of,, subsistence,, | 45.63 %,, |
Marro, in his “I caratteri dei delinquenti”, gives us the following:
| Criminals. | Non-criminals. | |
| Without property | 79.6 % | 43.4 % |
| Minor children of well-to-do parents | 4.1 %,, | 10.5 %,, |
| With a little property | 6.7 %,, | 18.4 %,, |
| With considerable property | 9.4 %,, | 27.6 %,, |
[[226]]
At the time that they committed their crimes 43% of these criminals in general, and more than 50% of the criminals against property were without work.
All that has been given above has to do with statics; what follows has to do with dynamics. The rule universally observed is this: modifications in economic conditions are followed by modifications in criminality. When the former grow worse, the number of crimes (and especially of those against property) increases, and vice versa. It is especially the proletariat, who have no means of resisting the unfavorable influence of crises, a rise in the price of food, etc., who are hardest hit in these cases.
The author gives some data. In Italy in 1880 a great increase of crime coincided with a lack of work and with a rise in the price of provisions. The gradual diminution in criminality must be attributed to the good harvest and the large emigration. In Belgium the number of prisoners rose during the crisis of 1846 from 6750 to 9884. In Norway, in consequence of the depression of 1869, crimes against property reached the maximum. The number of prisoners in Sweden rose from 1835 to 1839, chiefly because of poverty, from 12,799 to 18,357. A great increase in crime took place in England in consequence of the crises of 1826, 1830, 1847, and others. In the United States there were in 1884 not less than 400,000 working-men without work, which explains the following figures:
| 1883 | 1884 | |
| Homicides | 1,494 | 3,377 |
| Cases of lynching | 92 | 219 |
| Suicides | 910 | 1,897 |
In consequence of the economic crises of 1839, 1840, 1843, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881, the number of murders increased in France.[14]
The maximum stability and the minimum lack of proportion in the distribution of wealth is the best preservative against crime. The correctness of this rule is proved by the facts. The small number of crimes among the Irish is explained by their altruistic sentiments, which are the consequence of their social institutions from before the conquest of their country by the English. Among Mohammedans [[227]]crime is rare. Also there may be remarked among them a true democracy, based upon equality and fraternity. The Yorubas (in Eastern Africa) have a mild character, and they are benevolent and true to their word; with them the land is considered as common property, etc., etc.
“These are facts which speak clearly: the collectivism of the Javanese dessa, of the Berber diema, the Russian mir, the Slav zadrouga, and the village community of the early Aryans and North American Indians, produces everywhere, with all climates, among all races, identically the same results—morality and solidarity.
“It is to be noted also, that everywhere and at all times, whether in the temperate or the frigid zone, in the North, in the South, or at the equator, laws and institutions which aim to insure certainty of subsistence and to maintain a certain equality, go far to cut down crime; and they do it in such a way as to make those who live under them more moral than those who are subject to different institutions and laws. We have clear examples of this among the Hebrews, Iroquois, Peruvians, Chinese, Berbers, etc., although they differ greatly as to the grade of civilization they have reached.”[15]
IV.
A. Bebel.
In “Die Frau und der Sozialismus” the author gives the following pages to the relation between the present social organization and crime: “The increase of crime of every description is intimately connected with the social conditions of the community, little as the latter is inclined to believe it. Society hides its head in the sand, like the ostrich, in order not to be forced to recognize a state of things that bears witness against it, and silences its own conscience and others’ with the lying pretense that laziness and love of pleasure on the part of the workmen and their want of religion is accountable for everything. This is hypocrisy of the most revolting kind. The more unfavorable and depressed the condition of society, the more numerous and grave do crimes become. The struggle for existence then assumes its most brutal and violent shape, it throws man back into his primæval state, in which each regarded the other as his deadly enemy. The ties of solidarity, not too firm at the best of times, become daily looser. [[228]]
“The ruling classes, who do not and will not recognize the causes of things, attempt to effect a change by employing force against the products of these conditions, and even men whom we should expect to be enlightened and free from prejudice, are ready to support the system. Professor Haeckel, for instance, regards the stringent application of capital punishment as desirable, and harmonizes in this point with the reactionaries of every shade, who on all other subjects are his bitterest enemies. According to his theory, hopeless criminals and ne’er-do-wells must be rooted out like weeds, which deprive the more valuable plants of light, air, and soil. If Professor Haeckel had occupied himself even to a slight degree with the study of social science, instead of limiting himself to natural science, he would have discovered that all these criminals could be transformed into useful, valuable members of society, if society offered them more favorable means of existence. He would have found that the annihilation of the criminal has just as little effect on crime, i.e. on the development of fresh crimes, as if on a number of farms the ground were superficially cleared of weeds while the roots and seeds remained undestroyed. Man will never be able absolutely to prevent the development of noxious organisms in nature, but it is unquestionably within his power so to improve the social organism created by himself, that it may afford equally favorable conditions of existence and an equal freedom of growth to all; that no one may be forced to gratify his hunger or his desire of possession or his ambition at the expense of someone else. People only need to investigate the causes of crime and to remove them, and they will abolish crime itself.
“Naturally those who seek to abolish crime by abolishing its causes cannot take kindly to measures of brutal suppression. They cannot prevent society from protecting itself against crime in its own way, but they demand all the more urgently the radical reformation of society, i.e. the removal of causes.”[16]
“The relationship between social conditions and crime has often been pointed out by statisticians and sociologists. One of the offenses that comes closest to us—for our society, in spite of all the Christian teaching about charity, regards it as a crime—in times of business depression, is mendicity. We learn from the statistics of the kingdom of Saxony, that in measure as the last great commercial [[229]]crisis grew worse, beginning in Germany in 1890 with the end not yet in sight, the number of persons sentenced for mendicity also increased. In 1889, in the Kingdom of Saxony 8566 persons were punished for this offense, 8815 in 1890, 10,075 in 1891, and in 1892 as many as 13,120, a very great increase. The impoverishment of the masses on the one hand, with increasing wealth on the other, is the chief mark of our period. In 1874 there was one poor man to 724 persons, while in 1882 the number had reached 1 to 622.[17] Crimes and misdemeanors show a similar tendency. In 1874, there were 308,605 persons sentenced in Austria-Hungary, and 600,000 in 1892. In the German Empire in 1882 there were 329,968 persons sentenced for crimes and misdemeanors against the laws, i.e. 103.2 persons to 10,000 of the population over 12 years old; in 1892 the number of those sentenced reached 422,327, or 143.3 to the 10,000, an increase of 39%. Those convicted of crimes and misdemeanors against property were:
| 1882 | 169,334 persons, or 53.0 to the 10,000 over 12 |
| 1891 | 196,437 persons,,, or 55.8 to,, the,, 10,000,, over,, 12,, |
“We think that these figures speak volumes, that they show how the deterioration of social conditions increases and multiplies poverty, need, misdemeanors and crimes.”[18]
V.
P. Lafargue.
The first part of the study, “Die Kriminalität in Frankreich von 1840–1886”, is taken up with an examination of the trend of criminality during these years. The author comes to the conclusion that during this period crime has increased, and that the line that shows this increase is made up of a succession of curves, alternately concave and convex.
In the second part, he treats of the causes of crime. He first points out that the belief that the proclamation of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the French Revolution would be speedily followed by a diminution in crime, was not borne out by the facts. Then he takes up the idea, so widespread in the first half of the 19th century, that one of the most important causes of criminality is the lack of education. This hypothesis has been generally recognized as false, [[230]]in consequence of an examination of the facts. According to Lafargue, who is entirely in agreement with Quetelet on this point, it is necessary not only to examine the qualities of the individual, but also especially to analyze society, and to try thus to discover the sources of crime. Next the author shows the results of the researches of Quetelet with regard to the influence of the season, age, and sex upon criminality, and sets forth and criticises briefly the theories of Lombroso and his partisans with regard to the criminal man. We should run to too great length if we gave more fully his refutation which is as brilliant as it is accurate.
Some statisticians connect the returns of the harvests and vintages with criminality. An investigation upon this point as regards France, gives the following results: the years 1847, 1854, 1868, and 1874, which are characterized by a great increase of crime, were preceded by years of bad harvests.
The average of the crops of grain was:
| from 1840 to 1853 about 80 million hectolitres |
| from,, 1856 to,, 1885 about,, 100 million,, hectolitres,, |
the crop rose:
| in 1846 to 61 million hectolitres |
| from,, 1853 to,, 63 million,, hectolitres,, |
| from,, 1867 to,, 83 million,, hectolitres,, |
| from,, 1873 to,, 84 million,, hectolitres,, |
However, the bad harvests of 1855, 1861, and 1879 did not have these results, and with the good crops of 1847 to 1852 crime increased. Here there were, therefore, other factors. Consequently, although the price of grain can partially explain the fluctuations of criminality, it does not account for the general increase from 1840 to 1886.
The author combats further the opinion of Professor Lacassagne that crimes against persons are especially under the influence of the production and consumption of wine. If this were the case the wine-growing departments ought to furnish the highest figure for crimes against persons, which is not the case. On the contrary, Lafargue is of the opinion that in this respect, the consumption of brandy is of more importance. The continually increasing abuse of alcohol (i.e. of spirituous drinks like brandy) which in its turn is due to the miserable condition of the proletariat, is one of the causes of the increasing criminality.
Quantity of alcohol consumed: [[231]]
| Year. | Total (Hectolitres). | Per Capita (Litres). |
| 1850 | 585,200 | 1.46 |
| 1855 | 714,813 | 2.00 |
| 1860 | 851,825 | 2.27 |
| 1865 | 873,007 | 2.34 |
| 1875 | 1,010,052 | 2.82 |
| 1880 | 1,313,849 | 3.64 |
| 1885 | 1,444,342 | 3.86 |
In the third part Lafargue makes special investigations with regard to the correlation between economic conditions and criminality. If the theory of Lombroso were correct, criminality ought to decrease; bad harvests no longer explain the increase, and the climate has not changed. However, the increase of criminality coincided with the enormous increase in the productive forces in France.
| Horse-power of steam engines used in manufacturing and agriculture | 34,350 | 177,652 | 544,152 | 683,090 |
| Consumption of coal (in tons) | 4,256,000 | 14,270,000 | 28,846,000 | 30,941,000 |
| Production of iron (in tons) | 585,000 | 1,430,000 | 2,790,000 | 2,747,000 |
| Production of steel (in tons) | 8,262 | 30,000 | 389,000 | 503,000 |
| Exports and imports (in millions of francs) | 1,442 | 4,174 | 8,501 | 7,575 |
| Increase of inheritances (in millions of francs) | 1,608 | 2,724 | 5,265 | 5,244 |
| National wealth (in millions of francs) | 64,320 | 108,960 | 210,600 | 209,760 |
There is a close correspondence, then, between the development of the economic forces and the increase of criminality. Must we regard this as simply chance, or is there causality between the two? Quetelet has already pointed out that the poorest districts, i.e. those in which the absolute wealth is not great, but where the contrasts are not very marked, furnish fewer criminals than the wealthier provinces. According to Lafargue this has become still more striking with the development of capitalism.
“The colossal development of the productive forces and the national wealth does not lead to the increase of the well-being of all the members of society, but to enormous fortunes on the one hand, and on the other to misery and need, for the great majority of the [[232]]population.”[19] If the multiplying, grading, and perfecting of punishments have been incapable of checking the upward progress of crime, this proves that crimes and misdemeanors against the common law are the necessary products of conditions, and are closely bound up with the form and fashion of the creation of social wealth in capitalistic society.
“The development of the capitalistic mode of production is not uniform; at times it is over-rapid, and then slows up again and undergoes crises that destroy the living of thousands and millions of individuals. If it is correct that modern criminality is a necessary consequence of the method of the production of wealth in capitalistic society, then the fluctuations of crime must correspond with the variations in production. The number of offenses must increase in times of crisis, and decrease when economic conditions improve; in other words, criminality is determined by the flourishing or depression of the capitalistic mode of production.”[20]
As a means of measuring comparative economic conditions, Lafargue has taken the annual number of failures. He has also traced a curve for the price of flour.[21]
Examining the first plate we see that lines I and II, although not entirely parallel with V, follow it in general. According to Lafargue there are three counter-determinants that caused the deviations: first, changes in the price of flour; second, political events; third, extraordinary industrial activity. Thus, for example, it was the political events of 1848–52 that prevented the decrease of crime during those years, though the failures and the price of flour went down; and at the close of 1854 a feverish economic development recommenced, which, with the fall of the price of flour in 1856–59, caused a decrease of criminality during those years. At the same time the failures rose a little; but the line would doubtless show a different course if it were drawn with reference to the ratio of failures to the total number of commercial and industrial enterprises in this period. The low price of flour in 1869 neutralized the increase of failures and even diminished the criminality. From 1874 to 1878 a new industrial revival kept crime stationary or reduced it. Since 1876 the failures have increased greatly and crime follows at a little interval; the falling price of grain (1881–1885) certainly exerted an influence. [[233]]
PLATE I.
I. Crimes against Persons and Property, tried at the Assizes. II. General Criminality (Crimes and Misdemeanors). III. Offenses against the Common Law, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. IV. Price of a Sack of Flour in the Markets of Paris. V. Number of Failures.
PLATE II.
I. Thefts with Aggravating Circumstances, tried by the Assizes, and Simple Thefts, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. II. Theft, Fraud, Embezzlement, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. III. Number of Failures and the Price of Flour Combined.
[[234]]
The curves are almost constantly parallel; the deviations are caused by political events and by the industrial revival.[22]
Vagrancy and mendicity take the same course as failures; they increase, however, from 1848 to 1852 in consequence of the political troubles of those years. From 1878 on, failures, and vagrancy and mendicity increase and are parallel. In the periods of industrial revival (1854–59 and 1874–76) vagrancy and mendicity decline sharply. In examining the curve of recidivism it must be remembered that since 1884 many recidivists have been transported.
PLATE III.
I. Vagrancy and Mendicity. II. Failures. III. Recidivists sentenced by the Assizes or the Correctional Tribunals.
Here we see a result contrary to that on the preceding charts: If the failures increase the rapes generally decrease, and vice versa. [[235]]According to this plate the consumption of alcohol has no relation to crimes against morals.
PLATE IV.
I. Rape. II. Consumption of Alcohol. III. Failures.
At the end of his study the author comes to the following conclusion: “The effect of bankruptcy upon criminality and politics is undeniable; it furnishes one of the most striking proofs of the correctness of the historical theory of Karl Marx, that the phenomena of literature and art, of morality and religion, of philosophy and politics, in human society, lead back to the phenomena of economic development.”[23]
VI.
H. Denis.
Professor Denis begins his report to the 3d Congress of Criminal Anthropology, entitled “La criminalité et la crise économique”, by calling attention to the effect that the crisis of 1846–47 had upon criminality. The crops of wheat, rye, and especially potatoes had been bad, and the price of these articles of food had accordingly risen. The breaking up of household labor and the introduction of machines brought about a revolution in the linen industry at the same time. So the figures for crime indicate an enormous increase during these years, and at the close of the period a continuous decrease. [[236]]
| Years. | Numbers of Delinquents to the 10,000 Inhabitants. |
| 1845 | 28.8 |
| 1846 | 47.9 |
| 1847 | 65.3 |
| 1848 | 42.4 |
| 1849 | 25.– |
| 1850 | 19.8 |
| 1851 | 19.8 |
| 1852 | 19.2 |
| 1853 | 19.7 |
Then the author treats of the effect produced upon criminality by the crises of 1874 and the years following. The price of grain no longer giving, in consequence of importation, an exact picture of the economic conditions, he adds to the chart which he uses, the “nombres indicateurs” (of 28 of the more important articles of commerce). The curve of these numbers shows a fluctuating rise during the period from 1850 to 1865, and a fluctuating decline during the period following the years 1874–75. During the first period, in which the economic conditions were favorable (the years 1870 to 1873 being characterized by an economic development that was even feverish), criminality remained fairly stationary. Only during the years 1856–57 and 1861–62 was there an increase, and this is probably to be ascribed to the high price of grain. The economic depression that commenced after 1874 was severely felt, and crime continually increased without the low price of grain being able to prevent it.
Professor Denis closes his report with the following words: “The solution of the problem of criminality must be in part sought in economic conditions; and the more regular and constant the social movement of wealth, the more we approach a normal equilibrium of collective functions, the more we instil justice into our economic institutions, the more shall we be able to gain the mastery over criminality.
“An Italian criminologist, Ferri, studying the evolution of criminality in France in relation to the income of the most numerous class, has shown that with a general rise in wages we see a decrease in certain kinds of crime. The general increase of prosperity is a sure pledge of a decrease in criminality. But there is another, and that is a decrease in those more or less marked oscillations, in the economic world, whose periodic return is certainly one of the gravest aspects of the modern state.
“In the second place, the economic causes that affect the tendency to crime reveal an immense solidarity, which continues to extend [[237]]itself into space, as heredity plunges its roots into time. The great fluctuations in prices are common to the whole world, and the individual whom these perturbations drive to crime by a series of shocks, comes into conflict with a great number of other individuals, without being conscious of this infinite solidarity. But science must endeavor to collect the evidence of it. Finally these great economic influences tend, on the one hand, to reduce the field of the individual responsibility, and on the other, to give a precise character to the responsibility of society in this connection. It is responsible, in fact, within the limits within which it might have restrained the economic fluctuations and corrected their effects, but has not done so. Here the terrible saying of Quetelet is still true: society herself has put the weapon into the hand of the criminal.”[24]
VII.
H. Lux.[25]
In the chapter, “Die degenerirenden Einwirkungen des Kapitalismus”, this author treats of the question of criminality and its relation with present economic conditions.
“The property-holders, those who enjoy the benefits of all the political and social institutions, alone have the right to exist. Those without possessions do not have this right, despite the fiction of the Prussian code with regard to the matter. The simple instinct of self-preservation causes them to engage in a continual attack upon a legal system that protects only the stronger. It is this attack which those who are in possession of power, those who have drawn up the laws for the purpose of protecting their power, characterize as a breach of the law, as crime.… This is the simplest relationship between the form of society and crime. Naturally, complications come in.… The stronger those without property, the outlawed, themselves become through some chance, the more do they modify the law that was set up by those who were formerly stronger, the more do complications arise in the primitively simple right of property, the right to the protection of social institutions, and the law of marriage, and the greater and more complicated becomes the circle of crimes.”[26] [[238]]
After having next spoken briefly of free will, and having shown that it is incorrect to connect criminality with a single social phenomenon alone, since the social mechanism is too complicated, the author begins to treat of the crimes against property. In the first place he gives the following tables:
Germany.[27]
| Years. | Prices. | To 10,000 Inhabitants Over 10 Years Old. | |||||
| In Marks per 1,000 Kilogr. | In Pf. per Kilogr. | ||||||
| Of Bread. | Of Peas. | Of Potatoes. | Of Beef. | Of Pork. | Crimes Against Property. | Theft. | |
| 1881 | 198 | 251 | 43.5 | 114 | 128 | — | — |
| 1882 | 171 | 236 | 56.5 | 116 | 128 | 52.9 | 32.6 |
| 1883 | 155 | 241 | 45.5 | 120 | 128 | 51.0 | 31.6 |
| 1884 | 145 | 229 | 47.0 | 120 | 120 | 50.7 | 30.1 |
| 1885 | 147 | 212 | 38.0 | 119 | 120 | 48.6 | 27.9 |
| 1886 | 130 | 209 | 39.5 | 117 | 119 | 48.1 | 27.2 |
| 1887 | 135 | 198 | 41.5 | 113 | 115 | 47.1 | 26.0 |
| 1888 | 144 | 219 | 59.0 | 112 | 114 | 45.9 | 25.4 |
| 1889 | 162 | 209 | 42.0 | 117 | 128 | 49.3 | 28.1 |
Hungary.
| 1881 | 1882 | 1883 | 1884 | 1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888 | |
| Convicted of theft | 19. | 26.7 | 25.7 | 23.4 | 32.2 | 22.0 | 21.7 | 22.3 |
| Crop of maize per hectare | 16.1 | 20.0 | 16.8 | 17.2 | 20.5 | 15.5 | 14.2 | 18.0 |
| Crop,, of,, potatoes per hectare | 81.8 | 110.7 | 109.9 | 80.1 | 92.0 | 77.2 | 79.0 | 85.4 |
Finally, Dr. Lux cites some statistics from Kolb’s “Handbuch der vergleichenden Statistik”, which show the close connection between crimes against property and economic conditions.
Political crimes. “In the case of crimes against the State, public order, and religion, the dependence upon the form of society is immediately apparent. The ‘classes’, i.e. the property-owners as a whole, see in the institutions that they have set up, the strongest support of the capitalistic system, which must be maintained at any cost. The property-owners have the power to uphold their unique [[239]]position by laws directed against those who would break down that power. And if the laws are no longer sufficient, their place is taken by judicial interpretations in the interests of the classes. This is only the logical consequence of the whole spirit and aim of legislation. The greater become the rights founded upon property, the more do those without property feel themselves to be deprived of their rights,—in the fullest sense of the word—in jeopardy as to their existence, their full life; the more energetic is the reaction against the laws, which are felt as despotism; and the more serious is the attack upon those laws,—a characteristic phenomenon of all periods of transition as to the form of society.”[28]
The question which presents itself now is this: how far are these factors connected with existing economic conditions? But before entering upon this the author calls attention to the environment in which the children of the proletariat live, and especially of the lower proletariat, an environment in which misery and vice contend for the preëminence. There it is nearly out of the question to learn ethical conceptions. Whence it comes also that in our days criminality among the young has greatly increased. However, alcoholism must also be named as one of the most important causes of psychical perturbations.
It is not only the non-possessors, but also the possessors who are driven to commit crimes as a consequence of existing economic conditions. “But not only for those without property, for the proletariat, does capitalism furnish the psychically prerequisite conditions for crime … but for the property-holders themselves. Entirely aside from business practices and tricks of the trade, which stand upon the hairline between right and wrong, apart from the frauds, forgeries, etc. that are evoked by too tempting opportunity, there are more general effects of the capitalistic system. The hurried chase for gain, the accelerating of commerce by railroad, steamship, telegraph, and telephone, the multiplication of commercial crises, which earlier came at intervals, but now are a permanent accompaniment of the social life, bring about a nervousness running through all circles of society, that is continually increasing, and is the forerunner of more serious psychoses. The terrible increase of cases of insanity (in Prussia, to the 10,000 of the population, in 1871, 5.94 cases; in 1875, 7.28; in 1880, 9.87), appears to be thus directly caused by capitalistic society.”[29]
However, there act in man as counter-determinants, combating [[240]]the factors called criminogenous, the ethical factors (“ethische Hemmungsvorstellungen”), which are determined by education, character, the fear of punishment, etc. Those who do not wish to investigate the deepest causes of criminality, are of the opinion that the best way to combat crime is by increasing the penalties. The persons who speak thus forget that the so-called ethical factors have no longer any effect when the conditions have reached a certain degree of seriousness.
Crimes against persons. It is the industrial workers who form the greatest contingent of criminals against persons. “The continually changing conditions of earning a living, the desire for drink, the slight influence of the family, the being crowded together with persons of defective education and little training … these all necessarily breed crimes of violence; entirely aside from the habitual rowdyism of the bully [“Zuhälter”], which is to be regarded as the consequence of prostitution.[30]
Besides the external conditions named above, the person of the criminal is also to be noticed. We may consider it as proved that in some cases of crime one of the causes is a mental perturbation (for example, that caused by drunkenness). These perturbations play a great part in sexual crimes (perverted instincts). What characterizes most of these mental anomalies is that they blunt the social instincts. But there is another cause of psychic degeneracy. “It is a universally valid psycho-physical law that man, ‘the more he depends upon an agreeable stimulation for the satisfaction of his senses, demands ever stronger stimuli, even to secure the same degree of pleasure.’ Pleasures, especially sensual pleasures, must always become more intense, more titillating, in order to afford satisfaction, but the more their intensity increases, the more do the nerves become irritated and exhausted, and the more quickly is the ground prepared for mental diseases either in the individual himself or in his descendants.—It must be emphasized, however, that such an increase in the stimulus is only possible to the rich, and accordingly it is with reference to them chiefly that these sources of mental disturbances are to be taken into consideration.”[31]
After having called attention to the great amount of recidivism among female delinquents, to the great increase of crime in our own day, and to the great percentage of young people among the criminals, the author closes with the following words: “Crime belongs in a society founded upon capitalism just as necessarily as do prostitution, [[241]]the destruction of countless human lives through economic exploitation, etc.”
VIII.
P. Hirsch.
After having shown in the first chapter of his work, “Verbrechen und Prostitution”,[32] the relation between criminality and prostitution, and the increase of the two at the same time, the author gives, in his second chapter, a short exposition of the doctrine of criminal anthropology, and in the third chapter he takes up the doctrine of the social environment.
Here he treats first of the encouragement of prostitution and crime by the marriage restrictions. Marriages increase or decrease as economic conditions grow better or worse. So, for example, in Prussia there were, from 1866 to 1870, 1605 marriages to 100,000 of the population; this number rose to 1896 in the period of prosperity between the years 1870 and 1875, only to fall, in 1888, to 1624. In bad times the number of illegitimate births makes a consequent increase. It is very comprehensible that natural children furnish a greater number of criminals than legitimate children, since they have more difficulty in enduring the combat of life than the others.
Then he sets forth as a cause of crime the influence of domestic relations. When the parents belong already to the class of criminals, it is almost inevitable that their children should fall into the hands of justice while still young. And the present system of production brings it about that the education of the children of the proletariat is almost nil, since it obliges the father, and very often the mother also, to work away from home during a great part of the day and often of the night. The situation is still more unfavorable for the children who have lost their parents when they were still quite young. Starke says that about 57% of the legitimate children among the juvenile prisoners in Plötzensee were orphans or had been abandoned by their parents.
The third part has to do with the housing conditions of the proletariat. “A lodging fit for a human being is the first requirement for the bodily and mental welfare of the family; it is the prerequisite for a well-regulated family life, and for the rearing of the children to be moral men and women. The improprieties resulting from the exigencies of insufficient lodgings are innumerable, and this condition [[242]]is an inexhaustible source of crime, prostitution, and vice of every kind.” All the data prove that the proletariat, who, of all classes, pay the highest rent, are the most miserably housed. In Berlin, for example, the poorest classes have been shown to spend on an average a quarter of their income for rent. In Hamburg the part of the income that had to go for rent among the class whose income was from 600 to 1200 marks, in 1868 was 18.77%, in 1874 20.90%, in 1882 23.51%, and in 1892 24.71%, while the percentage remained the same or decreased for all other classes. In order to make up the resulting deficit, resort is often had to night-lodgings. “The disadvantages of subletting are obvious. ‘Children of both sexes have to sleep with their parents, and often with strangers, in the same room, often even in the same bed; the advantages of domesticity are lost; the tavern offers more pleasant entertainment than being crowded together with wife and children in one room that must be shared with strangers, and in which the opportunity for quarreling and fighting, in consequence of the narrow quarters, is constant. It is the bad housing conditions that are the cause of the increasing alcoholism, of the break-up of the family life, and of the lack of education for the youth.’ (Braun).”[33]
The chapter that concerns us next treats of the subsidiary businesses engaged in by school children. It goes without saying that in the cases where the wages of the father of the family must be increased by the labor of the mother, the children also must be put to work at an age at which they ought to have their leisure time for play. For though child-labor in factories is a little limited by legislation, it is still commonly practiced in household industry. Further most of the children of the proletariat must, in their free hours, do all kinds of work harmful to their physique and their morals. “It is plain to be seen how greatly the school-children are injured by engaging in additional work. Entirely aside from the harm they suffer in the matter of health, and from the fact that the tired children cannot give sufficient attention to the words of the teacher and that for many of them their instruction is as good as lost, is the great fact that their morals are in the highest degree endangered. Under the pressure of necessity, these children learn to grasp every advantage, whether allowable or not, and—not through their own fault, but through that of society—are precociously familiar with vice.”[34] “Any one who examines these conditions will not be surprised that according to the statement of Superintendent Schönberger, out of 100 juvenile prisoners [[243]]in the Plötzensee prison near Berlin, 70 had been employed during school days as breakfast-carriers, newsboys, messengers, bowling-alley-boys, etc., early in the morning, from half past four on, and in some cases still earlier, until school time, and in the afternoon either the whole time, or from four till half past seven or half past eight at night.”[35]
Next, Hirsch examines the influence of economic crises. He quotes, among other things, the following from the researches of J. S(chmidt). During the economic depression from 1875 to 1878 the number of punishments inflicted by the “Ordnungspolizei” in the country of Baden rose from 16,218 to 22,264, and that of the penalties inflicted by the “Sittenpolizei” (having surveillance of prostitution) from 1995 to 4485. There were increases, therefore, of 40% and 125%. In the period of prosperity from 1882 to 1885 these figures fell from 22,765 to 18,856 (16%), and from 4106 to 4007 (3%). During the critical years from 1889 to 1892 the number of recidivists convicted of theft rose 18%, and the number of other thieves convicted 6%. In the period from 1875 to 1878 (years of crisis) the number of offenses against property rose 17.4%, and decreased 13% in the years 1882 to 1885 (a period of prosperity).
In conclusion the author points out the fact that there are also criminals who are predisposed to crime by their physical constitution (mental disorders), and treats of “the repression of crime and prostitution.”[36] [[244]]
[1] See also, as members of the “Terza Scuola”: Vaccaro, “Genesi e funzione delle leggi penali”; Carnevale, “Una terza scuola di diritto penale”; Alimena, “Naturalismo critico e diritto penale.” In the “Mitteilungen der internationalen kriminalistischen Vereinigung”, Vol. IV, is found an article by Dr. E. Rosenfeld, entitled “Die dritte Schule”, in which the doctrine of this school is fully treated.
In a discourse more distinguished by hatred of Marxism than by a knowledge of that doctrine, Professor Benedikt said at the Congress of Criminal Anthropology held in Brussels: “The partisans of the ‘Terza Scuola’ are in reality only Marxists.” Among those considered as belonging to the Third School, there is only one Marxist as far as I know. Professor Benedikt may have been led into his error by the fact that Dr. Colajanni, one of the principal partisans of the Third School, and also one of the few criminologists of this school who has written upon the affinity between criminality and economic conditions, is in agreement with the Marxists in this, that he finds the causes of crime, in the last analysis, in economic conditions. This is why I speak of Dr. Colajanni, as representing the Third School, and of the socialists in the same chapter. Although Colajanni calls himself a republican in political matters, he is nevertheless a partisan of an eclectic socialism. (See “Il Socialismo.”) It is for this reason also that it is well to name him in this chapter. Other partisans of the Third School are also, as it appears, more or less of this opinion (see p. 18 of “Die dritte Schule”, where Dr. Rosenfeld treats of Professor Carnevale). However, it is evident from the manner in which Dr. Colajanni treats the question, that he is not a Marxist. [↑]
[7] See also his, “La delinquenza della Sicilia e le sue cause”, and “Socialismo e criminalità.” [↑]
[8] Dr. Colajanni is in error here. Marx never formulated so strange a theory. [↑]
[10] For further details see Dr. Colajanni’s report to the Fifth Congress of Criminal Anthropology. [↑]
[11] See pp. 494–500, where the author proves this with the aid of numerous quotations. [↑]
[14] With regard to Starke, from whom Dr. Colajanni takes these figures, see Chap. II of this work. [↑]
[15] Pp. 562, 563. See also Chap. XIII, in which Dr. Colajanni treats of the influence of militarism upon criminality. [↑]
[16] [To this point Dr. H. B. Adams, Walther’s translation, “Woman in the Past, Present, and Future”, (Lovell, 1886) has been followed. The remainder of the quotation is matter added by Bebel since the publication of the edition from which the above translation was made.—Transl.] [↑]
[17] [A decimal point is plainly lacking after the first figure in each of these two numbers.—Transl.] [↑]
[21] In examining the statistical tables it must be remembered that they give no real picture of criminality during the years 1870–71, on account of the effect of the war. [↑]
[22] Lafargue’s idea of combining the curves of failure and of the price of flour is ingenious, but in my opinion does not give a correct notion of the truth, since it is upon the mistaken notion that the effect of these two factors is equal. [↑]
[24] Pp. 370, 371. “Actes du troisième Congrès international d’anthropologie criminelle.” See, by the same author, “L’influence de la crise économique sur la criminalité et le penchant au crime de Quetelet”, “Le socialisme et les causes économiques et sociales du crime”, and “Les index numbers (nombres indices) des phénomènes moraux.” [↑]
[25] “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch.” [↑]
[27] In the last two columns “crimes” was later corrected by the author himself to “criminals”. See “Neue Zeit”, 1892–1893, II, p. 179, and 1893–1894, I, pp. 184 and 535. [↑]
[32] In 1907 a second edition appeared, revised and corrected. [↑]
[36] See also: P. Kropotkin, “Paroles d’un révolté”, pp. 241 ff., and “The Coming Anarchy”, p. 161 (“Nineteenth Century”, 1887); J. Stern, “Einfluss der sozialen Zustände auf alle Zweige des Kulturlebens”, pp. 24 ff.; E. Belfort Bax, “Ethics of Socialism”; T. W. Teifen, “Das soziale Elend und die besitzenden Klassen in Oesterreich”, pp. 132–137, 170–171; J. S(chmidt), “Einfluss der Krisen und der Steigerung der Lebensmittelpreise auf das Gesellschaftsleben”, pp. 16–19, 23; H. Wetzker, “Die Zunahme der Verbrechen” (“Sozialistische Monatshefte”, 1902, II); E. Reich, “Criminalität und Altruismus”; E. Gystrow, “Social-pathologische Probleme der Gegenwart” (“Soz. Monatshefte”, V, 1901).
See also Chapter I, in which I have treated of several socialists, who had to be placed there because they wrote before the rise of modern criminology.
[Note to the American Edition: See also E. Fischer, “Laienbemerkungen zur Reform des Strafrechts” (“Soz. Monatshefte”, X,1 (1906); Dr. S. Ettinger, “Das Verbrecherproblem in anthropologischer und soziologischer Beleuchtung”, which, resting upon the socialist theory, criticises especially the anthropological school; and Robert Blatchford, “Not Guilty”, an original and popular exposition of the theory of the environment.] [↑]
CHAPTER VIII.
CONCLUSIONS.
Having come to the end of my exposition, I have still to sum up the different chapters. As we have seen, a very small proportion of the authors who have taken up the subject, deny the existence of the relation between criminality and economic conditions, and in my opinion they have not proved the correctness of their position.
The great majority of authors are of the opinion that economic conditions occupy a more or less important position, but that other factors besides these are also at work. I have tried to show that as far as these factors are of a cosmic or religious nature, this thesis cannot be correct; that as far as they are of an anthropological nature, they play a rôle only with regard to a part of criminality.
Finally, we have seen that a small number of authors are of the opinion that the influence of economic factors is sovereign. I have been able to find no inaccuracies in the foundations of their theses.
Nearly all the authors—later I shall speak of the exceptions—have this in common, that they give a very limited meaning to the words “economic factors”, under which they include only poverty and wealth, and that they do not inquire whether these phenomena do not themselves need explanation, and whether economic conditions have not a great influence upon the whole social organization. They consider them as being phenomena of the same value as the other sides of the social life. In other words, most authors have omitted to explain the present mode of production and its consequences.
However, economic conditions, in my opinion, occupy an entirely different place; they are the foundation upon which the social structure rests. To make my thought clear I will once more call attention to the classic formula of this doctrine, originated by Marx and Engels, taken from the preface to the work, “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, which I have already quoted in treating of the theories of Professor Ferri. [[245]]
“In the social production of their life men enter into fixed, necessary relationships in production, independent of their will, relationships which correspond to a definite stage in the development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relationships forms the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the juristic and political superstructure is erected, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. The form of production of the material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of mankind that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”[1]
In the second part of this work I will try to sketch a treatment of the question according to this theory. As regards economic conditions I shall limit myself, for different reasons, to the present system, i.e. modern capitalism.
These reasons are the following:
First. A really scientific examination of the causes of criminality is only possible since the existence of criminal statistics, i.e. since the beginning of the 19th century.[2]
Second. Criminality has increased greatly under capitalism, and is of the greatest importance to the whole social life.
Third. An examination of historic criminality is very interesting; that of our own day is still more so. However, social science is not simply a means of solving interesting problems, but also, and chiefly, a means of pointing out to society the way to protect itself from scourges like criminality, or if possible, to get rid of them entirely. Here the saying of Marx applies: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the important thing is to alter it.”
Above I have already remarked that some authors have an opinion that differs from that of the majority, and are in agreement with the theory cited. Among these must be cited Engels, one of the two founders of this theory, and most of the authors of whom I spoke in the last chapter. However, Engels has only made, in passing, some observations upon the influence of capitalism on crime among the [[246]]workers in factories; Hirsch, in his interesting brochure, has pointed out only certain sides of the economic life; and although the studies concerning this question published by Lafargue and by Lux are more complete than those of the first two authors, there are nevertheless important points which these last have not examined, or to the bottom of which they have not gone, as it seems to me. And it is quite comprehensible that it should be so; for the work of Lafargue is only a magazine article, and that of Dr. Lux is one of the subdivisions of a social-political manual, in which he treats of crime among other social phenomena. The works of the other authors noticed in Chapter VII, do not make the study of the question in the manner noted, useless.
I am of the opinion, then, that while the works quoted have made considerable progress, there is still much to be done. It therefore appears to me that it will not be without profit to take up the subject.
The theory of Marx and Engels results in our having a method of investigation already marked out. While most authors who have published studies upon the question, have thought it unnecessary to give an exposition of the economic system in which we live, or perhaps have given a little attention to it along with other social conditions, I shall begin by setting forth the present economic system as that upon which the other parts of the social life rest. These I shall treat in their turn, in so far as they are connected with criminality. It is obvious that this will be only a sketch, for if one wished all the details, it would be enough to refer to the special literature upon the subject. Then I shall investigate the question of how far criminality, under its different forms, is the consequence of the conditions we have found.
[Note to the American Edition: According to some criticisms of my book it should have been my task not only to give a sketch of the economic theory of Marx, but also to prove it “in extenso” and to refute the criticisms of it, since it is not universally accepted.
It is true that this theory has not been generally accepted—a thing that would be impossible from the social consequences of such acceptation—but I claim that of all the economic theories, that of Marx is the only one that daily wins more adherents, and more and more interpenetrates all social science—even in the case of authors who are the bitterest opponents of this theory.
To require that a book like mine should once more set forth and defend the theory of Marx “in extenso”, is as impossible as to require that a modern biologist, who proceeds upon the basis of the Darwinian theory, should prove over again that his basis is sound. That there may be more or less error in detail in the theory of Marx, as in that of Darwin, is possible, but in general they have resisted, like a wall of bronze, all attacks in the most pitiless of contests, that of opinions.
Let the adversaries of Marx’s theory judge without prejudice whether that theory does not constitute a great step in advance in criminology!] [[247]]
[2] I do not mean to deny the importance of historical researches into crime, such as the famous book of Pike, “History of Crime in England”, or the “Documents de criminologie rétrospective” of Corre and Aubry. They can give us valuable information with regard to the etiology of crime, but in my opinion it is indubitable that the historic method never permits us to give the complete etiology of a social phenomenon, like criminality, for example. [↑]