Part Two.
BOOK I.
THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.
CHAPTER I.
THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM.[1]
In order to provide for his needs man has always been obliged to work, and this work has always depended upon the physical environment and especially upon the means of production. It is not our province to enquire how or why the means of production were developed. It is enough to show that because of their development the products which man had at his disposal were multiplied. Now when these products become too abundant for one group of producers, a surplus results, which may be exchanged for products of a different sort of which the first group of producers are deprived by reason of their circumstances. These products, which are not destined for personal use but for exchange are called commodities. Consequently it is its social qualities and not its natural qualities that make a commodity of any given product. That an exchange may be made, then, two conditions must be satisfied:
First, There must have been a division of labor; for there would be no point in the exchange of identical products. The objects to be exchanged are those which have no immediate usefulness for the person who possesses them, while they are useful to those who do not possess them.
Second, The persons who are exchanging must have full power to [[248]]dispose of their products—in other words, they must be the possessors of the product which they wish to exchange.
In the beginning the relative quantities of the products exchanged for each other must have varied greatly. But in course of time the exchange of commodities took place in a ratio fixed for any one place and time; ten hatchets, for example, being equivalent to five bows, etc. These commodities must have a common quality which makes a comparison possible; and it is this common quality which we call their value. The first problem to be solved, then, is this: “What constitutes the value of commodities?”
To become a commodity anything must provide for some need of man; it must have the value of usefulness. Without this value a product can never be a commodity. However, it is impossible that the quality which different commodities have in common, and on the basis of which they are compared, should be their usefulness, that is to say, their natural qualities. For it is just because of their difference in usefulness [to their possessors] that goods are exchanged.
“As regards their use-value goods are primarily of different quality; as regards their exchange-value they can only be of different quantity, without including a particle of use-value.”[2]
Since usefulness does not count in exchange there is only one quality of the commodity that remains, that of being the product of labor. And as we have withdrawn the consideration of usefulness in estimating exchange-value, we must do the same for different kinds of work, so that the only quality which remains to a commodity is that of being the product of the labor of man in general. Any commodity, then, derives its value only from the circumstance that it represents a certain amount of labor of man in general.
The value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor it represents, measured by the time required. Naturally by “work” is to be understood here not individual work, but social work; or as Marx says: “It is … the quantity of work socially necessary, or the time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, which determines its value.”[3]
In measure as the division of labor is developed, production for personal use diminishes, and the production of commodities increases, until it finally becomes the universal form of production, and one commodity (money) is developed as a universal equivalent. As a [[249]]consequence of the development of the production of merchandise, the purchase and sale of goods becomes a special profession. The merchant buys for a different reason from that which influences his customers. While the latter buy for consumption, the former buys to sell again and make a profit out of the transaction. The commodity which serves for this purpose is called capital.
Consequently capital comes into existence at the moment when the production of commodities has attained a certain degree of development. Private property, the basis of the production of commodities, begins from that point to show its capitalistic character, at first in an imperceptible manner, which nevertheless becomes more and more developed. The income of the artisan depends primarily upon his personal qualities; that of the capitalist—as such—depends in the first place upon the amount of his capital. The working power and capacity of an individual are limited, so that the quantity that he can produce is also limited; while money can be heaped up without limit. The larger the sum of money anyone uses as capital, the more the money can produce. But the reverse of the medal is not so pretty. Side by side with the possibility of accumulating a fortune there is that of becoming poor. This fact was not prominent at the entrance of capitalism into the field, when poverty was not yet a general phenomenon, but it increased more and more, so that at present we live in a society in which the greater part of the population is poor.
In the Middle Ages the trades were developed in Europe; the division of labor increased; tools were perfected; and commerce was developed, chiefly as a consequence of the improvement of the means of communication. The maritime route to India was discovered as well as the American continent. Enormous sums of money, acquired by means of commerce and pillage, flowed into Europe. With the discovery of these countries the outlets for trade correspondingly increased. The trades, however, not being in a position to furnish the great quantity of commodities required, the merchants determined themselves to undertake the wholesale production of articles intended exclusively for sale.
There was no lack of money to procure the raw materials and the tools, to establish workshops and to hire workmen. The only difficulty to be overcome was that of procuring these last. The workman who has in his own possession the means of production will not sell his labor. To attain their end the capitalists had to seek for persons who, having no means of production, were obliged to sell their productive energy or die of hunger. [[250]]
For certain reasons it was possible for the needs of the capitalists to be satisfied. On account of the development of the market in the cities the demand for food, and for raw materials of every kind, such as wood, wool, etc., increased, and agricultural production for the purpose of sale increased, so that the peasants began to have money. This latter fact complicated the relation between them and the feudal lords. So long as the rent was paid in kind the lord demanded only as much as he could consume; but from the day that the rent began to be paid in money the landowner began to press the peasant more and more, since money can always be used, and no one ever has enough. From this fact arose so severe an exploitation that many peasants left the country to take refuge in the towns.
The second reason why a large number of workmen were obtainable was that the lords themselves began to produce commodities for city markets, especially wool and wood. This took fewer laborers than agriculture, but required more land, so that many peasants were driven from their farms and, like the others, went to swell the population of the cities.
Thus there was no further obstacle to wholesale production, and from then on raw materials were purchased, workshops established, and the labor of the proletariat procured. Human labor thus has become a commodity, corresponding exactly to definition: first, it has no use-value for the possessor if he has not the means of production, and, on the other hand, has such a value for the person possessing these means; second, the possessor of labor has the free disposition of it.
The contract is made; the proletariat on the one side furnishes the commodity—labor—and the capitalist on the other gives the equivalent of it. Now how much must be given for this commodity? In other words what is the value of the labor delivered? The value of a commodity is determined by the labor-time socially necessary for its production, in this case necessary for the proletarian and his family to live; for the workman being mortal, and capital having need of new forces, the wage must be sufficient to raise a new generation of workers. The standard of the workman’s needs is subject to variation according to time and place (the causes of which variation we need not examine here), but it is fixed for a certain country, time, and category of workers.
Let us suppose now that the process of production has a normal course, that is to say, that it comes out as the capitalist wishes. He has begun with a sum, A, and ends by possessing A + a. We must [[251]]now explain this surplus a, which, in the terminology of capitalistic production, is called surplus-value. The surplus obtained from the labor of slaves is easily explained. The owner leaves the slaves a part of the product of their own labor to live on. The rest is his. His surplus springs from the labor of others. The relation of the serf and his lord is, if possible, even clearer. The serf works part of the week for himself and on the remaining days for his master. The explanation of the surplus produced by capital employed at usury or in primitive commerce (the most ancient forms under which capital was employed) no longer offer any great difficulties. The usurer appropriated to himself the possessions of the borrower little by little and so ruined him completely. The primitive merchant made himself a surplus by selling dear something that he had bought at a trivial price, a transaction which involved no increase in value. Now it is just this increase in value that is to be explained upon the basis of the law that things of equal value are exchanged, and not, as in the cases cited above, upon the exceptions to the law.
If we represent the transaction of one who buys, not to make a profit, but to exchange something which has no use-value for him for something which has such a value (the simple circulation of commodities), by the formula C—M—C, in which C stands for commodities and M for money, we can represent the transaction of the capitalist by M—C—(M + m). In this formula m stands for the surplus-value accruing to the capitalist at the end of a successful operation. The latter formula is composed of the factors M—C, the purchase of the commodity, and C—(M + m), the sale. According to the law of the circulation of commodities the value of M ought to be equal to C, but C in turn must be equal to M + m, a thing which is possible only if C is a commodity which, while it is being consumed, produces a value greater than what it has. However, there is no value without labor; consequently the formula cited can harmonize with reality only if labor is itself a commodity. And, as we have seen above, it is such from the moment that the economic development has reached a certain point.
What is now the course of the production of the surplus-value? The capitalist has fitted up a factory, has procured tools and raw material, has hired labor, and the process of production commences. Suppose that the necessaries of life for the workman and his family may be produced by six hours of work socially necessary; by making him work, then, six hours the capitalist will have a product equal to that of the raw material used, increased by that which is given it by [[252]]the tools and by the labor which the workman has put upon it. This value, however, has been entirely paid out by the capitalist; he has no surplus left; the transaction has failed. But ordinarily the process succeeds in procuring profits for the capitalist, since in the contract between him and the laborer it is not stipulated that the latter shall work only the number of hours necessary to produce enough for his own needs. On the contrary the workman is compelled to labor as long as his strength will permit. The value produced by the workman after the time necessary for the production of the equivalent of his needs falls to the capitalist, and this it is which constitutes the surplus-value, the value derived from work not paid for.
The aim of the capitalist is to procure for himself as large a surplus-value as possible. He can attain his end at once by forcing the laborer to work as long a time as it is possible for him to work. From this springs the irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the proletariat and those of capital, the combat over the length of the working-day. The day has its natural limits (it is necessary that certain hours be left to the workman for food and rest), its legal limits (decreed too late by the state, driven on one side by the workers themselves, and on the other by the plain certainty that without this protection the working class would become enfeebled), and finally its limits fixed by the pressure of the labor unions.
However, there is still one other way in which the surplus-value is increased, as I shall explain by what follows. Let us suppose the length of the working day to be twelve hours, and the time necessary for the production of the equivalent of the workman’s needs to be six hours. We can then represent the day as follows:
CB is consequently the time in which the surplus-value is produced. The aim of the capitalist, then, is to protract the period CB as much as possible, and this he can accomplish in two ways: first, that of which we have just spoken, the prolongation of AB; second, the shortening of AC in order that CB may be as long as possible, or in other words, the shortening of the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life for the workman and his family. When the productivity of labor rises, the value of the commodities falls; and when the value of the commodities which the workman needs for his [[253]]support falls, the value of labor falls also. However, the increase of the productivity of labor is only possible through the improvement of the means of production and the methods of working, so that capitalism modifies its manner of production unceasingly. In general the capitalist does not take account of the fact that the more cheaply commodities are produced for sale, the more the value of labor falls, and, other things being equal, the more the surplus-value increases. The capitalist strives constantly to make improvements in his methods of production in order to surpass his competitors. Supposing that, by the employment of a new method of working, he succeeds in producing in half an hour an article up to that time generally made in an hour, he will then obtain an extra profit as long as his competitors do not employ this method. But as soon as the latter have improved their production in the same way, the time socially necessary falls from an hour to half an hour, and the extra profit of the man who first introduced the method ceases. The result that remains is this: the value of labor has decreased, and the relative surplus-value has consequently increased, in so far as the commodities whose value has declined are destined to provide for the needs of the workmen.
Before entering upon the consideration of some of the methods for shortening the necessary hours of labor, attention must be fixed upon the fact that, aside from this method, the capitalist tries above all to lower the price of labor below its value, while the workers, for their part, oppose this tendency and try to obtain the contrary; whence there results a new cause for an inexorable struggle between labor and capital, side by side with that over the length of the working-day.
Let us now examine the methods of abridging the labor-time necessary, beginning with coöperation. As we have seen above the capitalistic method of production begins when the capitalist has in his service a sufficiently large number of workmen. In the days of the guilds the master had also paid workers, but the surplus-value which he procured from them was not great, since their number was small, a fact which obliged him to work with them, since without this his income would have been too small. The true capitalist is he who is permitted by the amount of the surplus-value which he receives to live according to his rank, without working with his laborers, reserving to himself only the direction of affairs.
The difference, therefore, between capitalistic production and that at the time of the guilds is in the first place only quantitative, but there come in qualitative differences as well. In the first place the [[254]]differences in the individual capacities of the workmen disappear; the ability of one neutralizes the smaller ability of the other, so that the capitalist can count upon an average amount of labor. Next there is economy in the new arrangement; because a structure to hold twenty-five workmen working together costs less than twenty-five structures with one workman in each. Finally, and most important of all, by having a number of men working together, each doing his own share toward the common end, we bring about a systematic working together, that is to say, coöperation, which brings into being a new collective force greater than the sum of the individual forces. Not only does coöperation permit the accomplishment of work requiring a greater expenditure of energy, but it also raises the productivity of labor. The direction necessary for this joint labor falls to the capitalist as such. Submission of the workman to the capitalist is, then, an indispensable condition of the capitalistic method of production.
We come now to another method for increasing the relative amount of the surplus-value, the manufactory proper, a more developed form of coöperation, which became general between the middle of the sixteenth century and the end of the eighteenth. This comes from two causes. On the one side it is due to the combination of different trades, up to that point independent of each other. The manufacture of a carriage, for example, requires the work of a wheelwright, a harness-maker, a painter, etc., who all exercise their trades independently of each other. The capitalist unites them all in one trade, that of carriage-maker, in which the occupation of each becomes more limited, more specialized. The painter, for example, becomes especially a painter of carriages. On the other side the manufactory is due to the bringing together of workmen of the same trade into a single workshop, and to the division of labor made possible in this way. Thus, for instance, in the manufacture of pins, each pin is no longer made by a single workman but by several, each of whom does only a special part of the work.
It is clear that through the introduction of manufactory methods the productivity of labor has been enormously increased, so that the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life for the workmen has become shorter, and the surplus-value correspondingly augmented. The part taken by the workman in the process of production is quite different from what it was in the time of the guilds. The different operations that he performed in making the complete product are now replaced by the monotonous and repeated production [[255]]of a single one of the parts. From this point dates the division of workmen into skilled and unskilled laborers. The latter are those whose work is such as to require little or no apprenticeship, and they are the cause of a new lowering of the price of labor.
We have still to take up the question of the introduction of machinery and of manufacturing on a large scale. Although at the period of the early manufactories the workman was obliged to perform a monotonous task, which in so far may be called “mechanical”, yet this task was performed, though with the aid of tools, by his own hands. But in the eighteenth century the machine was invented, that is to say, a mechanism which took the place both of the workman and of his tools. Machines were introduced because they saved hand-work, and consequently lowered the price of the product and relatively increased the surplus-value.
Each developed mechanism is composed of three parts: the motor, the transmission, and the operating part. It is to the development of this last that the economic revolution of the eighteenth century is due. However, there was needed a motive power greater and more regular than those then available. The steam-engine, invented by James Watt, provided for this need and, in its turn, led to new developments of operating machinery. The steam-engine was capable of running many operating machines at the same time, and thus the modern factory was established. In branches in which the product requires a series of different manipulations, a system of machines has been contrived of which one furnishes the material to the next without the intervention of hands, so that a system of automatic mechanism has been produced.
The revolution caused by the introduction of machines in one branch of industry necessitated its introduction into another, etc. The means of communication and of transportation were extended. The steamboat, the railroad, and the telegraph were invented. Because of important inventions in the manufacture of machines it finally became possible to produce the necessary quantity of machines of all kinds.
What are the most important consequences of the new system of production? In the first place stands the introduction of the labor of women and children, since tending machines generally does not require great muscular strength. The advantages which accrue to the capitalist from the employment of women and children are obvious. Since the price of the workman’s labor is determined by the time necessary for the production of the necessities of life not only for [[256]]himself, but also for his family, as soon as the whole family are compelled to sell their labor, the price of that labor will simply equal that of the labor of the workman alone. Ordinarily the income of the family will rise a little under these circumstances, but, because of the absence of the wife from the household, expenses will increase also. The increase of the surplus-value, obtained by the labor of women and children, is therefore important. Besides, the women and children have less power to resist the capitalist than men have, while the men, in their turn, are weakened by the competition of women and children.
In the second place the introduction of machines produces in the mind of the capitalist a desire to prolong the working day as much as possible, for the following reasons among others. The greater the number of hours each day in which the machine is in operation, the more quickly it will return its cost through the product, and, other things being equal, the shorter will be the time required for the capitalist to gain the same amount of surplus-value. Suppose A works his machines for 8 hours a day, and B works as many machines for 16 hours; B’s machines will return their cost through the product in half the time needed by A’s. Consequently B will gain double the surplus-value in the same time, so that A also will be driven to work his machines for 16 hours. And since a machine deteriorates even when it is not in use, there is, when the machines are stopped, a loss of value which the capitalist cannot retrieve. Hence the tendency to prolong the working-day. In the third place every capitalist runs the danger of seeing his competitors introduce new machines which save still more work and so diminish the value of his own. The more quickly a machine returns its cost, the less the danger just mentioned becomes.
Finally, I have still to notice the following cause for the prolongation of the working-day. The object of the employment of machines is the increase of the surplus-value through their use. This increase, however, is possible only through the diminution in the number of workmen employed by the capitalist. But since the surplus-value is created only by the workmen, any diminution in their number is to the disadvantage of the capitalist. In order to overcome this he attempts to prolong the day.
The more machinery is developed, the more the attention which the workman must give to his work increases; in other words, the more intense the labor becomes. The tendency of the capitalist to increase the intensity of labor reaches its apogee as soon as the working time is limited, for different reasons. In order that the surplus-value may [[257]]be equal to what it was formerly, the workman, for example, must produce as much in eleven hours as he formerly produced in thirteen hours. The means by which the intensity of labor is increased (not to enter into unnecessary details) are; first, the manner of fixing wages—piece-work, and second, the practice of making the workmen tend more machines than formerly, and of driving the machines faster, so as to force the workmen to a greater intensity of labor.
The contest between the large manufacturing establishments and the small factories and workshops has led gradually but infallibly to the destruction of the latter. They are forced to maintain the competitive struggle by incredibly long hours of labor, by an unlimited exploitation of the labor of women and children, etc. In this way it is often possible to resist competition for some time, but finally the large manufactory triumphs all along the line.
Agriculture also, though to a less degree than manufacturing, has been revolutionized by the introduction of machines. Rural workers who have become superfluous have betaken themselves to the cities, and there go to swell the population already enormously increased by industrialism.
The exposition which I have just given of the origin of the surplus-value is sufficient for this work. It is not necessary for our subject to stop to consider the fact that a part of the surplus-value is destined to become capital, while the other part is consumed by those who have appropriated the whole. As has been shown above, the employment of machines, etc., has increased in every branch of industry, and this has brought it about that the capital necessary to any manufacturing establishment increases continually under the pressure of competition. Hence it follows that capitalism itself forces the capitalist to invest as new capital part of the surplus-value acquired by him. But aside from this, it is capitalism also that produces the capitalist’s penchant for always investing more capital, which, in its turn, produces a greater surplus-value than the original capital, etc. And since the accumulation of capital has no limits, the greediness of the capitalist has none, and he is driven to increase his capital incessantly, even when his income is so great that it permits him to satisfy every possible need.
However, the group of capitalists of which we have been speaking is not the only one that gains surplus-value. Industrial capital is obliged to share the total surplus-value with commercial capital, the capital consisting of money, and that consisting of real estate. In the first place, a part of the surplus-value is claimed by commercial [[258]]capital. For the economic system in force would not be able to operate without commerce. The development of capitalism has led to an extensive division of labor in the class of capitalists (banks, insurance companies, etc.), and the capital invested in these enterprises must equally have its share of the total surplus-value. Capital in the form of money plays an increasingly important part in modern capitalism, and so must have its share of the surplus-value.
The owners of the soil also appropriate a considerable part. The land is the most indispensable means of production, and is incapable of being increased at will. As capitalism increases, the demand for territory becomes greater and greater. This causes the ground rents in general to rise, which means that the share of the total surplus-value which the land-owners appropriate becomes greater and greater. It is especially in the cities, which are highly developed under capitalism, and in which, consequently, the demand for land is great and the supply relatively small, that ground rents have risen to an unheard of degree, and this to the prejudice of the health and happiness of the less privileged classes.
Up to this point we have been necessarily supposing that the capitalist succeeds in making a profit. But, as we know, it often happens that he does not attain his end, that his capital produces no added value, that he even loses it entirely or in part. This case being important for the subject in hand we must stop to consider it for a moment. As has been shown above, the capitalist begins by purchasing labor and the means of production in order to set in motion the process of production. For him the difficulty then consists of selling the manufactured product at its value and of thus realizing the added value which is a part of this. At times, aided by circumstances, he succeeds in selling the product above its value, and so makes an extra profit. On the other hand, he runs the risk of having to sell the product below its value, or of not being able to sell it at all.
The causes of the poor success of the process are of different kinds. In the first place, the capitalist may not have the ability necessary for the direction of the process of production. For example, the product made under his management may be inferior to that of his competitor, though the cost of production is the same; the means of production may be purchased at too high a price; he may not have been in touch with the tastes of consumers, etc.; reasons all of which render his product unsalable, or salable at a loss.
In the second place, circumstances independent of his own act may present themselves which have the same result. Let us look at some [[259]]of them. To begin with, the unforeseen cessation of payment on the part of one of his important debtors may oblige him to sell his goods at a sacrifice in order to satisfy his creditors. Again, he may lack the capital necessary to meet competition. For the amount of capital necessary in every branch of industry or commerce becomes greater and greater, and the man who cannot procure this capital is forced little by little to give ground to his competitors and finally to give up business altogether.
In the third place, it very often happens that, as a result of competition, there is an oversupply of commodities, which from this very fact are unsalable, or must be sold for less than their value. In the periods of prosperity this case is not general. But it is the rule in crises. Because of their great importance to the relation between criminality and economic conditions, it is necessary to pause here to examine the cause and origin of these crises.
Economic crises, that is to say periods in which the economic life is greatly disturbed, are due to various circumstances; for example, to a war which puts obstacles in the way of the regular continuance of international commerce. But aside from such causes there are others which are natural to the present economic system itself, and which bring on these crises periodically. It is these causes, which are the more important, of which it is necessary to treat here.
A crisis is the result of overproduction. This does not imply that in every case overproduction will bring about a crisis. If one who is producing for his own consumption happens to produce more than he can consume, the result will be that during a certain period he will proceed to produce less, and the equilibrium will be reëstablished. But when one manufactures not for himself but for the market the situation is entirely different. Each manufacturer of commodities produces separately, that is to say without any understanding with his fellow-manufacturers, articles of which he himself has no need, but which he attempts to exchange for money in order to obtain what he does need. If he does not succeed in selling his commodities he is left without money to buy the commodities that are necessary to him. Overproduction can thus have very harmful results for those who hold commodities.
Now how does it happen that the capitalistic mode of production causes periodically a production greater than the possible consumption? (It goes without saying that this phrase is not to be taken to mean that the consumers are physically incapable of using the product, but merely that there are not enough buyers.) As has been shown [[260]]above, capitalistic production is carried on for the sake of the added value, that is to say, the value of the unpaid labor. In other words, the working class produces more than it consumes. In feudal society the surplus was entirely consumed by the class which appropriated it; at present, on the contrary, the owning class use part of the surplus to form new capital. For this comes a continually increasing accumulation of capital, and consequently a greater and greater quantity of products which in the end find no buyer. For the extension of production increases the number of workmen necessary, and consequently increases the demand also, but these workmen produce in their turn more than they consume. The overproduction is not, then, neutralized by a greater consumption. On the contrary it furnishes the material for an overproduction still greater. Hence capitalism causes crises periodically as the result of an overproduction caused by too small a consumption on the part of the working class.
Since the mass of capital increases without cessation it is indispensable to find new investments, and to broaden the market. From this it results, among other things, that the capitalist class is forced to take up the policy of political expansion and to conquer countries where capitalism has not yet become rooted. If it succeeds in finding a new outlet, then, production increases enormously, existing factories are enlarged, new ones are established, etc., and the new market is inundated with goods. But in the end this market ceases to be able to absorb the continually increasing mass of products, so much the more since the production of the country itself also increases as capitalism gains foothold there. The commodities remain, then, unsold, and a crisis is begun. Production must be stopped or decreased; the stock of commodities being thus made smaller the equilibrium begins little by little to reëstablish itself; after which the movement is repeated. But since the capitalistic method of production little by little spreads itself over the whole earth, it becomes increasingly difficult to find countries where capitalism has not been implanted. Hence overproduction tends to become chronic.
Besides the cause already set forth there is still another circumstance which can produce a crisis or aggravate one already existing; I refer to the lack of order in the present mode of production. Suppose that the demand for iron is great at any given moment. The production will then increase so quickly, and in such a degree (each manufacturer ignoring what his competitors are doing), that the supply will far exceed the demand. As a result manufacturing will be checked. As soon as overproduction occurs in as important a branch of industry [[261]]as the manufacture of iron, there will follow also a stoppage of production in other branches, and a general crisis will ensue.
The consequences of a crisis for the capitalist class are well known. Many are forced to stop producing, are no longer able to pay their creditors, and draw many of their debtors in their train. Because of the complexity of the present system of production the consequences of a crisis are very far reaching. It is naturally the small capitalists who are stricken first, whence it follows that during crises there is a great concentration of capital.
Just as in the first part of this discussion I proceeded on the assumption that the capitalist always attains his end, i.e. gains the surplus-value, just so I have also been speaking as if the workman always sold his labor. Let us look now at the case of the man who does not succeed in selling it. In order that a contract be entered into between capitalist and workman it is necessary that labor be desired and offered. If the workman for his part cannot deliver the labor contracted for, or not enough of it, whether from sickness or from weakness, it is perhaps but a question of exchange, and the workman is abandoned to his fate. Capitalism rests upon this fact that there is a class of men, much more numerous than any other, who are deprived of everything and consequently are forced to sell their labor; otherwise no workman would care to close a contract.
Let us look at the other side of the question, when the supply of labor exceeds the demand. Those who do not succeed in selling their labor are then equally abandoned to their own resources. From what causes in the capitalistic method of production does it happen that the supply of labor is in excess of the demand? Are these causes to be found in too great an increase in the population, or in the method of production itself?
It has been shown above that the composition of capital changes incessantly. Machinery becomes more and more developed and a great part of capital is composed of machines. The introduction of machines has taken place because they economize labor. Thus a certain number of workmen find themselves without occupation. It is true that there is a mitigating circumstance, namely that there is an increased demand for labor in other branches (manufacture of machines), but this demand can never be as great as the amount of labor rendered superfluous by machinery, for otherwise machines would never have been introduced. However short the apprenticeship required by modern industry, it is nevertheless impossible for a [[262]]workman to change from one branch to another at short notice. Thus the consequences for workmen thrown out of employment continue to be serious notwithstanding the increased demand in another branch. The only case in which the introduction of machines will occasion no unemployment will be when the demand for commodities increases extraordinarily, as, for example, when a new market is opened up.
However there are still other causes of forced unemployment. Such are the introduction of the labor of women and children, the migration of rural workers to the cities, immigration from backward countries, and the supplanting of small businesses, by which members of the lower middle class are forced down into the proletariat.
The causes of overpopulation are found, then, in the system of production itself, and not in a too great increase of the population; a conclusion to be drawn also from the fact that as far as actual productivity of labor is concerned each produces more than enough for his needs. There are, then, always a number of persons who desire to work but cannot find employment. In periods of crisis the number of these increases enormously. The so-called “reserve army of labor” is a condition indispensable to capitalism. Without it sudden development in periods of prosperity would be impossible. Without it also the power of organized labor would become so great that the surplus-value would run serious danger. It is just because the supply of labor exceeds the demand that the power of the capitalists over the workmen is so great, and also that it happens so often that the interests of the workmen are thwarted.
We come now to the end of my exposition. For our subject it is unnecessary to continue it further. I should like, however, to draw attention to two more points. The continually increasing concentration of capital has as a consequence that the conduct of the business under the direction of the capitalist himself more and more gives place to the stock company, which combines the capital of numerous persons, and gives the direction to a salaried employe. Following this, concentration drives the owners in one branch of industry to combine for the purpose of eliminating competition, and thus of increasing profits; in this way the “trusts” come into being. Competition, the fundamental principle of capitalism, is changed into its opposite, monopoly. [[263]]
CHAPTER II.
SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE DIFFERENT CLASSES.
Let us pass now to the social condition in which the different social classes live in consequence of the place they occupy in the economic system.
A. The Bourgeoisie.
After a long and difficult struggle against feudalism the bourgeoisie, the class possessing the means of production, came out victorious. It has grown and become more powerful, and in almost all the countries where capitalism exists it is still the directing class.
The bourgeoisie is divided into three groups. The first comprises the capitalists who direct their business themselves. As has been shown in the preceding pages the power of this group is based upon its monopolizing the surplus-value. The idea which predominates among the bourgeoisie in general, and particularly among the first group, is to gain money, always more money. This thirst for gold is not quenched when the man has arrived at a point where he can live a luxurious life and gratify all his caprices. Thanks to capitalism it is possible to amass wealth without limit, so that the capitalist is never satisfied, however enormous may be the sums which he has gained. The consequence is that in general he is little developed in other directions, uses all his time in attaining the end he wishes for, has a mind only superficially cultivated, and if he is interested in art he regards it simply as a pastime which he procures for money.
Next to this group comes that of the persons whose sole occupation consists in appropriating a part of the surplus-value to increase their capital and in spending the rest for a luxurious life. It is unnecessary to set forth here the regrettable consequences of idleness and too easy a life. Doubtless there are in this group some persons who work and do not squander their income. But the fact remains that [[264]]the present economic system produces a class who are not forced to work and can dissipate what others produce. The luxury displayed by the bourgeoisie has injurious consequences for the whole population. Not only do many persons aid this class in spending a part of the surplus-value, but further, as a consequence of the uninterrupted increase of luxury among the bourgeoisie (the result of the continued increase in the surplus-value), desire becomes so much the greater among the other classes as they have the less possibility of satisfying it.
The development of capitalism (the growth of stock companies) is the reason why the above-mentioned group of capitalists increases in comparison with the first group. The control of affairs is more and more abandoned to salaried employes. With these we come to the third and last group; the so-called liberal professions, in which men provide for their needs by intellectual labor. They are not capitalists in the strict sense of the term, for they live by selling their labor; but as they are recruited principally from the bourgeoisie, and in general have nearly the same standard of living as the bourgeoisie, it will be best to treat them here. Under the capitalistic system those who cultivate science or the arts are obliged to sell their products. There was a time when their number being limited their products brought a high price. However the development of capitalism has been the cause of a continually increasing demand for these persons. The task of the state and municipality becoming constantly greater requires an increasing number of functionaries; the larger application of science to industry demands more engineers, chemists, etc.; the multiplication of stock companies puts the direction of affairs more and more into the hands of salaried employes; etc., etc.
The extension of university education produced a greater supply, and this occasioned a considerable fall in the price of the commodity. In the end the supply began to exceed the demand; in this territory also there is an overproduction. Thence it happens that the price of this commodity often falls below its value, and thus a sort of scientific proletariat is formed. Just as the merchant on account of overproduction in his branch can dispose of his goods only by taking advantage of every possible method, so men of the liberal professions must at times have recourse to similar means if they wish to attain a great success or even to support themselves.
Although I speak of these persons under the head of “bourgeoisie” this is not an exact classification. Not only does their material [[265]]condition sometimes differ from that of the bourgeoisie, but in other regards they cannot be treated under the same head. Many of them are descendants of those who have practiced the same profession; others have come from among the bourgeoisie proper, and have chosen the profession in question from inclination and natural disposition. These circumstances as well as the influence of the profession itself bring it about that for the last group the gaining of money is not the principal end as with the first, but that other motives also impel them.
In the next place we must fix our attention upon a matter which concerns the entire body of the bourgeoisie: the uncertainty of the future, for no one, not even the richest, is sure of it. In the exposition of the economic system which we have been considering the principal causes of this state of things have been indicated; it is therefore useless to go over the details again. It is not only those who lack capital or the ability to direct an enterprise, whose position is uncertain. A manufacturer can be ruined by an invention which makes his product unsalable; an unforeseen fall in price may have the same effect upon a merchant; etc., etc. This uncertainty reaches its height during crises, and, as a consequence of the complexity of economic life at present, the fall of one has disastrous consequences for those who have relations with him. From this it happens that to the agitation and weakness which are the consequences of competition, is added the fear of losing one’s position.
The cause of this fear is obvious. The capitalist who is ruined, and the stock-holder whose securities become valueless, see themselves thereby deprived of everything that makes life worth living, power, luxury, importance, etc., while the possibility of recovery without capital seems very small. This is especially true of the first two groups of the bourgeoisie. Nevertheless the position of the liberal professions is not very stable, though it is somewhat more so than that of the other groups.
Whence does the bourgeoisie recruit itself? In great part from the descendants of the bourgeoisie, in a less degree from the other classes. If a “petit-bourgeois” or a proletarian finds himself incorporated into the ranks of the bourgeoisie it is by virtue of extraordinary circumstances. They may reach this station because they have qualities which especially fit them to direct capitalistic enterprises; but in this case circumstances must arise to bring their capacity to light and give them a chance to develop it.
Although a relatively small number succeed in passing from another class to that of the bourgeoisie, this does not prevent nearly all from [[266]]having an ardent desire to enrich themselves and from seizing every opportunity which may help them attain this end. (The only exception is found in those workers who understand that the historic task of the working class is to found a society where there shall be neither rich nor poor.) A man will often start a factory or a shop without having either capital or ability, in the hope of raising himself in the social scale; and unless the circumstances are extraordinarily favorable failure follows almost immediately. This applies also quite as strongly to the capitalists who for one reason or another have failed in business; they try to gain success in another branch at any cost, even if capital and ability are lacking. But such a course can only retard their fall, and they end infallibly by sinking permanently to the rank of the proletarian.
What I have just been saying brings out strongly the character of the present process of production. Production is not undertaken for the sake of consumption, but for profit, so that the man who believes that he has a good chance to improve his condition goes to work to produce, without asking himself whether there is need of his products, or whether he can meet the required conditions.
As to the relation of the bourgeoisie, as a class, to other classes, and especially to the proletariat, a few words will suffice after the exposition I have given of present economic conditions. “In every nation there are two nations.” These words describe the relations in question. From their mode of life the bourgeoisie and the proletariat remain strangers to one another.[4] The bourgeoisie, having arrived at a wrong idea of the present system, do not consider the proletariat as the class which sustains society by its toil, but as a necessary evil. According to the bourgeois every strike is a diminution of his rights, an encroachment upon his property. In the political field the bourgeoisie, notwithstanding its intrinsic divisions, acts as a unit against the proletarians; a fact which does not prevent there being opposing interests within the class: in the first place the contest of the different groups of capitalists (manufacturers against agrarians, etc.) and then the opposing interests of the manufacturers within each group. [[267]]
B. The Petty Bourgeoisie.
In reality the line of demarcation between the bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie is not drawn with the precision desirable for a theoretical exposition. Just as there are numerous gradations in the bourgeoisie, so are there in the petty bourgeoisie.
It is the petty bourgeoisie which has among its different classes the most ancient traditions. There was a time when it was strong and powerful. But the development of capitalism has changed all that. Industrialism has arisen and undermined the petty bourgeoisie. In the combat the small capitalist must eventually go down. He has not, like his adversaries, scientific forces at his disposal, has no great credit, cannot, in consequence of the insufficiency of his capital, make use of new inventions; in short, his arms are inferior to those of his antagonists. All this does not make him renounce the contest at once; on the contrary, it arouses him to bring all his forces into play. In consequence of his position in the economic life he has no breadth of view. He cannot comprehend that what earned bread for his ancestors during so many years will some day fail. This is the reason that, as soon as large capital enters into the competition, the small manufacturer overdrives himself, and not only himself but his workmen also, and further, attempts to lower wages, lengthen the working day, and introduce women and children to take the place of men. Competition forces the merchant to take advantage of his customers in all sorts of ways, a fact which gives commerce its character; for the art of commerce is to buy cheap and sell dear. Hence there is opposition between the merchant and the manufacturer on the one hand, and between merchant and customer on the other. This is why the merchant is led to depreciate the article he buys, and to praise that which he is selling. This tendency naturally becomes stronger as competition becomes fiercer. Advertising, a system of deceit, is invented to draw purchasers at any cost; and the point is even reached where men no longer give exact weight (“My competitors do not give it,” says the merchant to himself), and sell goods of poorer quality than represented. This is why commerce has a moral code of its own.
However, notwithstanding their desperate resistance, the situation of the petty bourgeoisie becomes worse and worse, and this has important social consequences, for example, the increase of the labor of women outside of their own homes. Whole groups of the petty bourgeoisie are so fallen into decadence that the plane of their existence [[268]]has become the same as that of the proletariat, or has even fallen below it. Finally the contest with the large capitalist means not simply degradation to the petty bourgeois, but absolute ruin. When a crisis comes the small capitalists are the first to feel the shock. Their ruin may come in various ways; their business may be annihilated altogether—in which case they are permanently reduced to the ranks of the proletariat—or it may become dependent upon great capital under the name of home industry, i.e. wage labor masked under the appearance of independence. Only those who have been able to save a part of their capital from the wreck can try fortune once more in another branch of industry where great capital has not yet begun to compete, but they are sure to be pursued and finally overtaken by their enemy.
As in the case of the bourgeoisie, the relations which the different members of the petty bourgeoisie have among themselves are determined by the economic system; fierce competition, life in a little circle where ideas cannot be broadened, all this breeds envy, hatred, and meanness.[5]
As to intellectual culture a great part of the petty bourgeoisie takes rank between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Generally the children of this class are better taught than those of the proletariat. But since the field of their ideas is very restricted and the struggle for existence requires all their time, their intellectual level remains in general much below the average level of the bourgeoisie. Others still who are of the lowest stratum of the petty bourgeoisie have the same development as the proletariat.
The petty bourgeoisie is recruited from the descendants of the same class, then from among the bourgeois who have failed in business, and finally from former proletarians. These last are those who cannot sell their labor for some reason, and try to gain a livelihood by making an insignificant capital of value in trading. Their plane of living does not differ from that of the proletariat unless by being lower.
As to the relation of the petty bourgeoisie to the other classes, it is naturally hostile to the bourgeoisie, since it is that class which has deprived it, or is still depriving it, of its influence. This hostility is, however, of a different kind from that which the working class feels toward the bourgeoisie. The petty bourgeoisie envies the bourgeoisie; it desires also to become rich, and thereby powerful. [[269]]On the other hand it feels no community of interest with the working class, whose fixed determination to be free from the wage system it holds in abhorrence. The political position of the petty bourgeoisie, placed as it is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, has necessarily become an equivocal one.
C. The Proletariat.
The proletariat, that class of persons who do not possess the means of production and who can exist only by the sale of their labor, dates from modern times. Between the independent artisan and the modern proletarian comes the journeyman as a link in the chain. The difference, however, between the journeyman and the proletarian is great. The journeyman generally lodged with his master, worked with him, and was considered as a member of the family. And since the means of production necessary were still quite limited, the journeyman by saving his wages had a chance some day to become master. With this hope he came to consider himself as having common interests with his employer.
The situation of the proletarian is entirely different. His work is entirely separate from that of his employer; the lengthening of the working-day does not imply that the capitalist works longer also. The workman lodges apart, and it makes little difference to the employer how his employes are housed and fed. The means of production being very dear, and the knowledge necessary to direct any business being lacking, the proletarian can almost never become an employer.
As has been shown it is the ruined members of the petty bourgeoisie who have formed the first stock of the proletariat. But although this class is still reinforced in the same way the greatest part of the proletariat is now composed of the descendants of proletarians.
We can easily comprehend the situation of the proletariat provided we do not lose sight of the basis of the present economic system, that is, the fact that the object of production is to gain for some the largest possible surplus-value at the expense of the rest of the population. The child of the proletarian is set to work at an age when the child of the bourgeois parents is still leading a care-free life, with nothing to do but to develop his powers. When taken to the factory the young proletarian finds himself in the midst of ignorant and coarse men caring nothing for him, and soon picks up their bad habits. It is in this environment that the proletarian will pass [[270]]the greatest part of his life without hope of ever raising himself above it.
The greater part of the trades practiced have an unfavorable effect, frequently even very harmful to the health of the workmen (on account of great heat, too much dust, injurious gases, etc.). These prejudicial influences might be checked or prevented, but it costs money to make a factory sanitary, with no immediate return, and hygienic suggestions are therefore generally not followed. A number of trades constantly threaten the workers with death or mutilation; but although safety devices can almost always remove the danger, for the reason above stated they are still many times left untried.
As regards the length of the working-day, moderate work is a pleasure, excessive work mere torment. Except in so far as the laws and the labor unions have intervened, the day has been prolonged until there is left only the time absolutely necessary for food and sleep. Many workmen are not even given the night for sleeping, for in many factories the night force succeeds that on duty in the daytime. We may read in the holy Scriptures that a day has been set aside for rest, but this does not prevent Sunday from being a day of work under the capitalistic system, even though we are supposed to be living in a Christian society.
In general the work in factories is very monotonous, and hence brutalizing; and further, fatiguing from its great intensity. Moreover a vexatious discipline is sometimes maintained. However harmful may be the results of factory labor upon the physical, intellectual, and moral condition of the worker, they are less so than the results of sweat-shop labor. For sweat-shop hours are still longer than those of the factory; and the work is done in a place which is both kitchen and bedroom, so that not only is the workman injured but his family as well.
Let us now take up the question of wages. It is necessary that the wage should be enough to procure what is strictly needful, and in fact wages generally do not rise above this standard. Further the workman buys at a high price goods of low quality, for he who cannot spend much is powerless in dealing with the producers. Since the workman does not draw his wages till he has done the work, he must get credit for the necessaries of life (often being obliged to add to his debts on account of sickness or unemployment). His wages prevent his paying his debts, and force him, therefore to continue to trade with his creditor, who cheats him at every turn. Again, in some branches of industry he is obliged to buy what he wants from [[271]]the capitalist, or from the foreman (truck-system), or to live in a house which belongs to the capitalist (cottage system)—and then gets poorer quality at a higher price than elsewhere.
Let us take up next the dwellings of the proletariat. Capitalism is the cause of a great congestion of persons in a limited area. An enormous rise in the price of land in the cities and consequently a similar rise in rents have been the result. No class spends a larger part of its income in rent than the laboring class. The proletariat is not only lodged expensively but badly. All those who pass through the laborers’ districts know the monotonous rows of houses, ill-built, uniform and simple. But the internal arrangement of these buildings is much more miserable; the stairs and landings are narrow, the rooms small, badly lighted and ventilated, and often must serve for kitchen and bedroom combined. But notwithstanding the limited space, the number of inmates often is further increased by taking lodgers, in an attempt to make both ends meet. For all these reasons the house of the working-man is not a real home in which he can be at ease.
As if these consequences of capitalism were not serious enough, the labor of married women is added. By this the life of the family, already damaged in so many ways, has been destroyed. Furthermore the physical effect upon the woman, and even more upon the child with which she is pregnant, is most prejudicial, without reckoning that her moral condition suffers equally.
Up to this point I have been speaking of the proletarian on the supposition that he has been able to sell his labor-power. But, as we have seen already, when this sale is not possible, he and his family are left to their fate. This then is what freedom of labor means, a freedom that the slave never knows, freedom to die of hunger. No one guarantees to the workman or his family the means of subsistence if, for any reason, he is not able to sell his labor. The slave-owner had an interest in taking care of a sick slave, for the slave represented value which he did not care to see diminished. But if a workman is sick he is discharged and replaced by another. The sickness and death of the laborer do not harm the capitalist at all.
I have set forth above the numerous causes which prevent the workman from selling his labor. Forced idleness has become chronic little by little, reaching its acute stage in times of crisis. Then seasonal trades make the work of thousands dependent upon the weather. Aside from general causes, which affect whole groups, there are also individual causes. A workman displeases his employer, it may be because he is one of the leaders of a union, or for some other reason; [[272]]he is discharged, and runs, especially in times of economic depression, the risk of not being able to find employment elsewhere. If the worker falls ill or is injured (this often happens as a consequence of an unhealthful or dangerous trade), or when he reaches old age (and hard work ages men quickly), he is condemned. If the period of idleness lasts long the workman loses his ability and the habit of working (for working is above all a habit), and the time is not far distant when he will become altogether incapable of working.
The intellectual condition of the working class is easily understood. In his youth the child learns but little. The circle of his ideas remains restricted, since his parents have ordinarily neither the knowledge, the opportunity, nor the desire to supplement the little that is learnt at school. At the age when the child begins to think for himself, and his aptitudes begin to manifest themselves, he is put to work. The little that the proletarian has learned in his childhood is quickly forgotten under the pressure of the long, monotonous toil, which dulls his intelligence and makes him thus less sensitive to higher impressions. Even if this were not the case, the long duration of labor fatigues the workman too much, his domestic life does not permit him to develop himself, and further he has no money for intellectual pleasures. The pleasures of the workman belong to his kind of life. Consequently his amusements are rough and coarse. Alcohol and sexual intercourse are often the only pleasures he knows.[6]
The life of the working-man is less retired than that of the bourgeois. He sees continually the misery of his companions, which is also his own, he feels himself more at one with them, but the demand for labor always remaining below the supply, competition among the workers arouses antagonistic feeling among them. The possibility of some day becoming rich being almost entirely cut out, the working-man is less avaricious than the bourgeois, and less economical; he lives from day to day, and if he happens to get a little more than usual at any time he spends it at once.
The situation may be summed up as follows: under the capitalistic system the greater part of the population, the part upon whose labor the entire social fabric is based, lives under the most miserable conditions. The proletariat is badly clothed, badly fed, miserably housed, exhausted by excessive and often deleterious labor, uncertain as to income, and ignorant and coarse.[7] [[273]]
However, the sketch given above shows only one side of the question. At length the workers have perceived that the interests of the employer are opposed to their own, that the cause of their poverty lies in his luxury. They have begun to set up opposition when they learn that by organizing themselves into labor unions they gain a power by which they can ameliorate their lot. The work no longer being done separately as in the time of the guilds, but together, there has been this consequence for the workmen, that being now in the same position with regard to the capitalist, and in the same social condition, they have gained in the feeling of solidarity and in discipline, [[274]]two conditions which are essential to victory in the struggle. Little by little the workers have learned that their enemy is not their own employer simply, but the whole capitalist class. The strife has become a strife of classes. And capitalism being international the conflict of the working class has become international also.
The means by which the working class attempt to better their position are of various kinds. First there are the unions, which undertake the contest for the shorter day and higher wages. Then there is coöperation; and finally, and above all, politics. The movement for unions, which could not exist without liberty of the press, of meeting, and of forming associations, forces the working-men to take part in politics.
At first, when they still had no clear idea of the position they occupied in society, the working-men permitted other political parties to make use of them. But coming to understand that the laborers form a class apart, whose interests are different from those of other classes, they have formed an independent working-man’s party. Finally, the contest of the working class could not limit itself to improvements brought about within the frame-work of the existing economic system; if they wished to free themselves permanently they saw themselves obliged to combat capitalism itself. Thus modern socialism was born; on one side from an ardent desire of the working class to free itself from the poverty caused by capitalism; on the other side from the development in the manner of capitalistic production, in which small capital is always conquered by large capital. The conviction becomes more and more general that capitalism has fulfilled its historic task, the increase of the productive forces, and that the means of production must belong to all if we are effectively to deliver humanity from the material and intellectual miseries which result from capitalism. The labor movement blends itself with socialism, then, and thus social democracy becomes the political organization of the working class.
What have been the results of the opposition made by the working class to the misery imposed upon them by capitalism? When we compare the condition of the proletariat in the first half of the nineteenth century (see, for example F. Engels, op. cit.) with that of today, we cannot help recognizing that it has been improved. Forced (in order to avoid worse things) by the labor agitation and also by the ravages which capitalism had caused in the working class, incapacitating them for the work required of them, the bourgeoisie decided to put forth laws limiting the work of women and children, [[275]]etc. The unions, consisting principally of skilled workers, have been and still are able to obtain increase of wages and a shortening of the working-day, by making use of the weapons at their disposal (strikes, etc.). Coöperation also has raised the standard of living somewhat for those who have taken part in it.
From the fact that the working class, in so far as it has been organized, has improved its condition, the conclusion has wrongly been drawn that the distance between the two parties, the possessors and the non-possessors, has been diminished. Those who draw this conclusion forget that during this period the totality of wealth has been enormously increased, and that the proletariat has obtained only a part, while the rest has fallen to the bourgeoisie. And so far as I know, no one has yet been able to prove that the part falling to the bourgeoisie must be smaller than that obtained by the proletarians.[8]
Besides the material consequences of the labor conflict, its spiritual consequences are also of very high importance. The contest has obliged the working-men to develop themselves, has taught them that they occupy an important place in society, and thus has increased their confidence in themselves. It is socialism especially which, by giving the hope of a better future to a whole class oppressed and poor, has had the effect of little by little elevating the proletariat intellectually and morally.
D. The Lower Proletariat.[9]
I must speak now of the fourth and least numerous group of the population, that of the very poor. Not possessing the means of production, and not being able to sell their labor, these people occupy no position in the economic life properly speaking, and their material condition is therefore easy to understand. Everything that has been said upon this subject with reference to the proletariat applies here, but in a much larger degree. The manner in which these people are fed, clothed, and housed is almost indescribable. The middle class have no idea of such a life; they believe that the pictures of [[276]]these conditions sometimes painted for them are exaggerated, and that charity is sufficient to prevent their passing certain limits. From these limits we understand that the bourgeoisie does not mean to be incommoded by the poor. If charity were to go farther it would require sums so great that the increase of capital and expenditures for luxury would be interfered with. That would be quite out of the question.
In order to depict these conditions I wish to give but one quotation, taken from an interesting article, “Englands industrielle Reservearmee” in which account has been given of the researches of certain clergymen in the poorest quarters of London. And everything that is here said of London applies in general to other great cities. For capitalism produces the same effects everywhere.
“Think of the condition in which the poor live. We do not say the condition of their dwellings, for how can those holes be called dwellings, when in comparison with them the lair of a wild beast would be a comfortable and healthful place. Only a few who read these lines have any conception of what pestilential places these nests are, where tens of thousands of human beings are herded together among horrors that recall to us what we have heard of slave-ships between decks. To reach these abodes of misery we have to find our way through hardly passable courts, impregnated with poisonous and evil-smelling gases, which rise from the heaps of offal strewn around, and from the dirty water flowing underfoot—courts, into which the sun seldom or never penetrates, through which no breath of fresh air ever blows, and which seldom have the benefit of a cleaning. We have rotten stairs to climb, which threaten to give way at each step, and in some places have given way, leaving holes that endanger the lives and limbs of those who are not accustomed to them. We are obliged to feel our way along dark and dirty passages swarming with vermin; then, if we are not driven back by the intolerable stench, we may enter the holes in which thousands of beings, of the same race as ourselves, lodge together. Have you, dear reader, ever pitied those poor creatures whom you found sleeping in the open under railway arches, in wagons or hogsheads, or under anything that would afford them shelter? You will learn that these are to be envied in comparison with those who seek refuge here. Eight feet square is the average size of very many of these ‘living-rooms.’ Walls and ceiling are black with the accumulation of dirt which has become fastened there through the neglect of years. It falls down from the cracks in the ceiling, sticks out of the holes in the [[277]]walls, in short, is everywhere. What goes by the name of a window is half stuffed up with rags or nailed up with boards, in order to keep out the wind and rain, while the rest is so smeared and darkened that no light can get in, nor is it possible to see out. If we climb up to an attic room, where at least we may expect a breath of fresh air through an open or broken window, and look down upon the roofs or cornices of the stories below, we shall discover that the already tainted air which might find its entrance into the window, has come thither over the decayed bodies of cats, birds, or still more nauseous things. The buildings themselves are in such miserable condition that the thought naturally arises, ‘Will they fall down upon the heads of the inmates?’ And furniture? We shall perhaps discover a broken down chair, the rickety remains of an old bedstead, or the mere fragments of a table; more often, however, as a substitute for these we shall find only rough boards resting upon bricks, an old warped trunk, or a box; and more often still nothing but rags and rubbish.
“Every room in these rotten, damp, fetid houses is occupied by one, and often by two families. A sanitary inspector reports that he found in a cellar a man, his wife, three children, and four hogs. In another room a missionary found a man sick with small-pox, his wife just recovering from child-birth, and the children half naked and covered with dirt. Here seven persons live in a cellar-kitchen, and a dead child lies between the living. In another room a poor widow was living with three children, and one child who had already been dead thirteen days. Her husband, a cab-driver, had committed suicide a short time before.—Here lives a widow and her six children, including a daughter of 29, another of 21, and a son of 27. Another room contains father, mother, and six children, of whom two are sick with scarlet fever. In another live, eat, and sleep nine brothers and sisters from 29 years old down. Here is a mother who sends her children out on the street from early evening till late after midnight, because she rents her room during this time for immoral purposes. Afterwards the poor worms may creep back to their dwelling if they have not found some scanty shelter elsewhere. Where there is a bed it consists of nothing but a heap of dirty rags, refuse, or straw, but mostly there is not even this, and the miserable beings lie upon the dirty floor. The renter of this room is a widow, who takes the only bed herself and sublets the floor to a married couple for two shillings sixpence a week.”[10] [[278]]
“However miserable these rooms may be they are yet too dear for many, who wander about all day seeking to get a living as well as they can, and at night take shelter in one of the common lodging-houses, of which there are so many. The lodging-houses are often the meeting place of thieves and vagabonds of the lowest sort, and some are even kept by the receivers of stolen goods. In the kitchen men and women may be seen cooking their food, doing their washing, or lounging around smoking and gambling. In the sleeping room there is a long row of beds on each side, as many as sixty or eighty in a single room. In many lodging-houses the two sexes are permitted to lodge together without any regard for the commonest decency. Yet there is still a lower step. Hundreds cannot procure even the twopence necessary to secure the privilege of passing a night in the stuffy air of these dormitories; and so they lie down on the steps and in the passage ways, where it is nothing uncommon in the early morning to find six or eight human beings huddled together or stretched out.”[11]
We may limit ourselves to this sketch of the habitation—all the other living conditions conform thereto. With so miserable a material life there can be no question of the intellectual life. Continual poverty and the permanent fear of dying of hunger destroy all that is noble in man and reduce him to the condition of a beast, without any aspiration for higher things; for those who have come to this state from the more favored classes become more and more degraded and have soon lost the little knowledge they acquired in earlier periods. Servility and lack of self-respect are necessary to the poor if they are to get the alms they need to keep them alive, since they occupy no place in the economic life. Between them and the workers there is an enormous difference; they have no feeling of solidarity in the social life.
What is the origin of the lower proletariat, from what classes is it recruited? If we are to believe many criminologists and sociologists the answer to this question ought to be that their poverty is not due to social conditions but exclusively to themselves; that they are inferior by nature. But to get a true answer we must put the question in this way: do the existing social classes form the groups into which men would be classified according to their qualities? [[279]]
Those who give an affirmative answer to this question reason as follows: men differ enormously among themselves in their innate capacities. The largest division of them is made up of people of moderate worth, a small number rise above this, and the rest are inferior. Circumstances have little influence upon the development of these capacities. If any man has great abilities circumstances cannot keep him from the place to which they entitle him. He who has little ability also arrives at the place which that fact makes his own. In other words (to confine myself to capitalism) the bourgeoisie, the ruling class, is composed of persons predestined to rule; next comes the petty bourgeoisie, followed by the proletariat, predestined to rough work; and finally lower proletariat, a class predestined to succumb in the struggle for existence, since incapable of meeting its requirements.[12]
An attentive examination of this theory, which is an application to society of the Darwinian theory of selection, shows at once—even supposing it to be correct—that there is an important difference between the struggle for existence in nature and that in society. In nature the conquered are either annihilated, or are prevented from reproducing themselves, while in society the lower classes multiply much faster than the higher. It is no longer a question of the survival of the most fit, and the annihilation of the rest, as in nature.
Who is it then who remains victor in the struggle for life in society? To answer this it is necessary first to answer another, Are the chances the same for all? If this is not the case then it cannot be a question of the triumph of the best.
There are few questions upon which opinions differ as much as upon this. Generally these opinions are only conjectures, for they are not based upon an examination of facts. For this reason I wish to set down here briefly the very important conclusions of Professor Odin in his “Genèse des grands hommes”, a work noteworthy not simply from the wealth of documents of which the author made use, but also from his very scrupulous care in examining them. Professor Odin has made studies of the educational environment, the economic environment, the ethnological environment, etc., of all the men of letters born in France between 1300 and 1830, to the number of 6382. [[280]]
As to educational environment, the author has been able to procure exact information with regard to 827 persons; a good education had been given to 811, or 98.1 % and 16, or 1.9 % had had a poor education. “All this forces us to admit that education plays a rôle not only important, but capital, decisive, in the development of the man of letters.”[13]
The economic environment in which the men of letters had passed their youth could be discovered in the case of 619. Of these, 562, or 90.7 %, passed their youth sheltered from all material care, while 57, or 9.3 %, passed their youth in indigence or insecurity. In consequence the author makes the following observation: “As it appears, only the eleventh part of the literary men of talent have passed their youth in difficult economic conditions. This ratio, already very small in itself, appears much more striking when we strive to represent the numerical relation which ought to exist for the whole population between well-do-do families and those that are not. It is impossible to say, doubtless, what this relation has been on the average for the whole modern period. But it is clear that we shall be well below the truth if we admit that the families of the second category are three or four times as numerous as those of the first. That is to say, from the mere fact of the economic conditions in which they are born, the children of well-to-do families have at least forty or fifty times as much chance of making a name in letters as do those who belong to families that are poor, or are simply in a position of economic instability.”[14]
Further, the author shows that the fifty-seven men of letters who passed their youth in an unfavorable economic environment were by chance put in a position to develop their capacities. (Only five of them received a poor education.)
Finally the social environment from which the literary men have sprung:
| Social Classes. | Number of Literary Men of Talent Relatively to the Total Population of Each Social Class. |
| Nobility. | 159 |
| Magistracy. | 62 |
| Liberal professions. | 24 |
| Bourgeoisie. | 7 |
| Manual labor. | 0.8 |
[[281]]
Upon examining these figures we see that of two persons of the same innate qualities the one who has sprung from the nobility has about 200 times as much chance of becoming a person of importance as the one who comes from the laboring class. The struggle of our day has been characterized as a race with a handicap, in which one runs on foot with a burden on his back, another rides a horse, while the third takes an express train. The reality, however, is still stronger.
Doubtless we must not forget that the researches of Professor Odin include in part a period that differs in many respects from our own (hence the small contingent of the bourgeoisie), and that since this time education has become more solid and more general, a fact which increases the chances of success of a gifted man sprung from a poor environment. In the second place it was literary men and not capitalists who were the subject of investigation, and since the former doubtless must have greater natural aptitudes than the latter, it may well be that it is easier for anyone without money to acquire capital, than would be suggested by the figures applying only to men of letters. Nevertheless, all this does not overthrow the fact that the researches of Professor Odin have proved that the fact of being born in a class where youth is without care, and enjoys a good education, procures an enormous advantage in the struggle for existence.[15]
In order to prevent erroneous interpretations I will add Professor Odin’s own conclusion, from which it is plain that he does not deny absolutely that men’s innate capacities differ widely (which, indeed, is disputed by few, and may be considered settled). “Heredity and environment,” he says, concur with one another in the development of talent. We may characterize as follows their respective spheres of action: where the hereditary qualities are identical—to suppose an impossible case—it is the environment which causes all the difference between individuals; where the environment is identical, it is heredity.
“Put in these terms the proposition is banal. What is less so, since this has been established here with certainty for perhaps the [[282]]first time, is that heredity alone can do nothing. However strong may be the natural disposition given by heredity, it can only develop itself in a favorable environment. Thrown into an unfavorable environment it will become weakened in the degree in which the environment is contrary to it, and may even end by being atrophied to the point of being no longer perceptible. The supposed omnipotence of heredity is only an illusion, resulting from an elementary confusion between heredity and simple parentage.
“This is not all. We have been able to determine more nearly what is the indispensable environment for the development of literary talent. It is a good education, made possible by certain circumstances which are advantageous socially and economically, in other words, a proper social environment.”[16]
As a second form of the handicap we must speak of inheritance. It is impossible to estimate this advantage in figures, but it is incontestable that the man who has become rich in this way has no need of great knowledge or great intelligence in order to remain rich. Provided he does not speculate or squander his money, he should be able to have the enjoyment of it all his life. The struggle for existence is unknown to him; at the very start of the race his foot is nearly at the goal.
We see already that these two circumstances have as their result that the classes do not correspond exactly to the groups into which men are separated according to their capacities. However we must now leave the cases in which one has a start of another, and give an answer to the question, “In what do the conquerors in the contest excel?”
In the first place, attention must be drawn to a group of capitalists who have acquired their wealth without having their abilities called into play, but who are entirely indebted to chance, i.e. the speculators, the winners of the great prizes in lotteries, the men who make rich marriages, etc. Next we may mention the other capitalists, the great manufacturers and merchants. Wherein are they distinguished? First for energy and activity, next for a great talent for organization, especially as shown in the choice of their chief employes, and finally for a need of luxury, not too great, lest the building up of their capital be interfered with, nor too restrained, lest the suspicion be aroused that their fortune is in danger. The first of these aptitudes must certainly be considered as the most favorable; the [[283]]talent for organization especially is of the highest importance, for it is without contradiction a factor in social progress. It is because of this talent and not for their fabulous wealth alone that the names of Pierpont Morgan, of Rockefeller, and of other directors of trusts will not be entirely forgotten after they are dead. But these are not the only capacities which these people must display. To direct a capitalistic enterprise it is necessary among other things to have a fair portion of insensibility as well toward workmen as toward customers; then it will not do to be too scrupulous about truth (in advertising, etc.), nor to show too much character (however impertinent his customers may be the capitalist takes it all through fear of seeing them go over to his competitors).
Nevertheless, he who displays all these qualities, still is not entirely sure of being able to improve his position, or even to maintain himself in it; crises, as has been shown, are inevitably bound up with capitalism itself, and strike at times the most substantial and energetic capitalists. By a new invention or a new manner of working the most active and intelligent manufacturer may see himself out-stripped by a competitor. And aside from all fortuitous circumstances, in society as it exists today the struggle for existence is a struggle between those best armed, those who have the best machines, etc. But the manufacturer who can procure the best machines, who can bring his establishment up to the latest technical requirements, who can procure the services of the ablest technicians, etc., is the man who has most capital. The struggle is not a struggle of men but of capital.
In his work, “Die Darwinsche Theorie und der Sozialismus” Dr. L. Woltmann has brought out clearly the difference between the combat in nature and that which takes place in society. He says: “The history of the civilization of the human race also proceeds upon the basis of the great biological principles of adaptation, transmission, and perfection in the struggle for existence. But between the application of these principles among the lower animals and in the world of man there are the following essential differences. In the first place in the animal world the struggle for existence takes place through the adaptation of organic means to organic ends, while with men technical tools and economical means of production enter in, things which are not within the power of separate individuals, but are made possible by association. In the second place hereditary transmission in the case of animals is organic, while in the case of human beings [[284]]there is added an external and legally determined hereditary transmission of technical tools and of capital. In the animal kingdom, in the third place, the struggle for existence is a rivalry of organic production and reproduction, while among men, especially under the capitalistic order, there takes place a competition in commodities and places, a contest for profit, which has hardly anything in common with natural selection.”[17]
Thus we see clearly who it is that can rise from the class of non-possessors to that of possessors: it is those to whom fortune is peculiarly favorable, or who, possessing the qualities necessary for the capitalist, meet with the opportunity of putting them in evidence. Those who are dropped from the capitalist class are those who have been unfortunate or who do not possess the qualities necessary for capitalists.
The answer to the question proposed, “Are the present classes also the groups where men can be ranked according to their qualities”, must be decidedly negative. The bourgeoisie is not the ruling class because the most intelligent and energetic persons are found among its members. There are also included in this class persons without energy, stupid people, of minor importance in short, just as in the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat very capable persons may be met with. The fact of being excluded from the class of possessors is not a proof of inferiority. If the superior persons were those who led society they would be the great thinkers, the savants, for it is they who have made society progress and who have desired its well-being. For even if capitalists, more than others, have aided progress, it is by chance, for they have always had in view only their own profit.[18]
I could easily cite a number of celebrated authors who are unanimously of the opinion that the conquerors in the present struggle are not such because they are naturally superior.[19] I will confine myself to recalling the opinion of one whose authority no one will contest, namely, Charles Darwin. Here is what Wallace says: “In one of my last conversations with Darwin he expressed himself as having very little hope of the future of humanity, and this upon the [[285]]basis of his observation that in our modern civilization natural selection does not occur, and the fittest does not survive. The victors in the struggle for gold are by no means the best or the most intelligent, and it is a well known fact that our population reproduces itself in each generation much more rapidly among the lower than among the middle and upper classes.”[20]
An examination of the struggle for existence in the middle class shows that everything which happens in the bourgeoisie on a large scale is reproduced here on a small scale. He who has little capital is surpassed by a competitor who has more, even though the former may be entirely fitted for his business; crises have the same ruinous influence here, and strike skilful and unskilful alike. The difference, as far as the struggle for existence is concerned, between the class in question and the bourgeoisie, consists in this: the less energetic, the less intelligent of the middle class runs more danger of falling back out of the ranks than a member of the bourgeoisie who is his equal.
Finally, we come to the proletariat. Here also there is an elimination of individuals not because they are incapable, but because they are superfluous in the present mode of production, as well as of those whom sickness or old age render unfit for labor. Here we must take account of a factor which is of less importance in the other classes, bodily health and strength. While the proletarian has need neither of much knowledge or great intelligence to carry on his trade, he has a powerful weapon for the struggle in his muscular strength and health. Unfavorable conditions have a strong influence upon him, and the one who is weak and ailing must, other things being equal, yield in the present struggle for existence to a competitor who is stronger and in better health. And finally, in this contest also the less active, the less persevering among the workers will have the smaller chance of success, supposing conditions to be equal.
So we return to the point from which we set out, the lower proletariat. This class is not composed, then, as has sometimes been claimed, of beings inferior by nature, of persons who are fit for nothing. In the great majority of cases social conditions and not their lack of aptitude, are the exclusive and direct causes of their position. In support of this I will give some figures, which also show the relative importance of the causes compared among themselves. [[286]]
German Empire.
To The Hundred Poor Persons Assisted (Total of 1,592,386).
| Injuries to the person assisted |  | By Accident. | 1 | .04 |
| Injuries,, to,, the,, breadwinner of the family | 0 | .09 | ||
| Death of the,, breadwinner,, of,, the,, family,, | 0 | .36 | ||
| Death,, of,, the,, breadwinner,, of,, the,, family,, |  | Not by Accident. | 8 | .35 |
| Sickness of the person assisted or of one of his family | 15 | .24 | ||
| Bodily or intellectual infirmities | 8 | .97 | ||
| Weakness of old age | 12 | .32 | ||
| Large number of children | 1 | .34 | ||
| Forced unemployment | 2 | .23 | ||
| Alcoholism | 0 | .88 | ||
| Laziness | 0 | .71 | ||
| Other causes designated | 4 | .09 | ||
| Other,, causes,, not designated | 0 | .06 | ||
| “Co-assisted”[21] | 44 | .32 | ||
| 100 | .00[22] | |||
This table shows that 44.32% of the persons assisted were “co-assisted”; that 8.8% have become indigent through the death or injury of the breadwinner of the family; that there are, therefore, 53.12% of those assisted the cause of whose indigence is not to be found in the persons themselves, but in their social environment. (Generally such persons are spoken of as not being poor through their “own fault”, a term so vague that it would be well to discontinue its use.) 1.34% are persons with a large family, whose wages are too small to support so many; 2.23% are out of employment, i.e. they wish to work but can find nothing to do; 12.32% are prevented from working by old age. Consequently we reach the figure of 69.01% for those who have become indigent through causes which do not depend upon themselves. Finally come 25.25% of those assisted who have been injured, or are sick, or have bodily or intellectual infirmities.
Further, there are social causes which play a great part in the etiology of the cases we have been discussing (bad housing conditions favoring tuberculosis, lack of protective devices for dangerous machines, causing injuries, etc.). Others of these persons are born weak [[287]]or sickly, in which case we may speak of individual causes of poverty, although social conditions have contributed in their turn by their influence on the parents to make the children wretched.
It is, however, a social phenomenon that the sick and weak of the proletariat are left to shift for themselves. They find themselves in that condition only because they do not possess the means of production, and are no longer in a condition to sell their labor. Many times we read in treatises upon morals how shameful it is that nomadic peoples abandon or kill their sick and aged, and how by these customs they give proof of their inferior morality. But those who speak in this way forget how, notwithstanding our present civilization, a great number of persons still pass their old age in the direst poverty; they forget also that the manner in which the nomadic peoples live forces them to rid themselves of their sick and aged, because it would be impossible to take them with them; they forget also that, on account of the limited power that nomads have over nature, they find themselves in exceedingly difficult material circumstances, so that their manner of acting is not judged immoral by any of their own families who suffer by it;[23] finally they forget that the productivity of labor is so enormous at present that all the sick and aged could be supported; a part of the money spent in superfluous luxuries would be ample for this purpose.
We have still to examine the last two headings, laziness and alcoholism. As the figures given above show, these form a very small part of the causes: together only 1.59%.[24] Among the causes which have brought these persons to the point where they are, there are social factors also. Later on I shall speak of the relation between the present economic system and alcoholism. But at this point we may say as regards the 0.71% of persons who do not wish to work [[288]]that a part of them—it is impossible to say just how many—have grown up in a bad environment, where they have never been given the habit of working regularly and diligently, so that they have become totally incapable of doing so.
There is still another social factor that may be named; the disagreeable character of many kinds of work, made worse by long hours and low wages. To adduce but one example: the miner is obliged to work in a vitiated atmosphere, often in a painful position, and constantly surrounded by dangers, and this for very low wages. If we stop to think of this we are more astonished at the millions of workers who pass their lives under similar conditions, than at the comparatively few who refuse to work.
However, taking all this into account, it is certain that there are among the proletariat persons who are predisposed to idleness by their congenital constitution. It is indubitable that these persons are invalids, who would be cared for in a well-organized society, but in ours are abandoned to their fate. Professor Benedikt says, in speaking of physical neurasthenia: “It represents not so much absolute weakness as speedy exhaustion coupled with a painful feeling of weakness. We make in our childhood more muscular movements than is necessary, and out of the pleasurable feeling which comes from these develop the first elements of pleasure in work. If, however, the child quickly becomes weary, and the muscular action soon begets a lively feeling of discomfort, there arises from this discomfort laziness or physical neurasthenia.”[25] [[289]]
The number of those the cause of whose poverty is to be found in themselves is not, then, very considerable. Nevertheless it is a little greater than the statistics given would lead one to suppose, for there are also certain of the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, ruined in consequence of the lack of the qualities required for success, who have gone down little by little and have finally become incorporated with the lower proletariat.
But is this class of poor persons absolutely fit for nothing? It seems to me that (leaving the sick out of consideration) the answer must be decidedly in the negative. It is true that a part of this group succumbs in the struggle because it is inferior. But it would be as absurd to say of the runner who comes in last in a race that he cannot run at all, as to say of the man who goes under in the struggle for existence that he is fit for nothing. Those who do not succeed in life are in great part those who through accident of birth have not obtained the place for which their talents fitted them. How many among the bourgeoisie are ruined from their incapacity for directing a business enterprise, while they would have become useful members of society if they had been able to follow their true vocation? And how many proletarians have fallen lower and lower through not being fitted for the trade to which their birth destined them, while their innate qualities predestined them to a different form of work?[26]
Side by side with these there are individuals who are really inferior, who have little energy, intelligence, etc. It would be absurd to claim that these persons are capable of doing great things, even in the most favorable circumstances. But there is a great difference between not being able to do great things, and being absolutely useless, as are the members of the lower proletariat under present conditions. These persons have need of being guided, cannot stand up without support, and in order not to perish need to find themselves in a favorable environment. If their neighbor comes to their assistance they can assuredly become sufficiently useful, and in any case need do no harm. Anyone who will look about him may be convinced of the truth of this; for many persons of just this sort, happening to belong to the bourgeoisie, have succeeded very well.
Ethnology points out also that classes have not their origin in the universal fact that men differ in their innate qualities. For if this were true classes would be as old as humanity itself. This, however, is not the case; it has been proved that in the evolution of society [[290]]there has been a stage (that it was a long time ago makes little difference) when riches and poverty were unknown, and classes did not exist.[27] The assertion that the “war of all against all” is a natural phenomenon, is absolutely false, and proves a very great lack of sociological knowledge. It is certain that classes have long existed, but a society like that of our time, in which we can apply the adage of Hobbes, that “man is a wolf to his fellowman”, is of comparatively recent date.
Our conclusion, then, is this: the groups into which the population of capitalistic countries is divided do not originate in the circumstance that men differ in their innate capacities, but in the system of production that is in force; it is chiefly chance that determines to which class an individual belongs; there are inferior beings in each group, but among the lower proletariat they are more numerous than elsewhere; but these inferior beings may still be useful enough on condition that they be placed in a favorable environment. [[291]]
CHAPTER III.
THE RELATION OF THE SEXES AND OF THE FAMILY.
A. Marriage.
As between the two commonplaces, “There have always been poor people”, and “The present institution of marriage springs from human nature itself and is as old as society”, it is hard to say which is repeated oftenest, but it is quite certain that one is no more exact than the other. Sociology has proved that marriage, as it exists at present, is the result of a long process of evolution, and every serious observer must be convinced that its present form will be no more constant than those which preceded it, and that the ideas concerning it have undergone important modifications.
The question to solve is this: “How has monogamy taken its rise?” With the aid of sociology I shall endeavor to give the answer as summarily as possible.[28] It will, however, be necessary to recall the ancient forms of marriage, without which it would be impossible to grasp the origin and evolution of the present form. Most sociologists are of the opinion that primitive man lived in promiscuity, which, if true, must have been in the most remote period, when man was hardly distinguishable from the anthropoid apes. Other authors, [[292]]on the contrary, have attempted to show that such a state of things has never existed.[29] However, the only thing proved is that no case of promiscuity has ever been established among peoples observed by serious ethnologists. But all these peoples, however far removed they may be from us, had already attained a certain degree of development, and were by no means in their primitive state. No amount of observation can prove whether or not primitive man really lived in a state of promiscuity, and we can only take refuge in hypotheses.
We shall be getting at the truth when we come to an agreement as to the meaning of the word “promiscuity.” Do we mean by this a state like that in which dogs live, where after copulation the male and female do not remain together at all? Then it is very likely that human beings have never lived in that state, inasmuch as such promiscuity exists rarely or not at all among the animals most approaching man.[30] If, on the contrary, we mean by promiscuity a state in which rules concerning the sexual life are lacking, but where life in common for a longer or shorter period is not excluded, then, since man is part of the animal kingdom, it is most probable that there has been a time when this state has existed, and that it is only little by little that objective rules have appeared.[31] Let us now leave the domain of hypothesis and examine the real facts.[32]
The most primitive of the peoples who have been observed in detail have been named “lower hunters”; they include the Australian aborigines, the Veddhas, the Botocudos, etc. Among these peoples the men hunt while the women gather fruit and roots. They are forced to wander in small groups in order to provide for their needs, as otherwise the game and fruit would soon fail. Their limited control over nature is a frequent cause of famine and distress generally, and thus prevents any considerable increase in the population.
As to their sexual relations, there could not be any question of [[293]]promiscuity among these peoples. Each horde is divided into three age-classes, and the union of a member of one of these classes with a member of another is forbidden. The cause of this prohibition is not certain. Grosse[33] (as well as other authors[34]) is of the opinion that it lies in the fact that these peoples discovered the unfavorable effects of consanguineous unions upon the children, and that this discovery led to the prohibition.[35] Other authors believe that the hordes which practiced this exclusion, without suspecting its importance, ran less danger of extinction than those which did not practice it.[36]
The hordes being composed of but few persons, this exclusion would force the men more and more to seek wives from outside the horde, thus little by little becoming a group of consanguineous persons with whom union is forbidden. If a man has procured a woman by capture he becomes her absolute owner, can maltreat her, abandon her, do what he likes in short. The power of the man over his wife is less great if he has acquired her by purchase or exchange, since her family then exercises a certain control.
The relation of the sexes is sufficiently explained by the mode of production. When these savages are on the march the woman carries the little that they possess, erects the tent, and searches for fruit; the man on the other hand by his natural qualities is fitted for hunting and for the defense of the hunting ground. Hunting being the principal resource, and in this period bodily strength being of the highest importance, it is natural that the man should rule.
The so-called “higher hunters”, among whom we must reckon the North American Indians of the northwest coast and some peoples of northern Asia, have reached a higher stage of social evolution. The difference between these and the preceding class is only quantitative, and results from the circumstance that they have been able to settle themselves in countries that are rich in game and fish. This permits [[294]]them to be more sedentary, to live in larger groups, and to attain a higher development.
As with the lower hunters there is among them a division of labor between men and women: The man hunts, fishes, and constructs the tools that he has need of; the woman gathers roots and herbs, prepares the food, and gives herself up to the duties of the household. Some of these peoples are capable of producing more than they need, a fact which occasions commerce of some importance, and produces at times a great inequality of fortune.
At this stage of development the woman is of great use, which brings it about that the father does not give his daughter but sells her. Since the man, then, has bought his wife she has become his property, and he can do with her as he wishes; her infidelity is punished with death. If the husband has received gifts of value from his father-in-law, he is a little limited in his power, since, if he wishes to repudiate his wife, he is obliged to return the gifts. However repudiation is rare, since the woman is very useful to the man and he has ordinarily paid very dear for her. This is also why polygyny, though permitted almost everywhere, is rare. Only the very rich can permit themselves the luxury of more than one wife.
The position of the wife is rather better when, instead of following her husband, he comes to live at her father’s house. This happens sometimes when the man cannot pay the whole purchase price, sometimes when the father-in-law is much richer than he. In this latter case the son-in-law prefers to profit by the wealth and power of his wife’s father, who, for his part, asks nothing better than to keep his daughter at home, since, in this manner, instead of losing a worker from the household he gains one by the coming of the husband.
We come now to the “pastoral peoples”, living principally in Asia and Africa. Just as hunting is not the sole resource of the preceding groups, so the raising of cattle is not the exclusive occupation of this group, but simply the principal one; hence their name. The raising of cattle is naturally the work of the men, seeing that it proceeds genetically from hunting, while the women in this class, as in the preceding, gather fruits and herbs and attend to the work of the household. Although the land is held in common, there are great diversities of wealth, since cattle, the principal form of possession, are individual property, and since war and pillage are also frequent sources of wealth.
Polygyny is permitted, and nomads take as many wives as they can pay for and support. Only the rich, however, can afford to purchase more than one wife, for the fathers demand a good price. [[295]]Once purchased the woman becomes the absolute property of the man, who can exploit her in any manner, or abandon her, and when he comes to die can leave her to his heirs with the rest of his possessions. Adultery on the part of the woman is severely punished, while the man is free. Often under polygyny only one of the women is considered the legitimate wife and her children have the sole right to inherit, while the other women are considered only as concubines. The position of the legitimate wife towards her husband does not prevent her being as much of a slave as the other women. Nowhere else has the woman as humble a place as among these pastoral peoples, and nowhere else is the rôle of the man as important as here.
Let us next examine the “lower agriculturists” (among whom are to be found the greater number of the North American Indians, and a great number of the peoples of Africa and the East Indies). When hunting peoples, through chance circumstances (wealth of game for example), have ceased to wander continually, they may easily pass into agriculturists.[37] Agriculture in its turn brings it about that those who practice it become more and more sedentary.
The cultivation of the soil developed in connection with the gathering of fruit and roots, so that it originally formed part of woman’s sphere of labor; hence the economic importance of women increased, and a father became less and less disposed to give his daughter in marriage for a small equivalent. The future husband is obliged to acquire his wife at a considerable price, perhaps may have to win her by serving his father-in-law temporarily. Thus, although polygyny is permitted it is only the rich and the chiefs who can procure more than one wife.
Since agriculture requires many hands, the parents try to keep their children with them as long as possible.[38] Thus the custom grows up of several families living in the same house, and the husband comes to live with his wife’s family when he is unable to pay the purchase price. Even if this is not the case, a close relationship exists between the wife and her family, so that she returns to it with her children when her husband dies. The more important the position of the woman in the family becomes, the more it comes to pass that the married woman remains in her own family and the husband in his, and that the union consists only in more or less frequent visits paid by the man to his wife.
It is easy to see why the position of woman at this stage is in general [[296]]better than at those which preceded. Ordinarily it is the woman who tills the soil and cares for the household, while the man hunts and prepares the necessary tools; and since agriculture gives a more regular and surer production than hunting, it follows that the position of woman is improved. The woman becomes less dependent upon the man, to such a point that, for example, she is able to break the marriage, a condition very different from those in which the wife was the property of her husband. (The somewhat numerous exceptions are explained by the fact that in those cases the man takes part in the cultivation of the soil.) This is especially the case when a domestic community is formed in which the women govern (matriarchate).[39] Thus a situation is developed at times in which the women have an important position even outside of the family (gynecocracy).
As the preceding considerations show it is not the family which, at this stage of development, takes the first place. During the periods which I have examined before this the clan (in Latin “gens”, in German “Sippe”), a group of persons descended from a common ancestor, is of importance only inasmuch as members of the clan are forbidden to marry among themselves. Among the lower agriculturists, however, the clan is developed into a consanguineous group living in a community, and in most cases the clan is maternal—that is, descent and the right of succession are reckoned in the maternal line.
However as soon as agriculture increased greatly in importance, especially when the raising of cattle, commerce, and industry grew up beside it, the relation between the sexes became considerably modified. The man gave up hunting, always a less important resource at this stage, and applied himself more and more to agriculture and other branches, and the woman only seconded him in these occupations. In consequence of the continually increasing productivity of labor, the man could produce more than he needed for consumption. The possession of slaves then became advantageous, slavery took on greater and greater proportions, and in this way the woman’s part in the economic life became less important. Thus the man becomes anew the principal factor and his authority resumes the force it had in the earlier periods. It is no longer the man who lives with the woman and her family but she lives with him. We have seen above [[297]]that among the lower agriculturists it is the clan, and especially the maternal clan, that holds the first place. Through the economic development the maternal clan is made to give place to the paternal clan. In the clan there was equality, since the soil, the most important means of production, and the dwelling were possessed in common; but the disappearance of this equality followed the development of commerce and industry, for the products of these were, from the first, private property. This inequality was increased still more because private property in land began to grow up side by side with property in common. In the second place, the booty in war was not the same for all warriors, and furthermore war brought about the existence of a class of persons (slaves) whose interests were opposed to those of the conquerors. This development of private property leads necessarily to a gradual change from the maternal clan to the paternal. For in the first case a father had to leave his property to the members of his clan (we have seen that it was the man who became the possessor of private wealth); and since his children belonged always to another clan than his own, the clan of their mother, the children did not inherit from their father. Hence the change to the paternal clan.[40]
But this was not all. Through the great modifications in the mode of production of which I have already spoken, the importance of the clan diminished more and more, and at length disappeared entirely. As long as there was equality among the members of the clan, as long as the social relationships were little complicated, the clan and the organizations that sprang from it (mere combinations of clans) sufficed for the purposes of social organization. But such an organization, being purely democratic in its nature, was no longer adapted to a society in which there were rich and poor, freemen and slaves, in which, therefore, there was a large group of persons oppressed and a small group of oppressors.
The clan and the combinations of the different clans were replaced by the state. This was an organization which had for its principal end the maintenance of order as far as possible, in a society in which the interests of different groups, like those of individuals, were opposed to each other, and the regulation of this conflict of interests.[41] This organization is consequently entirely different from the clan, the object of which was to take the interests of the community to [[298]]heart. It is evident that in an organization like this it is the most important and influential class which comes first.
On the one hand, then, the clan loses itself in the state; on the other hand the family, which played but a secondary part while the clan system was at its height, became of greater importance. The clan is divided into “great families” (“Grossfamilien”), i.e. husband, wife, and their unmarried children as well as their male descendants, with their wives and children; and the father is the master of all these persons and all their property. However it is only little by little, and in proportion as we get away from the clan, that the authority of the father becomes unlimited. This form of the family has continued even down to our own day in China and Japan, and was general during the early days of ancient Rome.
In China the woman, whose work is entirely limited to household occupations, has a position which, according to all accounts, is only that of a subordinate. Her whole life is under the direction of her husband; she can never obtain a divorce, while her husband can dissolve the marriage without cause; if he takes her in the act of adultery he has the right to kill her, while he himself may keep concubines. In Japan the position of woman is much the same, and in ancient Rome also, though in the course of time the situation of the Roman woman was improved.
As the method of production became more elaborate and the social life was modified as a consequence, the “great family” disappeared, to be replaced by the modern family, consisting of the husband and wife with their unmarried children. Through the increasing extension of the division of labor the sons could more easily provide for their own needs and withdraw themselves in this way from the paternal authority, and the increasing power of the state favored this tendency by limiting the authority of the father.
The best sources for the study of the first phases of monogamous marriage are furnished by ancient Greece. There absolute submission of the woman to the man still prevailed. After the decease of the husband the woman was under the guardianship of his son. The man could repudiate his wife or give her to another. While he had full liberty to have intercourse with other women, the woman who committed adultery was severely punished. The occupations of the woman were confined to spinning, weaving, and housekeeping; her life was concentrated within the house, though even there her authority was very limited, while outside it had no force whatever.
In comparing the position of woman during the period in question [[299]]with that in the earlier periods (excepting the lower agricultural period) we see that in general her condition is but little ameliorated. Monogamy existed in reality for one of the parties only, since the man was free to keep concubines, while he took every means in his power to prevent the infidelity of his wife, by isolating her from the outer world. Hence it is not true, as some would have us believe, that monogamy is the consequence of an instinct, nor that it is due to a higher degree of culture, made possible by the increased productivity of labor.[42] On the contrary, among the lower agriculturists, much less civilized than the ancient Greeks, the position of women was better than with the latter; being more free, the woman enjoyed in general a higher degree of consideration.
The origin of monogamy is explained only by the modifications that the mode of production has undergone. Through these the man has again taken the most important place in the economic life, it is he who governs and the woman has only to obey him. Thus it is that through the continual increase of private property monogamy sprung up, that is to say the union of a man and a woman with the object of producing legitimate children who might inherit the property of the father.[43]
Since that time monogamy has persisted to our own day. However important the modifications which the method of production has undergone since the rise of monogamy, the fact remains that a certain part of the work necessary to existence belongs still to the work of housekeeping, which, as at other times, is performed by the women. The more important labors, those which give the greater social power to him who executes them, fall upon the man, and from this fact his preponderance still persists.
Though the position of the married woman may be somewhat improved when compared with that at the beginning of civilization, nevertheless a study of existing civil codes (especially of the French civil code and of those for which it has served as a model) shows that the married woman is in general still in a state of great dependence. The woman must obey her husband and follow him wherever he wishes; except where otherwise stipulated in the marriage contract the husband has the management of his wife’s fortune and the income from it belongs to him; it is the man who exercises parental authority; the woman cannot appear in a lawsuit without the assistance of her husband; etc. [[300]]
The difference between the position of the married woman of today and that of former times consists principally in that the consent of both parties is necessary to conclude the marriage, that the husband can no longer repudiate his wife, but can only dissolve the union for important reasons (adultery, cruelty, etc.), and that the woman also, for the same reasons, can obtain separation or divorce.
This raises the question as to why a marriage should not be dissolved as soon as for any reason the union becomes intolerable to either party. The answer must be as follows. From the dominant position of the man in the economic life it is clear that the woman would not be able to loose the bonds of marriage at her pleasure, except in the case provided by law, inasmuch as the man could not permit so grave an assault upon his authority. From this point of view monogamy and the ancient forms of marriage are alike, for the woman has never been able to secure a divorce at her own pleasure except among the lower agriculturists, where, on account of her importance in the economic life she enjoyed the same rights as the man. The present organization of society prevents the man, for his part, from getting a divorce except in certain cases provided by law, for if it were possible for the husband to break the marriage at will, society today would not have the necessary solidity and stability; marriage would be a very hazardous enterprise for the woman, since, from the nature of her occupation, she is generally not in a position to provide for her own needs by herself; and the support and education of the children by their parents would also be less assured. But even this is not all. As we have seen, monogamy was created as soon as private property became general. Reciprocally monogamy is one of the causes which support and increase the spirit of property in men. It is in the narrow circle of the family, away from the contact with society, that a keen desire to possess is developed among children.
The deepest roots of marriage as it exists today are found in our present state of society, based as it is on private property; and, in its turn, marriage is a support for that society. Here is also the reason for the disapprobation of free unions felt by the majority, even if the motives of these unions are the most noble. And this also is why the more conservative a man is as to the institution of private property, the more he holds to the existing form of marriage, a fact otherwise inexplicable.
An examination of the modifications made during the last century in the matrimonial law and in matters pertaining to it, shows that the position of the married woman has improved gradually. To cite [[301]]only a few examples, the French civil code gave to the married woman the right of divorce in the case of adultery on the part of her husband only if he kept a concubine in the common dwelling (art. 230). In 1884 this article was modified so that the woman now has the same right of divorce in case of adultery as the man. (Article 337 of the penal code, however, punishes the adulterous wife by an imprisonment of from three months to two years, while article 339 punishes the adulterous husband only if he has been keeping a concubine in the common dwelling, and then only by a fine of from one hundred to two thousand francs.) In England before 1870 the married woman was in a position of dependence. The right of possession of personal property as well as the administration of real estate and the benefit of revenues from it devolved upon the husband. Since 1870 and 1882 there has been a great change in the matrimonial law, to the great advantage of the woman who has become, among other things, the sole owner of her fortune, etc.[44] In the countries where there have been no modifications in the last century, public opinion is such that we may be sure that the condition of women will be better in case of an eventual revision of the matrimonial law.
In searching for the causes of the changes of opinion upon this question we discover that here again they are due in the last analysis to the economic life. This springs from the fact that the number of women who work independently, who gain their own bread, increases continually. The causes which bring this about are of diverse kinds but can be reduced to the following. In the first place, the number of marriages contracted is in general diminishing, and this decrease is due to the continually diminishing number of marriages among the moneyed classes, and to the fact that these marriages take place later in life than formerly.[45] It is not difficult to see that a retrograde movement in the marriages of the bourgeoisie must tell. Marriage brings an increase of expenses indeed, but among the proletariat it brings also an increase of revenue (the woman may earn something by working away from home, or save by doing the work of the house herself). Among the bourgeoisie, on the other hand, it brings with it pecuniary disadvantages only, at least if we except those cases in which the wife is more or less rich. The struggle for existence becomes [[302]]more and more difficult, and especially among the members of the petty bourgeoisie and those who practice the liberal professions marriage does not take place until later in life, and in general the number of marriages diminishes.[46] To this it is still necessary to add the fact that in Europe and in some of the states of North America the number of women exceeds that of the men.[47]
The diminishing opportunity for women of the more or less well-to-do classes to marry forces them to earn their own living. The change that housekeeping has undergone and is still undergoing must also be taken into consideration. The importance of housekeeping continually decreases in consequence of the extension of manufacturing, which absorbs the special tasks of the household one after another. While formerly clothes were made at home, bread was baked there, etc., at present there remains for the work of the household only the care of the house and the preparation of the food. And even these occupations may soon be taken out of the house.[48] Unmarried women of the bourgeoisie used formerly often to be able to find a home with members of their family, since they were able to be of service. At present they are in general only superfluous persons in the household.
Even the married women of the bourgeoisie find themselves more and more forced to contribute to the revenues of the family by working for money,[49] and this for reasons already cited in speaking of unmarried women: the increasing difficulty of the struggle for existence, and the diminution of the importance of household occupations. Outside of those whose economic situation forces them to work for money, the number of women who seek to earn something is becoming greater and greater. With these it is not necessity that forces them, but the spirit of independence awakened in them by the example of the others. If, on the one hand, the supply of women’s labor increases, on the other hand the demand is increasing also; for though it has been asserted that women are incapable of anything beyond housekeeping, they have proved their aptitude for many of the professions. And besides, the labor of women is much sought after, for not being yet organized like men, the wages they can obtain are not so large. [[303]]
And if the women of the bourgeoisie are engaging more and more in paid labor, the women of the proletariat were forced into it long ago. The labor of women became possible through the development of mechanical processes, as our exposition of the present economic system has shown. Since then this form of labor has assumed larger and larger proportions. The unmarried women of the proletariat are all obliged to provide for their needs, while the married women also often are, and the number of these is continually increasing.[50]
By what has gone before it has been indicated how important a change has taken place and is still taking place in the economic position of women. This change is in the last analysis the reason why women have revolted more and more against the inferior position in which the law places them, and why their opposition has already taken the form of deeds. This is the reason also why the legal position of woman is best in general in those countries where she has freed herself most by her independent work, as, for example, in the United States.
Up to this point we have examined only the legal side of the question. We must go on to add some observations concerning the material side. The civil codes rest, among other things, upon the fiction that all persons are equal. No mention is made of the division into distinct classes; and it is the same with marriage. Before the law all marriages are equal, while in reality they are not so. It is necessary, therefore to treat of the conjugal conditions of the different classes.[51]
In the first place take marriage in the bourgeois class. The conditions of life for the two sexes are different before marriage. Leaving out of account the fact that the number of women who provide for their own needs is increasing (they are still in the minority), it is incontestable that the aspirations of the women of the bourgeoisie tend toward marriage, the earliest and best marriage possible, in order that their future may be assured. And since the possibility of making a good marriage is becoming less, husband-hunting with all its unfortunate consequences becomes more and more eager. While the whole education of women looks only to marriage, that of the great majority of young men has as its object the attainment of [[304]]wealth or an important position as soon as possible. Even when the marriage is contracted in consequence of a reciprocal inclination, the differing conceptions of life held by the two parties contain the germs that may render it unhappy. In speaking of these very frequent cases Mme. Dr. Adams-Lehmann very justly says: “Neither understands the other. Sundered in everything that belongs to life, from childhood up, nature succeeds in uniting them at one point for a short time only. From this point on their paths diverge. The husband complains often and bitterly that his wife does not understand him. What would he have, when she belongs to an entirely different civilization? She has her own virtues, her own failings and vices, but they are not those of her husband, and serve principally to set her at variance with him. And the same is true of the man, over whose lack of understanding his wife just as often and bitterly laments. Different systems of culture, different aims, different ideals,—in such an atmosphere how should harmony thrive?”[52]
But these causes are further strengthened when economic motives have influenced the marriage more or less. If the two parties have frankly made their union on this basis they will not be too exacting, and will know how to submit to the inevitable; but when, as is ordinarily the case, the marriage has been contracted under false pretenses, the situation is much worse.[53]
It is plain, then, from this how little the legal form shows the reality. In order that the marriage may be contracted, the consent of the two parties is necessary, no matter how that consent is obtained. It is very often the parents who have made the choice, being guided by calculation alone. Such is the reality, and the formal free consent is only the appearance.
Weighty causes, sprung from social conditions, then, often bring it about that the married life is one of hate and discord. Aside from the reasons cited there is yet another which does not proceed from social conditions. Even when the marriage has been brought about through mutual inclination, there is no guarantee that this inclination will last. Not only may the parties be deceived as to each other’s character and temperament, but their feelings may change, and the marriage bond become insupportable. [[305]]
The law permits divorce only in certain fixed cases; and since divorce brings with it serious economic disadvantages for the woman, and sometimes for the man as well, it is not often resorted to. The fear of losing the good opinion of one’s friends may also prevent divorce. And this fear of blame where a divorce is desired proves once more how little real love has to do with the origin of monogamy.
If it is difficult, then, if not impossible, to break a marriage, the consequence is bound to be adultery, especially on the side of the man, since his manner of life gives him easy opportunity for it, and he does not fear the consequences as a woman does. The difference between monogamy and the more ancient forms of marriage is not great. Before the law monogamy alone is recognized and polygamy prohibited; but in reality polygamy always exists.
Let us go on now to marriage among the proletarians.[54] Here there can be no question of a different education for the boy and the girl; both are put to work while still children, and their relations are quite free. Among the working classes marriage usually takes place at an early age, because the workman early reaches the maximum of his earning capacity, and as a consequence it is useless for him to wait long before marrying; besides which he reaches maturity sooner than the bourgeois. Often marriage is contracted after it has been consummated and the sexual intercourse has had results. This is easy to understand when one observes the life of the proletariat, their housing conditions, their work in common, etc.
While it is not true that the marriages of the proletariat are always marriages of inclination, as has been asserted (for material interests play some part here also), yet they are oftenest of this kind. One of the causes, then, which often make marriages among the bourgeoisie unhappy does not exist here. On the other hand there are other causes which can bring about the same result. In the first place, this inclination is in many cases of a sexual nature only, without there being any sympathy of character. If this inclination dies out, therefore,—a thing which happens very often, since marriages in the proletariat are made at an early age, and the women soon grow old because of their hard life—there is no longer any basis for a happy marriage. There is a lack of that intellectual development which may render the difficulties of married life supportable. In consequence of this lack the slightest differences may result in great altercations, [[306]]and the causes of unhappiness are sought in the person and not in the circumstances of which the person is but the victim. Then in the next place there are the heavy cares of the struggle for existence. If a laborer’s family have already enough difficulty in making both ends meet, in the case of sickness or forced unemployment their misery is extreme, and it is often this misery which causes disputes and even blows. Further, the labor of women, the bad housing conditions, and alcoholism all tend to the same result. And because of hard work and many cares the wife of the workman soon grows old. In the proletarian class, therefore, marriages are threatened by many causes.
There is besides all this a very important difference between the marriages of the bourgeoisie and those of the proletariat as to their bases. The preponderating power of the man, which is strongly marked in bourgeois marriages, is less so in the proletarian, especially in those families where the woman provides for herself by paid labor. And private property, one of the “raisons d’être” of legal monogamy with the bourgeoisie, is lacking among the proletariat. This “raison d’être” is found with the latter in the necessity that the man should be charged with providing for the material needs of the children. Thus, in the proletariat the free union between a man and a woman generally meets with disapprobation only when there are offspring. The consequences are, first, that conjugal unions without legal sanction are not as much frowned upon by the proletarians as by the other classes; second, that the decision to dissolve the union, whether free or legal, is much more easily made among proletarians than among the bourgeoisie.[55]
With regard to marriage among the lower proletariat a word or two will suffice. Persons who have recently fallen to this class keep the ideas of the class from which they came. But when the persons have been born in the lower proletariat, or when their poverty has lasted for a long time, they become demoralized, and the relations between men and women show the effects of it.[56]
We come, then, to the end of our exposition. It seems to me that it has been shown that the different forms of marriage are in the last instance determined by the respective modes of production. Hence the origin of monogamy, the most recent form of marriage, is not to be found in the innate desire of the man and the woman to be united [[307]]for the whole of their lives, a desire which the law is supposed to sanction. Quite on the contrary men are not all monogamous, and still less monogamous during the whole of their life; a circumstance because of which the present economic conditions have produced the legal marriage, obliging two persons to remain together; if it were otherwise the law would not concern itself with the relations between man and woman.
Some important modifications have taken and are taking place in this matter. The bases upon which the present marriage system rests are changing. This is due to different reasons. In the first place woman is coming little by little to occupy a higher and more independent social position. Next, the importance of housekeeping in the economic life is diminishing. The only moral basis for marriage is little by little coming to be mutual love and sympathy, for true love can only exist between persons free and equal.[57] There is a constantly increasing number of persons who, in place of stigmatizing as immoral a union that is non-legitimate, but contracted because of mutual love and sympathy, consider it, on the contrary, as superior to a legal marriage contracted for economic reasons.
Finally, it is to be noted that the present economic and social life has bound up the sexual life with the economic life, by making marriage possible only for those who have the necessary means at their disposal, and consequently has caused the compulsory celibacy of millions of men and women.
B. The Family.
In the preceding pages we have fixed the attention principally upon the relation between the man and the woman, and it now remains to treat of the position of the children born of their union.
It is a biological fact that the mother is designed by nature to have the care of the child during its first years, and consequently this care persists through all phases of the social development. It is, then, superfluous to speak of it in a sociological treatise.
The relations between parents and children have not always been the same in the different phases of social development, and it is therefore impossible to speak here of relations instituted by nature. A glance at the respective situations in the different periods shows that among the “lower hunters”, where the woman is considered as the property of the man, the children born are also in the absolute power [[308]]of their father, who has the right of life and death over his children, and whose power over them ceases only when he has sold his daughters to their husbands, or when his sons, having become adults, are recognized as members of the tribe.[58]
Among the upper hunters and the pastoral peoples it is, as with the peoples named above, to the father, in general, that the children belong, or to whom they owe obedience. The mother, herself in subjection to the father, has little or no authority over the children.[59]
Among the lower agriculturists the conditions in question differ relatively very much. As has been shown in the considerations upon marriage among these peoples, the position of woman is often quite other than during the preceding periods. She is not at all in so subordinate a situation, her position is even not without importance, thanks to the place which she occupies in the economic life. And this importance shows itself also in her relations with her children. In general it is to the mother that the education of the children falls, while the influence of the father is little or nothing. In these last cases a greater or less power belongs to the mother’s brother (under the matriarchate the grandfather and father of the children belong to another clan, and the maternal uncle and the children belong to the clan of the mother).[60]
As has already been said above conditions among the higher agriculturists were patriarchal. The father had unlimited power over his unmarried daughters, and over all his sons with their descendants.[61] It is from these so-called “great families”, that the present form of the family springs (husband, wife, and their not yet emancipated children) as a consequence of the fact that the adult sons have been able to emancipate themselves on account of the modifications that the economic life has undergone. From this time especially the affection for children in general which is found among almost all people, takes on an exclusive character, and becomes limited to one’s own children. For monogamy is before all a consequence of the desire of the man, which came in with private property, to leave his possessions to the children of his legal wife, whose father he knew himself to be.[62]
In its essence this form of the family has been maintained down to the present day. The modifications it has undergone may be reduced [[309]]to the two following.[63] In the first place, in consequence of her improved position as wife, the mother has obtained a greater influence over the education of her children, though her power is, under the law, still subordinated in every way to that of her husband. In the second place the state manifests a continually increasing tendency to exert an influence over the relations between parents and their children. To begin with, the state imposes upon married parents the task of supporting and bringing up their children, and prohibits by the penal law slaying or abandoning them. The origin of these requirements must be found in the fact that the state is interested in having the children cared for, in order that the population may be as numerous as possible. (The state being once formed, while the causes of infanticide among primitive peoples have almost disappeared, the law has no occasion to make any great change in the existing situation.) If the married parents were not forced by the state to support and bring up their children[64] it would be necessary to impose this task upon other institutions which do not exist in our present society. The state is not an institution for the public well-being; it is chiefly a means of maintaining the external order in the disorder which results from the complicated and muddled system of capitalistic production; it is before all a system of police. If it were otherwise, the state would consider it as one of its first duties to deprive parents of their rights over their children, if they did not perform their task, or did it badly, and would itself undertake the care and training of these children, as well of those whose parents were dead or otherwise absolutely unable to care for them. For society as a whole, as well as the children themselves, has a very great interest in this matter.
However, the state in general does not assume any duty towards abandoned or neglected children, and only in a hesitating way intervenes to punish or to take away the parental authority of those who have been guilty of such acts.[65] Little by little, as the ideas upon the duties of the state become modified however (principally under the influence of organized labor, which aims at transforming the state into an organized community), it interests itself more in the person of the child. As to the care of the child’s property all the codes are already very much detailed! [[310]]
There are two points with regard to which the state quite generally has an influence over the lot of the child. First, it prohibits or limits his paid labor; and second, it obliges parents to send their children to school.
We have already spoken of this prohibition, which is made necessary from the fact that the physical condition of the working classes is becoming worse, and because the labor movement exercises a pressure upon the state. Compulsory education has its origin, on one side, in the fact that, in some occupations, capitalism cannot make use of workmen who are altogether ignorant; on the other side, in the fact that without compulsory education the youth of the working class would be even more brutalized than at present. The opposition to compulsory education on the part of whatever is conservative is another clear indication of what an intimate connection there is between the individual family and the present economic system. The economic position of the man as breadwinner for his wife and children is the cause of his desire to be limited in his power as little as possible.
Up to this point we have been treating of conditions past and present only in so far as they are regulated by law (the formal side); we must now go on to treat conditions from the material side. Here we must consider three subjects: physical education, intellectual education, and moral education. In treating of criminality, however, we have naturally little to do with the first two, while the third is of the highest importance for us.
As to physical education it is enough to say that it is the “conditio sine qua non” of the two others. The intellectual and moral qualities of a child that is badly cared for physically, can never be entirely developed. The parents (and the child himself) use up all their energy in providing for their bodily necessities, so that there is none left for the other needs. Dr. A. Baer says: “Children of this kind (i.e., of the poor classes) already at an early age bear the cares and sorrows that life imposes upon them; they early become acquainted with the claims and demands of life, and not infrequently are very early influenced by living-conditions which will necessarily affect them long afterward.”[66]
It is only among the bourgeoisie and the relatively well-to-do portion of the petty bourgeoisie that there can be any sufficient physical education for the children. Among the proletarians, and [[311]]those of the petty bourgeoisie who are in a similar situation as regards material conditions, it is insufficient, and worse, if possible, among the lower proletariat. However, if there is a lack of it among these last, there is at times a superabundance among the bourgeoisie. There children are often brought up in such luxury that they are early made blasé and rendered unhappy for the future. Dr. Baer says upon this subject:[67] “It is through other circumstances and causes that the children of the rich and well-to-do classes are brought to a condition of precocity, accompanied by sickly irritability and arrogant self-conceit. Here are good-living, luxury, and the superabundance of bodily enjoyments, the early familiarity with the theater, balls, and outside social life in general, which make them incapable of the harmless pleasures of childhood. Improper education in the family is responsible for the fact that children in widely separated social classes are already at any early age left to themselves and fall into evil ways. ‘One must have lived in a great city,’ says von Krafft-Ebing, ‘and have visited the hovels of the poor, and the palaces of the rich to know what mistakes in the bringing up of children are committed there, where the children of the poor, amidst dirt and drink, and those of the rich, amidst arrogance and rascality, are going to ruin physically and morally.… Every day may be seen children falling asleep at the theater or other places of amusement to which their parents’ folly and desire for pleasure have dragged them. Other parents provide for their children the doubtful happiness of children’s balls and soirées. Is it any wonder, then, if we now, especially in the great cities, very seldom meet with any real children?’ ”
In the countries where education is compulsory, it is guaranteed that all the children will acquire a certain amount of knowledge. It is unnecessary to say that in general this amount of knowledge is very small in the case of the children of the poor, and consists of the rudiments of reading, writing, and arithmetic, so that there is no real intellectual education. For the children of the bourgeoisie quite a different preparation is made; here there is rather an over- than an undersupply of the means of education. The great competition in present day society, the superabundance of intellectual forces, the ardent desire to see their children succeed in spite of everything, all this obliges parents to crowd their children’s intellectual capacities, even to the detriment of their other qualities. “The thing which in our modern life conduces most to the giving of a one-sided, inharmonious development to the child, is the fact that too little weight [[312]]is given to the development of the disposition, and too much to the development of the understanding. Because there is no influence exerted upon the spiritual and emotional life, the mind of the child is often from early youth turned toward the material and sensuous, the life of pleasure, and comes to bend its thought wholly to the practical and utilitarian.”[68]
Thus we arrive at the very subject we have in view, moral education. As I have already remarked, one of the characteristic differences between education among the primitive peoples and that of our own day is this, that as a consequence of the great complexity of our present society, and the numberless conflicts between individual interests, the task imposed upon the educator is now much broader and more onerous.[69]
The first condition, without doubt, that might be demanded of one who is to make a child into a moral man, a man of character, is surely this, that he should be himself a man of character. It goes without saying that no person can give more than he has. Leaving aside for the moment the criminal class, of whom I shall treat later, it is clear that no one without character, or weak in character, can ever train children to have well developed moral sentiments. He may be able, it is true, to teach them to distinguish good from bad, but such lessons concern only the intellectual part of the nature and not the moral part, and they cannot transform children into persons who feel morally. It cannot be denied that the number of persons who do not feel morally is great, and that these have children. Without forgetting the fact that it is the father to whom the law gives especially the parental authority, we must recognize that it is the mother upon whom the task of education generally rests, because the father is almost always away from home. But the inferior position of woman, maintained now for centuries, has been extremely harmful to her character, and thus it often happens that this lack of character passes to the children as well.[70]
A second condition without which successful education is impossible is that educators shall have the innate qualities necessary for their task. We should doubt, and not without reason, the common sense of anyone who dared to assert that every person was capable of becoming a good sculptor or even carpenter. Just so no one could say [[313]]that everyone possesses the qualities necessary for an art as difficult as that of education.
To be a good educator it is necessary to be very fond of children, to have much patience and zeal, to know how to put one’s self on a plane with the child, to have a clear and practical intellect, especially when the teacher has a great affection for the child, since without intelligence the excess of affection will only be harmful. There are parents who possess these qualities in a very high degree, and it is only to be regretted that they teach only their own children, and not those also of parents in whom the teaching faculty is entirely lacking. Next comes the group of those who have a modicum of the requisite qualities, and finally a smaller group who have little or no aptitude for the task. The least fit to give a good education, however, are psychopathic individuals, because of their changeable disposition, their quick fits of temper, etc.
Just as educators differ greatly in their innate fitness for teaching, so different children need to be guided in different ways. If there are children who require little care in order that they may presently be able to adapt themselves to the requirements of society, others, who form the great majority, require more; while there remains a second minority who, if they are to be made fairly useful men and women, must have constant and minute attention. Among these last are to be classed the victims of heredity. If they have parents without great teaching ability, as is often the case with these psychopathic individuals, the results are even worse.
Aside from innate fitness it is necessary that an educator should have received the necessary education. The teacher without notions of psychology, of pedagogy, etc., often deceives himself, even if he has all the necessary innate qualities, and consequently warps the character of his pupils.
The instructor must learn his trade, and if this is so, why should not the educator in charge of the moral education of the child need an apprenticeship, since moral education is a task no less difficult than intellectual education (which is about all that our present schools undertake)? However, it is incontestable that in all classes of society today moral education is practiced in dilettante fashion, as was formerly the case with intellectual education.[71]
Finally, there remains the condition that the teacher should have the time necessary to perform his task, for without this the most [[314]]capable cannot attain good results. Having now laid down the general conditions, let us go on to examine in a few words education as it is actually practiced in the different classes.
Let us begin with the bourgeoisie. As has already been remarked, the children in this class are often spoiled by the great luxury that surrounds them, and further by the fact that their intellect is developed at the expense of their moral qualities. As my remarks concerning capacity, character, etc., apply to all classes, it is unnecessary here to speak of them more fully. Only it must be observed that, as far as positive knowledge of pedagogy is concerned, the bourgeoisie is much superior to the proletariat, from which there follows among other things a corresponding superiority of the bourgeois education. The character of the bourgeois woman, who occupies, like all women, a lower rank in society, has generally suffered still more from her easy mode of life, and her weakness of character is transmitted to her children if she brings them up herself. This condition must be added, for society life, or in other words, the habit of doing nothing at all, is often the cause of mothers’ having their children brought up by some one who has neither natural aptitude nor acquired capacity for this task, but only takes charge of the children for the sake of a place. There are even children who are not suckled by their mothers but by nurses, since the mothers are afraid of diminishing their own charms. This proves once more the weakness of the allegation that the parents are the natural educators of the child; for we see in this case that the social environment can lead to the renunciation of duties that are really natural.[72]
The moral education of the children of the bourgeoisie is generally superficial, and has especially in view the task of teaching the children to conduct themselves according to the proprieties, much more than that of developing their real moral nature.[73] In the second place this education develops among them a very strong feeling of class, so that they consider the members of the proletariat as inferior beings, born by nature to serve the bourgeoisie, in place of seeing in them only their own fellows, who have become different merely because of fortuitous circumstances.
In the third place, our present educational system makes children egoistic, those of the bourgeoisie more than those of the proletariat. This assertion contradicts, it is true, the numerous authors who are convinced that our present education in the family is a source of [[315]]altruism.[74] They are right when they say that altruistic sentiments between the members of the family themselves have their rise within the circle of the family. For a long time the life within the family constituted a man’s whole life (as it still does for a very great number of women), but in the society of today a great part of the time is passed outside of the family circle, and for this reason the opinion of these authors, though shared by many persons, is not correct. In the family circle the child, especially when he has neither brothers nor sisters,[75] soon discovers that his own interests come first, that the outside world is his enemy, and that when he grows up he must make himself as large a place there as possible. It matters little that the interests of others will then be injured. It must be added further, that if on the one side the family is an economic unity, and that the interests of the members of the family are so far parallel, on the other hand there exist opposing interests, such as inheritance, which may destroy the homogeneity of interest.
It may be objected here that in our present society, consisting as it does for the most part of adherents of Christianity, most children are taught to love their neighbor as themselves. This is true, but in a society such as ours, where the interests of all men are opposed, the effect of this commandment cannot be great, or will be practiced only in words and not in acts, and so end in hypocrisy. He who wants to follow this commandment to the letter sees himself at once defeated in the conflict of life, unless he changes his opinion.[76]
No one known to me has better characterized the existing educational system than Owen. “As society is now constituted,” he says, “no children can by possibility be really well educated. The fundamental errors upon which it has been based, filling the early mind with error and hypocrisy and all manner of conflicting ideas, opposed to facts and to nature, render it impracticable for any child to be rationally trained or treated by society. And the more education of this kind is given to children, the more they are estranged from a knowledge of themselves, or of human nature generally, and the less competent will they be to understand what society has been made to be, and yet less what it ought to be, and how it may be made what it is desirable that it should be, for the happiness and well-being of all. [[316]]
“Mothers and fathers thus taught, are incompetent to teach and educate their children in the spirit, manner, and conduct, which should, for the benefit of all, be given to all children. Their affections also, especially the strong natural animal affections of the mother, are, in almost all cases too strong for the very limited powers of judging accurately respecting their own children and those of other parents, which females now acquire from their present mal-education.
“The individual family arrangements confining the child to the limited number of ideas among them—to their early deep impressions in favor of family interests and supposed rights—to the narrow and partial experience of a family and its usual small connections, are equally destructive of a good sound practical education or well-training of children.
“The individual system of society which has so long prevailed in all nations, and amongst all peoples, is also a strong barrier to the proper education of beings intended to be made rational. The individual system of society is injurious to man now, under every point of view in which it can be considered; but especially in the education of children of all classes. It confines all their strongest feelings to self first, then to family, afterwards to kindred, and then to small neighborhoods and districts, regularly and systematically training each child to become at maturity a merely localized, ignorantly selfish animal, filled with family and geographical prejudices.
“As long as this individual system shall be continued, it will be vain to expect that any child can be well educated, or properly trained to become a rational being—a man with the full physical and mental powers of humanity, intelligent, moral, and virtuous. The isolated character formed by the individual system will, as long as children shall be educated under it, and in accordance with all its innumerable errors in practice and principle, render it impossible for any child to be so educated and placed in society as not to become, more or less, a cause of anxiety to its parents. Every child under this system comes into society, at its birth, opposed by the capital and experience of society; and as it advances in its progress, and has to take part in the jostle, bustle and business of life, it has to contend for itself, often, not only against these general powers of society, but on the death of parents, or sometimes even before, with brothers and sisters, for individual property or other advantages.
“Besides, children before they have any resisting powers of mind, being forced to receive the errors of their parents and other early instructors, respecting their supposed faculties of believing and disbelieving, [[317]]loving and hating, are by this process, placed through life in direct opposition to nature; and, as vice has been made, by the gross errors of our ancestors, to consist in acting in accordance with nature, and virtue in acting in opposition to it, and as nature continually impels the individual to desire to act in accordance with its own laws, in defiance of man’s unwise and unjust laws, the great probability is that children will be more liable to obey nature than man; and thus, where there are children, they must be a source of constant anxiety to parents; and that anxiety must be injurious to the best formation of the organization of the remainder of the infants that may be born to them.”[77]
We have still to fix our attention upon the sexual education of the children of the bourgeoisie. In our society the Christian sexual ethics is dominant, often even among non-Christians, without their being conscious of it. According to this system the whole sexual life proceeds from the evil one, and man would be better without any sexual instincts.[78] This is why children are generally raised in an absolute ignorance upon this subject, or even have lies told to them about it. As nature cannot be suppressed it follows that the curiosity of the child only becomes the more inflamed, and that the conduct of men in this regard becomes hypocritical.[79]
Secondly, let us take up education in the petty bourgeoisie. Upon this point we can be very brief. A part of this class joins on to the proletariat from the conditions of its life, and another part to the bourgeoisie. It is unnecessary, therefore, to speak of it at length. It is only the core of the petty bourgeoisie who, having kept the traditions of their class, show any differences in this regard. Here there is no danger of the demoralizing influence of the luxurious surroundings of the rich, and the surveillance of the father is greater, and thus the education more severe; but the limited conception of life, and the continual efforts of the parents, eager to procure advantages for their families, develop egotism among their children in a high degree.
With regard to the proletariat it has already been shown that the material advantages necessary for a sufficient education are lacking in the case of this class. Housing conditions are here of the greatest importance. Generally there is not room enough for the children at home, so that they spend the greater part of the day in the street. [[318]]Then again the housing conditions are responsible for the fact that the children often are thrown with persons whose influence is harmful to them (prostitutes, etc.). And finally the small apartments bring it about that the children are too early instructed in sexual matters, and this in a bad way (through sleeping in the same small room with their parents, or in the same bed with children of the opposite sex, etc.).
Then children need to grow up in an environment not poisoned by cares, one in which poverty does not harden the heart, and extinguish all gayety, and where the knowledge necessary for education is not wanting. Further, in this class the father has generally no opportunity to busy himself with the education of his children in consequence of the long duration of his hours of labor outside of the home. A great many working men have to leave home in the morning to go to work long before their children are awake, to return only after the little ones have already been put to bed; and the situation is much the same where the laborer works at night, and consequently sleeps during the day.
The development of capitalism has led to the paid labor of married women, and consequently to one of the most important causes of the demoralization of the children of the working class. When there is no one to watch a child, when he is left to himself, he becomes demoralized. In his work, “The Condition of the Working-Class in England”, F. Engels has put the situation briefly: “The employment of the wife [in the factory] dissolves the family utterly and of necessity, and this dissolution, in our present society, which is based upon the family, brings the most demoralizing consequences, both for parents and for the children. A mother who has no time to trouble herself about her child, to perform the most ordinary loving services for it during the first year, who scarcely indeed sees it, can be no real mother to the child, must inevitably grow indifferent to it, and treat it unlovingly, like a stranger. The children who grow up under such conditions are entirely ruined for later family life, can never feel at home in the family which they themselves found, because they have always been accustomed to isolation, and they contribute therefore to the already general undermining of the family in the working class.”[80] [[319]]
Finally, when, through death or otherwise, the parents are no longer in a position to support and raise their children, they are left to their fate, unless there are charitable persons or benevolent institutions that wish to take charge of them. For the state, for reasons shown above, does not lay upon itself the duty of caring for such children.
It remains now to speak of the lower proletariat, among whom prostitutes and criminals are included. The education of these persons is not only much neglected, as is often the case with the children of the proletariat, of whom it may be said that they receive a negative education—but these receive in addition a positive education in evil. It might be possible to dispute the advantages of a good education, but it is indisputable that children brought up by immoral people, or even incited to evil (prostitution or crime) run the greatest risk, unless exceptional circumstances present themselves, of becoming persons hurtful to society.
In this connection it is necessary to fix our attention, finally, upon the situation in which illegitimate children find themselves. Since marriage, at once the consequence and support of existing social conditions, is the only form of sexual union legally recognized, illegitimate children are legally and socially treated as pariahs.[81]
It is difficult to form an idea of the great number of children who, in our present society, are neglected or abandoned. The following passage may help form some conception of it: “If the reader will imagine a procession of 109,000 children marching past him, and notice attentively child after child as it goes by, he will get some idea of the extent of the suffering of children with which the ‘National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in England’ has actually had to do during the first ten years of its existence.
“The first 25,437 are sufferers from injuries inflicted upon them with boots, crockery, pans, shovels, straps, ropes, pokers, fire, boiling water, in short with every imaginable instrument that came to the hand of the brutal and vindictive parents—covered with wounds and bruises, burned, scalded, and covered with plasters and bandages.
“Then come 62,887 sufferers from neglect and starvation—covered with dirt, eruptions, and sores, trembling, in rags, half-naked, pale, weak, faint, feeble, pining, starving, dying—many of them borne in the arms of the nurses of the hospitals. [[320]]
“Then come 712 funeral processions, where the maltreatment ended fatally.
“Then come 12,663 little beings, their sufferings displayed to turn the lazy and cruel benevolence of the street to those who are answerable for their pallor, leanness, and coughs—most of these, too, are still in arms, but in the arms of vile drunkards and vagabonds.
“Then come 4460 pitiable girls, victims of the lust of human monsters.
“Then come 3205 little slaves of unsuitable and harmful occupations and dangerous performances, untimely births in traveling vans, acrobats at fairs, trapeze performers and tight-rope walkers in circuses, laboring under too heavy a load, and suffering the most diverse outrages. The procession is 60 miles long and takes 24 hours to pass by.”[82]
The society spoken of above is a private institution. The extent of its labors is very limited, which is why it has not taken cognizance of a great number of the children who have been thus treated. At the time when the report containing the above figures had just appeared, it had only been in operation ten years—during the last five more effectively, as a part of the first five was taken up with the organization of its service. Finally the field of its labors includes only the United Kingdom, while capitalism reigns over a great part of the world and has everywhere the same consequences. In consideration of these facts we can form an idea of the great destitution in which a multitude of children are found, and what sort of persons children so treated are likely to grow up to be.
To sum up what has been said, we see that the system of education for the child has not always been what it is now, and that we cannot therefore speak in this connection of institutions created by nature, except as regards the relation between mother and child during the first years of the latter’s life. It has been shown, I think, that the present system of education is closely bound up with the method of production of the day. No one can deny that in this regard also we are far from living in the “best of possible worlds.”[83] [[321]]
C. Prostitution.[84]
By prostitution must be understood the social fact that there are women who sell their bodies for the exercise of sexual acts, and make a profession of it. The putting of one’s body at the disposal of another for the purpose of sexual intercourse constitutes then at times the sale of merchandise. To find the cause of prostitution in our present society it is necessary to begin by asking: “What are the causes for the demand for this merchandise?” These causes may be reduced to the following:
a. The difficulty or impossibility of marrying found by many men. We have already seen that in our present society there is a continually increasing number of the petty bourgeois and of those who practice the liberal professions who, in consequence of the insufficiency of their incomes, cannot marry, or only at a rather advanced age. As we have seen, also, this is not in general the case with the proletariat. They reach the maximum of their wages while still quite young, and are less exacting as regards their material needs. All this brings it about that they marry sooner and so have less recourse to prostitution. (Soldiers and seamen, who are often forced to remain unmarried, form an exception.)
b. Besides those of whom I have been speaking, those also must be mentioned who do not wish to attach themselves for life to a single woman. Further, separate education, inducing a different life for the two sexes, is often an obstacle to the easy meeting of two persons [[322]]who might make a marriage of inclination. Many men renounce marriage because the intellectual plane of women is altogether different from theirs, as a consequence both of their education and of their manner of life, and also because with them the thought of improving their economic position by marriage predominates.[85]
The larger contingent of men who have recourse to prostitutes is made up of bachelors,[86] and the smaller of married men. Whence springs the following cause:
c. Often the marriage is not contracted from inclination, but for financial reasons, which brings it about that the men often indemnify themselves with prostitutes. But this is applicable also to those cases where the marriage has not been made for the reasons named, but in which, for any cause, an antipathy has sprung up between the couple, without the dissolution of the marriage, either because of the difficulty of securing a divorce, or from motives of expediency. Since monogamy does not proceed from an innate inclination, prostitution is a necessary correlative of marriage.
d. The keeping of extravagant mistresses is a pastime for those who have been demoralized by a life of luxury and ease, and at the same time is a means by which these people can get rid of their incomes.
e. Finally, prostitution is a means whereby rich perverts satisfy their inclinations.
Before leaving the causes of the demand for prostitutes there is one further matter to consider. Those who have recourse to prostitutes must necessarily have a low opinion of woman, whom they consider only as an object existing for pleasure, and thus bound to be ready, as soon as a man wishes, to furnish him what he desires, for money, and not because of affection. This vile fashion of regarding women has been universal for centuries, and is still pretty general. It is to be explained from the long-continued inferior social position of women. We have seen that this position has been improved little by little, and that the result of this improvement has been an increase in the [[323]]number of men who have a higher opinion of woman, and who wish to have sexual relations with a woman only when there is a mutual affection between them. These persons form even today only a small minority, however.
In the presence of a majority still thinking quite differently it is absurd to preach total sexual abstinence to all unmarried young men, as certain moralists do (Tolstoi, for example). Though there are men who abstain without injury to their health, these moralists forget that the satisfaction of the sexual desires is one of the most important needs of the majority of men (the life of our day certainly increases these desires), and that present social conditions are the cause of men’s considering woman their inferior. Dr. Blaschko, in his work “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, rightly says: “The sexual requirement in the case of mankind as of all other beings is an entirely natural one. To be sure, it is not so strong and compelling as the necessity of food and drink; it can be suppressed in the case of anyone for a time, and with many permanently, without injury to the health. But what is true of this or that person does not hold for the mass of mankind, for whom sexual intercourse is doubtless a necessity.”[87]
It is now necessary to inquire why there is a sufficient supply to meet this demand. Before beginning, however, one remark must be made. The point of departure of the etiology of prostitution must be the incontestable fact that modesty is not an innate but an acquired quality. The problem is chiefly, then, what are the causes why the feeling of modesty is not sufficiently developed among certain women. The following are the principal causes:
a. Immoral environment. We shall examine this first in so far as it affects children.[88] In running over the statistics which mention the age of prostitutes one is particularly struck by the fact that a great number of them are still very young. To cite some examples: Dr. G. Richelot gives the following figures in his work “La Prostitution en Angleterre”:[89] [[324]]
London, 1836–1854.
Prostitutes Sentenced in Cases of Summary Jurisdiction.
| Age. | To the 10,000. |
| From 10 to 15 years | 27 |
| From,, 15 to,, 20 years,, | 2,463 |
| From,, 20 to,, 25 years,, | 3,623 |
| 25 and over | 3,887 |
Edinburgh, 1835–1842.
Prostitutes Admitted to “Lock Hospital.”
| Age. | To the 1,000. |
| Below 15 | 42 |
| From 15 to 20 | 662 |
| From,, 20 to,, 25 | 199 |
| 25 and over | 97 |
In the “Reports from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Law Relating to the Protection of Young Girls”[90] the following figures may be found:
England, 1881–1882.
Received into an “Asylum for Girls and Women.”
| Age. | Number. | Percentage. | |
| 12 to 14 | 8 |  | 55 |
| 14 to,, 16 | 6 | ||
| 16 to,, 18 | 28 | ||
| 18 to,, 20 | 34 | ||
| 20 to,, 23 | 9 | | 45 |
| 23 to,, 25 | 25 | ||
| 25 to,, 39 | 27 | ||
| 137 | 100 | ||
In his work “De la Prostitution dans la ville de Paris” Parent-Duchatelet gives the following figures:[91] [[325]]
Paris, 1831.
Registered Prostitutes.
| Age. | Number. | Percentage. | |
| 12 years | 1 |  | 23.6 |
| 13 years,, | 3 | ||
| 14 years,, | 8 | ||
| 15 years,, | 17 | ||
| 16 years,, | 44 | ||
| 17 years,, | 55 | ||
| 18 years,, | 101 | ||
| 19 years,, | 115 | ||
| 20 years,, | 216 | ||
| 21 years,, | 204 | ||
| 22 years,, | 249 |  | 76.4 |
| 23 years,, | 240 | ||
| 24 years,, | 207 | ||
| 25 years,, | 193 | ||
| 26 and over | 1,582 | ||
| 3,235 | 100.0 | ||
C. J. Lecour gives the following table:[92]
Paris, 1855–1869.
Registered Prostitutes.
| Age. | Number. | Percentage. |
| Below 18 years | 513 | 8 |
| From 18 to 21 | 1,704 | 26.6 |
| Over 21 | 4,190 | 65.4 |
| 6,407 | 100.0 |
Dr. Augagneur gives the following ages for prostitutes admitted to the hospital:[93]
Lyons.
| Years. | Older Girls. | Younger Girls. | Total. | ||
| 1877 | 520 | (65.5%) | 274 | (34.0%) | 794 |
| 1887 | 144 | (68.2%) | 67 | (31.8%) | 211 |
| 664 | (66.07%) | 341 | (33.73%) | 1,005 | |
[[326]]
S. Sighele gives the following figures:[94]
Italy.
Registered Prostitutes.
| 1875 | From 16 to 20 | 2,455 | 26.98 |
| From,, 21 to,, 30 | 4,766 | 52.50 | |
| 31 and over | 1,867 | 20.52 | |
| 9,088 | 100.00 | ||
| 1881 | From 17 to 20 | 2,953 | 31.90 |
| From,, 21 to,, 30 | 5,456 | 58.92 | |
| 31 and over | 850 | 9.18 | |
| 9,259 | 100.00 | ||
| 1885 | Under 20 | 3,228 | 27.76 |
| From 20 to 30 | 4,589 | 54.70 | |
| 31 and over | 1,471 | 17.54 | |
| 8,388 | 100.00 |
Dr. L. Fiaux gives the result of an official enquiry, as follows:[95]
Russia, 1889.
Out of a Total of 17,603 Prostitutes.
| Age. | Percentage. | ||
| 15 and under | 0.3 |  | 69.9 |
| From 15 to 16 | 1.3 | ||
| From,, 16 to,, 17 | 3.5 | ||
| From,, 17 to,, 18 | 6.9 | ||
| From,, 18 to,, 19 | 8.8 | ||
| From,, 19 to,, 20 | 10.8 | ||
| From,, 20 to,, 25 | 38.3 | ||
| 25 and over | 30.1 | 30.1 | |
| 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
Dr. A. Baumgarten gives the following figures:[96] [[327]]
Vienna.
Prostitutes Not Registered.
| Age. | Number to the 1,000. |
| 13 | 4 |
| 14 | 19 |
| 16 | 94 |
| 17 | 97 |
| 18 | 111 |
| 19 | 119 |
| 20 | 83 |
| 527 |
As these figures show, there is a considerable portion of the prostitutes who are minors, but they do not tell us of the number of adults who embraced the profession while they were yet under age. As to this point, Dr. Bonhoeffer gives the following, showing the age at which the prostitutes whom he examined began the practice of their profession:[97]
Breslau.
| 16 years old or under | 30 | | 54% |
| Between 17 and 18 years | 44 | ||
| Between,, 19 and,, 20 years,, | 28 | ||
| Between,, 21 and,, 50 years,, | 88 | 46% | |
| 190 | 100% |
Parent-Duchatelet gives the following table:[98]
Paris.
| Age at the Time of Registration. | Number. | Percentage. | |
| 10 | 2 | 50.4 | |
| 11 | 3 | ||
| 12 | 3 | ||
| 13 | 6 | ||
| 14 | 20 | ||
| 15 | 51 | ||
| 16 | 111 | ||
| 17 | 149 | ||
| 18 | 279 | ||
| 19 | 322 | ||
| 20 | 389 | ||
| 21 | 303 | ||
| Over 21 years | 1,610 | 49.6 | |
| 3,248 | 100.0 | ||
[[328]]
Dr. Fiaux gives the following figures:[99]
Russia.
| Age at the Time of Registration. | Percentage. | ||
| 11 or younger | 1.2 | 80.5 | |
| 13 to 15 | 9.0 | ||
| 15 to,, 16 | 12.9 | ||
| 16 to,, 18 | 30.8 | ||
| 18 to,, 21 | 26.6 | ||
| 21 and over | 19.5 | 19.5 | |
| 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
A large majority of prostitutes, then, have been placed upon the registers of the police while still under age. We may very well say, moreover, without fear of mistake, that a great part of those who are registered at a later period of life have already been among the clandestine prostitutes. Dr. Augagneur says: “How many of these women, devoted indefinitely to the life of a common prostitute, would not have fled all its horrors if a society, careless of the interests of its members, had furnished them with sufficient means of defense up to the age at which they all have succumbed,—under 21 years? When a woman has not prostituted herself before 21, she will not prostitute herself later. Look for exceptions to this rule and you will find that they are very few. The woman who is older and more experienced knows the consequences of her acts; less passionate, less weak, and less impressionable, she resists better a first temptation whose consequences she is fully aware of.[100]
However this may be, it is certain that a very great proportion of the prostitutes have taken up their profession, or have been seduced, while they were still very young. Upon this latter point the following figures enlighten us:[101] [[329]]
England.
| Age at which Prostitutes Were Seduced. | Number. | ||
| 11 | 3 | 58% | |
| 12 | 5 | ||
| 13 | 16 | ||
| 14 | 79 | ||
| 15 | 189 | ||
| 16 | 184 | ||
| 17 | 247 | ||
| 18 | 221 | ||
| 19 | 297 | ||
| 20 | 280 | ||
| 21 | 256 | ||
| 22 and over | 1,299 | 42% | |
| 3,076 | 100% | ||
In his work, “La prostitution clandestine”, Dr. L. Martineau informs us that the age at which the prostitutes whom he observed were deflowered is distributed as follows:[102]
France.
| Age. | Number. |
| 5 | 1 |
| 9 | 2 |
| 10 | 2 |
| 11 | 2 |
| 12 | 5 |
| 13 | 11 |
| 14 | 31 |
| 15 | 86 |
| 16 | 87 |
| 17 | 115 |
| 18 | 93 |
| 19 | 50 |
| 20 | 37 |
| 21 | 27 |
| 549 | |
| 90% of a total of 607. | |
The facts already brought out give rise to the presumption that the ranks of prostitutes are in a very large measure recruited from the less well-to-do classes, where the neglect of children has assumed enormous proportions, and not from the more favored classes where the children are carefully guarded and kept away from unfavorable influences. The correctness of this conclusion is shown by a further examination. According to figures given in the “Reports” quoted above, only 44 out of 3,076 prostitutes, or 1.4%, came from the well-to-do [[330]]classes.[103] In his “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch” Dr. Lux publishes the following table:[104]
Berlin, 1871–1878.
| Profession of the Parents of Prostitutes. | Numbers. | Percentage. |
| Artisans | 1,015 | 48 |
| Factory hands | 467 | 22 |
| Lower officials | 305 | 14 |
| Commerce and transportation | 222 | 11 |
| Agriculture, etc. | 87 | 4 |
| Soldiers | 26 | 1 |
| 2,122 | 100 |
Dr. Bonhoeffer found that the fathers of the prostitutes whom he examined practiced the following professions:[105]
Breslau.
| Manufacture and trades | 72 | 42 | |
| Unskilled workmen | 32 | 19 | |
| Lower officials | 24 | 14 | |
| Commerce | 13 | 8 | |
| Transportation | 12 | 7 | |
| Lodginghouse-keepers | 6 | 3 | .5 |
| Agriculture | 8 | 5 | |
| Traveling musicians | 2 | 1 | |
| Higher officials | 1 | 0 | .5 |
| 170 | 100 | .0 |
Dr. Fiaux gives the following figures:[106]
Russia.
| Classes from Which Prostitutes Are Recruited. | Percentage. |
| Peasants | 47.5 |
| Bourgeois | 36.3 |
| Wives and daughters of soldiers | 7.2 |
| Other classes | 4.7 |
| Foreign subjects | 1.5 |
| Nobles and daughters of employes | 1.8 |
| Merchants and considerable citizens | .5 |
| Daughters of members of the clergy | .5 |
| 100.0 |
[[331]]
As the table given above shows, the Russian prostitutes are recruited in greater numbers from the bourgeoisie than in the other countries of Europe. The Russian bourgeoisie, however, cannot be compared with that of other countries. It is more like the petty bourgeoisie, as the following quotation given by Dr. Fiaux proves: “The committee considers that the great mass of the women registered belong to the lower classes.” The fact that, of 100 prostitutes, 83 come from poor families, 16 from well-to-do families, and one from a rich family, proves the same thing.
After having given the professions of 3,332 fathers of prostitutes,[107] Parent-Duchatelet arrives at the following conclusion: … “prostitutes born in Paris all proceed from the artisan class, and … it is not true, as some persons have assured me, that there are to be found among them a number belonging to very distinguished families; …”[108]
In speaking of the prostitutes born outside of Paris he says: “… there is a mass of facts more than sufficient to prove to us that, as far as the class of society from which prostitutes come is concerned, the departments do not differ in any way from Paris; we see upon the last table as upon the first, only working people and those little favored by fortune, who consequently cannot take care of the education of their daughters, nor watch them, and still less provide for their needs when they have reached a certain age, …”[109]
We must particularize these unfavorable environmental influences. And the first fact that we meet is that a part of the young prostitutes have been incited to the profession by their parents. Parent-Duchatelet mentions 16 cases in which mother and daughter were both registered prostitutes[110]; and von Oettingen quotes the following from Dr. Tait:[111] [[332]]
Edinburgh.
There were found among the prostitutes:
| 2 | mothers with | 4 daughters | each, or | 8 in all, |
| 5 | mothers,, with,, | 3 daughters,, | each,,, or,, | 15 in,, all,, |
| 10 | mothers,, with,, | 2 daughters,, | each,,, or,, | 20 in,, all,, |
| 24 | mothers,, with,, | 1 daughter | each,,, or,, | 24 in,, all,, |
| 41 | mothers with | 67 daughters in all |
In the second place it is necessary to speak of the abandonment of the children of the poor classes. No scientist of consequence admits that the moral ideas are innate, but simply that the new-born infant is more or less fitted to appropriate such ideas. It follows that one cannot expect much from a child whose moral education has been neglected in youth, however great natural capacity he may have been endowed with. From this it follows that where there is lack of education and care because of the death of the mother, or the alcoholism of the father, or because the father and mother are both at work away from home a great part of the day, or where the morality of the parents themselves is not great, the children run great risk of being lost. The following figures support this assertion:
Von Oettingen shows that, according to Dr. Ryan, 12,000 to 14,000 prostitutes in London became such as a consequence of a neglected childhood.[112] In the “Reports of the Select Committee,” etc., the following figures are found:[113] of 3,075 prostitutes 1,481 (48%) were orphans, and 921 (29%) were half-orphans. In his “La prostitution clandestine à Paris”, Dr. Commenge gives the following figures concerning the 2,368 prostitutes whom he observed during the years from 1878 to 1887:[114]
| 692 | (29%) | were orphans; |
| 456 | (19%) | had lost their mother; |
| 811 | (35%) | had,, lost,, their,, father. |
Out of a total of 190 cases Dr. Bonhoeffer shows 72 (38%) in which the education had been positively bad (criminality or prostitution on the part of the parents, neglect, lack of surveillance, etc.); 106 cases (56%) in which the education had been probably bad; and only 12 cases (6%) in which it was proved that the education had been good.[115]
For Russia Dr. Fiaux gives the following figures:[116] 3.6% of the [[333]]prostitutes still had father and mother; 47.5% had parents who were separated, and 18.5% were without any family.
With regard to the cause given for prostitution Dr. Augagneur says as follows: “The majority of prostitutes are born to prostitution at the same time that they are to puberty. Their moral sense, if such may be called that which no one has ever tried to awaken, is not shocked by their situation; they have prostituted themselves without shame and without regret. They have left normal and respectable society without being really aware of its existence, without the desire of ever returning thither. They have lacked the things necessary to make them respectable women—instruction in virtue, the example of their relatives, the suspicious surveillance of their mothers, and material well-being. The daughters of the people are not, at the day of their birth, of a clay inferior to that of the daughters of the bourgeoisie or of the nobility; they are naturally no less intelligent, no more perverse. And yet if you examine the civil status of a hundred prostitutes, you will find that 95 at least have sprung from the lowest strata of society. The existing social inequality, that is to say, is alone responsible for this unequal distribution.”[117]
Finally I will cite once more the opinion of Parent-Duchatelet, which is of great value, since this author is the most able sociologist who has treated of this subject. He says: “The misconduct of parents, and the bad examples of every kind which they give to their children, must be considered with regard to many girls, and especially those of Paris, as one of the causes determining their mode of life. The dossiers of each girl constantly make mention of disorder in the household, of fathers who are widowers living with concubines, of lovers of mothers widowed or married, of fathers and mothers separated, etc. What surveillance can such parents exercise over their children, and if they judge it proper to give a reprimand, or give good advice, what authority could such observations have in their mouths?
“Thus the depravity, the indifference, the necessitous position of many people of the last class provoke, or do not or cannot prevent, the corruption of the children; we may say in general with regard to a good number of prostitutes, what observation continually teaches us of criminals, that they have for the most part an ignoble origin.”[118] [[334]]
In the third place, we must name as a cause of the demoralization in youth bad housing conditions. One of the most pronounced characteristics of the child is his propensity to imitate. Hence it follows that the fact that a whole family must live and sleep in one or two rooms has the most harmful consequences for the sexual morality of the children. Sexual life has no longer any secrets for the child of the poor classes at an age at which this life is still a thing unknown to the children of the well-to-do classes.
I will give here some figures to show how small the dwellings of this class are. According to an investigation made in Berlin in 1895 there were 4,718 dwellings without fireplaces, and occupied by 13,700 persons; more than 200,000 dwellings consisted of a single room with a fireplace, and 22,160 of these were occupied by more than 6 persons. There was the following percentage of “overcrowding” (in official statistics this means more than 6 persons in one room with fireplace, and more than 8 persons in two rooms with fireplace, or in one room with kitchen attached): in Königsberg 10.6; in Halle 10.3; in Breslau 9.9; in Lübeck 8.75; in Görlitz 6.91; in Leipzig 7.85; in Altona 7.62; in Munich, 4.41; in Kiel 4.46; in Mannheim 11.8. In 1890 there were living in overcrowded dwellings the following number of persons to the 1,000: in Berlin 784; in Munich 533; in Breslau 754.[119]
According to the investigation made in 1890 there were in Vienna 23,921 dwellings consisting of a single room, with 64,621 occupants, and 103,433 dwellings of two rooms, with 411,314 occupants. These two groups include 44% of the dwellings and 35% of the population. Professor von Philippovich, in the article from which these data have been taken, shows that in the districts inhabited by the Viennese working-men, Ottakring, Meidling, and Favoriten, 29.3%, 30.8%, and 31.26% respectively of the dwellings of one or two rooms were “overcrowded” (i.e. 3 to 5 persons in a room).[120]
The 1899 census of the Netherlands gave the following results: There were 307,937 dwellings consisting of one inhabited room each, and occupied by 1,172,014 persons (22.7% of the population); and there were 334,355 dwellings consisting of two rooms each (including [[335]]kitchens, alcoves, and covered passages), occupied by 1,497,353 persons (29% of the population).[121]
The detailed statement shows the situation still better. There were 45,641 dwellings of only one room, with 4 persons in each; 62,548 dwellings of more than one room with 5 or 6 persons; 41,877 dwellings of only one room, occupied by 6 or more persons; 45,363 dwellings of 2 rooms which were occupied by 3 or 4 persons; 20,582 dwellings of two rooms with from 4 to 6; and 706 dwellings of two rooms with 6 occupants or more.[122]
What is often lacking besides is space to place a sufficient number of beds, or even the means of procuring them. In a great number of cases children of different sexes must sleep together in one bed, or even with adults. It also often happens that the inhabitants of these already insufficient dwellings are obliged to take night-lodgers. There are the following percentages of dwellings with lodgers: in Leipzig, 17.5; in Breslau, 12.5; and in Berlin, 15.8.[123] In Vienna 6.4% of the population are night-lodgers, and in Berlin 6.1%[124].
It goes without saying that among these persons lodging together there are some who are demoralized and dangerous to children. In his work, “Verbrechen und Prostitution”, P. Hirsch depicts these dangers as follows: “Think in how narrow a space an entire family is penned up together, so that at times a separation of the sexes is scarcely possible, at a time when the sexual instinct of the growing children is already beginning to develop. The children unhappily only too often are present at the most intimate occurrences and early lose all feeling of shame. How can decency and good morals be learned by children whose parents are obliged to take prostitutes as lodgers? Who shall protect these unfortunates from moral contamination? Often a word will be spoken in their presence, or an occurrence take place, which they are not yet, perhaps, able to understand. But the childish nature is receptive to such impressions, and what happens in their presence falls upon fruitful soil, and what has remained fixed in their memory from earliest youth, will, if later their sensuality is once aroused, bear terrible fruit. We are astonished when we hear a twelve or thirteen year old girl use language which we are accustomed to hear only from prostitutes who have followed their trade for years; we are astonished at the sophistication of persons still quite young, and are inclined at once to pass an unfavorable judgment [[336]]upon them. Truly our judgment would be quite different, we should have sympathy with them, and should be made to reflect, if we came to know the holes in which these poor creatures passed their childhood.”[125]
As a cause of the demoralization of young girls we must note, finally, child labor. In the first place there are children who are sent to sell flowers, matches, etc., and this causes them to be neglected and to frequent bad company. With regard to this Hirsch says: “One has only to get into conversation with the children who sell flowers, matches, and the like on the streets of the great cities in the evening, or to overhear their talk, to be astonished at their sophistication. One would hardly believe with what shamelessness such boys speak of sexual matters with growing girls in the same situation, without blushing and quite as a matter of course, since they have been accustomed to it from earliest childhood. It is no wonder that from these circles a considerable contingent is furnished to the ranks of prostitution and crime.…”[126]
A second cause is work in factories, by which girls are brought into contact with adults who, from their often coarse manners and language, and their lack of moral sentiments, corrupt these children for their whole lives. After having spoken of the other dangers which threaten the morality of children, Lecour says: “If she has escaped these dangers the child, placed too young as an apprentice, will meet other perils. There will be the contact with girls who are older and already corrupted, and workmen who respect neither youth nor innocence, who boast of debauchery, propagate immorality, and dishonor the daughters of their comrades. There will be, perhaps, the impure domination of the proprietor or foreman.”[127] [[337]]
Let us now look at the influences which demoralize adult women. In the first place we must speak of the influence of profession. The following figures serve to show which are the professions from which prostitutes are recruited most:[128]
Berlin, 1855.
| Factory-workers | | Industrial workers | 73 | | 61% |
| Seamstresses, laundry-workers | 16 | ||||
| Day-laborers | 23 | ||||
| Workers at home | 32 | ||||
| Domestics | 22 | 9%,, | |||
| Without declared profession | 70 | 30%,, | |||
| 236 | 100%,, | ||||
1873.
| Factory workers | | Industrial workers | 355 | | 64.3% |
| Workers at home and saleswomen | 936 | ||||
| Caretakers of stores | 139 | ||||
| Domestics | 794 | 35.7%,, | |||
| 2,224 | 100.0%,, | ||||
1898.
| Workwomen, seamstresses, and saleswomen | 66 | 43.4% | |
| Domestics | 78 | 51.3%,, | |
| With their parents | 7 | | 5.3%,, |
| Nurses of children | 1 | ||
| 100.0%,, |
In the “Reports of the Select Committee, etc.” we find the following:[129]
England.
| Domestics | 1,589 | 60.7% |
| Seamstresses, dressmakers, and other industrial professions | 967 | 36.9%,, |
| Barmaids | 64 | 2.4%,, |
| 2,620 | 100.0%,, |
Breslau, 1901.[130]
| Domestics | 72 | 38% |
| Factory workers | 37 | 20%,, |
| Seamstresses | 28 | 15%,, |
| Saleswomen | 14 | 7%,, |
| Dressmakers | 8 | 4%,, |
| Barmaids, flower-girls, hairdressers | 13 | 7%,, |
| Dancers | 4 | 2%,, |
| Without profession and living at home | 14 | 7%,, |
| 190 | 100%,, |
In Parent-Duchatelet’s “La Prostitution à Paris” figures are found showing that domestic servants, in proportion to their number, [[338]]furnish the largest contingent of prostitutes, and that working-women who try to provide for their needs with the needle furnish also a very great proportion.[131] Dr. Jeannel shows that in 1859, out of 298 prostitutes registered in Bordeaux, 40% had been domestics, and 37% workwomen who had tried to live by sewing.[132] Out of a total of 6,842 clandestine prostitutes in Paris (from 1878 to 1887) Dr. Commenge found that 2,681 (39.18%) had been domestics, and 1,326 (19%) seamstresses.[133]
Dr. Baumgarten gives the following table of percentages for 1,721 prostitutes:
Vienna.
| Servants | 58.00 |
| Working by the day | 16.00 |
| Cashiers | 14.00 |
| Factory workers | 5.50 |
| Office employees | 0.38 |
| Children’s nurses | 0.36 |
| Singers | 0.28 |
| Hairdressers and models | 5.48 |
| 100.00 |
Dr. Fiaux gives the following figures:[134]
Russia.
| Servants | 45.0% |
| Seamstresses | 8.4%,, |
| Factory workers | 3.7%,, |
| Laundresses | 1.4%,, |
| Governesses and nurses | 1.3%,, |
| Merchants, bakers, and others | 1.3%,, |
| Cigar-sellers | 0.7%,, |
| Singers, circus-performers, and other artists | 0.3%,, |
| Practicing different trades and professions | 2.7%,, |
| Kept mistresses | 2.0%,, |
| Without fixed profession | 6.4%,, |
| Living upon the labor of their husbands | 1.7%,, |
| Living in their family, or with their parents more or less remote | 22.3%,, |
These statistics show that a quite considerable number of the prostitutes have been workwomen in factories. (In Russia manufacturing is very little developed—hence the low figures there.) We may accept it as indisputable that this labor has in general very disadvantageous consequences for the morality of the workwomen.
In his work, “The Condition of the Working Class in England”, Engels depicts these consequences in the following terms: “The collecting of persons of both sexes and all ages in a single workroom, [[339]]the inevitable contact, the crowding into a small space of people to whom neither mental nor moral education has been given, is not calculated for the favorable development of the female character. The manufacturer, if he pays any attention to the matter at all, can interfere only when something scandalous actually occurs; the permanent, less conspicuous influence of persons of dissolute character, upon the more moral, and especially upon the younger ones, he cannot ascertain and consequently cannot prevent. The language used in the workshops was characterized by many witnesses in the report of 1833 as ‘indecent’, ‘bad’, ‘filthy’, etc. (Cowell, evid., pp. 35, 37, and in many other places). It is the same process upon a small scale which we have already witnessed upon a great one in the great cities. The centralization of population has the same influence upon the same persons, whether it affects them in a great city or in a small factory. The smaller the mill, the closer the packing, and the more unavoidable the contact; and the consequences are not wanting. A witness in Leicester says that he would rather let his daughter beg than have her go into a factory; that they are perfect gates of hell; that most of the prostitutes of the town had the mills to thank for their present condition (Power, evid., p. 8). Another in Manchester ‘did not hesitate to assert that three-fourths of the young factory employees of from 14 to 20 years of age were unchaste’ (Cowell, evid., p. 57). Commissioner Cowell expresses it as his opinion, that the morality of the factory operatives is somewhat below the average of the working class in general (p. 82). And Dr. Hawkins says (Rept. p. 4), ‘An estimate of sexual morality cannot readily be reduced to figures, but if I may trust my own observations and the general opinion of those with whom I have spoken, as well as the whole tenor of the testimony furnished me, the aspect of the influence of factory life upon the morality of the youthful female population is most depressing.’ ”[135]
And then it happens at times that the proprietors or their foremen by abusing their power force the working-girls who please them to yield to their desires. Engels says of this: “It is a matter of course that factory-servitude, like any other, and to an even greater degree, confers the ‘jus primæ noctis’ upon the master. In this respect also the employer is sovereign over the persons and charms of his employees. The threat of dismissal suffices to overcome all resistance [[340]]in nine cases out of ten, if not in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, in girls who, in any case have no strong inducements to chastity. If the master is mean enough, and the official report mentions several such cases, his mill is also his harem; and the fact that not all manufacturers use their power, does not in the least change the position of the girls. In the beginning of the manufacturing industry, when most of the employers were upstarts without education or consideration for the social hypocrisy, they let nothing interfere with the exercise of their vested rights.”[136]
Besides factory workers domestics form a very considerable percentage of the prostitutes. As the Berlin statistics cited above show the percentage of workers has diminished and that of domestics has increased. According to Dr. Blaschko the cause of the diminution of the percentage of factory workers is to be found not only in the fact that, the year 1898 being very prosperous, poverty did not come in as an important factor in the same measure as formerly, but also in the raising of the intellectual and moral plane of the Berlin working-women. It is impossible to speak of a similar raising of the plane of the domestics. The nature of their occupations prevents their forming associations; they are therefore deprived of the moral effect of the trades union.[137] The causes of the importance of the contingent furnished to prostitution by the domestics are of different kinds. Besides the reason I have just mentioned, the fact is to be noted that it is not from among the most intelligent and best of the working classes that domestic servants are ordinarily drawn. For these prefer the less dependent position of working-woman to that of domestic. In the second place there is the influence of the occupation itself. (There are still others, of which I shall speak later.)
It is easy to understand how the occupation of domestic has a demoralizing influence. Not only do young girls, often ignorant and without education, come to live in surroundings of a sort to pervert them, but there is also their dependence upon people who only demand that their work shall be well done, the lack of civilizing influences, [[341]]and the isolation that deprives them of contact with their fellows, all of which lowers their moral plane.[138]
Aside from the two groups cited there are still other occupations which may exercise a demoralizing influence, such as that of barmaid, etc.[139]
Before closing our observations upon demoralizing environment as a cause of prostitution, we must fix our attention upon the evil influences to which many women are exposed, those, that is, who must provide for their own needs and do not live at home. The smallness of their wages does not permit them to rent a room by themselves but they are obliged to content themselves with a bed simply. This brings at once great moral disadvantages. But further, this arrangement drives the persons in question into the street when not at work, since often the landlords do not allow them in the house except during the night. The harmful consequences of this are sufficiently obvious.[140]
b. The maternity of girls and concubinage are among the causes of prostitution. Parent-Duchatelet gives the following figures:[141]
Paris.
| Having come from the provinces to conceal themselves in Paris and to find resourcesthere | 280 |
| Brought to Paris and abandoned by soldiers, traveling salesmen, students, and otherpersons | 404 |
| Domestics seduced by their masters and dismissed by them | 289 |
| Simple concubines during a longer or shorter period who have lost their lovers, anddo not know what else to do | 1,425 |
| Total | 2,398 |
| 46% of a total of 5,183. | |
In the “Reports of the Select Committee”, etc. we find given as cause of prostitution:[142] [[342]]
England.
| Concubines abandoned by their lovers | 360 |
| Girls seduced under promise of marriage | 806 |
| 1,166 | |
| 37.9% of a total of 3,076. |
In his “Minderjährige Verbrecher” L. Ferriani gives the following:[143]
Italy.
| Seduction by a lover | 1,653 |
| Seduction,, by,, employer | 927 |
| 2,580 | |
| 24.7% of a total of 10,422. |
The statistics cited show, then, that the cause named occupies a quite considerable place in the etiology of prostitution. This cause is entirely a consequence of the existing social conditions, which maintain the dependent position of woman, and of marriage, which brings it about that every woman living with a man as with a husband is despised, even when the union is due to inclination, and that life is made very hard for her, especially if a child is born of the union. However, it must be added, that this applies especially to the women of the middle classes, and that “free love” and the child that is the fruit of it, are not at all so despised among the proletariat, for, as we have seen above, the bases of the present legal monogamy have not so great an importance there.[144]
However this cause of prostitution only makes itself felt when the woman to whom it applies is also deprived of all pecuniary means. And so we come to the third category in the etiology of prostitution.
c. Poverty. As the statistics already cited have shown, almost all prostitutes spring from the classes without fortune, and the great majority of them have been at first working-women or domestics, and consequently have belonged to families without fortune. If such women, for any reason whatever, cannot find work, they are thrown into poverty. As this happens constantly in society, poor women find themselves forced into prostitution. The facts are there to prove it. In treating of the etiology of prostitution Parent-Duchatelet gives the following figures:[145] [[343]]
Paris.
| Excess of poverty, absolute destitution | 1,441 |
| Loss of father and mother; expulsion from home; complete desertion | 1,255 |
| To support aged and infirm parents | 37 |
| Eldest of the family having neither father nor mother, to support brothers and sisters, and sometimes nieces and nephews | 29 |
| Widows and deserted wives, to raise a large family | 23 |
| 2,785 | |
| 53% of a total of 5,183. |
The author says among other things: “Poverty, often pushed to the most frightful extreme, is still one of the most active causes of prostitution. How many girls abandoned by their families, without parents, without friends, unable to find refuge anywhere, are obliged to have recourse to prostitution in order not to die of hunger! One of these unfortunates, still susceptible to feelings of honor, strove to the last extremity before taking up a part which she regarded as extreme, and when she came to register herself it was shown that she had not eaten anything for three days.”[146]
“One would hardly believe that the career of prostitution has been embraced by certain women as a means of fulfilling their duty as daughter or mother; yet nothing is more true. It is not unusual to see married women who have lost their husbands or been deserted by them, become prostitutes with the sole purpose of not leaving a numerous family to die of hunger. It is still more common to find young girls who, not earning by their labor enough to provide for the wants of their aged and infirm parents, ply the trade of prostitute in the evening to make up what is lacking. I have found the marks peculiar to these two classes of prostitutes too often not to be convinced that they are more numerous in Paris than one would believe.”[147]
In the “Reports of the Select Committee, etc.”, which I have already quoted several times, are found the following figures:[148]
England.
| To provide for the needs of her mother | 11 |
| To,, provide,, for,, the,, needs,, of,, her,, idle husbands | 35 |
| As a consequence of poverty or lack of work | 164 |
| 210 | |
| 6.8% of a total of 3,076. |
[[344]]
(We must take into consideration the fact that in the case of many of the 37.9% who are put down in this same set of tables as seduced, poverty was a contributory cause.)
Ferriani gives the following table:[149]
Italy.
| Deserted by husband, parents, or other members of the family | 794 |
| Death of husband, parents, or other persons contributing to their support, or other cause of poverty | 2,139 |
| To provide for the wants of children, parents, or other sick or needy members of the family | 393 |
| 3,326 | |
| 31.9% of a total of 10,422. |
Dr. Blaschko shows that the forced idleness among garment makers during some months of each year causes an increase of prostitution.[150]
As we have seen in the first part of this work, it has been proved at various times that crime against property increases or diminishes according as the economic situation is favorable or unfavorable. If poverty is one of the causes of prostitution it must follow that the number of prostitutes will vary at the same times as the general condition. Statistics prove that this is what does actually happen. However, we need only take into consideration the figures for registered prostitutes; if we had at our disposal the figures for clandestine prostitution they would naturally show still greater modifications.
Berlin.[151]
| Year. | Number of Prostitutes Registered. | To 100,000 of the Population. |
| 1869 | 1709 | 223 |
| 1870 | 1606 | 203 |
| 1871 | 1625 | 197 |
| 1872 | 1701 | 198 |
| 1873 | 1742 | 195 |
| 1874 | 1956 | 210 |
| 1875 | 2241 | 232 |
| 1876 | 2386 | 242 |
| 1877 | 2547 | 248 |
| 1878 | 2767 | 262 |
| 1879 | 3033 | 277 |
| 1880 | 3186 | 284 |
| 1881 | 3465 | 298 |
| 1882 | 3900 | 326 |
| 1883 | 3769 | 306 |
| 1884 | 3724 | 293 |
| 1885 | 3598 | 273 |
| 1886 | 3000 | 230 |
| 1887 | 3063 | 216 |
| 1888 | 3392 | 231 |
| 1889 | 3703 | 244 |
| 1890 | 4039 | 255 |
| 1891 | 4364 | 273 |
| 1892 | 4663 | 288 |
| 1893 | 4794 | 292 |
[[345]]
Leaving aside the abnormal years, 1870 and 1871, we perceive that the prosperous years 1872 and 1873 give very low figures. After this period times become worse and worse, while the number of prostitutes sustains a considerable increase. From the year 1882 economic conditions began to improve, and the figures for prostitution correspondingly fell, to rise again very noticeably during the unfavorable years 1889 to 1892.
In his work “Statistik der gerichtlichen Polizei im Königreiche Bayern und in einigen anderen Ländern”, Dr. Mayr also gives convincing proofs of the parallelism between the changes in the economic situation and prostitution.[152]
However it is not only forced unemployment leading to great poverty that is one of the causes of prostitution; we must also consider as such the fact that the wages paid to women are often so small that it is impossible for them to pay even their necessary expenses, and are thus obliged to find some supplementary source of income.
In his work already quoted, “Die wirthschaftlichen Ursachen der Prostitution”, Pappritz fixes the minimum that a working woman in Berlin must have for her strictly necessary expenses at 600 marks a year. Most of the women working in factories generally earn but 500 marks. The average earnings in 1897 were 457 for dressmakers, and 354 for those who made the button-holes (hand labor). And yet the wages paid in Berlin were not the lowest—the average for all Germany was 322 marks.[153]
It will not be very difficult to quote several authors who, in treating of this subject as regards Germany, have expressed themselves in the same way. But I must be brief, and hence shall content myself with citing a passage from Dr. Frankenstein’s “Die Lage der Arbeiterinnen in den deutschen Grossstädten”, in which he sums up the result of his studies upon this subject: “A very great proportion of the working-women of our great cities receive wages that are not sufficient to provide the most indispensable necessities of life, and find themselves for this cause in the dilemma either of seeking a supplementary trade in prostitution, or of falling into the unavoidable consequences of bodily and spiritual destruction.”[154]
It is evident that the same thing is true of all the countries where capitalism reigns. Here is what Faucher, for example, says in his [[346]]“Études sur l’Angleterre”: “Work with the needle is so poorly paid in London that the young persons who give themselves up to it earn only three or four shillings a week, working sixteen or eighteen hours a day. The wages of a fancy needle worker, for a hard day, are from 50 to 60 centimes, while linen workers generally get 30 centimes for stitching a shirt. Nothing more frightful could be imagined than the existence of these poor girls. They must get up at four or five o’clock in the morning, at all seasons of the year, to go to work, or to receive the orders of the merchants. They work without relaxation until midnight in small rooms, where they are crowded together by fives and sixes for economy in the use of fuel and light. If they are admitted to a dressmaker’s or linen draper’s establishment, they are ill-fed, and under pretext of pressure of business are kept at their task day and night, with only four or five hours of sleep, which are further regularly limited on Saturday. This sedentary life and constant confinement ages them before their time, when phthisis spares them. Is it to be wondered at if some, frightened and disheartened at finding the way of virtue so hard, hold out their arms to prostitution?”[155]
Against these long, hard days and small wages are to be set the easy life and often quite considerable returns—at least in the beginning of their career—which prostitutes enjoy. Moreau-Christophe in his “Du Problème de la Misère” says that in London there are prostitutes who earn $100 to $150 a week, and that the average earnings are $10 a week.[156]
To conclude I wish to call attention to the opinion of Parent-Duchatelet concerning this state of things in Paris. He says: “Of all the causes of prostitution, particularly in Paris, and probably in the other large cities, there is none more active than the lack of work, and the poverty inevitably consequent upon insufficient wages. What do our dressmakers, seamstresses, menders, and in general all those who work with the needle, earn? If we compare the wages of the most capable of them with what those of only moderate abilities can make, we shall see that it is not possible for these last to procure the mere necessaries of life. And if we then compare the price of their labor with that of their dishonor we shall not be surprised that so great a number fall into a life of shame made all but inevitable.”[157] [[347]]
Not only does poverty, taken in the sense of the lack of the actual necessaries of life, act as a cause of prostitution, but also that relative poverty which prevents women from enjoying luxuries which seem necessities, like jewelry and fine clothes. With these same women laziness also plays a part.
Now the general opinion with regard to these factors is that they belong exclusively to the individual nature, that they are innate to some women, and that they consequently have nothing to do with the social environment. In my opinion this is entirely erroneous. Mankind are born with certain needs. The non-satisfaction of these needs causes death or the wasting away of the organism. These needs are what we call the strict necessities. All the other wants are awakened by the environment: that is to say, each possesses them in germ, but they are latent as long as the surroundings do not develop them. For example, no one would suffer from abstaining from tobacco if he did not see someone smoking; no woman would want expensive clothes if others did not wear them; etc. The desire to dress expensively, to wear jewelry, etc., is not at all, then, an individual quality of certain working-women; the germ of this want is innate in each individual, without any exception though in different degrees. The present order of society, by permitting certain women to spend immense sums for senseless luxury, awakens in others the desire to imitate them as far as possible. Since these last have not the means necessary to shine, they seek them where they may find them, and as there is only the way of prostitution, many follow it. We may add to this that a great number of men use their money and their distinguished manners to decide those who hesitate. This is, therefore, also one of the reasons why the ranks of prostitution are so often recruited from among dressmakers and domestics, i.e. from among those who come into direct contact with the luxury of [[348]]others.[158] Another cause which makes women desire expensive and useless things is their low degree of culture, which shows them nothing more preferable than the possession of luxury. And where women who have all the leisure and the means necessary to busy themselves with more serious matters set the example of frivolity, we ought not to be surprised that those without the same advantages try to follow their example.
The same is true of idleness. If each person who is capable of it would do a certain amount of work, any normal individual would be ashamed to pass the day doing nothing. But the fact that there are women who are esteemed though they remain idle, awakens in other women, who are obliged to work long and hard, the desire to do nothing also. As prostitution opens to them the means of remaining unoccupied, they have recourse to it to satisfy their desire.
The irony which comes out so often in the social life shows itself here; the rich women who despise prostitutes never suspect that they themselves are in part the cause of the fall of the others, and that placed in the same poor surroundings they themselves would not act differently.[159]
All those who rank the causes last cited among individual factors base their opinion upon the thesis, equally strange and false, that there are two kinds of persons: those who by birth are destined to command and to enjoy, and those who are destined only to obey, to work, and not to enjoy at all. Looked at from this point of view the person who rejects these conditions constitutes an individual anomaly.
Perhaps it will be objected that without admitting the existence of individual causes it will be impossible to explain why, though a great number of women live under the conditions named, only a small fraction prostitute themselves. Those who reason in this way commit the error already spoken of, of thinking circumstances the same when they really differ. There are no two persons who live under exactly the same conditions, how much less thousands. To give one example only: all the women who earn only the strict necessities of life have not been raised in the same environment. Those who have grown up in favorable surroundings have perhaps so great an aversion to prostitution that they prefer a life of poverty to one of abundance procured by prostitution. It is possible that these women [[349]]would prefer suicide to selling themselves, if they came to a state of complete destitution. Secondly it is necessary that a woman should not be too ugly, or the possibility of her earning her living by prostitution is excluded. No one would claim, however, that feminine beauty is one of the causes of prostitution; placed in another environment a woman would not prostitute herself simply because of her beauty.
Although the reasons already given refute in great measure the supposed objection, it must be confessed that the question is not thus entirely answered. Just as all the beings of a certain species differ among themselves, so these women differ naturally as to their innate qualities. The one will have more decided and more numerous wants than the other, she will be less laborious, more frivolous, etc. (qualities which in themselves have nothing to do with prostitution), and, other things being equal, she will be more exposed to the temptation to become a prostitute. All this is perfectly true, but it has nothing to do with the etiology of a social phenomenon like prostitution. For we are here in the presence of two distinct problems; why, of two persons placed in the same situation (supposing that to be possible), the one is more in danger of becoming a prostitute than the other; and, second, what are the causes of the social phenomenon which is called prostitution? The answer to the first question must be that in part at least it is because people differ as to the intensity of their characteristics and of their appetites. The answer to the second is the social conditions.
When two persons of different height are fording a river, and the shorter steps into a hole and is drowned, should we have the right to say that the difference between the height of persons is one of the reasons why people are drowned? I think not. The only reason why there are people who are drowned is that a man cannot live in water—which in no way excludes the fact that a short person runs more danger of drowning than a tall one.
Now as to prostitution—the atmosphere in which certain women live is the cause of their fall, which does not prevent its being true that some of them run more risk than others. The truth of this assertion may be proved by an observation of the facts. Among women who are not prostitutes also there are more who are lazy, frivolous, etc. than those who are not. And though the former have not prostituted themselves, if they had lived in bad surroundings and in poverty they would have run more risk than the latter. If all women were exactly equal prostitution would be as general as it is [[350]]now; only in this case it would be in every case the environment which would decide what woman became a prostitute, whereas in reality there are, alongside of the environment, individual differences which determine which ones run more risk than the others.
Those who believe that there are here individual causes at work always take the point of view that society is not an organism but a collection of individuals, and that consequently an examination of the individual will suffice to explain social phenomena. It is by the study of prostitution, for example, as a social phenomenon that we bring out the fact that individual differences do not play any part in the etiology of prostitution.
d. Among the causes of prostitution must not be forgotten the fact that many persons have pecuniary interests in it. Without this many women would never have become prostitutes or would not have remained such, and the opportunity for a man to procure the services of a prostitute would not be so good. Capital has settled down on this as upon every place from which profits are to be drawn. The profession of the keeper of a house of ill-fame being extremely lucrative, great sums have been invested in it. In order to furnish the necessary material for these capitalists an international commerce has been created, whose ramifications extend over almost the whole world, and in which large sums are employed, the “white-slave trade.”[160] Often before their entrance into these houses the prostitutes have already plied their trade, but many innocent girls become the dupes of the false promises of these traffickers and are given over to the keepers of houses of prostitution. In his “Der Mädchenhandel” Dr. Hatzig says: “The girls, in so far as they do not give themselves up voluntarily as objects of traffic, are generally enticed with illusory promises of a glittering future.… Advantageous positions in foreign countries are as a rule offered to them, while nothing is said of the unchaste object of the business. To this especially is to be ascribed the enormous exportation of Hungarian girls into Russia, to whom engagements as dancers in St. Petersburg are promised. When the unhappy victims have once arrived at their destination they would hardly venture to escape from the hands of the slave-trader. In helpless case, deprived of the protection [[351]]of friends and country, they submit to their fate and are sold to houses of prostitution.”[161]
Once fallen into the hands of the keeper of such an establishment it is almost impossible for these women to free themselves. He holds them in all sorts of ways. For example, he will exchange their clothes for others not proper to wear in the street, and will charge them so high a price that they are in his debt; often they do not understand the language of the country; etc. Legally slavery is abolished, but in reality it always exists for these women.[162]
e. The ignorance of a part of the women, a consequence of the environment in which they were brought up, is also one of the causes of prostitution, and no inconsiderable one. Dr. Richelot gives the following figures:[163]
London (1837–1854).
| Prostitutes Arrested. | |
| Not able to read or write | 34.98% |
| Able to read only or to read and write imperfectly | 61.29% |
| Able to read and write well | 3.51% |
| Having a higher education | .22% |
| 100.00% | |
Manchester (1840–1855).
| Unable to read or write | 51.61% |
| Able to read only, or to read and write imperfectly | 47.60% |
| Able to read and write well | .78% |
| Having a higher education | .01% (?) |
| 100.00% |
In the “Reports of the Select Committee, etc.” the following table is given:[164]
England.
| Unable to read and write | 1,213 | 40% |
| Able to read only | 464 | 15% |
| Able to read and write imperfectly | 1,016 | 33% |
| Able to read and write well | 371 | 12% |
| 3,064 | 100% |
[[352]]
Parent-Duchatelet gives the following figures:[165]
Paris.
| Unable to sign their name | 2,503 | 56% |
| Able to sign, but badly | 1,868 | 42% |
| Able to sign well | 110 | 2% |
| 4,481 | 100% |
Dr. Commenge gives the following:[166]
Paris (1878–1887).
| Unregistered Prostitutes. | ||
| Able to read and write | 4,297 | 68.12% |
| Able to read and sign their name | 988 | 15.66% |
| Able to read but not to write or sign | 11 | 0.18% |
| Unable to read or write | 1,012 | 16.04% |
| 6,308 | 100.00% | |
From an examination of the statistics given it is evident that the number of illiterates is very large, however they may be decreasing in number now that primary education for the children of the poorer classes is becoming more and more general. Knowing how to read and write, however, proves very little as to the culture of the individual. The statistics only show the number of prostitutes who are totally illiterate, and we must certainly count many of the others as well among the ignorant.
It is clear that ignorance alone does not lead to prostitution. But it is clear that many prostitutes would not have become such, or would not have lent an ear to the flattering offers of good positions, etc., if they had known what an abominable life awaited them.
Among the secondary causes of prostitution must certainly also be classed:
f. Alcoholism. Not only have many women been seduced when they had drunk too much, and so have become prostitutes, but the demoralization which is the result of the constant abuse of alcohol may have the same effect.[167]
g. Degeneracy. According to some physicians (among whom [[353]]are Professors Lombroso and Tarnowsky, to cite only the most famous) the cause of prostitution is not to be found first in the environment, but in a pathological (or atavistic) condition. These authors have examined a certain number of prostitutes, and have drawn from this examination the conclusion that the stigmata of degeneracy often found in them indicate a state which is the cause of their misconduct; prostitution is in large part kept up by born prostitutes.[168]
There is one objection to be made to such a manner of proceeding, namely that we must in the very beginning give a precise definition of the social phenomenon which is called prostitution. This definition, which can perhaps be given only by the sociologist and not by the biologist, will show us at the outset that it is very difficult to represent anyone as born with a tendency to commit sexual acts for economic reasons. So Professor Lombroso understands a totally different thing by prostitution from what it really is. He says: “Sometimes in the beginning marriage does not even exist and prostitution is the general rule”[169] and as an example he cites that the Naïrs live in complete promiscuity. According to Professor Lombroso, then, everywhere that there is no marriage there is prostitution. In other words, according to him all nature is one grand brothel, in which, aside from the married women, all the females would be prostitutes! Truly Professor Lombroso has some sociological views all his own.
These authors claim, then, that prostitutes often present stigmata of degeneracy. An examination of the figures shows, however, that 63% of all the prostitutes examined show almost no such stigmata.[170]
For 63% of them then degeneracy cannot be the cause, nor does it follow that it is the cause in the remaining 37% of cases. For many women with these stigmata are not found at all among the ranks of prostitution. To bring out the real import of the researches in question we must put beside them the results of an examination of non-prostitutes. It is for this reason that I wish to call attention to the work of Dr. P. Näcke, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, in which the author arrives at the result that only 3% of the normal women examined by him failed to show signs of degeneracy.[171] It seems to me, then, that when we find figures so low among normal women the thesis of Professor Lombroso is not proved. [[354]]
If his conclusion were true, prostitutes would be drawn from all classes of society, for degeneracy is present in all classes. But, as we have seen above, they are drawn almost exclusively from the poorer classes. Professor Lombroso thinks he has refuted this argument (which is enough to overthrow his whole theory) by saying: “The woman who, coming from the lower classes, ends by becoming the inmate of a brothel, in the upper classes becomes an incorrigible adultress.…”[172] Consequently according to Lombroso there is no difference between a prostitute and an adultress. It is not necessary to combat such singular ideas: they refute themselves.
Nevertheless the theory named is not without importance for the problem of prostitution. The following quotation, taken from a recent study of Dr. Bonhoeffer shows what its importance is: “We have no more right to speak of prostitution as inborn than we should have to speak of a born drinker. The disposition brought about through the defective psychical condition is inborn. But whether a psychically defective female individual will become a prostitute is in a certain sense dependent upon chance and external conditions.”[173]
There are persons who are born with psychic defects. These persons adapt themselves to their environment only with difficulty, and have a smaller chance than others to succeed in our present society, where the fundamental principle is the warfare of all against all. Hence they are more likely to seek for means that others do not employ (prostitution, for example). If the defect of a woman has relation especially to the sexual sphere, so that she feels, for example, extraordinary sexual desires, the danger of her becoming a prostitute is very great.[174] Even when the environment in which such persons live is very favorable, it is nevertheless certain that their actions will be different from those of others, though it does not at all follow that they will infallibly become prostitutes. It is certain that these morbid cases are rare in general, and very rare among prostitutes.[175] Parent-Duchatelet says: “Finally there are girls who give themselves up to prostitution in consequence of a licentiousness which one can explain only by the action of a mental disease …; but in general these Messalinas are rare; I have only found one opinion upon [[355]]this fact, and it has been abundantly confirmed by my own researches.”[176]
This theory, that the principal cause of prostitution is to be found in innate psychic defectiveness, contains, as Dr. Blaschko says (in his “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”), “a small grain of truth in a mass of exaggerations.” It is only a very small proportion of prostitutes who have gone into the profession for this reason, and it is certain that they would not have done so if circumstances had not contributed to bring it about.[177]
We have now arrived at the end of our observations upon prostitution. In our opinion it has been shown that it is partly the inevitable complement of the existing legal monogamy, and partly the result of the bad conditions under which many young girls grow up, the consequence of the physical and mental misery in which the women of the proletariat live, and the consequence also of the inferior position of woman in our present society. When we make exception of a few cases where a certain degeneracy enters in beside the effect of the unfavorable environment, the prostitution of today is, then, the consequence of existing social conditions, which, in their turn, spring from the economic system of our time.
It may be objected that prostitution has presented itself under other economic systems. I am not ignorant of this, but I know also that 3 × 4 = 12, and 2 × 6 = 12 also; that is to say that two different causes may produce the same result. The prostitution of our day may be the consequence of capitalism while that of earlier periods may have been the consequence of the mode of production of those times. Further, an examination of the epochs in which prostitution was a general phenomenon (it never reached proportions as great as under capitalism)[178] shows us that they did not differ much from our own in those matters which concern the question in hand, namely, the inferior position of woman, and the strong contrasts in fortunes.
Many authors who have taken up the question of prostitution declare that it is as old as humanity itself. If we understand by prostitution what it really is, and not what imagination makes it out to be, this assertion is absolutely false. Prostitution is of very ancient [[356]]date, but it has not always existed. Westermarck, one of the authors best qualified to pronounce an opinion upon this matter, says: “Prostitution is rare among peoples living in a state of nature and unaffected by foreign influence. It is contrary to a woman’s natural feelings as involving a suppression of individual inclinations.”[179] I advise those who, in spite of everything, wish still to maintain that prostitution belongs to all time and all places, to investigate the peoples among whom the matriarchate exists. If they are so unfamiliar with sociology, let them look for prostitution in the country. They will find none; prostitution exists only in the cities. [[357]]
CHAPTER IV.
ALCOHOLISM.[180]
We understand by alcoholism the social phenomenon which consists of the chronic abuse of alcoholic beverages.[181] Before touching upon the etiology of this phenomenon we must decide the biological question, why does a man consume alcohol? Always and everywhere it has been established that the liking for narcotics is natural to man. Those who believe that human nature is inclined to evil, and that the tendency to excess is innate, find the solution of the problem very simple. They reason as follows: “by alcohol this innate desire is satisfied; man is inclined to excess,—ergo … alcoholism.” Those who deny the evil nature of man find here on the contrary the crux of the problem. For, say they, the facts are there to prove that man has not always and everywhere been intemperate; there must then be other causes than this so-called sinful instinct.
Alcoholic beverages are consumed first, because they are agreeable to the taste (at least some of them); second, and especially, because aside from the taste they have the power of awaking agreeable sensations. In his work “Der Alkoholismus” Dr. A. Grotjahn expresses himself thus upon this point: “Narcotics act … not primarily through their agreeable taste, but influence directly the cerebral cortex and awaken pleasurable sensations which are completely independent of the activity of the senses or of pleasure-producing perceptions of the outer world. There is no other means of producing pleasurable sensations independent of the perceptions [[358]]arising from the outer world, and independent of the functions of the senses. Only in this way is it to be explained that the need for the use of narcotics has attained so wide a dissemination, and struck such deep roots when once mankind had learned their use.”[182]
If alcohol is used regularly, then, to drive away disagreeable sensations, the consumption must necessarily increase if the individual wishes to attain the same psychical condition, for use continually weakens the effect.
Here, as in the case of the etiology of other social phenomena, we must treat the different causes of alcoholism separately, although it often happens that a number combine to make a man alcoholic. We shall begin with the causes which lead to alcoholism among the proletariat, for it is in this class that the abuse of alcohol is most widespread and produces the greatest ravages, first because the quality of the drinks consumed is very bad, and secondly, because alcohol has more harmful effects upon a badly nourished system.
a. There are occupations which, by their nature, lead the workmen who follow them almost inevitably to the abuse of alcohol. Dr. Grotjahn says: “The mental condition suffers when the temperature is too high or too low, more than the capacity for work. The great discomfort while at work may be removed by regulating the things which influence the temperature (clothing, housing, heating, ventilation) or the uncomfortable feelings may be blunted through copious draughts of spirituous beverages. Hence the peculiar custom of taking alcohol against great heat and great cold both, a thing which would be absurd if alcohol worked specifically against the one extreme of temperature or the other, and did not simply moderate the unpleasant sensations produced by abnormal temperatures.”[183]
In the second place come the industries in which much powder or gas are produced. To quote Dr. Grotjahn again: “The dust, which those working in the open air have at times to endure, but which those who work in closed rooms must almost always put up with, brings about, through directly irritating the mucous membrane of the mouth, a highly annoying thirst, which greatly induces the drinking of beer and brandy. We hear it on all sides from workmen who outside of working hours are entirely moderate or even abstemious, that the thirst which is excited by dust is not nearly so well quenched by water or any ‘soft drink’ as by the use of alcoholic beverages. Experience shows that in the callings which are dust-producing there is a marked tendency to beer- and brandy-drinking, and to a quick passage from [[359]]moderate to immoderate use of alcohol. This is the case with masons, carpenters, cabinet-makers, but especially with grinders and quarry-men. The production of irritating vapors in chemical works has a similar effect, but more intense than that of ordinary dust.”[184]
In the third place there are the industries in which the workmen are brought into direct contact with alcohol. Thus there are, for example, the workmen in distilleries,[185] breweries, alcohol-warehouses, etc.; then wine tasters, those who have to use alcohol in their business, and finally those whose business takes them into establishments where alcoholic drinks are sold, such as commercial travelers, and the tenants of the establishments themselves.[186]
b. The too great length of the working-day. Workers who are forced to work much longer than the human organism can stand are inclined to the abuse of alcohol for two reasons. In the first place they find in it the means of repairing temporarily the diminution of force caused by great fatigue. Since alcohol gives only a temporary increase of capacity, its continued use, and consequently its abuse, is therefore almost inevitable.[187] This is the cause of the great development of alcoholism among longshoremen, who often work for twenty-four hours or even longer at a stretch.
In the second place immoderately prolonged labor produces a veritable torture, which can be assuaged by large quantities of alcohol. Those who have an interest in having the workman toil as long as possible have always tried to prevent the shortening of the working-day by claiming that it would increase the abuse of alcohol. The facts have shown, however, that just the contrary is true. It has been proved that it is not the shortening of the working-day, but its too great extension that is one of the important causes of the abuse of alcohol. So it is not by chance that the retailers of alcoholic beverages are among the most zealous opponents of the shortening of the day.[188] [[360]]
c. Bad and insufficient nourishment. There are many workers not sufficiently nourished for the support of the body. For the purpose of removing the feeling of discomfort arising from this they make great use of alcoholic drinks. In these cases the nourishment is insufficient both objectively (considered from a physiological point of view) and subjectively (it does not satisfy the individual). Besides these there are those who are able to procure a sufficient quality of food but lack the means to vary the dishes and to replace foods that are bulky and difficult to digest (potatoes, bread, cereals, etc.) by others less bulky but more nutritious (especially meat). The persons who rely upon persuasion in combating alcoholism, fix the attention upon the enormous sums expended for spirituous drinks, and then figure how much bread, how many beds, and other useful things could have been bought with this money. All this is well and good, only in reasoning in this way they make the capital error of representing a workman as a sort of machine who says to himself: “I do not earn enough for the support of my family—let us not buy alcohol, then, for it is harmful but rather eat more potatoes. It is true that the discomfort will persist, but … I shall at least be nourished as well as possible.” However, since the working-man is, no more than other men, a being who is content to reason, but who feels, the calculations of these Utopists fall to the ground.
Aside from the bad quality and insufficient quantity of the food, very often the working family do not know how to give an agreeable taste to the dishes they eat; and in families where the married woman herself is employed away from home they often have to content themselves with cold viands. In these cases spirituous drinks serve to counteract the discomfort of the monotony and bulkiness of the food. Among a number of proofs which may be brought in support of what has been said above, we may cite the researches made by a Swiss inspector of factories, M. Schuler, upon the relation between alcoholism and the food of the working-classes.[189] In this investigation the following facts appear.
In the cantons of Geneva, Vaud, and Neufchâtel the condition of the people with regard to food is the best; a small consumption of potatoes and a large consumption of meat. Little brandy is drunk there, the use of alcohol being mainly limited to a large consumption of wine. The workmen in the canton of Neufchâtel, except those employed in watch-making, live in poor circumstances, eat many potatoes and also drink much brandy. [[361]]
In the cantons of Berne and Lucerne the living conditions of the working class, and especially their food, are very bad; they consume much grain and little meat, and in these districts they drink an extraordinary quantity of brandy. In Aargau there is a great difference between the condition of the industrial proletariat and that of the proletariat engaged in agriculture. The food of the former is insufficient, potatoes forming the main resource; furthermore the working day is very long, and the consumption of brandy is correspondingly great. The food of the agricultural laborers, on the other hand, is much better (a greater consumption of meat and of milk) and the consumption of brandy is much less than among the factory hands. In the canton of Zürich the conditions are much the same as those in Aargau.
All this shows clearly that it is the bad material condition of the proletariat which causes alcoholism, for everywhere that the condition of the industrial worker is raised above that of the agricultural population (as, for example, among the skilled workmen at Winterthur), the consumption of brandy is less among the factory people. Just so the material condition of the small rural proprietors in the canton of Zug is worse than that of the factory hands, and the consumption of brandy there is considerable.[190]
d. Bad housing conditions. These conditions often bring it about that the workman, returning from his work, goes to the dram-shop instead of to his home. The dwelling is ordinarily small, too small for a large family, without comfort or attractiveness, gloomy, and often cold in winter, whereas in the dram-shop there is light, warmth, and gaiety; comrades are there, and other topics of conversation than the perpetual cares of life; and, above all, for a little money there may be procured the means of forgetting for the moment the miseries of life.[191]
e. The uncertainty of existence and forced unemployment. The continual difficulties, the anguish of not knowing what the future [[362]]has in store, produce a depression which may be driven away for the moment by the consumption of alcohol. In the article by Richard Holst already cited, is found the following answer given by a workman to the question: What are the principal causes of alcoholism? “One of the principal factors is the difficulty of earning a living for one’s family, and also—and especially—care, the eternal care for the morrow, which fastens upon the life of the working-man like a bur, and which, as work becomes more rare, drives him to desperation. This is the principal cause of alcoholism. Remove this care and men will drink much less alcohol, for then the heart can open itself to joy instead of deadening itself, as is at present almost a necessity. For many persons this deadening is the only, although the fatal, means of ridding one’s self for a moment of the terrible thought, ‘What will happen if I have the misfortune to be thrown out of work, or fall sick?’ ”[192]
Unemployment leads often to alcoholism. “Idleness is the mother of all the vices”, says an old adage; but among all the vices, that which arises most directly from idleness is without doubt drunkenness. What can a man do in the long hours when he has no work? The rich man, educated, well brought up, finds the means of passing his time agreeably; but the poor man has only the dram-shop, and is drawn thither irresistibly. The first time he goes for a change from boredom; then from habit, and finally from a necessity now become instinctive to his organism, which at a given moment feels the need of something to stimulate the nerves. It is in alcoholic drinks that he finds what he lacks.[193]
f. Ignorance. The lack of other means of enjoyment. One of the lesser causes of alcoholism, but important enough to be named, is ignorance. There are a great many persons who think that the regular consumption of great quantities of alcohol is not harmful, who even believe that alcohol has nutritive value, and that consequently the consumption of it is even useful.[194]
From another point of view, however, ignorance, the lack of culture, emptiness of life, are very important causes if not the most important causes of alcoholism. The desire for pleasure is innate in every man, including the working-man, whose life is a hard one in every way. But for him there are almost insurmountable difficulties [[363]]in enjoying all that is truly beautiful, all that nature, art, and science can offer to man. This is due first, and principally, to material difficulties. In our present society one can enjoy these things only with plenty of money. The wages of the working-man are not enough for this. Often he is too tired when the day is over to take up anything which requires effort, and his abode is too small and too badly arranged for reading or any other form of distraction. However, the principal reason why the proletarian enjoys the products of civilization but little is that his intelligence is not prepared for it. His capacities have not been cultivated in this direction, for capitalism has developed in a great number of people only the capacity for manual work to the detriment of everything else. Dr. Augagneur, in his article already cited, has expressed it as follows: “The true cause of alcoholism is entirely of the intellectual and moral order; it is the insufficiency of cerebral activity, the intellectual indigence and distress, the mental unemployment.
“Every individual who, after the business of his calling is completed, is incapable of busying himself with something else, is a fruitful soil for alcoholism. How many, aside from their technical efficiency, are unfitted to think, to comprehend, to explain anything whatever. When the workman, after ten or twelve hours of mechanical work, leaves the factory, he is confused, does not know how to kill the time that must elapse before he goes to bed; he drinks.…
“Sundays and holidays ordinary labor is suppressed, the laborer wanders about the streets, objectless, adrift, embarrassed by his liberty, and runs fatally aground upon the dram-shop. The days of rest are days of drunkenness.
“Our society suffers from this intellectual inaction, which is the true cause of alcoholism. Most men, as soon as their trade no longer makes them work their arms and in some cases their brains, know not which way to turn. Alcohol is their refuge, because it procures for the nervous system sensations which take the place of the absent ideas.”[195]
It is for this reason that the abuse of alcohol is greatest among unskilled laborers[196] and that it decreases everywhere that the workmen begin to organize in unions and political parties, since these lead to the amelioration of conditions, material, intellectual, and moral. In other words, drinking diminishes wherever the proletariat [[364]]is animated by an ideal. And it is also among those workmen who foresee the future of their class and know what there is to do, that the ranks of total abstainers are mainly recruited.[197]
There are persons who maintain the thesis that poverty is not the principal cause of alcoholism among the working classes. As a proof they say that the laborers who earn the least (farm hands among others) are not those who drink the most, and that an increase in wages often brings about a higher consumption of alcohol. They are deceived, however. They lose sight of the fact that most agricultural laborers earn so little that they cannot consume alcohol regularly, that beside the material poverty there is an intellectual poverty, and that a slight amelioration of the one does not produce simultaneously a diminution of the other. The abuse of alcohol has, on the contrary, decreased regularly everywhere that the labor movement has brought about a continuous amelioration of material and intellectual conditions.[198]
To close these remarks upon alcoholism among the workers I will quote the following from Engels in which the causes are concisely set forth: “All possible temptations, all allurements combine to bring the workers to drunkenness. Liquor is almost their only source of pleasure, and all things conspire to make it accessible to them. The working-man comes from his work tired, exhausted, finds his home comfortless, damp, dirty, repulsive; he has urgent need of recreation, he must have something to make work worth his trouble, to make the prospect of the next day endurable. His unnerved, uncomfortable, hypochondriac state of mind and body arising from his unhealthy condition, and especially from indigestion, is aggravated beyond endurance by the general conditions of his life, the uncertainty of his existence, his dependence upon possible accidents and chances, and his inability to do anything towards gaining an assured position. His enfeebled frame, weakened by bad air and bad food, violently demands some external stimulus; his social need can be gratified only in the public-house, he has absolutely no other place where he can meet his friends. How can he be expected to resist temptation? It is morally and physically inevitable that, under such circumstances, a very large number of working-men should fall into intemperance. And apart from the chiefly physical influences which drive the working-man into drunkenness, there is the [[365]]example of the great mass, the neglected education, the impossibility of protecting the young from temptation, in many cases the direct influence of intemperate parents, who give their own children liquor, the certainty of forgetting for an hour or two the wretchedness and burden of life, and a hundred other circumstances so mighty that the workers can, in truth, hardly be blamed for yielding to such overwhelming pressure. Drunkenness has here ceased to be a vice for which the vicious can be held responsible; it becomes a phenomenon, the necessary, inevitable effect of certain conditions upon an object possessed of no volition in relation to those conditions. They who have degraded the working-man to a mere object have the responsibility to bear.”[199]
As for the causes of alcoholism in the lower proletariat they are the same as for the proletariat (if we except the two first named), only they are much more intense. A very insufficient diet, frightful housing conditions, the demoralization consequent upon inaction, ignorance, and the absolute lack of any intellectual life have made of the man a brute who can forget his misery only by drinking.
The same is true of prostitutes, among whom the abuse of alcohol is very wide spread. Parent-Duchatelet says: “The taste of these women (prostitutes) for strong drink may be considered to be general, although in different degrees; they contract it early, and this taste ends by plunging some into the last state of brutishness. All the information that I have gathered proves that they began drinking only to blunt their sensibilities; gradually they become accustomed to it, and in a little while the habit becomes so strong that it resists any return to virtue;…”[200]
Dr. Bonhoeffer says: “In many cases alcoholism is the result of the manner of life of prostitutes.”[201]
The etiology of the abuse of alcohol in the well-to-do class is principally as follows:
a. A part of the well-to-do class, those who live exclusively upon the income from their invested capital, consider one of their occupations [[366]]to be the spending of a part of the surplus-value that they receive. Among the means they make use of for this end is alcohol, which has also the faculty of dissipating the ennui resulting from the emptiness of their existence.
“Many persons, belonging for the most part to the well-to-do classes, have no fixed occupation and feel the need of none. These persons do not know what it is to love work for work’s sake. Having all that they need to live upon they imagine that work exists only for those who have to earn their bread, and they themselves are created for ‘dolce far niente.’ Unfortunately the ‘far niente’ is not always sweet! Having nothing to do, these individuals do not know how to use their time; they are bored, they seek distractions and pleasures. Alcohol presents itself to them as procuring the pleasure sought for, but as this enjoyment is only momentary, they are forced to renew it and to prolong it.…”[202]
b. Another part of the bourgeoisie is composed of those who pass their lives in the fierce combat of competition, who are bent under the burden of material cares, and whose mind is occupied with a single idea, that of getting money. This is why in these surroundings also they frequently have recourse to alcohol to dissipate their vexations, especially when things go badly.
Having treated of alcoholism among the idle portion of the bourgeoisie, Kautsky says in the study quoted above: “Not all, of course, and perhaps not even the majority, of the moneyed class are idlers. Many work as long and hard as any working-man, even if the work they do is often superfluous. But it is always one-sided nervous work. Muscular exercise among the property-holding class has been constantly pushed ever further into the background since the sixteenth century, and the demands upon the nervous system have correspondingly increased. Besides the continual struggle with the working-class, from whom the surplus-value is taken, there is going on an equally uninterrupted battle of the spoilers among themselves for a share of this surplus-value. All these battles are carried on today by nervous, not muscular, energy, and the contests become constantly more bitter, the crises more tremendous, the battlefields more colossal, the forces involved more incalculable.
“Thus the nerves of the bourgeoisie become wrecked through their activity as well as through their idleness.… If part of the bourgeoisie befuddle themselves out of wantonness, another part grasp [[367]]for stimulants or for means of benumbing themselves, alcohol, morphine, cocaine, any thing to take away their feeling of sickness, to conquer their pains, to make them forget their cares; and as it is with the proletariat, so is it with the moneyed class, the power of resistance to these agents declines.”[203]
Finally, we must notice some causes of alcoholism which influence the whole population.
a. Imitation. This is reckoned among the important causes. In the first place there are many children (for whom alcohol even in small quantities is extremely harmful) who are accustomed to the use of alcohol as a consequence of the example set by their families. Dr. R. Frölich mentioned the following facts at the 8th International Congress against Alcohol at Vienna:[204]
Out of 81,187 children from 6 to 14 years of age going to school in Vienna, there were:
| 49.5% | who already drank beer | and | 32.1% | who drank beer | regularly |
| 82.1% | who,, already,, drank,, wine | and,, | 11.2% | who,, drank,, wine | regularly,, |
| 94.2% | who,, already,, drank,, brandy | and,, | 4.1% | who,, drank,, brandy | regularly,, |
But imitation is also important among those who have attained their full development. In the course of time certain circles have taken up the habit of drinking, and any one who frequents these circles must do the same under penalty of being looked down upon. However, I think that the importance that abstainers give to imitation is exaggerated. The number of those who are guilty of the abuse of alcohol from force of example and nothing else is certainly not very great. The other factors which have been at work at the same time to bring about this result are not so obvious. Finally we must not forget that imitation is not an independent factor; what does not exist cannot be imitated, and consequently there must be other causes primarily responsible.
b. The climate. Although so much importance is not attached to climate as formerly, it is nevertheless certain that a cold climate, especially if damp, favors the consumption of alcohol, since this dissipates temporarily the discomfort resulting from cold and humidity. It is for this reason that the inhabitants of the northern countries (for example, England, Denmark, and Holland) consume on [[368]]the average greater quantities of alcohol than southern countries (like Spain and Italy). However the facts show that the social environment is a much more important factor, and is apt to modify or overcome entirely the influence of climate. In Sweden and Norway, for example, the consumption per capita is smaller than in countries farther south, like Denmark and Holland. The great changes which occur at different times in the same country, where the climate remains a constant factor, are a further proof of the truth of this. And notwithstanding the climate the abuse of alcohol increases greatly in the southern countries in which industrialism becomes more and more prevalent (like northern Italy).[205]
c. Race. There are many persons who attribute much importance in the etiology of alcoholism, as in other social phenomena, to the influence of race. Where two nations differing racially have not the same consumption of alcohol, they think they can explain the difference by race. But in reasoning thus they forget that two nations may present great differences in their manner of life, and that the greater or less consumption of alcohol may be explained better by these than by race (without counting that racial difference in the tendency to alcoholism is still to be accounted for somehow). To cite an example; the peoples of the Germanic race are more intemperate, than the peoples of the Latin race (a fact already explained by the climate, and further accounted for by the cheapness of wine); this difference it is said is to be explained in part by race. And yet the use of brandy in northern Italy increases with increasing industrialism, northern industrial France gives a very high figure for brandy-consumption, and the Belgians of the Latin race do not yield to their Germanic compatriots in the use of alcohol.[206] The proverbial temperance of the Jews is often attributed to their race, while we should ask whether this temperance is not rather to be attributed to their manner of life, which differs from that of other peoples. It is probable that the Jewish industrial workers, for example, who have broken with the habits of their coreligionists, have also become consumers of spirituous beverages. As far as the diamond-cutters of Amsterdam are concerned this fact is at least averred.[207] The tendency [[369]]which is observed among the Slavic peoples of becoming intoxicated periodically in an extraordinary fashion, is attributed to race, but the same thing is observed in other countries where wages are very low, thus preventing regular drinking, and limiting the consumption of alcohol to paydays.[208]
I believe that the influence of race upon alcoholism is enormously exaggerated, which does not, however, imply that I deny its influence. The slight expansion of the use of alcohol among the Mongolians (among whom, it is to be added, this is replaced by other narcotics, principally by opium) is to be explained in part perhaps, by race.
d. The psycho- and neuro-pathic condition of some persons enters into the etiology of alcoholism in three ways. In the first place, the regular use of small quantities of alcohol may, with the said persons, result in alcoholism. Secondly, quantities of alcohol which have results imperceptible in the normal man, may cause drunkenness in a very neuropathic person. Thirdly, alcoholism is present as the principal symptom with dipsomaniacs, and as a secondary symptom in the case of persons suffering from mania, melancholia, or paralytic dementia.[209]
After what we have said concerning the causes of the consumption of alcohol, we must add something about the production of it. As is the case with most articles, the production of alcohol is capitalistic, that is to say, for the sake of profit. Consumption is only a condition for attaining this end. If the profits could be greater without production it would cease.[210] Aside from the producers, the state also has a great interest in the consumption of alcohol, since it derives considerable revenue from it.
The consequences of the fact that the production of alcohol is capitalistic have a great social importance. To instance only some of these:
First. The number of places where liquor may be drunk is very great. The more there is consumed, the more profit there is for the producers and for the retailers. As a consequence there is much advertising, and many dram-shops, in which the wages are often [[370]]paid and workmen hired. These two things increase the profits of the dealer, but exercise an indirect pressure upon the working-man to make him drink.[211]
Second. The constantly decreasing price of alcohol. As we have seen above there is a tendency in the present economic system to lower the price of commodities, since each producer tries to increase his profits, if only temporarily, by seeking to improve the processes of production. This is applicable to alcohol also.
Third. The adulteration of alcoholic drinks. Under the capitalistic system the object of production is not to furnish as perfect a product as possible, but to make as great profits as possible. Hence comes the tendency among producers to adulterate their wares, to deliver goods of poorer quality than they are supposed to be, for the purpose of gaining greater profits. The adulteration so frequent with alcoholic beverages has physical and psychical consequences most harmful to the consumers.[212]
The exposition which I have just given of the etiology of alcoholism points out the principal causes of it, and proves that they are to be found in the last instance almost wholly in the present constitution of society. It is possible that some one will interpose the objection that this cannot be the case, that there must be, besides pathological causes, individual causes, since it happens that among persons living in the same environment some become alcoholics and others do not.
This last fact is incontestable, but it is partly to be explained by the fact that, while there are persons who live in environments that are very similar, there are no two individuals whose surroundings are exactly the same. Take, for example, two workmen. The one may have passed his youth in circles where they drink little or no alcohol, and where it is pointed out to him that abstinence is very salutary, while the other sees only examples of intemperance. It may be that here is the explanation of the fact that the first has remained temperate, while the second has not, although the two live in surroundings almost alike.
But suppose that the environment is and has always been exactly the same for a group of persons, we shall see then that the tendency toward alcoholism is not the same for each individual. No one will be able to dispute the fact, however, that it is the environment [[371]]that is the cause of the abuse of alcohol. Individual differences bring it about that one man is more drawn to the use of alcohol than another, but circumstances explain why the first has become alcoholic. These differences can never explain why, at a certain period, the abuse of alcohol has, or has not, become an almost universal phenomenon.
The proofs are plain. In examining, for example, a period like that in which capitalism took its rise in England, as it is described by Engels in his “Condition of the Working Class”, a period, that is to say, in which the working class found itself in very disadvantageous material and moral conditions, we see that the workers, with rare exceptions, were consumers of alcohol, and largely abused it. Since that time conditions have improved. The moral and material plane having been raised, those whose tendency toward alcohol was less strong and who had more marked innate moral qualities, ceased misusing alcohol. As conditions improve still further those who are weaker follow little by little the same road to temperance. This process may be observed going on among unorganized workmen, with whom the tendency to drink is generally great. As soon as they begin to organize, and in measure as their organization is developed, we see that first the most intelligent, etc., among them become temperate, and that little by little these are followed by the others.
It is a biological fact that men always and everywhere present qualitative differences. But this constant factor does not give an explanation of the changes which society undergoes, and is not, therefore, of great importance to sociology, which, while taking it into account, has for its task the explanation of the changes in question. And it is just those changes in the use of alcoholic beverages which have taken place during the course of the centuries, which show that the social environment is the principal cause of alcoholism.
In ancient times alcoholism was unknown. It is true that among the Israelites, for example, the abuse of alcohol at times occurred, but the fact that no importance was attached to it proves that alcoholism properly speaking did not exist.[213] Nor was it to be met with among the ancient Greeks. At every meal, and at their reunions they drank wine diluted; it is unnecessary to say that these “symposia” were not looked down upon by the Greeks, but on the contrary were highly regarded. “Greek opinion found nothing improper in intoxication, only a certain self-control in drunkenness was held to [[372]]be indispensable. Gross and violent conduct was, like the drinking of unmixed wine, a custom of the barbarians, and unworthy of a Greek.”[214] Nor was ancient Rome any more acquainted with alcoholism, though among the Romans, coarse in comparison with the Greeks and demoralized by their immense wealth, the abuse of alcohol was often met with. But it was only the very small group of the rich who were addicted to it. When the barbarians annihilated the ancient world they were not capable of assimilating the civilization of the peoples whom they had just subjugated, while they adopted their pleasures, a thing which did not require so high a state of development. This is the cause of the great abuse of alcohol among the Germans.[215] The uncertainty of existence, and the miserable conditions during the migrations of these peoples were favorable to this abuse.
In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the abuse of alcohol had reached a high degree of development among the rich. The cause of this was the birth of capitalism, by which great wealth was accumulated in the hands of a few without their having occasion to place a great part of it as new capital. To this fact was joined a low degree of culture, and it thus came about that the wealthy of the period spent enormous sums for eating and drinking.[216]
The discovery in the middle of the sixteenth century of the distillation of spirits from grain brought about a considerable cheapening in the price of strong drink, which thus came within the reach of the poor. (Arab physicians had long before discovered how to extract brandy from wine, but this in the beginning was only used medicinally.) The great poverty occasioned by the Thirty Years’ War increased the use of liquor enormously, and the birth of the industrial proletariat contributed equally to the same result. Mention is made for the first time of the regular use of liquor to increase the amount of work done, in 1550 among the Hungarian miners, the first category of workmen who lived under conditions almost identical with those of the modern industrial proletariat. With the continually increasing development of capitalism King Alcohol began his triumphal march, which has continued without any great obstacle to the present day. Alcoholism has its deeper causes in the material [[373]]intellectual and moral poverty created by the economic system now in force. It is with reason that Professor Gruber has said: “We cannot shut our eyes to the truth that alcohol is not without basis in our present order of society. Without it life would long ago have become unendurable for the suffering part of the population.” [[374]]
CHAPTER V.
MILITARISM.
We may be very brief upon the correlation of militarism and the present economic system. This correlation is so clear that there are few persons who deny it. The motives which, under all earlier modes of production, have engendered wars are principally of an economic nature. But besides these there have been at times others; but we have not to enquire here what was in the last analysis their correlation with the mode of production of that day. The relation between capitalism and war is always so close that we can find in the economic life the direct causes of the wars waged under the empire of capitalism.
As we have seen above in our exposition of the present economic system, a part of the surplus-value that comes to the moneyed class is invested as new capital. The continually increasing amount of capital does not readily find investment in full in a country where capitalism is already in force. This is why the moneyed class desires to invest a part of the surplus-value in countries whither capitalism has not yet penetrated. If the inhabitants of the country chosen as field of operation are opposed to this, or if the same country is coveted by other capitalistic powers, the resulting antagonism generally leads to war.
In the second place, the producers can sell in their own country only a part of the increasing quantity of their products; whence come their efforts to find an outlet into other countries. But as capitalism expands with increasing rapidity over the whole world, the difficulty of finding a country in a position to buy, or to which capitalism has not yet penetrated, becomes greater and greater. Encounters with other capitalistic powers pursuing the same end are the inevitable consequence.
It is upon the State that the task is imposed of finding new territories [[375]]where capital may be invested, or new outlets for goods which do not find purchasers in the country where they are produced. Beside the duty of the State to maintain a certain order in a society confused and complicated through the nature of our economic life (civil and criminal jurisprudence), there is its more important duty of warding off other groups of competitors, or even at need attacking them by force of arms.
But the army serves not only to act against the foreigner, it has equally a domestic duty to fulfil. In the cases where the police cannot maintain order the army reinforces them. The army must especially then be active at the time of great strikes, when so-called free labor is to be protected, that is when employers are trying to replace the striking workmen with others who, in consequence of their poverty, or their lack of organization, put their personal interests above those of their comrades. Also it has its part to play in connection with great political movements, like that to obtain universal suffrage, for example.
Our present militarism is, therefore, a consequence of capitalism. The double duty of the army proves it; for its function is to furnish the bourgeoisie with the means of restraining the proletariat at home, and of repulsing or attacking the forces of foreign countries. [[377]]
[1] This sketch is based upon Karl Marx’s “Kapital” and K. Kautsky’s works primarily, with some indebtedness to Marx’s “Oekonomischen Lehren”, and “Das Erfurter Programm.” [↑]
[2] Marx, “Kapital”, I, p. 4. [↑]
[3] “Kapital”, I, p. 6. It is plain that in this exposition it is needless to add why this law is discarded under a developed system of capitalism. The exception in no way diminishes the fundamental truth of the proposition. [↑]
[4] In his work “The Condition of the Working-class in England”, F. Engels, after speaking of the condition of the English proletariat, says, “The working-class has gradually become a race wholly apart from the English bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie has more in common with every other nation of the earth than with the workers in whose midst it lives. The workers speak other dialects, have other thoughts and ideals, other customs and moral principles, a different religion, and other politics than the bourgeoisie. They are two radically dissimilar nations.” (P. 124. [In original, p. 127].) [↑]
[5] Upon the petty bourgeoisie see the excellent article of Dr. B. Schönlank, “Zur Psychologie des Kleinbürgerthums” (“Neue Zeit”, 1890). [↑]
[6] Alcoholism being of great importance for criminality I shall treat the etiology of this social phenomenon separately (see Chap. IV). [↑]
[7] It is plain that I cannot cite proofs in support of this exposition; I should go beyond the proper limits of this discussion of the present economic [[273]]system and its consequences. Furthermore it would be useless; for those of my readers who do not know from having seen it that the situation is as I have stated, can be convinced by reading the rich literature upon the subject. I will refer here only to the more noteworthy books; For England: F. Engels, “The Condition of the Working-Class in England” (1845); K. Marx, “Das Kapital” (1867); M. Schippel, “Das moderne Elend und die moderne Ueberbevölkerung” (1888); Chas. Booth, “Life and Labor of the People in London” (1892–1897); R. Blatchford, “Merrie England” (1894), and “Dismal England” (1901); B. S. Rowntree, “Poverty, A Study of Town Life” (1901). For Germany: Dr. H. Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch” (1889); P. Göhre, “Drei Monate Fabrikarbeiter” (1891); Dr. R. Hirschberg, “Soziale Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in Berlin” (1897); H. Herkner, “Die Arbeitsfrage” (1894), treating also of Austria and Switzerland. For Austria: T. W. Teifen, “Das soziale Elend und die besitzenden Klassen” (1894). For Holland: “Rapport der Commissie belast met het onderzoek naar den toestand der kinderen in fabrieken arbeidende” (1872); “Enquête betreffende werking en uitbreiding der wet van 19 September 1874 en naar den toestand van fabrieken en werkplaatsen” (1887); “Enquête gehouden door de staatscommissie benoemd volgens de wet van 19 Jan. 1890” (1800–1894); “Een vergeten hoofdstuk” (1898); H. Roland-Holst, “Kapitaal en arbeid in Nederland” (1902).
Upon the conditions of women’s work see: L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage.” Upon the housing of working-men in the great cities see: A. Braun, “Berliner Wohnungsverhältnisse”; E. von Philippovich, “Wiener Wohnungsverhältnisse” (“Archiv f. soz. Gesetzgeb.” u. Stat. VII).
[Note to the American Edition: The literature upon the social condition of the proletariat has increased considerably in recent years. It would be impossible and also superfluous to cite the whole of this literature; I note only certain works that seem remarkable for one reason or another.
For England: L. G. Chiozza-Money, “Riches and Poverty” (1905). For Germany: K. Fischer, “Denkwürdigkeiten und Erinnerungen eines Arbeiters” (1903–04); M. W. Th. Bromme, “Lebensgeschichte eines modernen Fabrikarbeiters” (1905); and Fr. Rehbein, “Das Leben eines Landarbeiters.” For the United States: R. Hunter, “Das Elend der neuen Welt” (1908). For Russia: K. A. Pashitnow, “Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in Russland” (1907). For the Netherlands: J. J. Moquette, “Onderzoekingen over volksvoeding in de gemeente Utrecht”, 1907; “Arbeidersleven in Nederland” (1908); “Onderzoekingen naar de toestanden in de Nederlandsche huisindustrie”, 1911–1912. Upon the condition of working-people in general see especially the very interesting and original work of Niceforo, “Anthropologie der nichtbesitzenden Klassen” (1910). Upon the condition of working-women, see “Die Jugendgeschichte einer Arbeiterin” (1909); R. Kempf, “Das Leben der jungen Fabrikmädchen in München” (1911); the official investigation into the work of married women in the factories in the Netherlands (1911). Upon child-labor: “Das proletarische Kind.”] [↑]
[8] See the proof cited by K. Kautsky in his “Sozialreform und soziale Revolution” (pp. 22–25), in support of the assertion that the distance between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat has increased. [↑]
[9] What the Germans call “Lumpenproletariat.” [The French is “le bas Prolétariat.” “Submerged class” is perhaps our most common English equivalent.—Transl.] With the lower proletariat we must include prostitutes and a part of the criminals. These two groups we shall naturally treat in detail later. [↑]
[10] Pp. 213–215. (“Neue Zeit”, 1884). [↑]
[11] Op. cit. p. 215. See also, as regards the condition of the lower proletariat in Germany, Dr. H. Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, pp. 32 ff.; for Austria: T. W. Teifen, “Das soziale Elend, etc.” IV, pp. 122 ff.; for Russia: O. Zetkin, “Die barfüssige Bande” (“Neue Zeit”, 1885); for England: Ch. Booth, “Pauperism” and “Life and Labour of the People in London”, VIII; for all Europe: L. M. Moreau-Christophe, “Du problème de la misère,” III; for North America see R. Hunter, “Das Elend der neuen Welt”, pp. 51 ff. [↑]
[12] There may be found in Dr. L. Woltmann’s “Die Darwinsche Theorie und der Sozialismus” (pp. 81–135) a detailed résumé of the works of the authors who hold this opinion. Cf. also Herkner, “Die Arbeiterfrage”, pp. 178 ff., where also the literature upon this point is to be found. [↑]
[15] As is well known, Galton is one of the authors who denies this thesis. One of the rare examples which he produces as proof is d’Alembert, who, notwithstanding an unfavorable educational environment, became a celebrity. (See “Hereditary Genius,” pp. 34–39). Unfortunately for Galton Professor Odin proves that d’Alembert received an excellent education and was brought up in relatively favorable economic conditions. (See “Genèse des grands hommes,” p. 538, I.) See also Professor Odin’s criticism of Galton (pp. 192 ff., op. cit., I). [↑]
[18] Cf. especially the excellent refutation of the pseudo-Darwinian theory by Professor Bücher in the chapter “Arbeitsgliederung und Soziale Klassenbilderung” from his “Entstehen der Volkswirtschaft.” [↑]
[19] See Woltmann, op. cit., pp. 32–81 and pp. 334 ff., where he cites a number of authors who are of this opinion. Upon the whole subject see Dr. A. Ploetz, “Die Tüchtigkeit unsrer Rasse und der Schutz der Schwachen”, and Dr. D. van Embden, “Darwinisme en Demokratie.” [↑]
[20] “Menschliche Auslese”, p. 10 (Zukunft, 1894). [↑]
[21] Under this heading are included all the children below 14, and the women who live with the person assisted. It is enough to point out that the indigence of these co-assisted persons does not proceed from any cause in the persons themselves, but in their circumstances. [↑]
[22] “Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich”, X, 1889, pp. 206–208. [↑]
[23] Read the following taken from “Illustrations of the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of the North American Indians”, by G. Catlin: “This cruel custom of exposing their aged people, belongs, I think, to all the tribes who roam about the prairies, making severe marches, when such decrepit persons are totally unable to go, unable to ride or to walk,—when they have no means of carrying them. It often becomes absolutely necessary in such cases that they should be left; and they uniformly insist upon it, saying as one old man did, that they are old and of no further use—that they left their fathers in the same manner—that they wish to die, and their children must not mourn for them.” (I, p. 217.) [↑]
[24] The figures given by J. S. in “Aus den Ergebnissen der sächsischen Armenstatistik” (“Neue Zeit” 1894–95, II), confirm those in the table I have given, if we do not lose sight of the fact that J. S. does not give the “co-assisted” persons separately. The figures of Charles Booth in his “Pauperism” show that alcoholism forms a more important factor in the two districts that he has studied (12.6% and 21.9%); for laziness the figures are [[288]]1.9% and 10.6%. Statistics of the Netherlands confirm in general those of the German Empire:
| Assisted Temporarily. | 1898 | 1899 | Assisted Continuously. | 1898 | 1899 |
| Causes of Indigence. | % | % | Causes of Indigence. | % | % |
| Illness, etc. | 42.3 | 45.1 | Illness or bodily defects | 18.6 | 18.9 |
| Lack or shortage of work | 30.7 | 28.9 | Old age | 45.4 | 47 |
| Alcoholism | 2.6 | 2.6 | Death of breadwinner | 20.0 | 19.2 |
| Other causes | 24.4 | 23.4 | Alcoholism | 1.8 | 1.5 |
| Other causes | 14.2 | 13.4 | |||
| 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
(Verslagen over de verrichtingen aangaande het armbestuur over 1898 en 1899. Bijlage E. Handelingen 2e Kamer der Staten-Generaal 1899–1900, 1900–1901.) [↑]
[25] P. 490. “Biologie und Kriminalstatistik.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrechtswissenschaft”, VII.) [↑]
[26] See K. Kautsky’s “Das Erfurter Programm”, p. 64. [↑]
[27] Upon the period without class see, among others, L. H. Morgan, “Ancient Society”, and upon the origin of classes H. Cunow, “Arbeitstheilung und Frauenrecht” (“Neue Zeit”, 1900–01, I, p. 178 ff.). [↑]
[28] It is well known that sociological studies upon the subject of marriage date from 1861, when Bachofen’s “Das Mutterrecht” came out. Since then a very extensive literature on the subject has appeared, without by any means exhausting the subject. (See Dr. Steinmetz, “Die neueren Forschungen zur Geschichte der menschlichen Familie”, “Zeitschr. für Sozialwissenschaft,” 1899.)
[Note to the American Edition: The literature upon the origin and evolution of marriage and the family has recently been considerably increased. The following books seem to us to be the most important: H. Schurtz, “Altersklassen und Männerbünde”; M. Weber, “Ehefrau und Mutter in der Rechtsentwicklung”; A. Vierkandt, “Das Problem der Familien- und Stammesorganisation der Naturvölker”; E. Westermarck, “Ursprung und Entwicklung der Moralbegriffe”, II; F. Müller-Lyer, “Formen der Ehe”, “Die Familie”, and “Phasen der Liebe”; H. Cunow, “Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe und Familie.”] [↑]
[29] Westermarck (in his “History of Human Marriage”, pp. 51–133) has led the opposition to the promiscuity theory. It is also combated by Starcke in his “Die primitive Familie” and by Grosse in his “Die Formen der Familie und die Formen der Wirthschaft” (pp. 41–45). For a résumé of the arguments for and against see Dr. C. J. Wynaendts Francken, “De Evolutie van het huwelijk” (pp. 57–65). [↑]
[30] See Ch. Letourneau, “L’évolution du mariage” (pp. 46–48). [↑]
[31] See Fr. Engels, “Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums, und des Staats” (pp. 17–18) [Translated as “The Origin of the family, etc.” Page references are to the original.]; and C. de Kelles-Krauz, “Formes primitives de la famille” (pp. 303–304 of the “Revue Internationale de Sociologie”, VIII). [↑]
[32] The following discussion is based upon material drawn from Grosse (op. cit.), and from H. Cunow (“Die ökonomischen Grundlagen der Mutterherrschaft” (“Neue Zeit”, 1897–98). [↑]
[34] L. H. Morgan, “Ancient Society”, p. 424; Fr. Engels, op. cit., p. 21; and others. [↑]
[35] Westermarck believes that there is an innate aversion to sexual relationships between persons who have lived together from childhood; and that the sexual aversion that exists between near blood-relations is in consequence of the fact that these persons have always lived together. This instinct would thus have been acquired by natural selection, since those who did not have it would run more danger than the others of disappearing in consequence of the injurious effects of such unions. (Op. cit., chaps. xiv and xv.) Cunow on the other hand makes the point that there cannot be an innate aversion between persons who have been raised together, for marriages between such persons do take place, and are not thought at all immoral or contrary to nature. (“Die Verwandtschaftsorganisationen der Australneger,” pp. 184 ff.) [↑]
[36] See Steinmetz, op. cit., p. 817. [↑]
[37] Upon the origin of agriculture see H. Cunow, “Arbeitstheilung und Frauenrecht” (“Neue Zeit”, 1900–1901; I, pp. 102 ff.). [↑]
[38] See C. N. Starcke, “Die primitive Familie”, pp. 106–107. [↑]
[39] The “metronymic” system by which the mother has the right to transmit her name to the child (Mutterrecht) is quite distinct from the matriarchate. As to the origin of the matriarchate see Dr. L. v. Dargun, “Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht”, pp. 67 ff. [↑]
[40] L. H. Morgan, “Ancient Society”, p. 345; Dargun, op. cit., pp. 131, 132. [↑]
[41] See Morgan, op. cit., Pt. II, chap. X and XIII, and F. Engels, “Origin of the Family, etc.”, chap. V, VI, VIII; Gumplowicz, “Grundriss der Soziologie,” pp. 190 ff.; and F. Oppenheimer, “Der Staat.” [↑]
[42] Engels, op. cit., p. 51. [Paging of original.] [↑]
[43] See Engels, op. cit., pp. 47 ff. [Paging of original.] [↑]
[44] See A. Bebel, “Die Frau und der Sozialismus”, pp. 265 ff. [↑]
[45] See “Neue Zeit”, 188, p. 239; G. v. Mayr, “Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre”, II, p. 384; F. v. d. Goes, “Socialisme en Feminisme” (“Tweemaandelijksch Tijdschrift”, VI, 1900) pp. 430–445; Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 166 ff.; C. Zetkin, “Geistiges Proletariat, Frauenfrage und Sozialismus”, pp. 4, 5. [↑]
[46] See Bebel, op. cit., chapter entitled “Ehehemmnisse und Ehehindernisse”; v. d. Goes, op. cit., pp. 445–458; Braun, op. cit., pp. 166–170; Zetkin, op. cit., pp. 5–6. [↑]
[47] See Bebel, op. cit., p. 159; v. d. Goes, op. cit., pp. 458 ff.; and Braun, op. cit., pp. 165, 166. [↑]
[48] See Bebel, op cit., pp. 223 ff.; v. d. Goes, op. cit. (Année VII, 1901), pp. 120 ff.; Zetkin, op. cit., pp. 3, 4, and “Die Arbeiterinnen- und Frauenfrage der Gegenwart”, pp. 3 ff. [↑]
[49] See Braun, op. cit., p. 181. [↑]
[50] See Braun, op. cit. Pt. II, chaps. IV and V. [↑]
[51] [Note to the American Edition: There has appeared, especially recently, an extensive literature criticising the conditions of modern marriage. Cf. among others: Forel, “Die Sexuelle Frage”; M. Weber, op. cit., chap. vi; T. Bloch, “Das Sexualleben unserer Zeit”, chap. x; Havelock Ellis, “Geschlecht und Gesellschaft”, II, chap. x; A. Moll, “Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften”; F. Müller-Lyer, “Die Familie” and “Phasen der Liebe.”] [↑]
[52] “Das Weib und der Stier.” (“Neue Zeit”, 1900–1901, II, p. 6–7.) [↑]
[53] Upon marriage in the bourgeoisie see Fourier, “Théorie des quatre mouvements” (Complete Works, I, pp. 162 ff.); A. E. F. Schäffle, “Bau und Leben”, etc., III, pp. 36, 50; Nordau, “Die conventionnellen Lügen der Kulturmenschheit”, pp. 263 ff.; Bebel, op. cit., pp. 103 ff.; and Dr. E. Gystrow, “Liebe und Liebesleben im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 26 ff. [↑]
[54] It is unnecessary to go into the question of marriage in the petty bourgeoisie, which does not differ fundamentally from that which we have been treating. See Dr. B. Schönlank, “Zur Psychologie des Kleinbürgerthums”, pp. 123–124 (“Neue Zeit”, 1890). [↑]
[55] Engels, op. cit., pp. 59, 60, and Dr. A. Blaschko, “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, p. 12. [↑]
[56] See “Englands industrielle Reservearmee”, pp. 215–216 (“Neue Zeit”, 1884). [↑]
[57] Engels, op. cit., pp. 63–74 [paging of original]. [↑]
[58] E. Grosse, “Die Formen der Familie und die Formen der Wirthschaft”, pp. 49–53. [↑]
[59] See Grosse, op. cit., pp. 78–82, 120–123. [↑]
[60] Grosse, op. cit., pp. 183–186. [↑]
[61] See Grosse, op. cit., pp. 220–223, 226–228, 230–234. [↑]
[62] See v. Dargun, op. cit., p. 12. [↑]
[63] See M. Kovalewsky, “Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la famille et de la propriété”, pp. 150–161. [↑]
[64] The law does not produce much change in the situation which would exist without it, since most parents would perform this duty without being compelled. [↑]
[65] L. Ferriani, “Entartete Mütter”, pp. 24–50. [↑]
[66] “Der Selbstmord im kindlichen Lebensalter”, p. 48. [↑]
[67] Op. cit. This quotation follows directly upon the one given above. [↑]
[68] Dr. A. Baer, op. cit., p. 49. See also pp. 58, 59. [↑]
[69] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. M. Kauffmann, “Die Psychologie des Verbrechens”, pp. 235 ff.] [↑]
[70] C. Zetkin, “Die Arbeiterinnen- und Frauenfrage der Gegenwart”, pp. 23–39. [↑]
[71] See J. Stern, “Thesen über den Sozialismus”, p. 24; and C. Zetkin, op. cit., pp. 30 ff. [↑]
[72] C. Zetkin, op. cit., p. 24. [↑]
[73] L. Ferriani, “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, pp. 34, 35. [↑]
[74] To name one among many: M. Kovalewsky. See his “Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la famille et de la propriété”, pp. 160, 161. [↑]
[75] The number of births is constantly decreasing, and the consequent decrease in the size of families accentuates the tendency to develop egoism in the child. [↑]
[76] Compare, among others, E. Key, “Das Jahrhundert des Kindes”, p. 316. [↑]
[77] “The Book of the New Moral World”, Pt. III., pp. 9–11. [↑]
[78] K. Kautsky, “Die Entstehung des Christenthums” (“Neue Zeit”, 1885). [↑]
[79] L. Ferriani, “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, p. 48. [↑]
[80] P. 144 [In original, p. 147]. See also L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 318 ff.; C. Zetkin, op. cit., p. 26; Herkner, op. cit., pp. 36 ff.; and especially Rühle, “Das proletarische Kind”, pp. 42 ff. Upon the education of children of the working class in general, see also: G. Schönfeldt, “Die heutige Arbeiterfamilie und die öffentliche Erziehung vorschulpflichtiger Kinder” (“Neue Zeit”, I, 1898–1899). [↑]
[81] [Note to the American Edition: Upon the situation of illegitimate children see Rühle, op. cit. pp. 63 ff., and especially the interesting works of Dr. Spann, “Untersuchungen über die uneheliche Bevölkerung in Frankfurt a/M.” and “Die unehelichen Mündel des Vormundschaftsgerichtes in Frankfurt a/M.”] [↑]
[82] Dr. C. Hugo, “Kind und Gesellschaft”, p. 562 (“Neue Zeit”, 1894–1895, I). See also L. Ferriani, “Entartete Mütter.”
[Note to the American Edition: At this moment I have before me the “Annual Report, 1912–1913”, where it is shown that the total number of children for whom the society in question has cared has increased to 2,101,130 in 29 years, an annual average, therefore, of about 75,000. For the year of the report the number was 159,000.
Cf. Rühle, op. cit., and especially the report upon Austria of Dr. J. M. Baernreither, “Die Ursachen, Erscheinungsformen und die Ausbreitung der Verwahrlosung von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Oesterreich.”] [↑]
[83] For a criticism of the present educational system see A. C. F. Schäffle, [[321]]“Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers”, I, p. 262; Ch. Letourneau, “L’évolution du mariage et de la famille”, p. 444; E. Key, “Das Jahrhundert des Kindes”, pp. 109 ff.; Th. Schlesinger Eckstein, “Die Frau im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 54–56. [↑]
[84] [Note to the American Edition: There has also appeared in recent times a considerable literature upon the etiology of prostitution. We note the following: A. Forel, “Die sexuelle Frage”, chap. x; P. Kampffmeyer, “Die Prostitution als soziale Klassenerscheinung und ihre sozialpolitische Bekämpfung”; T. Hermann, “Die Prostitution und ihr Anhang”; T. Bloch, “Das Sexualleben unserer Zeit”, chap. xiii, and “Die Prostitution”, I (chiefly historical); A. Pappritz, “Die Welt von der man nicht spricht”; H. Arendt, “Menschen die den Pfad verloren”; M. Minovici, “Remarques sur la criminalité en Roumanie”; C. K. Schneider, “Die Prostituirte und die Gesellschaft”; G. Schnapper-Arndt, “Sozial-Statistik”, chap. viii; Quiros and Aguinaliedo, “Verbrechertum und Prostitution in Madrid”; R. Hessen, “Die Prostitution in Deutschland”; A. Blaschko, “Prostitution” (“Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften”, VI); H. Ellis, “Geschlecht und Gesellschaft”, II, chap. viii; “The Social Evil in Chicago” (“Report of the Vice Commission of Chicago”); A. Moll, “Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften”, chap. iv; E. von Grabe, “Prostitution, Kriminalität, und Psychopathie”; A. Neher, “Die geheime und öffentliche Prostitution in Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, und München.”] [↑]
[85] C. Zetkin, “Geistiges Proletariat, Frauenfrage, und Sozialismus”, pp. 5, 6; Dr. J. Jeannel, “De la prostitution dans les grandes villes au XIXe siècle”, pp. 187, 188. [↑]
[86] Each consequence becomes in its turn a cause; as in this case, for, while prostitution is largely a consequence of the impossibility of marrying, prostitution in its turn becomes, through the demoralizing influence of the prostitutes, a reason why some men do not marry although their means would permit it. [↑]
[87] See also by the same author: “Die moderne Prostitution”, pp. 14, 15 (“Neue Zeit”, 1891–92, II), and “Hygiene der Prostitution und venerischen Krankheiten”, p. 39; Dr. V. Augagneur: “La prostitution des filles mineures” (“Archives d’anthropologie criminelle”, III, p. 224). [↑]
[88] [Note to the American Edition: Upon the demoralization of poor children see the works of Baernreither and Rühle already cited, and H. Arendt, “Kleine Weisse Sklaven.”] [↑]
[89] This study may be found in the second volume of Parent-Duchatelet’s work: “De la Prostitution dans la ville de Paris.” [↑]
[90] P. 39 (Session 1882). [↑]
[92] “La Prostitution à Paris et à Londres”, p. 125. [↑]
[94] “Le Crime à Deux”, pp. 205, 206. For figures for Berlin see Dr. B. Schoenlank, “Zur Statistik der Prostitution in Berlin”, pp. 335, 336 (“Archiv für soziale Gesetzgeb. u. Stat.”, VII.). [↑]
[95] “La prostitution en Russie”, p. 195 (“Progrès médical”, 1893). [↑]
[96] “Die Beziehungen der Prostitution zum Verbrechen”, p. 8 (“Archiv f. Kriminal Anthropologie u. Kriminalstatistik”, XI.). [↑]
[97] “Zur Kenntnis des grossstädtischen Bettel- und Vagabondentums,” p. 188 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, XXXIII). [↑]
[98] Op. cit. I, pp. 92, 93. [↑]
[100] Op. cit., pp. 215, 216. [↑]
[101] “Reports of the Select Committee”, Appendix B, p. 52. [↑]
[102] Pp. 42–44 and 46–66. [↑]
[107] Op. cit., I, pp. 67–70. [↑]
[109] Op. cit., I, p. 71. The data of the same author show that out of 3,095 fathers of prostitutes, 1,078 (35%) could not sign their names. [↑]
[110] Op. cit., I, p. 108. [↑]
[111] “Moralstatistik”, p. 216. Upon this cause of prostitution see also: Dr. G. Richelot, op. cit., pp. 582, 583; Dr. C. Röhrmann, “Der sittliche Zustand von Berlin”, pp. 45, 46; “Die Prostitution in Berlin”, pp. 86, 87; L. Faucher, “Études sur l’Angleterre”, I, p. 74; Lecour, op. cit., pp. 202–204; Carlier, op. cit., pp. 35, 36; G. Tomel and H. Rollet, “Les enfants en prison”, pp. 156 ff.; L. Ferriani, “Entartete Mütter”, p. 161; Dr. O. Commenge, “La prostitution clandestine à Paris”, pp. 33–35. [↑]
[117] Op. cit., I, p. 102. [↑]
[118] Op. cit., I, p. 102. Upon this cause of prostitution see further: Dr. Richelot, op. cit., pp. 574, 575; Dr. Fr. S. Hügel, “Zur Geschichte, Statistik, und Regelung der Prostitution”, pp. 206, 207; Dr. Jeannel, op. cit., pp. 145, 146; A. C. Fr. Schäffle, “Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers”, I, p. 261; [[334]]H. Stursberg, “Die Prostitution in Deutschland und ihre Bekämpfung”, pp. 44, 45; Dr. E. Laurent, “Les habitués des prisons de Paris”, pp. 585–589 (description of types); G. Schönfeldt, “Beiträge zur Geschichte des Pauperismus und der Prostitution in Hamburg”, p. 269. [↑]
[119] A. Pappritz, “Die wirthschaftlichen Ursachen der Prostitution”, p. 14. [↑]
[120] “Wiener Wohnungsverhältnisse”, pp. 221–223 (“Archiv f. soz. Gesetzg. u. Statist.” VII). [↑]
[121] “Bijdragen tot de Statistiek van Nederland XXIV, Uitkomsten der woning-statistiek”, p. 52. [↑]
[123] Pappritz, op. cit., p. 15. [↑]
[124] v. Philippovich, op. cit., p. 222. [↑]
[125] P. 42. See also: Richelot, op. cit., pp. 573, 574; W. Acton, “Prostitution Considered in its Moral, Social, and Sanitary Aspects”, pp. 131 ff.; Jeannel, op. cit., p. 143; Lecour, op. cit., p. 246; “Reports of the Select Committee, etc.”, p. 39 (Session of 1882); Stursberg, op. cit., pp. 46, 47; Commenge, op. cit., p. 32.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Th. M. Raest van Limburg, “In den strijd tegen de ontucht.” P. Kampffmeyer, “Das Wohnungselend der Grossstädte und seine Beziehungen zur Verbreitung der Geschlechtskrankheiten und zur Prostitution”, and “Die Wohnungsmissstände im Prostitutions- und im Schlafgängerwesen und ihre gesetzliche Reform”; Pfeiffer, “Das Wohnungselend der grossen Städte und seine Beziehungen zur Prostitution und den Geschlechtskrankheiten.”] [↑]
[126] Op. cit., p. 54.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. especially the “Report of the Departmental Committee on the Employment of Children, Oct., 1903.”] [↑]
[127] Op. cit., p. 247. See also Parent-Duchatelet, op. cit., I. p. 103; Röhrmann, op. cit., p. 44; Jeannel, op. cit., pp. 146–148; “Reports”, etc. (Session of 1882), pp. 15–17; K. Struntz, “Die erwerbsmässige Kinderarbeit und die Schule”, pp. 183 ff. (“Neue Zeit”, 1898–1899, I). [↑]
[128] Dr. A. Blaschko, “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, p. 22; “Hygiene der Prostitution”, pp. 40, 41. [↑]
[130] Dr. Bonhoeffer, op. cit., p. 109. [↑]
[131] See the detailed statistics, op. cit., I, pp. 79–84. [↑]
[135] Pp. 148, 149 [in original, pp. 151, 152]. See also: L. Faucher, “Études sur l’Angleterre”, I, pp. 276, 277; M. de Baets, “Les influences de la misère sur la criminalité”, pp. 35, 36; Stursberg, op. cit., pp. 49, 50; Commenge, op. cit., pp 13–15; L. Ferriani, “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, p 467. [↑]
[136] Op. cit., p. 149 [in original, p. 152]. For analogous cases see A. Bebel, “Die Frau und der Sozialismus”, pp. 195–197; “Les Scandales de Londres”, pp. 235–238; “Enquête betreffende werking en uitbreiding der wet van 19 September 1874 en naar den toestand van fabrieken en werkplaatsen”, 1887, deel V, p. 77; Dr. H Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, pp. 135, 136; Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 46–48; Commenge, op. cit., pp. 15–17; G. S., “Die weibliche Lohnarbeit und ihr Einfluss auf die Sittlichkeit und Kriminalität”, p. 748 (“Neue Zeit”, 1899–1900, II); L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, p. 308. [↑]
[137] See “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 23, 24. [↑]
[138] L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 409–411; G. S., op. cit., pp. 754–756.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon servants cf. further: O. Spann, “Die geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse im Dienstboten und Arbeiterinnenstande”; and R. de Ryckère, “La servante criminelle”, ch. IX.] [↑]
[139] Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 48–50.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: C. Jellinek, “Kellnerinnenelend” and Dr. H. Peters, “Zur Lage der Kellnerinnen im Grossherzogtum Baden.” Upon prostitution in the theater see V. v. Lepel, “Prostitution beim Theater.”] [↑]
[140] Stursberg, op. cit., pp. 55, 57; Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 42, 43; Pappritz, op. cit., pp. 13, 14. [↑]
[141] Op. cit., I, p. 107. [↑]
[144] H. Frégier, “Les classes dangereuses de la population dans les grandes villes”, I, p. 97; Lecour, op. cit., p. 244; L. Taxil, “La corruption fin-de-siècle”, p. 42; Commenge, op. cit., pp. 17–20; A. Aletrino, “Over eenige oorzaken der prostitutie”, pp. 21, 22; E. Gystrow, “Liebe und Liebesleben im XIX Jahrhundert”, p. 22. [↑]
[145] Op. cit., I, p. 107. [↑]
[147] Op. cit., I, pp. 104, 105. [↑]
[148] Session 1882, Appendix B, p. 52. [↑]
[150] “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 17, 18. See also B. Schönlank, “Zur Lage der in der Wäschefabrikation und Konfektionsbranche Deutschlands beschäftigen Arbeiterinnen”, pp. 126, 127 (“Neue Zeit”, 1888); Hirsch, op. cit., p. 46; Pappritz, op. cit., p. 10. [↑]
[151] Hirsch, op. cit., p. 57. [↑]
[152] P. 161. See also Faucher, op. cit., I, p. 277; Bebel, op. cit., p. 194; and Schäffle, op. cit., I, p. 261. Cf. Neher, op. cit., pp. 13 ff. [↑]
[154] P. 188 (“Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung, und Volkswirthschaft”, XII, 2). See also L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 227 ff., and 287 ff. [↑]
[156] III, p. 168. See also “Reports of the Select Committee,” etc. (Session 1882), pp. 15, 16. [↑]
[157] Op. cit., I, pp. 103–104. See also: Richelot, op. cit., pp. 577–579; Frégier, [[347]]op. cit., I, pp. 97, 98; Ducpetiaux, “De la condition physique et morale des jeunes ouvriers”, I, p. 315; “Die Prostitution in Berlin” (Anon.), pp. 84, 85; Loewe, “Die Prostitution”, pp. 135, 136; Röhrmann, op. cit., pp. 24, 25; Moreau-Christophe, op. cit., III, pp. 167, 168; Acton, op. cit., pp. 180 ff.; Hügel, op. cit., p. 208; Jeannel, op. cit., pp. 140–142; Lecour, op. cit., p. 248; Müller, “De Prostitutie”, pp. 10–11; du Camp, “Prostitution à Paris”, pp. 257, 258 (“Journal des économistes”, 1872); Kühn, “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 37, 38; Schäffle, op. cit., p. 261; von Oettingen, op. cit., pp. 212, 213; Domela Nieuwenhuis, “Zur Frage der Prostitution”, pp. 254 ff. (“Neue Zeit”, 1884); Stursberg, op. cit., pp. 51–53; Lux, “Die Prostitution”, pp. 10–12; Schönfeld, op. cit., pp. 269 ff.; Teifen, “Das Soziale Elende und die besitzenden Klassen in Oesterreich”, pp. 150 ff.; Taxil, op. cit., pp. 33–38; De Baets, op. cit., pp. 36, 37; Commenge, op. cit., pp. 28, 29, 36, 37; Blaschko, “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 16–21. [↑]
[158] L. Braun, op. cit., p. 555; Röhrmann, op. cit., pp. 46, 47; Pappritz, op. cit., p. 12. [↑]
[159] Kühn, op. cit., p. 38. [↑]
[160] Hatzig, “Der Mädchenhandel”, p. 514 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XX); Bebel, op. cit., pp. 190–192; “Reports of the Select Committee”, etc. (Session 1881); “Les scandales de Londres”, passim; Collard, “[De handel in blanke slavinnen]”, pp. 4–56.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: A. Mackirdy and W. N. Willis, “The White Slave Market”; Willis, “The White Slaves of London”; and H. Wagener, “Der Mädchenhandel.”] [↑]
[162] Collard, op. cit., pp. 13–15. Upon the procurer’s trade in general see: Parent-Duchatelet, op. cit., I, pp. 430–436; Richelot, op. cit., pp. 583–588; Acton, op. cit., p. 165; Lecour, op. cit., pp. 195–202; Carlier, op. cit., chap. II; Stursberg, op. cit., p. 53; Commenge, op. cit., pp. 60–90; Blaschko, “Hygiene der Prostitution und venerischen Krankheiten”, pp. 37, 38. [↑]
[163] Op. cit., pp. 600 and 637. [↑]
[164] P. 52 (Session 1882), Appendix B. [↑]
[167] Richelot, op. cit., pp. 664, 665; Acton, op. cit., p. 165; Pappritz, op. cit., pp. 17, 18. [↑]
[168] Tarnowsky, “Prostitution und Abolitionismus”, pp. 108 ff. [↑]
[169] Lombroso and Ferrero, “La femme criminelle et la prostituée”, p. 212. [↑]
[173] Op. cit., pp. 118, 119. [↑]
[174] See some typical examples cited by Dr. Magnan in his report to the second Congress of Criminal Anthropology: “De l’enfance des criminels dans les rapports avec la prédisposition naturelle au crime.” (“Actes,” pp. 60–63.)
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. H. F. Stelzner, “Die psychopathischen Konstitutionen und ihre sociologische Bedeutung.”] [↑]
[175] Commenge, op. cit., p. 107. [↑]
[176] Op. cit., I, p. 106. [↑]
[177] See further against Lombroso’s theory: R. Calwer, “Die erbliche Belastung der Prostituirten” (“Neue Zeit”, XII, 2); Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 15 ff.; Pappritz, op. cit., pp. 3–6.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Näcke, “Die Ueberbleibsel der Lombrosischen kriminalanthropologischen Theorien.”] [↑]
[178] See for example Blaschko, “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, p. 9. [↑]
[179] “The History of Human Marriage”, pp. 70, 71. [↑]
[180] [Note to the American Edition: Notable recent works are: E. Vandervelde, “Le socialisme et l’alcool” (“Essais socialistes”); E. Wurm, “Die Alkoholfrage”; A. Pistolese, “Alcoolismo e delinquenza”; and A. Dix, “Alkoholismus und Arbeiterschaft.”] [↑]
[181] The abuse of alcohol is much more extensive than is generally believed. Dr. Grotjahn gives as the amount that a normal man can take without being injured by it, 30–45 grams of absolute alcohol, the amount contained in a liter of beer, or a half-liter of light wine. (“Der Alkoholismus”, p. 143.) [↑]
[183] Op. cit., pp. 287, 288. [↑]
[185] Holst, “Arbeiders en Alkohol” (“Nieuwe Tijd”, VII), p. 527, and Grotjahn, op. cit., p. 225. [↑]
[186] Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, pp. 215, 216. [↑]
[187] Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 35–41. [↑]
[188] See J. Rae, “Der Achtstunden-Arbeitstag”, pp. 249, 250, where mention is made of the opposition of public-house keepers in Australia to the movement for an eight-hour day. Upon the shortening of the day and the decrease in the use of alcohol, see pp. 96, 107, 108 in the same work; Lux, “Socialpolitisches Handbuch”, pp. 328–329; Dr. G. M. den Tex, “Verkorting van den arbeidsdag”, pp. 28, 29, 34, 80, 117–120, 140; “Onmatig lange arbeidstijd en misbruik van sterken drank” (Anon.), pp. 17–20; Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 288–289; Roland-Holst, op. cit., pp. 530–532; Augagneur, “Les vraies causes et les vrais remèdes de l’alcoolisme”, pp. 76–77 (“Mouvement Socialiste”, 1900); Verhaeghe, “Le parti socialiste et la lutte contre l’alcool”, pp. 25–26 (“Mouvement Socialiste”, 1900). [↑]
[189] Given in detail in Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 277–283. [↑]
[190] See also Colajanni, “L’alcoolismo”, pp. 153 ff.; Zerboglio, “L’alcoolisme: causes et remèdes”, pp. 123, 124 (“Devenir Social”, 1895); Vandervelde, op. cit., p. 260, and “Die ökonomischen Faktoren des Alkoholismus”, pp. 747, 748 (“Neue Zeit”, 1901–1902, I); Verhaeghe, op. cit., pp. 203–205.
Upon the fact that the abuse of alcohol has consequences much more injurious for the badly nourished man than for others, see: A. Baer, “Der Alkoholismus”, p. 286; Colajanni, op. cit., p. 183; Grotjahn, op. cit., p. 273; Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, p. 203. [↑]
[191] Colajanni, op. cit., pp. 177, 178; Braun, “Berliner Wohnungsverhältnisse”, p. 22; Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 290–292; Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, pp. 205–208 and 217; Vandervelde, “Die ökonomischen Faktoren des Alkoholismus”, p. 747. [↑]
[193] Zerboglio, op. cit., p. 125. See also Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, p. 212; Colajanni, op. cit., pp. 181, 182. [↑]
[194] See upon this subject Colajanni, op. cit., pp. 168, 169; Verhaeghe, op. cit., pp. 222, 223; Holst, op. cit., p. 528. [↑]
[195] Pp. 75, 76. See also Colajanni, op. cit., pp. 169–173; Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 289–298; Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, pp. 225–227. [↑]
[196] Holst, op. cit., pp. 534, 535. [↑]
[197] Kautsky, “Der Alkoholismus und seine Bekämpfung” (“Neue Zeit”, 1890–91, II); Vandervelde, “Het alkoholisme en de arbeidsvoorwaarden in België,” pp. 268, 271, 272; Holst, op. cit., pp. 528–536. [↑]
[198] See, among others, Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 296–298. [↑]
[199] “Condition of the Working Class”, pp. 102, 103 [in original pp. 105, 106]. See also: Ducpetiaux, “De la condition physique et morale des jeunes ouvriers”, I, pp. 352 ff.; Battaglia, “La dinamica del delitto”, pp. 415–417. [↑]
[200] “De la prostitution dans la ville de Paris”, I, p. 139. [↑]
[201] “Zur Kenntnis des grossstädtischen Bettel- und Vagabondentums. Zweiter Beitrag: Prostituirte”, p. 119 (“Zeitsch. f. d. ges. Strw.”, XXIII). See also: Logan, “The Great Social Evil”, pp. 55–56, 59; Ladame, “De la prostitution dans ses rapports avec l’alcoolisme, le crime et la folie”, pp. 7–14; Colajanni, op. cit., p. 179; Lombroso and Ferrero, “La femme criminelle et la prostituée”, p. 538. [↑]
[202] Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, p. 211; see also Colajanni, op. cit., p. 183; and Kautsky, op. cit., p. 50. [↑]
[203] Pp. 50, 51. See also Battaglia, op. cit., pp. 418–420, and Zerboglio, op. cit., p. 125. [↑]
[204] “Ergebnisse einer Umfrage über den Alkoholgenuss der Schulkinder in Nieder-Oesterreich”, p. 82. See also Ducpetiaux, op. cit., pp. 367–370. [↑]
[205] See Baer, op. cit., pp. 144, 145; Colajanni, op. cit., pp. 139–142; Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 178, 179; Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, pp. 209–211; Vandervelde, “Die ökonomischen Faktoren des Alkoholismus”, pp. 741, 742. [↑]
[206] Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 300, 301. [↑]
[207] Holst, op. cit., p. 530.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further upon alcoholism among the Jews, Dr. L. Cheinisse, “Die Rassenpathologie und der Alkoholismus bei den Juden.”] [↑]
[208] Vandervelde, “Die ökonomischen Faktoren des Alkoholismus”, pp. 742, 743. [↑]
[209] See Zerboglio, op. cit., pp. 125–127; Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 149–155; Verhaeghe, op. cit., pp. 187–189. [↑]
[210] This has actually happened, certain distilleries in the whisky trust being closed to increase the profits. [↑]
[211] See Vandervelde, “Het alcoholisme en de arbeidsvoorwaarden in België”, p. 268. [↑]
[212] See Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 219–221. [↑]
[213] See Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 5–12. [↑]
[214] Grotjahn, op. cit., p. 9. See also: Hirschfeld, “Die historische Entwicklung des Alkoholmissbrauchs” (VIII Intern. Cong. gegen den Alkoholismus). [↑]
[215] The assertion that the Germans were addicted to alcohol before the invasion is erroneous. Agriculture was not sufficiently developed among these peoples for a regular consumption of alcohol. See Kautsky, op. cit., pp. 46, 47, and Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 13–15. [↑]
[216] See Kautsky, op. cit., p. 47, and Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 20 ff. [↑]
BOOK II.
CRIMINALITY.
CHAPTER I.
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.[1]
A. Definition of Crime.[2]
Crime belongs to the category of punishable acts. However, as the term is applicable to only a part of such acts, it is necessary to be more exact. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to exclude successively all the groups of acts which are punishable without being crimes.
The first exclusion is in connection with the question, “Who is it that punishes?” You cannot call that a crime against which one or several individuals take action of their own motion, and where the social group to which they belong does not move as such. In this case the word “punish” is an improper term, for the act in question is one of personal vengeance. Nor can you apply the name of crime to the act of a group of persons forming a social entity, against an analogous group. The reaction of the second group called forth by such act is not properly punishment, but “blood-” or “group-vengeance”, and is in reality nothing but a kind of war.[3]
The second exclusion concerns the nature of the punishment. Acts [[378]]which bring no other punishment than moral disapprobation are not reckoned as crimes. They are not so called unless they are threatened with something more severe than this.
The provisional result is, then, as follows: A crime is an act committed within a group of persons that form a social unit, and whose author is punished by the group (or a part of it) as such, or by organs designated for this purpose, and this by a penalty whose nature is considered to be more severe than that of moral disapprobation. This definition, however, considers only the formal side of the conception of crime; it says nothing as to its essence. It is proper, then, to consider next the material side.
Crime is an act.[4] The question which presents itself first of all is this: Is crime considered from a biological point of view an abnormal act? The answer to this, which is of the highest importance for the etiology of crime, must be negative. From a biological point of view almost all crimes must be ranked as normal acts. The process which takes place in the brain of the gendarme when he kills a poacher who resists arrest is identical with that which takes place in the brain of the poacher killing the gendarme who pursues him. It is only the social environment which classes the second act rather than the first as a crime. From the biological point of view homicide is not an abnormal act. Sociology and history prove that men have always killed when they thought it necessary. No one would maintain, for example, that those who take part in a war are biologically abnormal.
The same observation may be applied to assaults. No anthropologist would maintain that a policeman clubbing a mob of strikers was performing a biologically abnormal act, or that the strikers were abnormal because they did not choose to let themselves be maltreated without defending themselves. It is only the social circumstances which class this defense as a crime, and cause the action of the policeman to be considered otherwise.
The same thing is true with regard to theft. For centuries it was considered the right of the soldiers to pillage the country of the conquered (and in colonial wars it is still done at times). Soldiers are not, however, from this fact considered to be biologically abnormal individuals. And yet there is no biological difference between these acts and those of the ordinary thief; for anthropology does not ask whether one steals on a large scale or on a small.[5] [[379]]
Continuing our researches into the essence of crime, it is obvious that it is an immoral act, and one of a serious character. Why do we find any act immoral? This question cannot be answered by asking of each individual separately, Why do you think such and such an act immoral? Moral disapprobation is primarily a question of feeling; ordinarily we take no account of why any given act is approved or disapproved by us. Sociology alone can solve the problem by taking the acts considered as immoral in relation with the social organization in which they take place. And in treating the matter thus we observe that the acts called immoral are those which are harmful to the interests of a group of persons united by the same interests. Since the social structure is changing continually, the ideas of what is immoral (and consequently of what is or is not criminal) change with these modifications.[6]
Considered in this way from the material side, a crime is an anti-social act, an act which is harmful in a considerable degree to the interests of a certain group of persons. This definition is not yet complete, however, for many acts of this nature are not crimes.
The best thing to do in order to find what is lacking in this definition is to examine a concrete case. A short time ago there was added to the Dutch penal code a new article threatening with a penal term of some years the railroad employe who went out on a strike. The proposal of this law, presented after a partial strike of the railroad employes, aroused great indignation on the part of organized labor, while the bourgeoisie in general regarded a strike as an immoral act which would henceforth be followed by a severe penalty. Notwithstanding the violent opposition on the part of the deputies of the labor party the plan was accepted.
It is clear that what must be added to our definition (already contained implicitly in the formal definition) is that the act must be prejudicial to the interests of those who have the power at their command. If, in the case cited above, the deputies of the proletariat had had the majority the Dutch penal code would contain no penalties against railroad employes on a strike. Power then is the necessary condition for those who wish to class a certain act as a crime.
It follows that in every society which is divided into a ruling class and a class ruled penal law has been principally constituted according [[380]]to the will of the former. We must at once add that the present legal prescriptions are not always directed against the class of those ruled, but that most of them are directed against acts that are prejudicial to the interests of both classes equally (for example, homicide, rape, etc.). These acts would without doubt continue to be considered criminal if the power were to pass into the hands of those who are at present the governed. However, in every existing penal code hardly any act is punished if it does not injure the interests of the dominant class as well as the other, and the law touching it protects only the interests of the class dominated. The rare exceptions are explained by the fact that the lower classes are not wholly without power.
Before closing our observations we must put the question, What is the object of punishment? It seems to me that there are elements of different nature in punishment as prescribed in our present penal codes. To begin with the object of punishment is to be found in the feelings of vengeance excited by the crime, for which satisfaction is desired. But after this punishment has three things in view:
First, To put the criminal where he can do no further harm, either permanently or for a certain period.
Second, To inspire the criminal, and other persons as well, with a fear of committing crime.
Third, To reform the criminal as far as possible.
Most criminologists do not admit that punishment is still in great part a manifestation of the desire for vengeance (although regulated). Nevertheless it is indubitable that he who desires that some one shall be punished solely because he has committed a misdeed, and without his punishment’s being of any use to the criminal or to others, wishes simply to satisfy his feelings of revenge. The most subtle theories cannot refute this fact. Those who from the height of their knowledge disdain the primitive peoples who practice the rule of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”, are nevertheless on the same plane in this matter, as those they scorn.[7]
It is unnecessary to say that the minority that wishes to exclude all idea of vengeance from the penal code, and sees in it only a means of securing the safety of society, and, if possible, of reforming the criminal, is at present still very small, so that the ideas of this group are almost never realized in our present penalties.[8] [[381]]
This is our conclusion, then, that a crime is an act committed within a group of persons forming a social unit; that it prejudices the interests of all, or of those of the group who are powerful; that, for this reason, the author of the crime is punished by the group (or a part of the group) as such or by specially ordained instruments, and this by a penalty more severe than moral disapprobation.
To find the causes of crime we must, then, first solve the question: “Why does an individual do acts injurious to the interests of those with whom he forms a social unit?”, or in other words: “Why does a man act egoistically?”
B. The Origin of Egoistic Acts in General.[9]
What are the causes of egoistic acts? How does it happen that one man does harm to another? The answers that have been given to this primeval question may be divided into two groups. The first group attributes the cause to the man himself, the second to his environment.
The great majority of persons who treat of this question settle it in favor of innate egoism. They are of the opinion that man is egoistic by nature and that environment can produce no change in this (this is implied in the Christian doctrine of original sin). This opinion, in order to be accepted as true, needs facts to prove that egoism has always and everywhere been the same among men.
Others, among whom are most of the well-known sociologists, also consider egoism as a fundamental trait of man, but are at the same time of the opinion that little by little egoism has decreased, that altruism has developed, and that this process continues.[10] For this hypothesis to be correct it must be shown by the facts:
First. That the peoples of a much lower degree of social evolution than ours show much more egoistic traits of character.[11]
Second. That the animals from whom man has descended are inveterate egoists.
This theory is naturally of the highest importance for criminal [[382]]science, and it becomes still more so from the fact that, according to Professor Lombroso, crime is a manifestation of atavism, that is, that some individuals present anew traits of character belonging to their very remote ancestors. The criminal would thus be a savage in our present society. We must therefore examine to see whether the said theory is correct.
We have only to consult one of the standard works on zoölogy to perceive that there is no basis in this science to uphold the theory. There are some animals that are complete egoists. Two harpies (South American birds of prey) for example, upon meeting will attack each other at once and will fight till one is conquered. Other animals, on the contrary, show very altruistic traits of character. The following extract from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”, is one of many proofs which might be adduced: “Animals of many kinds are social;… We will confine our attention to the higher social animals; and pass over insects, although some of these are social, and aid one another in many important ways. The most common mutual service in the higher animals is to warn one another of danger by means of the united senses of all. Every sportsman knows, as Dr. Jaeger remarks, how difficult it is to approach animals in a herd or troop. Wild horses and cattle do not, I believe, make any danger-signal; but the attitude of any one of them who first discovers an enemy, warns the others. Rabbits stamp loudly on the ground with their hind-feet as a signal; sheep and chamois do the same with their fore-feet, uttering likewise a whistle. Many birds, and some mammals, post sentinels, which in the case of seals are said generally to be the females. The leader of a troop of monkeys acts as the sentinel, and utters cries expressive both of danger and of safety. Social animals perform many little services for each other: horses nibble, and cows lick each other, on any spot which itches; monkeys search each other for external parasites; and Brehm states that after a troop of the Cercopithecus griseo-viridis has rushed through a thorny brake, each monkey stretches itself on a branch, and another monkey sitting by, ‘conscientiously’ examines its fur, and extracts every thorn or burr.
“Animals also render more important services to one another: thus wolves and some other beasts of prey hunt in packs, and aid one another in attacking their victims. Pelicans fish in concert. The Hamádryas baboons turn over stones to find insects, etc.; and when they come to a large one, as many as can stand round, turn it over together and share the booty. Social animals mutually defend each other. Bull bisons in North America, when there is danger, drive the [[383]]cows and calves to the middle of the herd, whilst they defend the outside.… In Abyssinia, Brehm encountered a great troop of baboons, who were crossing a valley: some had already ascended the opposite mountain, and some were still in the valley: the latter were attacked by the dogs, but the old males immediately hurried down from the rocks, and with mouths widely opened roared so fearfully, that the dogs quickly drew back. They were again encouraged to the attack; but by this time all the baboons had reascended the heights, excepted a young one, about six months old, who, loudly calling for aid, climbed on a block of rock, and was surrounded. Now one of the largest males, a true hero, came down again from the mountain, slowly went to the young one, coaxed him, and triumphantly led him away—the dogs being too much astonished to make an attack. I cannot resist giving another scene which was witnessed by this same naturalist; an eagle seized a young Cercopithecus, which, by clinging to a branch, was not at once carried off; it cried loudly for assistance, upon which the other members of the troop, with much uproar, rushed to the rescue, surrounded the eagle, and pulled out so many feathers, that he no longer thought of his prey, but only how to escape.…
“It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals.”[12]
Later I shall treat of the question why some species of animals show altruistic proclivities while others do not. At present I wish to inquire whether peoples showing a much lower degree of civilization than our own are much more egoistic.
Nansen, the celebrated explorer, in speaking of the Eskimos, among whom he sojourned for some time, says: “The Greenlander is of all God’s creatures gifted with the best disposition. Good-humor, peaceableness, and evenness of temper are the most prominent features in his character. He is eager to live on as good a footing as possible with his fellow-men and therefore refrains from offending them and much more from using coarse terms of abuse. He is very loth to contradict another even should he be saying what he knows to be false. If he does so, he takes care to word his remonstrance in the mildest possible form, and it would be very hard indeed for him to say right out that the other was lying. He is chary of [[384]]telling other people truths that he thinks will be unpleasant to them; in such cases he chooses the vaguest expressions, even with reference to such indifferent things as wind and weather. His peaceableness even goes so far that when anything is stolen from him, which seldom happens, he does not as a rule reclaim it even if he knows who has taken it. The result is that there is seldom or never any quarreling among them.[13]
“The only thing that makes him [the Eskimo] really unhappy is to see others in want, and therefore he shares with them whenever he has anything to share.”
“The Greenlander is, on the whole, like a sympathetic child with respect to the needs of others; his first social law is to help his neighbor.”[14]
“One of the most prominent and attractive traits in the Eskimo’s moral character is certainly his integrity.… It is of special importance for the Eskimo that he should be able to rely with confidence upon his neighbors and his fellow-men; and it is the first condition of this mutual confidence, on which depends all united action in the battle for life, that every man should be upright in his dealings with his neighbors. The Eskimo therefore regards it as in the highest degree dishonorable to steal from his house-mates or from his fellow-villagers, and it is very seldom that anything of the sort occurs.”[15]
“The worst thing that can happen to a Greenlander is to be made ridiculous in the eyes of his fellows, and to be scoffed at by them.”[16]
With regard to the American Indians living in the region of the Columbia river, Dr. Waitz makes the following statement: “The qualities regarded as virtues by these peoples are honesty and love of truth, courage, obedience to parents and chiefs, and love of wife and child; and the Salish, whose moral ideals are here especially indicated, in general come up to these requirements very well. With them and with their cousins, the ‘Pends-d’Oreilles’ and Spokane, crimes are very rare, and a mere rebuke, administered by the chief, is of great effectiveness. Old age, too, finds among the Salish benevolent support and care, though children who have the misfortune to lose their fathers have often a sad lot, their property being frequently taken from them. Most of these peoples are upright and honest, live together in the most peaceable fashion, and have friendly intercourse with the whites.”[17] [[385]]
G. Catlin, one of the authors who are best informed upon everything concerning the North American Indians, says of their character:
“I have roamed about from time to time during seven or eight years, visiting and associating with, some three or four hundred thousand of these people, under an almost infinite variety of circumstances; and from the very many and decided voluntary acts of their hospitality and kindness I feel bound to pronounce them, by nature, a kind and hospitable people. I have been welcomed generally in their country, and treated to the best that they could give me, without any charges made for my board; they have often escorted me through their enemies’ country at some hazard to their own lives, and aided me in passing mountains and rivers with my awkward baggage; and under all of these circumstances of exposure, no Indian ever betrayed me, struck me a blow, or stole from me a shilling’s worth of my property that I am aware of.
“This is saying a great deal, (and proving it too, if the reader believe me) in favour of the virtues of these people; when it is borne in mind, as it should be, that there is no law in their land to punish a man for theft—that locks and keys are not known in their country—that the commandments have never been divulged amongst them; nor can any human retribution fall upon the head of thief, save the disgrace which attaches as a stigma to his character, in the eyes of his people about him.
“And thus in these little communities, strange as it may seem, in the absence of all systems of jurisprudence, I have often beheld peace and happiness, and quiet, reigning supreme, for which even kings and emperors might envy them. I have seen rights and virtue protected, and wrongs redressed; and I have seen conjugal, filial and paternal affection in the simplicity and contentedness of nature. I have unavoidably, formed warm and enduring attachments to some of these men which I do not wish to forget—who have brought me near to their hearts, and in our final separation have embraced me in their arms, commended me and my affairs to the keeping of the great Spirit.”[18]
In treating of the question of which of the two are the happier, the civilized nations or the peoples he visited, the same author says:
“I have long looked with the eye of a critic, into the jovial faces of these sons of the forest, unfurrowed with cares—where the agonizing feeling of poverty had never stamped distress upon the brow. I have [[386]]watched the bold, intrepid step—the proud, yet dignified deportment of Nature’s man, in fearless freedom, with a soul unalloyed by mercenary lusts, too great to yield to laws or power except from God. As these independent fellows are all joint-tenants of the soil, they are all rich, and none of the steepings of comparative poverty can strangle their just claims to renown. Who (I could ask) can look without admiring, into a society where peace and harmony prevail—where virtue is cherished—where rights are protected and wrongs are redressed—with no laws, but the laws of honour, which are the supreme laws of their land. Trust the boasted virtues of civilized society for awhile, with all its intellectual refinements, to such a tribunal, and then write down the degradation of the ‘lawless savage’ and our transcendent virtues.”
Lewis H. Morgan, after passing a great part of his life among the Iroquois, says with regard to them: “All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was organized. A structure composed of such units would of necessity bear the impress of their character, for as the unit so the compound. It serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity universally an attribute of Indian character.”[19]
He describes the hospitality of the peoples mentioned as follows: “Among the Iroquois hospitality was an established usage. If a man entered an Indian house in any of their villages, whether a villager, or a stranger, it was the duty of the women therein to set food before him. An omission to do this would have been a discourtesy amounting to an affront. If hungry, he ate; if not hungry, courtesy required that he should taste the food and thank the giver. This would be repeated at every house he entered, and at whatever hour in the day. As a custom it was upheld by a rigorous public sentiment. The same hospitality was extended to strangers from their own and from other tribes. Upon the advent of the European race among them it was also extended to them. This characteristic of barbarous society, wherein food was the principal concern of life, is a remarkable fact. The law of hospitality, as administered by the American aborigines, [[387]]tended to the final equalization of subsistence. Hunger and destitution could not exist at one end of an Indian village or in one section of an encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere in the same village or encampment.[20]
A. R. Wallace speaks as follows of the primitive population of South America and the Indian Archipelago: “I have lived with communities of savages in South America and in the East, who have no laws or law courts but the public opinion of the village freely expressed. Each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of these rights rarely or never takes place. In such a community, all are nearly equal. There are none of those wide distinctions, of education and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master and servant, which are the product of our civilization; there is none of the wide-spreading division of labor, which, while it increases wealth, produces also conflicting interests; there is not that severe competition and struggle for existence, or for wealth, which the dense population of civilized countries inevitably creates. All incitements to great crimes are thus wanting, and petty ones are repressed, partly by the influence of public opinion, but chiefly by that natural sense of justice and of his neighbor’s right, which seems to be, in some degree, inherent in every race of man.”[21]
In his work, “Village Communities in the East and West”, H. S. Maine says:
“Whenever a corner is lifted up of the veil which hides from us the primitive condition of mankind, even of such parts of it as we know to have been destined to civilisation, there are two positions, now very familiar to us, which seem to be signally falsified by all we are permitted to see—All men are brothers, and all men are equal. The scene before us is rather that which the animal world presents to the mental eye of those who have the courage to bring home to themselves the facts answering to the memorable theory of Natural Selection. Each fierce little community is perpetually at war with its neighbour, tribe with tribe, village with village. The never-ceasing attacks of the strong on the weak end in the manner expressed by the monotonous formula which so often recurs in the pages of Thucydides, ‘they put the men to the sword, the women and children they sold into slavery.’ Yet, even amid all this cruelty and carnage, we find the [[388]]germs of ideas, which have spread over the world. There is still a place and a sense in which men are brothers and equals. The universal belligerency is the belligerency of one total group, tribe, or village, with another; but in the interior of the groups the regimen is one not of conflict and confusion but rather of ultra-legality. The men who composed the primitive communities believed themselves to be kinsmen in the most literal sense of the word; and surprising as it may seem, there are a multitude of indications that in one stage of thought they must have regarded themselves as equals.”[22]
Scores of pages might be filled with facts proving that the primitive peoples of all races and in all parts of the world were not only not egoistic in their relations with the people they lived among, but rather the contrary. In conclusion I wish to note the opinions of two distinguished sociologists, Steinmetz and Kovalewsky, opinions which derive significance from the great ethnological knowledge of these authors.
At the Fifth Congress of Criminal Anthropology Dr. Steinmetz, in speaking upon the explanation of crime by the hypothesis of atavism, says: “It is not at all probable that our true born-criminal resembles the normal savage. The former is characterized by his ferocious egoism, while the latter is nothing if not a devoted member of the group whose customs he respects and whose interests he defends; the savage is very tender toward the children whom the criminal abandons; the savage is only cruel toward the enemy, the criminal toward all the world.”[23]
After having cited different altruistic traits of primitive peoples Kovalewsky says: “The enumeration would wear out your patience if one were to cite all the proofs that travelers give of the care that savages and barbarians have for their mutual welfare, and the fulness of their charity. To these facts, which indicate the prolonged existence of a sort of communism, others correspond.…”[24]
I am of the opinion that no one, taking the above facts into consideration, will maintain that man has always and everywhere shown the same egoistic traits, or that there has been a gradual evolution from egoism towards altruism.
It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that primitive peoples [[389]]present under all circumstances the altruistic characteristics that I have mentioned. I have already remarked that the position of woman is in general very dependent. In general the primitive peoples are very fond of their children and give them very tender care. Nevertheless infanticide is not uncommon among those who are at a low stage of civilization. And I have already remarked that among nomadic peoples the sick and aged were often abandoned. Here are then contradictions which it is necessary to explain.
Apparently—but only apparently—an evolution from egoism towards altruism has really taken place and has not yet ceased. This appearance is the effect of the alteration in the character of the egoism under the present economic system; it has become less violent than at earlier periods. The fight is no longer carried on with fire-arms or cold steel, but with other weapons no less dangerous, and this is what is generally lost sight of. We note that in ancient times the prisoners were killed; that later they were sold into slavery; that slavery was superseded by serfdom, which in its turn gave place to free labor.
But it is not always a growing altruistic sentiment that has been the motive in these changes. The life of prisoners of war has not been spared from reasons of humanity, but because the extension of the productivity of labor made it more profitable to make a prisoner work than to kill him. And slavery was not abolished because slave-owners had become less egoistic, but because it was more profitable to make free laborers work than to make slaves do so.[25] We cannot speak of the diminution of egoism, but of the moderating of violence in the course of time. It cannot be maintained that a capitalist who tries by a lock-out to force his workmen to break with their union, in order that he may escape the danger of a decrease in his profits through a strike, and who in this way condemns them and their families to hunger, is less egoistic than the slave-owner driving his slaves to harder labor. The former does not use force—it is useless—he has a surer weapon at his command, the suffering with which he can strike his workmen; he seems less egoistic, but in reality is as egoistic as the latter. The great speculator who, by manipulating the market, forces thousands of persons to pay more for the necessaries of life, and to become his tributaries as it were, is not less egoistic than the robber-baron of the middle ages who, arms in hand, forced the traveling [[390]]merchants to pay him tribute. The difference is merely that the former attains his end without using violence like the latter. Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which, in place of the exploited person’s being robbed he is compelled by poverty to use all his powers for the benefit of the exploiter.[26]
The same thing is true of colonial history. At first the aborigines of the countries explored by the Europeans were often pillaged and massacred. This system has long been abandoned, not from altruism however, but because it is more profitable to make a conquered people work than to pillage and exterminate them. When they do not submit voluntarily, force is used as heretofore.
The apparent improvement has yet another cause. Christianity preaches “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.” And since this maxim has been often preached and many Christians have it always in their mouths, men come to believe that it is really put into practice. The contrary is true. The fact that the duty of altruism is so much insisted upon is the most convincing proof that it is not generally practiced or it would not be so much spoken and preached about. There are many persons in our days who ask nothing better than to see men act altruistically, but they preach in the wilderness; their wish has not come true. Present society is moulded by egoism. The egoism is less violent, however, and more disguised.
Before speaking of the real causes of egoism and altruism it may be well to attempt to answer the question, Whence come these inexact ideas? It is not difficult, in my opinion, to explain how it comes about that many men believe that the “homo homini lupus” of Hobbes has been true always and everywhere. The adherents of this opinion have studied principally men who live under capitalism, or under civilization; their correct conclusion has been that egoism is the predominant characteristic of these men, and they have adopted the simplest explanation of the phenomenon and say that this trait is inborn.
If they had known the periods anterior to civilization, they would have noted that the “homo homini lupus” is an historical phenomenon applicable during a relatively short period,[27] and that consequently it is impossible that egoism should be innate in man. However great have been the social modifications during the period of civilization, the principal aim of men has always been, and still is, to acquire [[391]]personal wealth, and men still remain divided into classes, that is into groups whose economic interests are contrary. This is why an examination of the earlier periods is of such high importance for sociology.
An erroneous interpretation of the Darwinian theory has also contributed to bring about the strange notion of the eternal character of the struggle of all against all. Darwin himself maintains nothing of the sort. In his “Origin of Species” he says in the clearest terms that the struggle between the individuals of the same species does not at all happen in every species: “There must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.”[28]
The explanation of the second hypothesis, that of the evolution from egoism towards altruism, is more complicated. In the first place the facts adduced in support of it are not numerous, and they serve rather to illustrate a theory than to furnish the materials by which it may be justified. In the second place a part of the ethnological materials in relation to the question it has been impossible to utilize. They have been collected partly by persons convinced beforehand of the superiority of Christian morality to every other system, and who consequently disapprove of everything opposed to it, and partly by persons whose own conduct has caused the enmity manifested by the peoples with whom they have come into contact. No part of the history of civilization offers a more hideous spectacle than that of colonization.[29] In the third place it is necessary to exclude peoples that have had much contact with Europeans or other civilized peoples. In the fourth place we often lose sight of the fact that primitive peoples show great differences of development, and consequently cannot be placed in the same rank.[30] For example, if peoples despotically governed show strong egoistic tendencies, we have no right to declare that all primitive peoples are egoistic.
Finally it is of the highest importance in studying primitive peoples to make the distinction between the acts which have to do with persons of the same social group, and those which have to do with strangers. One of the principal causes of the charge of egoism made against primitive peoples is to be found in the fact that this dualism of ethics [[392]]is forgotten. In the passages I have cited (those from Maine and Steinmetz, for instance) the great difference between acts committed within and without the group is brought out. We have seen that the Indians of North America, although very altruistic toward those who form the same group with them, as also toward their guests, are the most pitiless enemies of those who attack their independence or their hunting ground. Now it has been by these last acts that these peoples have been generally judged, a wholly wrong method, since the “dualism of ethics” has always existed. Great would be the astonishment if any one were to maintain that the South African war proved that the English were a nation of murderers and incendiaries. Yet this is just the sort of reasoning that is applied to primitive peoples.[31]
How does it happen that some animal species are social while others are not? It is impossible to maintain with some authors that sociability increases according to the degree of development attained by the animal.[32] Certain insects, for example, are endowed with pronounced social feelings, while the cat tribe and some kinds of birds are on the contrary unsocial. Nevertheless the latter occupy a higher place in the scale than the former. The explanation, then, must be sought elsewhere.[33]
There are divers reasons that draw a more or less considerable number of animals to one place—the fact of being born in the same locality, for example. Most animals are social when they are young, even those which are no longer so when full-grown, like the arachnids. Another cause that brings animals together is emigration towards a country because of great changes of temperature. A third cause, probably the most important, that unites animals of the same species is the abundance of the food-supply of certain countries.
However, the occasional assembling of animals does not explain why certain animals are social while others are not. Lions, for example, often meet in places where they come to drink, and yet do not become social. It is not probable that there are animals who have remained together because they have comprehended the advantages [[393]]of a life in common, for this would suppose an intelligence on their part which it is difficult to attribute to them. In order that these animals should remain together they must find it agreeable, and disagreeable to be isolated.
When we study the social species of animals we notice that the life in common is in general one of their most powerful weapons in the struggle for existence, a weapon without which it would be nearly or quite impossible for them to maintain the fight. Consequently the animals for which the life in common is advantageous and which possess social instincts stronger than others, have, when brought together by any cause whatever, a greater chance to survive.[34] Per contra the animals who have to stalk their prey have more chance of surviving when life in common is disagreeable to them. It is therefore by survival that social feelings are developed in some species of animals and not in others.[35] Habit, and the tendency to imitate increase these feelings considerably.
The advantages to certain species of animals resulting from life in common are of two kinds; in the first place a better defense against their enemies, and in the second place greater ease in procuring subsistence. Wild cattle give us an example of the first case; while the wolves who in winter gather into packs for purposes of the chase, because food has become scarce, furnish us an example of the second. For other animals (like the simians) social sentiments are helpful in both ways.
It is unnecessary to amplify further upon the two ways in which life in groups is of advantage to certain species of animals. We have yet to turn our attention to the qualities developed by the group struggle for existence.
One of the principal characteristics of social animals is the pleasure they experience in living in common, so that a social animal is unhappy if he is separate from those of the group in which he lives. Further it is necessary that the animal that cannot live alone, and is happy with his group, should also feel a sympathy with that group. Pleasure or its opposite felt by any individual reacts upon the whole group. A social being will try then to favor the interests of his fellows as far as he can, and in so far as he comprehends these interests. This sympathy will not extend to the whole species but only to the group. [[394]]The general interest of the group does not permit the sympathy to embrace the whole species, but on the contrary requires one group to fight the other if, for example, the latter interferes with its food-supply. And even within the limits of the group the general interest may demand that a sick or wounded individual be abandoned, when by its presence it would for example, attract beasts of prey, and thus put the existence of all in danger.
Highly developed sympathy produces the spirit of sacrifice, which impels the individual to assist his companions sometimes even at the risk of his life.[36] This quality is reinforced by the desire of gaining the praise and avoiding the blame of companions, which desire in its turn is brought about only by the life in common. For the one that lives in conjunction with others, and takes pleasure in doing so, whose interests are those of the members of the group, must be sensible of the approval or disapproval of his acts felt by others, since their feelings of pleasure or displeasure react upon himself. The lack of the power of speech among animals, however, limits the force of praise or blame among them.
We come now to the question: what are the causes of altruism among men?[37] It must be considered as certain that man has always lived in groups more or less large, and it is even very probable that he is descended from animals equally social.[38] A study of the means man has of sustaining the struggle for existence proves that they are of such a nature that he would have succumbed if he had lived in isolation. Kautsky puts it thus: “… man … whose mightiest and most effective, almost whose only weapon, indeed, in the struggle for existence, is association. He is, to be sure, distinguished above other animals by his intelligence, but this too is to the fruit of society, for in isolation he becomes dull and stupid. All man’s other weapons in the struggle for existence are less efficient than those of the beasts. He has no weapons of attack like the beasts of prey, nor is he protected by his size like the elephant, hippopotamus and rhinoceros. He lacks the quickness of the squirrel and deer, and cannot repair his losses through superabundant fertility.”[39]
It is therefore on account of his constitution and of the struggle [[395]]that he has had to sustain for his existence that man is a social being; in other words, those who showed social instincts stronger than the others ran less danger of succumbing in the contest for life, and had more chance of transmitting their leanings to their posterity. As man has greater intellectual capacities than the animals he is more capable of understanding the joys and sorrows of his fellows, and so is better able to assist the one and avoid the other. In the second place he has a developed language at his command, through which a great influence can be exercised upon conduct by blame and praise.[40]
The fact that man is born with social instincts does not, however, explain altruism sufficiently, for among animal species there is not one whose individuals have done so much harm to one another as men, who, though they are social beings, are capable of committing the most egoistic acts. How shall we explain these contradictions?
We have seen above that primitive peoples, to whom we have referred showed very altruistic traits of character. The members of a group extend mutual aid, and, in their relations with one another, are benevolent, honest, truthful, and very susceptible to the opinions of others,[41] etc.
It is impossible to explain this either by the race to which these peoples belong or by the climate in which they live, for they are of different races (for example North American Indians and the Hindoos of the delta of the Ganges) and live under different climates (as the Eskimos and the South American Indians). Besides this some of these peoples show towards strangers, qualities directly contrary to those they display toward members of their own group. Thus, as we have already remarked, the North American Indians are most cruel enemies, most pitiless toward those who are not of their group, while they are quite the reverse toward their own fellow-tribesmen. It is plain, then, that their altruistic sentiments have nothing to do with race or climate.
Consequently the cause can only be found in the social environment, which is determined in its turn by the mode of production. What follows will show that in the last instance it is the mode of production that is able to develop the social predisposition innate in man (not in the same measure for each individual, which is a question that I shall return to) or prevent this disposition from being developed, or may even destroy it entirely. Upon examining the modes of production in force among the peoples cited we see that they are characterized [[396]]by the following traits, very different from those of the present system.
The first of these characteristic traits is this: production takes place among these peoples for personal consumption and not for exchange as with us. It has often been claimed that the primitive peoples lived in a state of communism. Taken in the sense of a communism in production this assertion is true only in part; except for hunts undertaken in common, production was not carried on in common but was individual. The weapons and utensils of the hunt were private property, while the hunting-ground was held in common. Just so as soon as architectural technique made some progress the houses often became common property. At its inception agriculture was not practiced in common. It was only when it had attained a certain development that this was sometimes the case.[42] But if we take communism in the sense of consumption in common, then the assertion becomes much more exact. I do not mean to say that consumption always took place in common (though several primitive peoples took their food in common), but when from whatever cause some members of the group had failed to produce, the other members who had been more fortunate provided for them. The productivity of labor was still small; there was not generally any surplus of labor. Even if there had been there could not have been any possibility of exchange, since the division of labor was very slight, and consequently each one was capable of making for himself what others would have been able to offer in exchange.
The second characteristic of the modes of production of the peoples in question is bound up with the first, namely that there was neither wealth nor poverty. If there was privation (through scarcity of game, for example), all suffered; if there was abundance, all profited by it.[43]
The third fact to be noted is that the subordination of man to nature was very great, so great that we, who have so largely subjugated the forces of nature, can have no idea of it. If primitive men were very weak in their contest with nature even when joined together in a single group, individually they were absolutely unable to maintain the struggle, and were thus forced to unite.
If we consider the characteristics of the primitive modes of production it becomes clear, it seems to me, why the primitive peoples were not more egoistic. They had neither rich nor poor; their economic [[397]]interests were either parallel or equal (the latter in the case of production in common); the economic life, therefore, did not arouse egoistic ideas—they were not led into temptation. Where the economic system does not produce egoistic ideas it accustoms men to being unegoistic, and if their interests do happen occasionally to conflict, the matter is looked at altruistically and not egoistically. And since the economic life is the “conditio sine qua non” of life in general, and thus occupies the important place in human existence, it stamps the whole life with its non-egoistic character. Since the struggle for existence must be sustained in common against nature, if it is to be efficacious it binds human interests so closely together that they are inseparable; the interest of one is the same as that of his comrade.
We shall now understand why primitive men feel themselves to be first of all the members of a unit; why they not only abstain from acts harmful to their companions, but come to their aid whenever they can; why they are honest, benevolent, and truthful towards the members of their group, and why public opinion has so great an influence among them—characteristics which the quotations that I have already made have established. The cause of these facts is to be found in the mode of production, which brought about a uniformity of interest in the persons united in a single group, obliged them to aid one another in the difficult and uninterrupted struggle for existence, and made men free and equal, since there was neither poverty nor riches, and consequently no possibility of oppression.
It is only in such an environment that the social instincts innate in man can be developed, and the more the mode of production binds men’s interests together the greater will this development be. It is a truth as old as the world that one respects the interests of others and does not deceive them, only when these others do not make life more difficult, but aid in supporting it. If not, social instincts will be suppressed and the contrary instincts formed. The development of the social feelings is based upon reciprocity. When this is lacking these feelings lie dormant, but when reciprocity exists they grow stronger by constantly reacting from one to the other.[44]
There is still another reason which helped strengthen the solidarity among the members of the same group. The primitive peoples, who practiced agriculture little or not at all, needed an immense territory to provide for their needs. Lands whose population would seem small to the Europeans of our day, had in reality as dense a population as the mode of production would permit. From this there sprang [[398]]continual wars between groups disputing the possession of a certain territory. The necessity of defending as a body the territory acquired, or of conquering it anew, resulted in drawing always tighter the bonds uniting the members of the same group.
The same mode of production which drew the members of a group into an altruistic solidarity, forced these same persons into a position of excessive egoism toward those who did not belong to their group and opposed them in obtaining what they needed. The same act, killing an enemy for example, is the most egoistic act possible from the point of view of the enemy but a very altruistic act from the point of view of the slayer, since he has increased the security of his group. The development of the social feelings is, then, only determined by the form of the struggle for existence.
How then shall we explain certain egoistic acts directed against members of the same group? How, for example, can the infanticide so common among primitive peoples be explained? In seeking for a solution we shall see that this egoistic act does not result from innate insensibility toward children (the contrary is true, as we have seen above), but from the fact that the limited control over nature makes a great increase in the population impossible. The children were killed immediately after birth; no one dreamed of ridding himself of a child of greater age. Further, the nomadic life prevented the carrying along of a great number of children.[45]
It is for the same reason that the sick and the aged were sometimes abandoned by the primitive peoples. They were driven to this because these feeble persons were unable to make long journeys, and because their economic means did not allow them to support those who could no longer work. Here again there could be no question of innate insensibility.[46] In these cases then, there was an opposition of interests; the act that was egoistic toward the individual was altruistic toward the group. If different action had been taken in such cases all would have succumbed. Thus these acts have fallen into desuetude as the productivity of labor has developed.
The continual development of the productivity of labor has modified the structure of society greatly. As soon as productivity has increased to such an extent that the producer can regularly produce more than he needs, and the division of labor puts him in a position to exchange the surplus for things that he could not produce himself, at this moment there arises in man the notion of no longer giving to [[399]]his comrades what they need, but of keeping for himself the surplus of what his labor produces, and exchanging it. Then it is that the mode of production begins to run counter to the social instincts of man instead of favoring it as heretofore.
In his work already quoted Nansen has described the influence exercised by exchange upon the character of the Eskimos studied by him. (The fact that this commerce has been developed by the coming of the Europeans makes no difference. Among primitive peoples exchange must have developed in the same way, only more slowly.) He says: “How baneful to them has been the introduction of money! Formerly they had no means of saving up work or accumulating riches; for the products of their labor did not last indefinitely, and therefore they gave away their superfluity. But then they learned the use of money; so that now, when they have more than they need for the moment, the temptation to sell the overplus to Europeans, instead of giving it to their needy neighbors, is often too great for them; for with the money they thus acquire they can supply themselves with the much coveted European commodities. Thus we Christians help more and more to destroy instead of to develop their old self-sacrificing love of their neighbors. And money does still more to undermine the Greenland community. Their ideas of inheritance were formerly very vague, for, as before mentioned, the clothes and weapons of a dead man were consigned with him to the grave. Now, on the other hand, the introduction of money has enabled the survivors to sell the effects of the deceased, and they are no longer ashamed to accept as an inheritance what they can obtain in this way. This may seem an advantage; but, here, too, their old habit of mind is upset. Greed and covetousness—vices which they formerly abhorred above everything—have taken possession of them. Their minds are warped and enthralled by money.”[47] Thus are born avarice and rapacity, which, opposed in the beginning by altruistic sentiments developed earlier, become stronger from one generation to another.[48]
However, this is only one side of the question. Through the development of exchange not only does man become egoistic towards those who for any reason are unable to provide for their needs, but exchange itself is an entirely egoistic act for the two parties who enter into it. Each tries to get as much profit for himself as possible, and consequently to make the other lose. The existence of economic laws which in many, and even in most cases prevent the two parties from injuring each other, does not change the fact at all. Commerce [[400]]weakens the social instincts of man; the loss of one becomes the gain of another. When two persons are trading there springs up a tendency on the part of each to overvalue his own property and to disparage that of the other; commerce is one of the important causes of lying. In addition to this tendency another arises, that of giving goods of quality inferior to that agreed upon; the constant attention to one’s own interests produces and develops fraud.
The more production for one’s own use decreases, and the greater becomes the production for exchange, the more do habit and tradition produce in men the characteristics mentioned. As soon as exchange has developed to a certain point commerce begins to be a special trade. The merchant is much more exposed to the conditions named than those who trade only occasionally. Not only does he pass a great part of his life in exchanging but he is by profession egoistic in two directions; toward the producer from whom he buys, and toward the consumer to whom he sells.[49]
When it reaches a certain height the continually increasing productivity of labor brings a further important modification in the social structure, namely slavery. For this springs up when production is so advanced that man can regularly produce more than he actually needs for himself, and when it is possible for him to exchange the overplus for things which he can use but cannot make. Prisoners of war are no longer killed as formerly, but are obliged to work for the profit of the conquerors. In this way is formed a considerable opposition of interest between two classes of individuals who together form a social unit: on the one hand those who, deprived of one of the most important factors of human happiness, liberty, are obliged to exhaust themselves for the benefit of others, and have only the strict necessaries of life; and on the other hand those who profit by the enslavement and excessive labor of the first.
Slavery (with the other forms of forced service, serfdom and wage-labor) is one of the most important factors that undermine the social instincts in man. Slavery, runs the saying, demoralizes the master as well as the slave. It arouses in the master the notion that the slave is not a thinking and feeling man like himself, but an instrument destined exclusively to be useful to him. In the slave himself it kills the feeling of independence; lacking the arms which the free man has at his disposal, the slave has recourse to dissimulation to defend himself against his master. [[401]]
The overplus which one person can obtain by his own labor must always remain limited. Without the rise of slavery the great wealth of a single individual would not have been possible. To the difference between master and slave is now added that between rich and poor, and the envy and hatred of the poor for the rich, and the pride of the rich and their desire to dominate over the poor. Since the division of society into rich and poor the aristocracy has been formed, which does not owe its origin to the excellence of its members, as one might imagine from this inaccurate name, but to their wealth.
The period of civilization during which the social modification mentioned above has taken place is generally lauded to the skies, as compared with preceding epochs. In certain relations this is justifiable. Technique has made immense progress and especially during the last phase of civilization, capitalism; the power of man over nature has advanced greatly; the productivity of labor has been so increased that one class of men, exempted by this from permanent care for their daily bread, are able to devote themselves to the arts and sciences. All this is indisputable. But the development of the arts and sciences and of technique has only an indirect importance for the etiology of crime. The question first of all to be asked is this: What influence has this modification in the economic and social structure had upon the character of man? And the answer to this question can only be the following: this modification has engendered cupidity and ambition, has made man less sensitive to the happiness and misery of his fellows, and has decreased the influence exercised upon men’s acts by the opinions of others. In short, it has developed egoism at the expense of altruism.
C. Egoistic Tendencies Resulting from the Present Economic System and from its Consequences.
The etiology of crime includes the three following problems:
First. Whence does the criminal thought in man arise?
Second. What forces are there in man which can prevent the execution of this criminal thought, and what is their origin?
Third. What is the occasion for the commission of criminal acts? (As the occasion may be one of the causes of the criminal thought, problems one and three at times form but one.)
For the moment we are still occupied with general considerations with regard to crime; it is clear then that the first and third questions [[402]]will be examined only when we are treating of crimes according to the groups into which they must be divided because of the great differences which their nature presents.
It is otherwise with the second question. As we have seen in the preceding pages, it is certain that man is born with social instincts, which, when influenced by a favorable environment can exert a force great enough to prevent egoistic thoughts from leading to egoistic acts. And since crime constitutes a part of the egoistic acts, it is of importance, for the etiology of crime in general, to inquire whether the present method of production and its social consequences are an obstacle to the development of the social instincts, and in what measure. We shall try in the following pages to show the influence of the economic system and of these consequences upon the social instincts of man.
After what we have just said it is almost superfluous to remark that the egoistic tendency does not by itself make a man criminal. For this something else is necessary. It is possible for the environment to create a great egoist, but this does not imply that the egoist will necessarily become criminal. For example, a man who is enriched by the exploitation of children may nevertheless remain all his life an honest man from the legal point of view. He does not think of stealing, because he has a surer and more lucrative means of getting wealth, although he lacks the moral sense which would prevent him from committing a crime if the thought of it occurred to him. We shall show that, as a consequence of the present environment, man has become very egoistic and hence more capable of crime, than if the environment had developed the germs of altruism.
a. The present economic system is based upon exchange. As we saw at the end of the preceding section such a mode of production cannot fail to have an egoistic character. A society based upon exchange isolates the individuals by weakening the bond that unites them. When it is a question of exchange the two parties interested think only of their own advantage even to the detriment of the other party. In the second place the possibility of exchange arouses in a man the thought of the possibility of converting the surplus of his labor into things which increase his well-being in place of giving the benefit of it to those who are deprived of the necessaries of life. Hence the possibility of exchange gives birth to cupidity.
The exchange called simple circulation of commodities is practiced by all men as consumers, and by the workers besides as vendors of their labor power. However, the influence of this simple circulation of commodities is weak compared with that exercised by capitalistic [[403]]exchange. It is only the exchange of the surplus of labor, by the producer, for other commodities, and hence is for him a secondary matter. As a result he does not exchange with a view to profit, (though he tries to make as advantageous a trade as possible) but to get things which he cannot produce himself.
Capitalistic exchange, on the other hand, has another aim—that of making a profit. A merchant, for example, does not buy goods for his own use, but to sell them to advantage. He will, then, always try, on the one hand, to buy the best commodities as cheaply as possible, by depreciating them as much as he can; on the other hand, to make the purchaser pay as high a price as possible, by exaggerating the value of his wares. By the nature of the mode of production itself the merchant is therefore forced to make war upon two sides, must maintain his own interests against the interests of those with whom he does business. If he does not injure too greatly the interests of those from whom he buys, and those to whom he sells, it is for the simple reason that these would otherwise do business with those of his competitors who do not find their interest in fleecing their customers. Wherever competition is eliminated for whatever cause the tactics of the merchant are shown in their true light; he thinks only of his own advantage even to the detriment of those with whom he does business. “No commerce without trickery” is a proverbial expression (among consumers), and with the ancients Mercury, the god of commerce, was also the god of thieves. This is true, that the merchant and the thief are alike in taking account exclusively of their own interest to the detriment of those with whom they have to do.
The fact that in our present society production does not take place generally to provide for the needs of men, but for many other reasons, has important effects upon the character of those who possess the means of production. Production is carried on for profit exclusively; if greater profits can be made by stopping production it will be stopped—this is the point of view of the capitalists. The consumers, on the other hand, see in production the means of creating what man has need of. The world likes to be deceived, and does not care to recognize the fact that the producer has only his own profit in view. The latter encourages this notion and poses as a disinterested person. If he reduces the price of his wares, he claims to do it in the interest of the public, and takes care not to admit that it is for the purpose of increasing his own profits. This is the falsity that belongs inevitably to capitalism.
In general this characteristic of capitalism has no importance for [[404]]the morality of the consumer, who is merely duped, but it is far otherwise with the press, which is almost entirely in the power of the capitalists. The press, which ought to be a guide for the masses, and is so in some few cases, in the main is in the hands of capitalists who use it only as a means of making money. In place of being edited by men who, by their ability and firmness, are capable of enlightening the public, newspapers are carried on by persons who see in their calling only a livelihood, and consider only the proprietor of the sheet. In great part the press is the opposite of what it ought to be; it represents the interests of those who pay for advertisements or for articles; it increases the ignorance and the prejudices of the crowd; in a word, it poisons public opinion.[50]
Besides this general influence upon the public the press has further a special place in the etiology of crime, from the fact that most newspapers, in order to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the public, relate all great crimes in extenso, give portraits of the victims, etc., and are often one of the causes of new crimes, by arousing the imitative instinct to be found in man.[51]
As we have seen above the merchant capitalist makes war in two directions; his interests are against those of the man who sells to him, and of the man who buys from him. This is also true of the industrial capitalist. He buys raw materials and sells what he produces. But to arrive at his product he must buy labor, and this purchase is “sui generis.”
Deprived as he is of the means of production the working-man sells [[405]]his labor only in order not to die of hunger. The capitalist takes advantage of this necessitous condition of the worker and exploits him. We have already indicated that capitalism has this trait in common with the earlier methods of production. Little by little one class of men has become accustomed to think that the others are destined to amass wealth for them and to be subservient to them in every way. Slavery, like the wage system, demoralizes the servant as well as the master. With the master it develops cupidity and the imperious character which sees in a fellow man only a being fit to satisfy his desires. It is true that the capitalist has not the power over the proletarian that the master has over his slave; he has neither the right of service nor the power of life and death, yet it is none the less true that he has another weapon against the proletarian, a weapon whose effect is no less terrible, namely enforced idleness. The fact that the supply of manual labor always greatly exceeds the demand puts this weapon into the hands of every capitalist. It is not only the capitalists who carry on any business that are subjected to this influence, but also all who are salaried in their service.
Capitalism exercises in still a third manner an egoistic influence upon the capitalistic “entrepreneur.” Each branch has more producers than are necessary. The interests of the capitalists are, then, opposed not only to those of the men from whom they buy or to whom they sell, but also to those of their fellow producers. It is indeed claimed that competition has the effect simply of making the product better and cheaper, but this is looking at the question from only one point of view. The fact which alone affects criminality is that competition forces the participants, under penalty of succumbing, to be as egoistic as possible. Even the producers who have the means of applying all the technical improvements to perfect their product and make it cheaper, are obliged to have recourse to gross deceits in advertising, etc., in order to injure their competitors. Rejoicing at the evil which befalls another, envy at his good fortune, these forms of egoism are the inevitable consequence of competition.
Following the same classification that we employed in the preceding chapter we come now to that part of the bourgeoisie which, without having any occupation, consumes what has been made by others. Not to feel obliged to contribute to the material well-being of humanity in proportion to one’s ability must necessarily have a demoralizing influence. A parasite, one who lives without working, does not feel bound by any moral tie to his fellows, but regards them simply as things, instruments meant to serve and amuse him. Their example is [[406]]a source of demoralization for those about them, and excites the envy of those who see this easy life without the power of enjoying it themselves, and awakes in them the desire to exchange their painful existence for this “dolce far niente.”
The egoistic tendencies work less strongly in the third group of the bourgeoisie, those who practice the liberal professions. However, the products of the arts and sciences having become commodities, the egoistic influence of exchange here too is not to be neglected. Then competition arising from overproduction is a great cause of demoralization, for where there is competition men become egoistic. So in the domain of the liberal professions competition often forces those who do not find a field of activity in accordance with their ideas, to work that is contrary to those ideas. Thus it is quite right to speak of a prostitution of the intellect.
Before concluding these observations upon the bourgeoisie there is still something to be said about politics. As we have seen above the state owes its origin to the formation of opposition of interests in society; the first task of the state being, therefore, the maintenance of a certain amount of order. This requires above all the holding of the great mass in subjection. As long as this mass is weak the dominant class has no need to resort to trickery; but as soon as the oppressed class can oppose the domination of the others, as soon as brutal power no longer gives the desired result, the dominant class changes its tactics. It attempts to create the impression that the concessions it has been forced to make are acts of charity; and presuming upon the ignorance of the oppressed, it pretends that their condition is not so bad, etc. Many of those engaged in politics play this part without being conscious of their duplicity. However, the contest between the classes exercises its baleful influence upon them also, for they involuntarily distort the facts, whereas the evolution of society has reached such a point that a new social order is necessary.
The power in the State sometimes passes from one party of the ruling class to another. All profit by the temporary opportunity not only for the realization of their political program, but also to procure advantages for their partisans. This struggle for power is carried on partly by means prejudicial to the character of those interested, while the end aimed at by some parties can be frankly avowed. It is for the same reason that international politics is such a source of lying and hypocrisy, the states not being able to avow their real intention—the weakening of their neighbors. [[407]]
The proletariat. To be thorough we begin by making mention of one of the consequences of the economic position of the proletariat, of which we have already treated briefly, namely the dependence in which persons of this class find themselves in consequence of their lacking the means of production, a state which has a prejudicial influence upon character. The oppressed resort to means which they would otherwise scorn. As we have seen above, the basis of the social feelings is reciprocity. As soon as this is trodden under foot by the ruling class the social sentiments of the oppressed become weak towards them.
We come now (following the order adopted in the first chapter of Part II) first to the consequences of the labor of the young. The paid labor of the young has a bad influence in several ways. First, it forces them, while they are still very young, to think only of their own interests; then, brought into contact with persons who are rough and indifferent to their well-being, they follow these only too quickly, because of their imitative tendencies, in their bad habits, grossness of speech, etc. Finally, the paid labor of the young makes them more or less independent at an age where they have the greatest need of guidance. Even if the statistical proof of the influence of the labor of children and young people upon criminality were totally wanting, no one could deny that influence. Child labor is entirely a capitalistic phenomenon, being found especially in the great manufacturing countries like England and Germany. And then one of the most salient facts of criminality is the amount of juvenile crime, which is so enormous that England, followed by other countries, has established a special system to combat this form of criminality. Certainly this increase of juvenile crime is chiefly due to the influence of bad domestic conditions (wage-labor of married women, etc.), but the labor of the young people themselves also plays its part.
Although figures upon the relation in question are not totally lacking, they are, as far as I know, quite rare. In the first part of this work I have given the figures furnished by P. Hirsch, to which I refer the reader.[52] The director of the “Erziehungsheim am Urban” at Zehlendorf near Berlin, mentions that 80% of his pupils had formerly practiced a trade.[53]
The following figures are given for the Netherlands:[54] [[408]]
| Years. | Total Sentenced 10 to 16 Years Old. | Practicing a Trade.[55] | Percentage Sentenced who Practiced a Trade. | Percentage of Children in General 10 to 16 who Practiced a Trade. |
| 1899 | 791 | 363 | 45.8 | 18.5 |
| 1900 | 671 | 347 | 51.7 | — |
| 1901 | 674 | 344 | 51.0 | — |
| 1902 | 712 | 331 | 46.4 | — |
| 1903 | 671 | 344 | 51.2 | — |
| 1904 | 702 | 347 | 49.4 | — |
These figures are very significant. Among the young delinquents there are two or three times as many persons following a trade as among non-delinquents.
I do not know of any other statistics giving information upon this point directly.[56]
As to statics (the geography of crime) we encounter great difficulties of a technical nature. The statistics in which we can compare juvenile delinquency with the local extent of child labor are rare, often taking no account of the figures for the non-criminal population.[57] On this point the statistics of Germany, Italy, and Austria are the best.[58]
Since the work of young people has increased enormously, and in general is still increasing, we may expect an increase in juvenile crime also, unless there are other determining factors, such as special laws, which work in the opposite direction.
In order to give an example of the extent of child labor we take from one of the best sets of statistics of occupations the following figures.
In the census of occupations in the German Empire in 1895 it was shown that whereas in 1882 16.46% of the population under 20 had some occupation (other than that of domestic servant), in 1895 there were 17.97% so employed, an increase of 9.1%.[59] The absolute figures are the following. In 1882 the number of persons below the [[409]]age of 20 at work was 3,333,791; in 1895 it was 4,161,600, an increase of 827,809.
In 1895 the number of persons at work below the age of 20 was divided among the different ages as follows:[60]
| Below 12 | having paid occupation | 32,687 |
| From 12 to 14 | having,, paid,, occupation,, | 148,766 |
| From,, 14 to,, 16 | having,, paid,, occupation,, | 1,131,723 |
| From,, 16 to,, 18 | having,, paid,, occupation,, | 1,397,161 |
| From,, 18 to,, 20 | having,, paid,, occupation,, | 1,451,263 |
If the paid labor of young people has really an influence, then, upon juvenile criminality, statistics must necessarily show an increase in this criminality, unless other factors exercise an influence in the other direction.
The following figures have a bearing on this subject:[61]
Germany, 1882–1896.
| Offenses. | Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the Population of the SameAge, in the Years: | ||||||||||||||
| 1882. | 1883. | 1884. | 1885. | 1886. | 1887. | 1888. | 1889. | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | |
| Crimes in general | 568 | 549 | 578 | 560 | 565 | 576 | 563 | 614 | 663 | 672 | 729 | 686 | 716 | 702 | 702 |
| Theft and embezzlement | 370 | 353 | 358 | 335 | 337 | 337 | 334 | 369 | 391 | 392 | 430 | 376 | 393 | 380 | 373 |
| Assaults | 63 | 65 | 78 | 81 | 84 | 86 | 82 | 88 | 99 | 101 | 108 | 118 | 121 | 126 | 130 |
| Malicious mischief | 31 | 27 | 31 | 33 | 30 | 34 | 32 | 34 | 40 | 38 | 40 | 41 | 45 | 41 | 46 |
| Fraud | 20 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 31 | 26 | 28 | 28 | 26 |
| Insults | 10 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 16 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 19 |
| Rape, etc. | 12 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 15 | 15 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 7 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| Forgery | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 |
| Rebellion | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 |
| Arson | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Crimes against life | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Counterfeiting | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
Consequently, in Germany there is a great and constant increase in juvenile criminality, both as to crime in general and also in each crime separately.[62] [[410]]
The following table gives a comparison between the criminality of the young and that of adults.[63]
Germany, 1882–1896.
| Offenses. | Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the Hundred, Convicted inthe Years: | |||||||||||||||
| 1882. | 1883. | 1884. | 1885. | 1886. | 1887. | 1888. | 1889. | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1882 to 1896. | |
| Arson | 24 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 29 | 32 | 30 | 37 | 31 | 37 | 29 | 28 | 35 | 28 |
| Offenses against morals | 23 | 19 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 21 |
| Theft and embezzlement | 17 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 19 |
| Malicious mischief | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 17 | 15 | 16 | 15 |
| Forgery | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 |
| Fraud | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| Counterfeiting | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Crimes in general | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 |
| Assaults | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 |
| Crimes against life | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Rebellion | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.6 |
| Insults | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.4 |
If we remember that in 1890 persons from 12 to 18 years of age formed 12.75% of the population,[64] the study of this table will show how large a part the young play in certain crimes, and in crime in general. Still it must not be forgotten that criminal statistics include only a part of the crimes really committed, and that this affects particularly the figures for juvenile crime, since the persons injured make complaint against the young less readily, on account of pity.[65]
According to the figures given below (which, it is true, only cover a short period) juvenile delinquency in England has remained almost stationary.[66] Here we must remember: first, the great number of acquittals; second, that the criminality of the young is nowhere [[411]]better combated than in England with its system of Industrial and Reformatory Schools; third, that industrialism has been prevalent in England longer than elsewhere, and that the increase of criminality during the period designated cannot be as great as in other less industrial countries.
England, 1893–1899.[67]
| Convicted under 21 Years of Age. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. |
| Convicted | 42,926 | 43,950 | 38,994 | 38,637 | 39,821 | 43,538 | 39,111 |
| Sent to the Industrial schools | 3,180 | 3,703 | 3,311 | 4,658 | 4,289 | 4,635 | 4,981 |
| Correction made for those discharged under the S. J. A.[68] | 4,255 | 4,543 | 5,125 | 5,955 | 6,640 | 7,114 | 7,547 |
| Total | 50,361 | 52,196 | 47,430 | 49,260 | 50,750 | 55,287 | 51,639 |
| To the 100,000 | 169.39 | 173.63 | 156.05 | 160.26 | 163.33 | 175.98 | 162.57 |
Finally, the following table shows of what crimes the young are guilty in England:[69]
England, 1893–1899.
| Number of Persons under 21 to the 100 Convictions. | ||||||||
| Years | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. | 1893 to 1899. |
| Simple theft | 45.51 | 47.31 | 44.73 | 44.54 | 44.14 | 45.27 | 43.19 | 44.95 |
| Theft by domestics | 41.07 | 43.17 | 40.26 | 43.12 | 42.60 | 42.71 | 40.70 | 41.80 |
| House-breaking | 41.27 | 40.65 | 36.83 | 36.67 | 38.83 | 38.30 | 39.86 | 38.91 |
| Theft upon the person | 32.93 | 29.73 | 27.53 | 28.77 | 28.95 | 26.85 | 27.68 | 28.93 |
| Malicious mischief | 21.51 | 25.95 | 22.89 | 19.98 | 27.22 | 29.29 | 26.82 | 24.80 |
| Extortion | 26.61 | 28.99 | 25.35 | 27.22 | 16.42 | 23.26 | 21.60 | 23.92 |
| Crimes against morals | 25.44 | 23.73 | 23.57 | 23.07 | 23.22 | 22.23 | 21.96 | 23.32 |
| Crimes committed with violence | 20.48 | 22.33 | 22.76 | 25.82 | 24.69 | 23.82 | 22.77 | 23.23 |
| Forgery | 14.01 | 15.56 | 18.62 | 14.34 | 10.63 | 16.74 | 14.64 | 14.93 |
| Obtaining money by false pretenses | 14.12 | 13.98 | 14.75 | 13.80 | 14.04 | 11.56 | 12.02 | 13.46 |
| Counterfeiting | 24.39 | 10.10 | 11.53 | 11.76 | 9.19 | 20.17 | 7.61 | 13.53 |
| Assaults | 14.74 | 14.20 | 13.22 | 12.93 | 12.39 | 13.44 | 11.57 | 13.21 |
[[412]]
If we take into consideration the fact that generally about 23% of the population are between the ages of 10 and 21, this table shows that persons at this age have a large part in certain of the crimes.
Austria, 1881–1899 (Crimes).[70]
| Years. | Number of Young Persons Convicted. | |||
| 11 to 14 Years. | 14 to 20. | Total. | To the 1000 Convicted. | |
| 1881 | 460 | 5405 | 5865 | 17.5 |
| 1882 | 525 | 5258 | 5783 | 18.0 |
| 1883 | 525 | 5256 | 5781 | 19.0 |
| 1884 | 579 | 5538 | 6117 | 19.9 |
| 1885 | 566 | 5249 | 5815 | 18.8 |
| 1886 | 546 | 5287 | 5833 | 19.6 |
| 1887 | 625 | 5358 | 5983 | 20.8 |
| 1888 | 593 | 5241 | 5834 | 20.8 |
| 1889 | 614 | 5617 | 6231 | 21.8 |
| 1890 | 578 | 6001 | 6579 | 22.6 |
| 1891 | 650 | 5779 | 6429 | 22.2 |
| 1892 | 803 | 6238 | 7041 | 22.8 |
| 1893 | 842 | 5959 | 6801 | 23.2 |
| 1894 | 826 | 6378 | 7204 | 23.9 |
| 1895 | 766 | 5976 | 6742 | 23.5 |
| 1896 | 818 | 5945 | 6763 | 23.5 |
| 1897 | 812 | 6473 | 7285 | 24.5 |
| 1898 | 1026 | 7569 | 8595 | 24.9 |
| 1899 | 1015 | 6665 | 7680 | 22.8 |
Consequently there is here, too, both in absolute numbers and in proportion to adult crime, an increase in juvenile criminality (about 23% in 18 years). Estimates of the number of non-criminal minors are wanting to give us a complete picture. It must not be forgotten that Austrian law ranks simple theft, fraud, assault, and the like as “contraventions”, and that these do not figure in these statistics. The total figures for young criminals are consequently much higher.[71]
The following table shows of what crimes the young are guilty: [[413]]
Austria, 1882–1899.[72]
| Crimes. | Convicted from 1882 to 1899. | ||
| Total. | Persons from 14 to 20 Years of Age. | ||
| Absolute Numbers. | To the 1000 Convicted. | ||
| Rape etc. | 17,187 | 5,534 | 32.2 |
| Aggravated theft | 208,686 | 67,106 | 25.0 |
| Extortion | 2,257 | 547 | 24.2 |
| Counterfeiting | 642 | 113 | 17.6 |
| Infanticide | 1,734 | 302 | 17.4 |
| Assassination | 4,209 | 611 | 14.5 |
| Serious assaults | 85,055 | 12,202 | 14.3 |
| Defamation | 3,139 | 410 | 13.0 |
| Homicide | 2,478 | 312 | 12.6 |
| Fraud | 51,487 | 5,651 | 10.9 |
| Leze-majesty | 5,369 | 380 | 7.0 |
Belgium, 1861–1885.[73]
| Years. | Persons Accused. | Under 16. | 16 to 21. | Under 21. | Percentage of Accused Persons under 21. |
| 1861 | 24,673 | 1,043 | 2,429 | 3,472 | 14.1 |
| 1862 | 25,357 | 1,224 | 2,355 | 2,579 | 14.1 |
| 1863 | 24,133 | 1,206 | 2,456 | 3,662 | 15.1 |
| 1864 | 24,185 | 1,245 | 2,307 | 3,552 | 14.6 |
| 1865 | 24,236 | 1,115 | 2,483 | 3,598 | 14.8 |
| 1866 | 24,608 | 1,141 | 2,396 | 3,537 | 14.3 |
| 1867 | 25,041 | 1,220 | 2,750 | 3,970 | 15.8 |
| 1868 | 27,469 | 1,500 | 3,064 | 4,565 | 16.6 |
| 1869 | 27,883 | 1,107 | 2,923 | 4,030 | 14.9 |
| 1870 | 26,507 | 1,298 | 3,075 | 4,373 | 16.4 |
| 1871 | 28,819 | 1,550 | 3,344 | 4,894 | 16.9 |
| 1872 | 28,047 | 1,336 | 3,255 | 4,597 | 16.3 |
| 1873 | 29,569 | 1,448 | 3,451 | 4,899 | 16.5 |
| 1874 | 31,653 | 1,261 | 3,408 | 4,669 | 14.7 |
| 1875 | 30,867 | 1,371 | 3,767 | 5,138 | 16.6 |
| 1876 | 33,366 | 1,445 | 4,363 | 5,808 | 17.4 |
| 1877 | 37,964 | 2,183 | 5,096 | 7,279 | 19.1 |
| 1878 | 37,348 | 1,994 | 5,245 | 7,239 | 19.3 |
| 1879 | 36,614 | 1,873 | 5,074 | 6,947 | 18.9 |
| 1880 | 41,653 | 2,546 | 5,680 | 8,226 | 19.7 |
| 1881 | 44,361 | 2,634 | 6,271 | 8,905 | 20.0 |
| 1882 | 45,895 | 2,695 | 6,487 | 9,182 | 20.0 |
| 1883 | 45,325 | 2,681 | 6,942 | 9,623 | 21.2 |
| 1884 | 45,665 | 3,325 | 7,063 | 9,388 | 20.5 |
| 1885 | 46,479 | 2,398 | 7,279 | 9,677 | 20.8 |
[[414]]
In Belgium, therefore, a great increase in the criminality of the young has taken place.
For France we take the following figures showing the trend of criminality from 1881 to 1900:[74]
France, 1881–1900.
Court of Assizes. Accused.
| Age. | 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896–1900. | ||||
| Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | |
| Under 16 | 32 | 0.7 | 31 | 0.7 | 31 | 0.7 | 26 | 0.7 |
| 16 to 21 | 750 | 17.1 | 618 | 14.5 | 631 | 15.6 | 574 | 16.8 |
| Under 21 | 782 | 17.8 | 649 | 15.2 | 662 | 16.3 | 600 | 17.5 |
When we take into consideration the fact that the population of France has increased a little during the period in question, this table shows a slight diminution in juvenile criminality. Nevertheless, this diminution is smaller than that of criminality in general.
France, 1881–1900.[75]
Correctional Tribunals. Accused of Misdemeanors.
| Age. | 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896–1900. | ||||
| Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | |
| Under 16 | 5,846 | 3.0 | 6,980 | 3.4 | 6,903 | 3.2 | 5,776 | 2.9 |
| 16 to 21 | 28,688 | 15.1 | 27,309 | 13.6 | 31,119 | 14.8 | 30,415 | 15.7 |
| Under 21 | 34,534 | 18.1 | 34,289 | 17.0 | 38,022 | 18.0 | 36,261 | 18.6 |
Here, then, we have once more a slight diminution in juvenile criminality, but less great than that of criminality in general.
We should deceive ourselves if we saw in these figures the conclusive [[415]]proof that criminality on the part of the young was decreasing. We must not overlook the fact that these figures do not include those delinquents whose prosecution was not pushed, whether because they were thought not to have understood the nature of their acts, or because the offense was considered as too light. It is well known that judges incline more and more to the opinion that it is better not to convict youthful delinquents, but to send them to a house of correction, or to place them under the care of a guardian.[76] What the figures given above show is that the increase of juvenile criminality has not been as great in France as it has been in Germany. (I have not the figures for child labor in France, but probably the increase is not as great as it has been in Germany, which is more of an industrial country. The difference, then, in the juvenile crime of the two countries would be explained, at least in part.)[77]
Finally, the following figures will show of what crimes and misdemeanors the young delinquents are guilty:
France, 1900.[78]
| Crimes. | Total Accused. | Number under 21. | Percentage under 21. |
| Aggravated theft | 1300 | 367 | 28.2 |
| Rape and indecent assault upon adults | 65 | 18 | 27.6 |
| Counterfeiting | 120 | 27 | 22.5 |
| Infanticide | 95 | 21 | 22.1 |
| Assaults | 203 | 33 | 16.2 |
| Homicide | 620 | 100 | 16.1 |
| Arson | 157 | 19 | 12.1 |
| Rape etc., upon children | 383 | 42 | 10.9 |
[[416]]
France, 1900.[79]
Correctional Tribunals. Persons Arraigned.
| Misdemeanors. | Total Arraigned. | Number under 21. | Percentage under 21. |
| Thefts | 42,127 | 12,483 | 29.6 |
| Sexual offenses | 2,939 | 643 | 21.8 |
| Rebellion | 3,315 | 676 | 20.3 |
| Assaults | 36,592 | 6,600 | 18.0 |
| Vagrancy | 11,804 | 1,914 | 16.2 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 3,179 | 376 | 11.8 |
| Mendicity | 9,057 | 778 | 8.5 |
As in most countries it is theft, violence, and sexual offenses of which the young delinquents are most often guilty in France.
Italy, 1887–1889.[80]
| Years. | Persons Convicted Under the Age of 21. | |||||||||||
| Up to the Age of 14. | From 14 to 18. | From 18 to 21. | Total. | |||||||||
| Absolute Number. | To the 100 Persons Convicted. | To the 1000 of the Population from 9 to 14. | Absolute Number. | To the 100 Convicted. | To the 1000 of the Population of this Age. | Absolute Number. | To the 100 Convicted. | To the 1000 of the Population of this Age. | Absolute Number. | To the 100 Convicted. | To the 1000 of the Population under 21. | |
| 1887 | 4,566 | 1.48 | 1.60 | 22,361 | 7.24 | 10.55 | 36,871 | 11.93 | 24.52 | 63,798 | 20.65 | 9.85 |
| 1888 | 5,743 | 1.72 | 2.01 | 22,991 | 6.90 | 10.84 | 42,436 | 12.73 | 28.23 | 71,171 | 21.35 | 10.99 |
| 1889 | 6,426 | 1.88 | 2.25 | 24,229 | 7.08 | 11.43 | 38,697 | 11.30 | 25.24 | 69,352 | 20.26 | 10.71 |
This table shows that the increase of delinquents under 18 is quite large, and that there is an increase followed by a decrease of criminality among those between the ages of 18 and 21. However, the period is too short for conclusions of much significance. [[417]]
Italy, 1890–1895.[81]
| Years. | Persons Convicted. | |||||||
| From 9 to 14. | 14 to 18. | 18 to 21. | 9 to 21. | |||||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | |
| 1890 | 2,920 | 2.23 | 12,208 | 9.31 | 14,980 | 11.42 | 30,108 | 22.96 |
| 1891 | 3,605 | 2.50 | 14,287 | 9.95 | 16,166 | 11.25 | 34,058 | 23.70 |
| 1892 | 3,354 | 2.25 | 13,952 | 9.36 | 16,896 | 11.34 | 34,202 | 22.95 |
| 1893 | 3,008 | 2.12 | 12,998 | 9.18 | 15,800 | 11.16 | 31,806 | 22.46 |
| 1894 | 3,838 | 2.54 | 13,948 | 9.21 | 17,826 | 11.77 | 35,612 | 23.52 |
| 1895 | 4,026 | 2.40 | 15,468 | 9.21 | 19,615 | 11.67 | 39,109 | 23.28 |
This table shows (except for 1893) an increase in the number of young delinquents (about 30% in 6 years), a phenomenon by no means accounted for by the increase in the population.
The following figures show the crimes of which the young delinquents are especially guilty.
Italy, 1891–1895.[82]
| Crimes. | To 100,000 of Each Age Group. | ||
| 9 to 14. | 14 to 18. | 18 to 21. | |
| Simple theft | 59.50 | 278.89 | 302.86 |
| Minor assaults | 14.64 | 83.40 | 215.04 |
| Aggravated theft | 30.95 | 128.96 | 157.28 |
| Rebellion | 1.25 | 24.94 | 83.58 |
| Serious assaults | 5.22 | 28.56 | 82.07 |
| Threats | 1.11 | 15.10 | 47.71 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses etc. | 1.54 | 13.96 | 30.00 |
| Homicide | 0.49 | 3.97 | 15.78 |
| Rape | 1.02 | 6.36 | 9.62 |
| Extortion, blackmail | 0.41 | 3.55 | 9.07 |
| Offenses against chastity of minors and against public decency | 0.38 | 2.93 | 5.70 |
| Offenses against public order | 1.01 | 2.14 | 4.95 |
| Assassination | 0.07 | 0.75 | 3.55 |
| Infanticide | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.36 |
[[418]]
We will close the series of statistics concerning juvenile criminality with some figures from the Netherlands.[83]
Netherlands, 1896–1900.[84]
| Years. | Convicted. | ||||
| Total. | Under 16. | 16 to 21. | Under 21. | % under 21. | |
| 1896 | 15,567 | 683 | 2,941 | 3,624 | 23.2 |
| 1897 | 16,086 | 666 | 3,024 | 3,690 | 22.9 |
| 1898 | 15,662 | 712 | 2,967 | 3,679 | 23.4 |
| 1899 | 15,390 | 619 | 2,895 | 3,514 | 22.4 |
| 1900 | 14,488 | 537 | 2,670 | 3,207 | 22.8 |
Netherlands, 1901–1910.[85]
| Years. | Convicted. | ||
| Total. | Under 16 Years of Age. | Percentage Under 16. | |
| 1901 | 13,917 | 651 | 4.7 |
| 1902 | 14,205 | 683 | 4.8 |
| 1903 | 13,673 | 645 | 4.7 |
| 1904 | 14,056 | 667 | 4.7 |
| 1905 | 13,310 | 592 | 4.4 |
| 1906 | 12,311 | 589 | 4.7 |
| 1907 | 12,182 | 588 | 4.8 |
| 1908 | 13,563 | 544 | 4.1 |
| 1909 | 13,361 | 649 | 4.8 |
| 1910 | 13,790 | 800 | 5.8 |
Juvenile criminality has not changed much, then, as compared with the criminality of adults. As I have already observed above, there is reason to suppose that the real facts are different, especially after [[419]]1905, when the new law with regard to juvenile crime was put into effect.
The following figures show what crimes are most often committed by the young delinquents.
Netherlands, 1896–1901.
| Crimes. | Average for the Period 1896–1901. | ||
| Number Convicted. | Percentage under 21. | ||
| Total. | Under 21. | ||
| Aggravated theft | 894 | 416 | 46.4 |
| Sexual offenses | 202 | 63 | 31.1 |
| Theft | 1,713 | 526 | 30.7 |
| Malicious mischief | 756 | 226 | 29.9 |
| Assault | 3,927 | 1,030 | 26.2 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 318 | 72 | 22.6 |
| Rebellion | 1,056 | 216 | 20.4 |
Keeping constantly in mind that in our days juvenile criminals are less often sentenced than formerly, we shall find that the foregoing statistics show:
First. That juvenile crime is increasing.
Second. That this increase is considerable in the countries like Germany, Austria, and Belgium, where there is a continuous industrial development; while in countries less developed industrially the increase is less.
Third. That England, where the capitalism is very intense, shows a great amount of juvenile crime.
The figures we have given have in general, in my opinion, gone to support the incontestable truth, that there is a relation between child labor and juvenile criminality. Although it is of smaller importance than the lack of care of the children among the proletariat, it is still one of the factors in the etiology of crime.[86] [[420]]
Following the order adopted in Part II, chapter I, we come now to the influence of long hours of labor. It has rightly been said that work has a strong moral influence. But it is also true that immoderate labor has the contrary effect. It brutalizes a man, makes him incapable of elevated sentiments, kills as Key says (in “das Jahrhundert des Kindes”), the man in the beast, while moderate labor ennobles the beast in the man.[87]
The housing conditions of the proletariat have also a significance as regards criminality, and for the special group of sexual offenses their importance is very great. We shall speak of this more fully when we treat especially of these offenses, and will, for the moment, note simply their general consequences.
The disorder and squalor of the home communicate themselves to the inmates; the lack of room obliges the children to live, during a great part of the day, on the streets, with the result that they are brought into contact with all sorts of demoralizing companions. Finally, the living together of a great number of uneducated persons in one small dwelling is the cause of constant quarrels and fights. The situation of those who are merely night-lodgers is especially unfortunate, as we have already seen.
In Part I we have quoted from authors who have laid stress upon the importance of the question of housing conditions in the study of criminality (Hirsch, for example), and we have indicated the gravity of this cause in speaking of prostitution and alcoholism.
It would be possible to quote a number of authors who have taken up the effect of housing conditions upon morals.[88] However, it is naturally very difficult to express this influence in figures. As far [[421]]as I know it is Dr. E. Laspeyres who (in “Der Einfluss der Wohnung auf die Sittlichkeit”) gives the most significant data upon this subject. I borrow from him the following figures: summarizing part of the results of a study of “Furnished Rooms” in 2,360 dwellings:[89]
Paris, 1849.
Table I.
| Arrondissements. | Good Dwellings. % | Conduct of the Inmates. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | |||||
| Good. % | Very Bad. % | Good. % | Very Bad. % | |||
| The 6 arrondissements with the smallest number of good dwellings | 35 | 46 | 10 | 20.4 | 19 | |
| The 6 arrondissements with the largest number of good dwellings | 44.5 | 50 | 2.5 | 21.7 | 14 | |
| The 12 arrondissements together | 39 | 48 | 6.4 | 21.0 | 16.6 | |
| The figures cited above in proportion to all Paris = 100 | | 89 | 96 | 156 | 97 | 114 |
| 114 | 104 | 39 | 103 | 86 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
Table II.[90]
| Arrondissements. | Very Bad Dwellings. % | Conduct of the Inmates. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | |||||
| Very Bad. % | Good. % | Very Bad. % | Good. % | |||
| The 6 arrondissements with the greatest number of very bad dwellings | 13.6 | 9 | 45 | 20.2 | 21.3 | |
| The 6 arrondissements with the smallest number of very bad dwellings | 6.0 | 2.2 | 52 | 11.7 | 21.0 | |
| The 12 arrondissements together | 11 | 6.4 | 48 | 16.6 | 21.0 | |
| The figures cited above in proportion to all Paris = 100 | | 124 | 141 | 94 | 122 | 101 |
| 55 | 34 | 108 | 70 | 100 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
[[422]]
Table III.[91]
| Arrondissements. | Good and Rather Good Dwellings. % | Conduct of the Inmates. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | |||||
| Good and Rather Good. % | Bad and Very Bad. % | Good and Rather Good. % | Bad and Very Bad. % | |||
| The 6 arrondissements with the smallest number of good and rather good dwellings | 75 | 70 | 30 | 50 | 50 | |
| The 6 arrondissements with the greatest number of good and rather good dwellings | 86 | 81 | 19 | 58 | 42 | |
| The 12 arrondissements together | 80 | 74.5 | 25.5 | 53 | 47 | |
| The figures cited above in proportion to all Paris = 100 | | 94 | 94 | 118 | 96 | 106 |
| 107 | 109 | 71 | 109 | 91 | ||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | ||
Although the division according to good and bad conduct is somewhat arbitrary, and although it is impossible to separate the effect of bad housing from other influences operative at the same time, yet these figures say plainly: there is a relationship between housing and conduct. It is evident that there is a reciprocal effect between the condition of the dwelling and the conduct of the inmates, but this fact does not diminish the influence of the dwelling.[92]
Finally, we add some figures upon the influence of furnished rooms as residence, summarizing the results of an inquiry into industries in Paris, made in 1860 and including 400,000 persons:[93]
Paris, 1860.
I. Men.
| Occupations. | In Furnished Rooms. | Conduct Doubtful or Bad. |
| % | % | |
| 90 occupations | 5 | 3 |
| 90 occupations,, | 14 | 9 |
| 90 occupations,, | 28 | 12 |
| 270 occupations | 20 | 9 |
[[423]]
Proportion to all the occupations = 100.
| 90 occupations | 25 | 13 |
| 90 occupations,, | 70 | 100 |
| 90 occupations,, | 140 | 133 |
| 270 occupations | 100 | 100 |
II. Women.
| Occupations. | In Furnished Rooms. | Conduct Doubtful or Bad. |
| % | % | |
| 110 occupations | — | 3 |
| 60 occupations,, | 4 | 6 |
| 60 occupations,, | 14 | 15 |
| 230 occupations | 7 | 9 |
Proportion to the Average of the 230 occupations = 100.
| 110 occupations | 0 | 33 |
| 60 occupations,, | 59 | 68 |
| 60 occupations,, | 206 | 169 |
| 230 occupations | 100 | 100 |
The evil influence of living in furnished rooms comes out plainly in these figures.
As has already been said at the beginning of these observations as to the influence of the economic life upon the development of social feelings on the part of the proletariat, the egoistic side of the human character is developed by the fact that the individual is dependent, that he lives in a subordinate position, and that he feels himself poor and deprived of everything. However, in so far as the proletarian sells his labor he is guaranteed against famine, however miserable his condition, and conscious of the utility of his rôle in society, he feels himself, notwithstanding his poverty, a man who, except for his employer, is independent of all men. But if work is not to be found, or if the proletarian, sick and infirm, is not able to work, it goes without saying that the resulting unemployment is very demoralizing. The lack of steady work, the horrors of the penury into which he and his fall, and the long train of evils which result from both, kill the social feelings in a man, for, as we have seen above, these feelings depend upon reciprocity. Let one familiarize himself with the thought of [[424]]the condition of the man who lives in the greatest poverty, i.e. the man who is abandoned by all, and he will understand how egoistic must be the feelings of such.
From the position in which the proletarians find themselves it follows that, towards each other, it is rather the altruistic than the egoistic feelings that develop; living less isolated than the bourgeois, they see the misfortune that strikes their neighbor, and have felt the same themselves, and above all, their economic interests are not opposed. Forced idleness—at present chronic, and acute in times of panic—modifies these conditions at times; it makes competitors of the workers, who take the bread out of each other’s mouths.[94]
The proletarian is never sure of his existence: like the sword of Damocles unemployment is constantly hanging over his head. Upon this subject Engels says:
“But far more demoralizing than his poverty in its influence upon the English working man is the insecurity of his position, the necessity of living upon wages from hand to mouth, that in short which makes a proletarian of him. The smaller peasants in Germany are usually poor, and often suffer want, but they are less at the mercy of accident, they have at least something secure. The proletarian, who has nothing but his two hands, who consumes today what he earned yesterday, who is subject to every chance, and has not the slightest guarantee for being able to earn the barest necessities of life, whom every crisis, every whim of his employer may deprive of bread, this proletarian is placed in the most revolting, inhuman position conceivable for a human being.”[95]
This uncertainty of existence is one of the reasons which explain why, in relatively prosperous times the working-man often spends his wages as soon as he receives them, for he knows that the economies possible to him are so small that he could never be saved from misery in case of unemployment.
Finally we must speak of ignorance and lack of training on the part of the proletariat, as a factor of criminality. As we know, this question of education is one of those which are most debated in criminal sociology. Certain authors have prophesied that each new school would make a prison superfluous, while on the other hand it has been claimed that ignorance and the lack of civilization have nothing to do with the etiology of crime, but that on the contrary knowledge and civilization are even factors of crime. Although these extreme [[425]]opinions are hardly ever expressed nowadays, the ideas upon the point in question still differ widely.[96]
In my opinion, no really decisive arguments have ever been adduced for the opinion that the intellectual condition of men has no influence upon criminality. In general the reasoning is as follows: ignorance is decreasing; crime on the contrary increases; ignorance cannot therefore be a factor. Such a line of argument is very superficial, for ignorance is surely not the only cause of crime. Its influence may therefore be neutralized by other factors. And further, from the point of view of statistics it is not permissible to use the indirect method when the direct method is practicable. In most criminal and prison statistics the percentage of the illiterate among the criminals is given, and we have only to put beside these figures those for the illiterate among the non-criminal population to be convinced of the existence or absence of the connection in dispute.
We shall begin, then, by giving the figures that we know.
United States, 1890.[97]
| To 82,329 Prisoners there were | To 100 of the Population over Age of 10 Years. | ||
| Absolute Number. | % | ||
| Illiterate | 19,631 | 23.83 | 13.3 |
Austria, 1881–1899.[98]
| Years. | To 100 Persons Convicted of Crimes. | ||
| Unable to Read or Write. | Able to Read and Write. | Having a Higher Education. | |
| 1881–1885 | 46.2 | 53.5 | 0.2 |
| 1886–1890 | 41.0 | 58.7 | 0.3 |
| 1891–1895 | 37.5 | 62.2 | 0.2 |
| 1896 | 33.0 | 60.3 | 0.7 |
| 1897 | 34.9 | 64.4 | 0.7 |
| 1898 | 33.2 | 66.1 | 0.7 |
| 1899 | 33.0 | 66.2 | 0.8 |
[[426]]
England and Wales, 1894–1900.[99]
| Years. | Prisoners Found Guilty. | Percentage of Persons Wishing to Marry who were Unable to Sign their Names. | ||||||||||||||||
| Unable to Read or Write. | Able to Read, or to Read Poorly and Write. | Able to Read and Write Well. | Having a Higher Education. | |||||||||||||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | |||||||||||
| Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Men. | Women. | |
| 1893 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.0 | 5.7 |
| 1894 | 20,760 | 18.4 | 11,457 | 27.4 | 86,639 | 76.6 | 29,620 | 70.7 | 5,554 | 4.9 | 797 | 1.9 | 102 | 0.1 | 3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
| 1895 | 18,840 | 18.2 | 11,143 | 27.8 | 80,409 | 77.9 | 28,511 | 71.2 | 3,879 | 3.8 | 386 | 1.0 | 89 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
| 1896 | 19,377 | 18.1 | 11,844 | 28.5 | 85,199 | 79.2 | 29,261 | 70.6 | 2,806 | 2.6 | 307 | 0.7 | 52 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
| 1897 | 18,588 | 17.4 | 11,783 | 27.8 | 84,777 | 79.7 | 30,290 | 71.4 | 2,980 | 2.8 | 344 | 0.8 | 68 | 0.1 | 4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
| 1898 | 18,591 | 16.6 | 12,092 | 26.8 | 86,675 | 77.3 | 32,350 | 71.6 | 6,680 | 6.0 | 726 | 1.6 | 158 | 0.1 | 7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
| 1899 | 17,703 | 16.3 | 11,483 | 25.3 | 84,854 | 78.4 | 35,114 | 73.0 | 5,658 | 5.2 | 740 | 1.6 | 84 | 0.1 | 6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — |
| 1900 | 16,583 | 16.6 | 11,519 | 25.3 | 77,967 | 77.8 | 33,169 | 73.5 | 5,460 | 5.5 | 420 | 0.9 | 81 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.6 | 2.9 | 3.4 |
[[427]]
The following table gives the figures for the different crimes:
Austria, 1899.[100]
| Crimes. | To 100 Persons Convicted. | |||
| Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read and Write. | Education. | |
| Arson | 44.2 | 2.6 | 53.2 | 0.0 |
| Libel | 41.7 | 0.8 | 57.1 | 0.4 |
| Assault | 40.5 | 1.4 | 58.0 | 0.1 |
| Infanticide | 39.5 | 2.6 | 57.9 | 0.0 |
| Homicide | 39.3 | 3.1 | 57.4 | 0.2 |
| Robbery | 35.0 | 1.6 | 63.4 | 0.0 |
| Theft | 32.6 | 1.2 | 65.7 | 0.5 |
| All crimes | 31.7 | 1.3 | 66.2 | 0.8 |
| Fraud | 30.8 | 1.3 | 66.2 | 2.7 |
| Extortion | 27.3 | 1.5 | 70.4 | 0.8 |
| Malicious mischief | 21.6 | 1.1 | 77.3 | 0.0 |
| Threats | 21.0 | 1.7 | 76.9 | 0.4 |
| Leze majesty | 19.7 | 1.6 | 76.2 | 2.5 |
| Rape, etc. | 17.2 | 1.7 | 79.3 | 1.8 |
| Criminal breach of trust | 6.0 | 0.2 | 86.4 | 7.4 |
Belgium, 1899–1901.
| Years. | Persons Convicted. | ||||
| Illiterate. | Able to Read or Write Imperfectly. | Able to Read and Write. | Having a Higher Education. | Total. | |
| 1899 | 588 | 1389 | 424 | 144 | 2545 |
| 1900 | 626 | 1444 | 521 | 176 | 2767 |
| 1901 | 619 | 1581 | 604 | 218 | 3022 |
| 1899–1901 | 1833 | 4414 | 1549 | 538 | 8334 |
| % | 22.— | 53.— | 18.6 | 6.4 | 100.0 |
According to the census of 1900, 18% of the total male population over 15 years old were completely illiterate.[101]
In 1907 1.32% of the men and 1.75% of the women out of the total population could not sign their names.[102] [[428]]
France, 1882–1898.[103]
| Years. | To the 100 Prisoners there were on Entering Prison | Number of Persons to the 100, who could not sign their Names when they Married. | ||||||||||||
| Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read and Write. | Able to Read, Write and Cipher. | Having a Complete Primary Education. | Having an Education Higher than Primary. | |||||||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | |
| 1882 | 27.60 | 38.04 | 12.62 | 15.41 | 30.56 | 32.36 | 21.17 | 13.01 | 6.24 | 0.87 | 1.81 | 0.31 | 14.4 | 22.6 |
| 1883 | 30.08 | 36.11 | 11.91 | 16.78 | 30.48 | 30.60 | 19.00 | 15.28 | 6.60 | 0.87 | 1.93 | 0.36 | 14.2 | 22.4 |
| 1884 | 27.54 | 42.61 | 10.14 | 15.02 | 31.71 | 30.57 | 21.67 | 9.93 | 5.72 | 1.39 | 2.18 | 0.46 | 13.6 | 22.2 |
| 1885 | 28.44 | 40.25 | 10.19 | 16.15 | 30.02 | 33.53 | 23.55 | 9.17 | 5.33 | 0.69 | 2.47 | 0.21 | 12.7 | 20.2 |
| 1886 | 26.63 | 39.93 | 11.20 | 14.52 | 31.19 | 36.64 | 22.81 | 8.06 | 5.63 | 0.85 | 2.54 | —[104] | 11.6 | 18.7 |
| 1887 | 26.51 | 37.49 | 12.49 | 14.31 | 33.89 | 38.90 | 21.04 | 8.38 | 4.05 | 0.92 | 2.02 | — | 10.7 | 17.0 |
| 1888 | 24.90 | 32.29 | 14.05 | 12.92 | 32.50 | 42.43 | 22.50 | 10.77 | 4.18 | 1.59 | 2.17 | — | 10.6 | 16.2 |
| 1889 | 22.50 | 35.13 | 14.18 | 27.22 | 30.06 | 27.78 | 24.99 | 7.70 | 5.80 | 2.17 | 2.47 | — | 9.8 | 15.2 |
| 1890 | 20.12 | 34.94 | 14.19 | 26.34 | 30.76 | 29.71 | 25.97 | 6.47 | 6.34 | 2.54 | 2.52 | — | 8.8 | 13.6 |
| 1891 | 20.05 | 33.32 | 12.79 | 22.44 | 31.14 | 33.39 | 26.52 | 8.37 | 6.57 | 2.06 | 2.93 | 0.42 | 8.4 | 12.6 |
| 1892 | 20.38 | 33.80 | 13.24 | 24.89 | 28.29 | 30.60 | 28.30 | 7.34 | 6.33 | 2.64 | 3.46 | 0.73 | 8.1 | 12.1 |
| 1893 | 22.08 | 29.78 | 11.19 | 24.75 | 28.03 | 32.75 | 27.33 | 9.22 | 7.51 | 2.82 | 3.86 | 0.68 | — | — |
| 1894 | 20.89 | 31.14 | 13.15 | 22.57 | 27.64 | 35.86 | 27.84 | 7.42 | 6.70 | 2.47 | 3.78 | 0.54 | 6.8 | 10.4 |
| 1895 | 20.50 | 30.43 | 13.80 | 18.82 | 26.66 | 38.39 | 30.15 | 9.80 | 6.41 | 2.32 | 2.48 | 0.24 | — | — |
| 1896 | 20.91 | 28.58 | 11.97 | 17.09 | 31.00 | 38.70 | 23.78 | 12.04 | 10.40 | 3.22 | 1.94 | 0.37 | — | — |
| 1897 | 21.09 | 28.57 | 10.59 | 15.67 | 27.77 | 40.48 | 30.40 | 12.10 | 8.15 | 2.48 | 2.00 | 0.69 | — | — |
| 1898 | 23.70 | 31.65 | 9.11 | 8.70 | 31.05 | 46.67 | 27.77 | 8.69 | 6.81 | 3.65 | 1.56 | 0.69 | 4.5 | 7.2 |
[[429]]
Scotland.[105]
| Prisoners. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | |||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | Absolute Numbers. | % | |
| Illiterate | 3,807 | 12.0 | 2,635 | 20.5 |
| Able to read and write | 27,849 | 87.9 | 10,245 | 79.5 |
| With a higher education | 46 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Total | 31,702 | 100.0 | 12,881 | 100.0 |
France, 1896–1900.[106]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Accused Persons Completely Illiterate. |
| Arson | 26 |
| Infanticide | 21 |
| Poisoning | 20 |
| Rape and indecent assault upon children | 20 |
| Serious assaults | 16 |
| Murder | 16 |
| Homicide | 15 |
| Rape, etc. upon adults | 14 |
| All crimes | 14 |
| Aggravated theft | 12 |
| Parricide | 10 |
| Assaults upon parents, etc. | 10 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 10 |
| Highway robbery | 8 |
| Counterfeiting | 7 |
| Forgery, etc. | 2 |
| Breach of trust | 2 |
Ireland, 1905.
| Prisoners. | ||||||
| Men. | Women. | Total. | ||||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | Absolute Numbers. | % | Absolute Numbers. | % | |
| Illiterate | 4,321 | 22.5 | 3,264 | 32.5 | 7,585 | 25.9 |
| Able to read, or read and write imperfectly | 3,804 | 19.8 | 1,983 | 19.8 | 5,787 | 19.8 |
| Able to read and write well | 11,003 | 57.2 | 4,757 | 47.4 | 15,760 | 53.9 |
| With a higher education | 93 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.3 | 125 | 0.4 |
| Unknown | 2 | 0.0 | — | — | 2 | 0.0 |
| Total | 19,223 | 100.0 | 10,036 | 100.0 | 29,259 | 100.0 |
[[430]]
According to the census of 1901 the percentage of illiterates was 12.2 for the men, 13.1 for the women, and 12.7 for the total population 12 years old and over.[107]
Italy, 1881–1889.[108]
| Years. | Correctional Tribunals. | Assizes. | To 100 Married there were the Following who were Illiterate. | ||||||
| To 100 Arraigned there were | To 100 Convicted there were | ||||||||
| Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read and Write. | Having a Higher Education. | Illiterate. | Able to Read and Write. | Having a Higher Education. | Men and Women. | Men.[109] | |
| 1881 | 68.38 | 1.74 | 27.38 | 2.50 | 63.40 | 34.87 | 1.73 | 59.07 | 48.24 |
| 1882 | 67.93 | 1.61 | 27.59 | 2.87 | 59.05 | 38.11 | 2.84 | 57.43 | 46.68 |
| 1883 | 66.45 | 1.82 | 28.74 | 2.99 | 57.64 | 40.00 | 2.36 | 56.67 | 45.79 |
| 1884 | 64.61 | 1.71 | 30.10 | 3.58 | 58.99 | 38.76 | 2.25 | 55.81 | 44.97 |
| 1885 | 60.93 | 1.80 | 32.90 | 4.37 | 61.24 | 36.75 | 2.01 | 54.92 | 44.28 |
| 1886 | 61.34 | 2.20 | 33.15 | 3.31 | 59.66 | 38.25 | 2.09 | 53.31 | 43.19 |
| 1887 | 59.25 | — | 37.07 | 3.68 | 59.34 | 37.04 | 3.62 | 52.83 | 42.83 |
| 1888 | 61.48 | — | 34.51 | 4.01 | 69.14 | 31.99 | 3.87 | 52.08 | 42.27 |
| 1889 | 60.98 | — | 35.31 | 3.71 | 63.75 | 33.14 | 3.11 | 50.83 | 41.21 |
The following figures shed light upon the intellectual condition of those accused of certain important classes of crime:
Italy, 1889 (Assizes).[110]
| Crimes. | To the 100 Accused of Each Crime there were | ||
| Illiterate or Nearly So. | Able to Read and Write. | Having a Higher Education. | |
| Infanticide | 92.9 | 7.1 | 0.0 |
| Perjury | 86.8 | 11.3 | 1.9 |
| Highway robbery | 75.5 | 24.2 | 0.3 |
| Homicide | 72.5 | 26.5 | 1.0 |
| Serious assaults | 68.8 | 30.6 | 0.6 |
| Rebellion, etc. | 65.9 | 34.1 | 0.0 |
| All crimes | 63.8 | 33.1 | 3.1 |
| Rape | 63.6 | 32.7 | 3.7 |
| Aggravated theft | 59.7 | 38.4 | 1.9 |
| Counterfeiting etc. | 50.9 | 46.9 | 2.2 |
| Offenses against public decency etc. | 47.6 | 38.1 | 14.3 |
| Sexual crimes against nature | 43.8 | 45.8 | 10.4 |
| Forgery | 10.4 | 36.2 | 26.4 |
[[431]]
New York State, 1881–1897.[111]
| Years. | To 100 Persons Entering Elmira Reformatory. | |||
| Illiterate. | Able only to Read and Write. | Primary Education. | Higher Education. | |
| 1881 | 19.0 | 59.3 | 16.5 | 5.2 |
| 1882 | 18.5 | 58.7 | 18.0 | 4.8 |
| 1883 | 19.3 | 57.5 | 18.6 | 4.6 |
| 1884 | 19.3 | 56.1 | 20.2 | 4.4 |
| 1885 | 18.3 | 55.7 | 21.9 | 4.1 |
| 1886 | 19.9 | 53.2 | 23.0 | 3.9 |
| 1888 | 19.8 | 50.1 | 26.2 | 3.9 |
| 1889 | 19.5 | 49.9 | 26.9 | 3.7 |
| 1890 | 19.1 | 50.8 | 26.9 | 3.2 |
| 1891 | 18.7 | 48.6 | 29.4 | 3.3 |
| 1892 | 19.3 | 48.8 | 28.6 | 3.3 |
| 1893 | 19.0 | 45.6 | 31.8 | 3.6 |
| 1894 | 18.8 | 43.8 | 33.8 | 3.6 |
| 1896 | 18.3 | 41.3 | 37.0 | 3.4 |
| 1897 | 18.3 | 43.3 | 35.2 | 3.2 |
Netherlands, 1865–1900.[112]
| Years. | Unable to Read or Write. | |
| Convicts at Time of Incarceration. % | Militia-men. % | |
| 1865 | 38 | 18.2 |
| 1870 | 30 | 16.3 |
| 1875 | 25 | 12.3 |
| 1880 | 25 | 11.5 |
| 1885 | 22 | 10.5 |
| 1890 | 24 | 7.2 |
| 1892 | 25 | 5.4 |
| 1893 | 22 | 5.4 |
| 1894 | 20 | 5.0 |
| 1895 | 20 | 5.4 |
| 1896 | 20 | 4.7 |
| 1897 | 19 | 4.0 |
| 1898 | 19 | 3.6 |
| 1899 | 18 | 2.8 |
| 1900 | 16 | 2.3 |
[[432]]
Netherlands, 1903–1905.[113]
| Out of 100 Convicted there were | ||||||
| 1903. | 1904. | 1905. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | |
| Without elementary instruction | 7.57 | 24.70 | 6.61 | 18.26 | 6.36 | 13.33 |
| With elementary instruction | 91.43 | 74.71 | 92.20 | 80.62 | 92.50 | 85.34 |
| With,, secondary education | 0.74 | 0.33 | 0.84 | 0.22 | 0.80 | 0.47 |
| With,, higher education | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 |
| Unknown | 0.15 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.90 | 0.23 | 0.86 |
| Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
The following figures give an estimate with regard to some specified crimes:[114]
Netherlands, 1901.
| Crimes. | To 100 Convicts Unable to Read or Write. |
| Marauding | 16.6 |
| Vagrancy | 10.0 |
| Simple theft | 9.9 |
| Malicious mischief, etc. | 9.4 |
| Aggravated theft | 9.1 |
| All crimes | 8.6 |
| Assaults | 7.9 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 7.5 |
| Receiving stolen goods | 7.4 |
| Defamation and kindred offenses | 6.9 |
| Offenses against public decency | 6.5 |
| Embezzlement | 5.8 |
| Rebellion | 5.7 |
| Rape and other sexual crimes | 4.3 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 1.7 |
Prussia, 1894–1897.[115]
| Out of 18,049 Recidivists in Prussian Prisons. | To the 100 Recruits. | ||||
| Without Education. | Very Little Education. | Primary Education. | Higher Education. | Without Primary Education. | |
| Number | 1,491 | 8,589 | 7,782 | 187 | |
| Percentage | 8.3 | 47.6 | 43.1 | 1.0 | 0.23 |
[[433]]
Switzerland, 1892–1896.[116]
| Education | Men. | Women. | ||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | |
| Illiterate | 352 | 3 | 82 | 5 |
| Primary education | 8,665 | 87 | 1,580 | 92 |
| Secondary and higher education | 856 | 9 | 45 | 2 |
| Unknown | 109 | 1 | 15 | 1 |
| Total | 9,982 | 100 | 1,722 | 100 |
The figures for those who have had a primary education are divided up as follows:[117]
| State of Education | Men. | Women. | ||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | |
| Good | 4,394 | 51 | 764 | 48 |
| Mediocre | 4,125 | 47 | 750 | 48 |
| Reading only | 146 | 2 | 66 | 4 |
| Total | 8,665 | 100 | 1,580 | 100 |
The redactor of the official statistics of Switzerland observes that there are no figures to determine the number of illiterates among the non-criminal population, but the statistics of recruits for the years 1891 to 1895 show that about 19% of the recruits had a higher education.
I am of the opinion that the statistics which I have quoted,[118] including, as they do, millions of criminals, are very significant: the illiterates supply, in general, a great proportion of the criminals, a proportion much greater than that of the illiterates in the general population. (In countries with a relatively small number of illiterates, like England, the Netherlands, and Prussia, for example, the difference is naturally much greater than in a country like Italy where the percentage of illiteracy is great. In Prussia for instance, there are [[434]]thirty-six times as many illiterates among the recidivists as among the recruits.)
However, most of the statistics, aside from the figures for illiteracy, give others which show how many persons really educated are to be found among the criminals. And then we note that a very great majority of criminals are ignorant and untrained. In England, for example, there is among male criminals only 1 to 1,000 who knows more than how to read and write well, and among the women not even 1 to 1,000; in Austria there are a little more than 4 to 1,000; and in France a little more than 20 to 1,000 among the men, and between 4 and 5 among the women. The relation between ignorance and criminality cannot, then, be contradicted. But it is impossible to fix exactly the extent of the influence of the one upon the other, or it is difficult to separate ignorance from other factors with which it is ordinarily found, as poverty, for instance.
The ancient idea that crime is only a consequence of ignorance need not be treated of, for morality and intellect are two distinct parts of the psychic life, even though there exists a certain relation between them.
The first reason why ignorance and the lack of general culture must be ranked among the general factors of crime is this: the person who, in our present society, where the great majority of parents care very little for the education of their children, does not go to school, is deprived of the moral ideas (honesty, etc.) which are taught there, and ordinarily passes his time in idleness and vagabondage.
The second reason which makes ignorance a factor of crime, is that generally an ignorant man is, more than others, a man moved by the impulse of the moment, who allows himself to be governed by his passions, and is induced to commit acts which he would not have committed if his intellectual equipment had been different.
In the third place, it is for the following reasons that ignorance and the lack of training fall within the etiology of crime. The mind of the man whose psychic qualities, whether in the domain of the arts, or of the sciences, have been developed, has become less susceptible to evil ideas. His intellectual condition constitutes thus a bridle which can restrain evil thoughts from realizing themselves; for real art and true science strengthen the social instincts. The figures cited above furnish only a slight contribution to this question. There is no doubt that if we had figures showing how many criminals there are any part of whose life is taken up by art or science, we should find the number very small. It could not be objected that the cause of this is [[435]]in the innate qualities of the criminals; certainly one man is born with greater capacity than another, but everyone is born with some capacities which, if developed, may become a source of happiness; and a happy man, says the proverb, is not wicked.
Finally ignorance is in still another way a factor in crime. Very often the author of a crime conceives and executes it in so clumsy a fashion and with so little chance of success, that we may be certain that he would not have committed it if he had not been an ignorant person, without knowledge of the forces with which he had to do.
When the Italian school is reproached with making their researches upon prisoners only, and not upon criminals and their free equals, the implication is that it is only the stupid and ignorant criminals that are in prison, while the others, the shrewd and tricky, remain at liberty. There is assuredly much truth in this assertion.
The lower proletariat. In the preceding pages I have already spoken of the influence exercised by bad material surroundings upon a man’s character; I have pointed out the moral consequences of bad housing conditions, and also that he becomes embittered and malicious through lack of the necessaries of life. All this applies to the proletariat in general, but much more strongly still to those who do not succeed, for any reason, in selling their labor, that is the lower proletariat.
If the dwellings of the working-class are bad, those of the lower proletariat are more pitiable still. There are, through sickness or lack of work, periods of dire poverty in the life of almost every worker—for the lower proletariat these periods are without intermission. Its poverty is chronic. And when the poverty makes itself felt for a long time together, the intellectual faculties become blunted to such a point that there remains of the man only the brute, struggling for existence.
Although the material and intellectual poverty of the lower proletariat is much greater than that of the proletariat, the difference between them is only quantitative. In one connection, however, there is also a qualitative difference, and a very important one, namely that the working-man is a useful being without whom society could not exist. However oppressed he may be, he is a man who has a feeling of self-respect. It is different with the member of the lower proletariat. He is not useful, but a detriment. He produces nothing, and tries to live upon what others make; he is merely tolerated. He who has lived long in poverty loses all feeling of self-respect, and lends himself to anything whatever that will suffice to prolong his existence. [[436]]
In short, poverty (taken in the sense of absolute want), kills the social sentiments in man, destroys in fact all relations between men. He who is abandoned by all can no longer have any feeling for those who have left him to his fate.
b. The proportion in which the different classes are guilty of crime. After having treated of the direct consequences of the present economic system upon the different classes, I shall take up this question, which is an important one for the problem of criminality, before touching upon the indirect consequences.
As I have already observed in Part I, the opinions with regard to this proportion are very divergent. There are authors (Garofalo, for instance) who are of the opinion that the bourgeoisie commits as many crimes, in proportion to its numbers, as the proletariat. On the other hand there are those who maintain that the prisons hold only the poor. That Garofalo’s conclusion does not hold good for Italy has been proved by the statistics of Fornasari di Verce and those of Dr. Marro, quoted in Part I of this book. The figures given by Fornasari di Verce have to do with the persons sentenced by the assizes, the correctional tribunals, and the justices of the peace. They show that 56% of the convicts were indigent, that 31% had only the strict necessities of life, 10% were moderately well off, while 2% were well-to-do or rich; while among the non-criminal population about 40% were rich or more or less well-to-do, and the other 60% indigent or having only the necessaries of life. But the figures for non-possessors become much greater if we take only the number of those sentenced by the court of assizes,—the real criminals.
Italy, 1887–1889 (Assizes).[119]
| Condition. | 1887. | 1888. | 1889. |
| % | % | % | |
| Indigent | 79.57 | 79.62 | 77.58 |
| Having the necessaries | 9.39 | 10.21 | 13.31 |
| Passably well off | 7.35 | 6.62 | 6.12 |
| Well-to-do and rich | 3.69 | 3.55 | 2.98 |
| 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
The following figures give the economic condition of persons convicted for different crimes: [[437]]
Italy, 1889 (Assizes).[120]
| Crimes. | To the 100 Convicted of the Crimes Given there were: | |||
| Indigent. | Having the necessaries. | Passably well off. | Well-to-do or rich. | |
| Infanticide | 88.1 | 7.1 | 4.8 | 0.0 |
| Theft of every kind | 81.5 | 13.4 | 3.3 | 1.7 |
| Counterfeiting, etc. | 80.3 | 10.4 | 7.7 | 1.6 |
| Rebellion, cruelty, etc. | 79.5 | 11.4 | 0.0 | 9.1 |
| Homicide of every degree | 79.0 | 10.8 | 6.8 | 3.4 |
| Serious assaults | 78.7 | 12.4 | 7.4 | 1.5 |
| Highway robbery | 77.8 | 17.5 | 4.0 | 0.7 |
| Rape and other sexual offenses | 77.3 | 14.8 | 5.6 | 2.3 |
| Extortion | 74.7 | 13.1 | 7.8 | 4.4 |
| Forgery | 47.5 | 24.7 | 11.1 | 16.7 |
Italy not being a rich country, it is evident that the headings “passably well-off” and “well-to-do or rich” have been given a liberal interpretation, otherwise they would never include almost 40% of the population. But even taking account of this fact, these figures show that the indigent, that is, the lower proletariat, and the proletariat without work, form a much higher proportion of the criminal class than of the population as a whole.
Other figures confirming these conclusions for Italy have been produced by Dr. Colajanni (see Part I of this work). Further than these, statistics concerning the financial condition of convicts are not numerous so far as I know. Here are those that are known to me: [[438]]
Austria, 1881–1899.[121]
| Years. | Condition (%). | ||
| Without Money. | With a Little Money. | Well-to-do. | |
| 1881–1885 | 89.1 | 10.4 | 0.3 |
| 1886–1890 | 90.0 | 9.4 | 0.4 |
| 1891–1895 | 89.6 | 9.9 | 0.4 |
| 1896 | 86.7 | 13.0 | 0.3 |
| 1897 | 86.0 | 13.5 | 0.5 |
| 1898 | 85.9 | 13.7 | 0.4 |
| 1899 | 86.7 | 13.0 | 0.3 |
The following figures give us the proportions of the different crimes:
Austria, 1899.[122]
| Crimes. | There were to the 100 Convicts Guilty of the Crimes Mentioned: | |||||
| Without Fortune.[123] | Little Fortune. | Well-to-do. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | |
| Robbery | 96.6 | 100.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Theft | 92.0 | 94.7 | 7.8 | 5.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| Rape, etc. | 91.2 | 100.0 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
| Leze majesty, etc. | 90.1 | 93.1 | 9.6 | 6.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| Threats | 90.0 | 81.5 | 9.9 | 18.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
| Rebellion, etc. | 87.3 | 74.9 | 12.4 | 24.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Crimes in general | 86.4 | 88.4 | 13.2 | 11.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| Extortion | 86.2 | 80.0 | 13.5 | 20.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| Serious assaults | 79.0 | 70.2 | 30.6 | 29.8 | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Fraud | 74.8 | 75.1 | 23.6 | 24.3 | 1.6 | 0.6 |
| Murder, homicide | 73.0 | 87.2 | 26.7 | 12.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| Infanticide, abortion | 0.0 | 90.8 | 0.0 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
I have not been able to procure the figures showing the financial condition of the Austrian population. But it may be considered as certain that there are more well-to-do persons in Austria than about 3% of the population, and also that there are more persons with a little money than the percentage of criminals shown under that [[439]]heading. Therefore, as in Italy, the poor there are more guilty of crime than the well-to-do (and much more so of certain crimes). It is interesting to note that well-to-do women are not guilty at all of most crimes.[124]
Prussia, 1894–1897.[125]
| Among Recidivists were Found | |||||||||||||||
| With incomes of | Indigent. | ||||||||||||||
| Less than 900 marks. | 900 to 2,000 marks. | 2,000 to 5,000 marks. | |||||||||||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | ||||||||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % |
| 13,931 | 90 | 2,424 | 96.5 | 1,424 | 9.2 | 66 | 2.6 | 46 | 0.3 | 2 | 0.1 | 74 | 0.5 | 18 | 0.8 |
There were no rich persons then among the recidivists; no one with an income of more than 5,000 marks. On the other hand, those of very limited income are exceedingly numerous, especially among the women. It is a pity that the first group was not further subdivided, for “less than 900 marks” leaves the group still very large.
The following figures give a picture of the financial situation of the Swiss criminals.
Switzerland, 1892–1896.[126]
| There were Prisoners: | |||
| Number. | % | ||
| With fortune | 589 | 5.0 | |
| With expectations | 1,140 | 9.7 | |
| With neither | 9,569 | 81.8 | |
| Condition unknown | 406 | 3.5 | |
| 11,704 | 100 | ||
| Having | a savings-bank book | 202 | 1.7 |
| Without | a,, savings-bank,, book,, | 9,608 | 82.1 |
| Unknown | 1,894 | 16.1 | |
| 11,704 | 100 | ||
[[440]]
All the statistics cited[127] show then that the poor supply a very great proportion of the convicts, in every case a greater proportion than they bear to the population in general, and the well-to-do form only a small part.
There are still other ways of inquiring what part the different classes take in criminality. One consists in an examination of the statistics of the intellectual development of the convicts, for the illiterate and those who have received only a primary education belong, almost without exception, to the classes without fortune. These statistics have already been given, and they confirm entirely the conclusions to be drawn from the figures for the financial condition of the convicts.
The third way of solving the problem is by a study of the statistics of the occupations of those convicted. Here, however, great difficulties present themselves. In the first place not all the criminal statistics make the distinction between the employer and the workman in such and such an occupation. And it is just this information that we need. In the second place we need beside statistics for the occupation of the criminals, others showing the occupations of the population in general, and the two classified in the same way. Even in this case the picture given by these statistics will not be exact, for there are among the employers many persons who are not really independent (workers at home, etc.), or persons who, while being employers, are, as far as their plane of living is concerned, only the equal of the proletarian, and not of the bourgeois.
Upon this question we have the following figures: [[441]]
Germany, 1894–1896.[128]
| Groups of Occupations. | To 10,000 Persons Over 12 Years of Age in Each Group of Occupations there were: | ||||||||||||||||
| Crimes in General. | Theft. | Aggravated Theft. | Embezzlement. | Fraud. | Rape, etc. | Incest. | Insult. | Violence and Threats against Public Functionaries. | Domiciliary Trespass. | Perjury. | Serious Assaults. | Homicides. | Malicious Mischief. | Arson. | Infanticide. | ||
| I. | Agriculture: | ||||||||||||||||
| a. Independent | 75.1 | 7.1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.21 | 0.10 | 19.1 | 1.5 | 2.9 | 0.22 | 14.1 | 0.02 | 2.3 | 0.08 | 0.03 | |
| b. Workers | 142.1 | 28.9 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 6.0 | 1.67 | 0.18 | 9.8 | 3.1 | 6.8 | 0.31 | 36.4 | 0.05 | 6.5 | 0.36 | 0.37 | |
| II. | Manufacturing: | ||||||||||||||||
| a. Independent | 129.9 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 1.20 | 0.17 | 27.8 | 3.3 | 5.3 | 0.32 | 17.5 | 0.02 | 3.2 | 0.09 | 0.05 | |
| b. Workers | 234.5 | 32.7 | 5.8 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 2.98 | 0.20 | 19.4 | 13.1 | 13.3 | 0.32 | 57.5 | 0.06 | 12.0 | 0.19 | 0.14 | |
| III. | Commerce and transportation: | ||||||||||||||||
| a. Independent | 275.5 | 10.4 | 0.7 | 8.8 | 16.4 | 1.35 | 0.11 | 49.4 | 5.9 | 7.4 | 0.59 | 21.8 | 0.04 | 3.4 | 0.10 | 0.01 | |
| b. Workers | 222.6 | 35.2 | 6.7 | 22.0 | 18.3 | 2.22 | 0.09 | 20.8 | 10.3 | 8.8 | 0.32 | 26.3 | 0.05 | 6.1 | 0.06 | 0.05 | |
| IV. | Domestics | 52.8 | 27.1[129] | 2.02[129] | 3.1[129] | 4.0[129] | 0.06 | 0.15 | 2.4 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.20 | 1.4 | 0.01 | 0.6 | 0.12 | 0.31 |
| V. | Public service | ||||||||||||||||
| and lib. profess. | 79.3 | 5.9 | 1.2 | 4.8 | 5.6 | 1.69 | 0.06 | 20.0 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 0.14 | 6.6 | 0.01 | 1.6 | 0.02 | 0.00 | |
| VI. | Population over 12 | 120.1 | 19.2 | 2.5 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 1.17 | 0.13 | 14.7 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 0.22 | 22.3 | 0.03 | 4.6 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
[[442]]
Germany, 1896.[130]
| Groups of Occupations. | To 10,000 Persons Over 12 Years of Age and having Occupation there were to Each Group: | |||||||||||||||
| Crimes in General. | Theft. | Aggravated Theft. | Embezzlement. | Robbery. | Extortion. | Fraud. | Forgery. | Rape upon Children, etc. | Insult. | Assaults. | Serious Assaults. | Violence and Threats against Public Functionaries. | Domiciliary Trespass. | Perjury. | Homicide. | |
| Agriculture | 1,208.7 | 238.1 | 26.2 | 35.8 | 1.2 | 1.1 | 54.1 | 9.0 | 12.1 | 127.2 | 84.1 | 299.8 | 24.6 | 55.0 | 2.8 | 0.42 |
| Manufacturing | 2,144.3 | 304.3 | 58.4 | 86.6 | 2.3 | 2.6 | 97.9 | 19.0 | 26.3 | 225.3 | 141.8 | 496.1 | 105.3 | 120.0 | 3.2 | 0.51 |
| Commerce and transportation | 2,566.2 | 276.9 | 40.1 | 159.3 | 1.2 | 6.3 | 154.5 | 50.5 | 19.5 | 353.4 | 126.3 | 256.8 | 84.8 | 80.1 | 4.0 | 0.64 |
| Workmen and day-laborers[131] | 10,402.6 | 2,622.7 | 439.3 | 514.7 | 20.8 | 15.3 | 459.7 | 88.8 | 107.8 | 829.8 | 669.5 | 1,679.5 | 664.2 | 439.5 | 9.7 | 1.60 |
| Domestics | 530.3 | 305.7 | 25.3 | 29.4 | 0.23 | 0.45 | 46.8 | 9.2 | 0.83 | 24.8 | 7.4 | 13.4 | 4.3 | 10.0 | 2.2 | 0.08 |
| Public service and liberal professions | 798.6 | 70.7 | 13.1 | 48.9 | 0.63 | 1.6 | 65.3 | 18.7 | 17.1 | 193.0 | 33.2 | 70.8 | 19.7 | 21.4 | 2.1 | 0.13 |
| Professors, physicians, employees | 418.6 | 19.2 | 1.7 | 9.9 | 0.00 | 0.71 | 19.8 | 6.8 | 12.4 | 120.0 | 14.3 | 25.8 | 8.6 | 7.8 | 0.99 | 0.14 |
| Persons of income, students, persons supported | 224.5 | 17.3 | 0.71 | 4.3 | 0.00 | 0.65 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 4.6 | 65.7 | 14.8 | 30.6 | 8.3 | 12.7 | 0.59 | 0.06 |
[[443]]
These statistics, probably the best upon the subject, tell the whole story to those who know how to read the figures. They constitute a proof of the enormous influence of the social factors in the etiology of crime. It is impossible to maintain that the influence works the other way, that the moral disposition influences the choice of a profession. Dr. Prinzing rightly says in the article cited: “It is quite impossible that those engaged in the three great groups of occupations, agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce, are persons of different kinds of moral traits. On the contrary, the supposition that the moral endowment of each group is nearly the same is completely justified by the movements that are continually going on under our own eyes, through which the countryman becomes a city-dweller, and the man who has grown up in the practice of agriculture, a workman or assistant in manufacturing and commerce.”[132]
England and Wales, 1894–1900.[133]
| Occupations. | Among the Prisoners Convicted there were: | Average. | |||||||||
| 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. | 1900. | Number. | % | |||
| Domestics |  | M. | 948 | 729 | 832 | 651 | 662 | 667 | 604 | 729 | 0.7 |
| W. | 1,876 | 1,530 | 1,417 | 1,369 | 1,424 | 1,986 | 2,042 | 1,663 | 3.9 | ||
| Workmen, housekeepers, seamstresses | | M. | 75,539 | 69,944 | 72,725 | 73,264 | 77,321 | 75,220 | 69,168 | 73,311 | 68.0 |
| W. | 11,083 | 10,596 | 10,574 | 12,394 | 14,376 | 14,960 | 14,179 | 12,594 | 29.2 | ||
| Factory workers | | M. | 3,763 | 2,420 | 3,212 | 2,855 | 3,019 | 2,590 | 2,331 | 2,941 | 2.7 |
| W. | 3,755 | 3,127 | 2,926 | 2,762 | 3,086 | 3,367 | 3,498 | 3,217 | 7.5 | ||
| Mechanicians and skilled workmen | | M. | 20,702 | 18,747 | 19,216 | 19,179 | 20,914 | 20,351 | 19,726 | 19,870 | 18.4 |
| W. | 677 | 646 | 1,220 | 1,342 | 1,527 | 1,348 | 1,480 | 1,177 | 2.7 | ||
| Foremen, inspectors | | M. | 80 | 75 | 65 | 64 | 60 | 75 | 61 | 68 | 0.1 |
| W. | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.0 | ||
| Store and office clerks | | M. | 2,869 | 2,652 | 2,805 | 2,506 | 2,877 | 2,677 | 2,550 | 2,705 | 2.5 |
| W. | 125 | 83 | 77 | 84 | 102 | 161 | 237 | 124 | 0.3 | ||
| Merchants | | M. | 4,054 | 4,045 | 4,410 | 3,984 | 4,352 | 4,052 | 3,461 | 4,056 | 3.7 |
| W. | 4,127 | 4,004 | 4,249 | 4,087 | 4,820 | 4,513 | 4,179 | 4,282 | 9.9 | ||
| Liberal professions | | M. | 239 | 231 | 208 | 223 | 194 | 209 | 204 | 215 | 0.2 |
| W. | 24 | 23 | 34 | 23 | 33 | 24 | 28 | 27 | 0.1 | ||
| Soldiers, sailors and marines | 3,620 | 3,338 | 3,433 | 3,227 | 3,202 | 3,082 | 3,327 | 3,318 | 3.1 | ||
| Prostitutes | 5,132 | 5,105 | 7,411 | 6,746 | 6,413 | 6,092 | 6,715 | 6,230 | 14.5 | ||
| Without occupation | | M. | 1,369 | 746 | 644 | 550 | 518 | 391 | 320 | 648 | 0.6 |
| W. | 15,067 | 14,910 | 13,494 | 13,606 | 13,361 | 12,888 | 12,745 | 13,725 | 31.9 | ||
| Total | | Men | 107,861 | 100.00 | |||||||
| Women | 43,041 | 100.00 | |||||||||
According to the first table the workmen are implicated, in a much greater degree than the independents, in all the crimes except that of [[444]]insult (which is explained by the fact that this crime is one of those which are prosecuted only after complaint laid, and that working-men decide to lay complaint much less quickly than the bourgeois). Certain crimes, indeed, are more often committed by the independent merchants than by the working-men of the same class, but here it is necessary to remember that many of the small merchants are on the same plane of living as the working-men. The liberal professions, on the contrary, show very low figures, a fact which is to be plainly noticed in the second table, where the attention is caught by the very low figures of the group of students and person with incomes. The participation in all crimes by unskilled workmen is very great, even if we allow for the figures’ being exaggerated.
I have not been able to procure statistics concerning the occupations of the whole population of England. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be worth while to mention the figures concerning the occupations of the criminals, for, considered by themselves, they show clearly that the classes without means play a very large part in crime. At least 95% of the men are in this condition, as well as at least 5% of the women (a part of the merchants must be added in both cases) while of the 31.9% without occupation it is certain that a large number are also poor.
France, 1898–1900.[134]
| Groups of Occupations. | Number of Persons Accused to 100,000 of Each Group. | ||
| 1898. | 1899. | 1900. | |
| Agriculture | 8 | 9 | 8 |
| Manufacturing | 20 | 22 | 24 |
| Commerce | 29 | 33 | 27 |
| Domestic service | 16 | 16 | 13 |
| Liberal professions and public service | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Since this table makes no distinction between independents and dependents, it does not advance the matter much, and the only important observation that can be drawn from it is that agriculture and the liberal professions give the lowest figures. A clearer idea is given by the following table: [[445]]
France, 1890–1895.[135]
| Occupations. | To the 100 Prisoners in Penitentiaries and Houses of Correction. | |||||||||||
| 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | |||||||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | |
| Property owners, persons of income | 0.58 | 1.10 | 0.62 | 2.21 | 0.62 | 0.99 | 0.66 | 1.45 | 0.66 | 1.78 | 0.65 | 2.07 |
| Liberal professions | 2.36 | 1.03 | 2.92 | 1.66 | 2.64 | 1.42 | 2.41 | 1.90 | 2.64 | 1.62 | 2.50 | 1.33 |
| Employees | 5.00 | 0.55 | 5.40 | 0.34 | 5.07 | 0.36 | 4.81 | 0.30 | 5.26 | 0.62 | 5.49 | 1.33 |
| Merchants, manufacturers | 3.77 | 4.47 | 3.25 | 4.80 | 3.49 | 4.35 | 3.39 | 3.81 | 3.64 | 4.71 | 3.19 | 5.72 |
| Alimentary professions | 3.12 | 1.24 | 3.41 | 0.92 | 3.53 | 0.85 | 3.60 | 1.52 | 4.31 | 1.78 | 4.27 | 1.82 |
| Workmen in shops and factories | 8.39 | 13.14 | 8.93 | 12.03 | 8.73 | 12.17 | 7.86 | 15.16 | 9.46 | 16.08 | 9.39 | 15.34 |
| Building and furnishing trades | 16.76 | 0.21[136] | 16.09 | 0.28[136] | 17.11 | 0.49 | 17.68 | 0.23 | 17.51 | 1.23 | 17.92 | 0.66 |
| Agricultural and day laborers | 48.31 | 62.45 | 48.85 | 61.02 | 47.94 | 63.17 | 49.52 | 56.44 | 45.71 | 56.03 | 44.93 | 54.15 |
| Nomadic occupations | 3.99 | 4.68 | 3.89 | 4.63 | 4.19 | 4.77 | 3.79 | 4.72 | 3.77 | 4.79 | 3.82 | 4.48 |
| Soldiers and sailors | 2.41 | — | 2.23 | — | 2.29 | — | 1.94 | — | 1.75 | — | 1.60 | — |
| Vagabonds and mendicants | 1.48 | 4.74[137] | 0.82 | 4.65[137] | 0.94 | 4.77 | 1.03 | 5.71 | 1.27 | 4.95 | 1.52 | 5.14 |
| Individuals in the care of their families | 3.83 | 6.39 | — | 7.46 | 3.45 | 5.66 | 3.31 | 8.76 | 4.02 | 6.41 | 4.72 | 7.96 |
| 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 | |
[[446]]
Although there are no statistics of the occupations of the corresponding non-criminal population, the figures are well worth noting. We discover that the unskilled laborers form a large proportion of the prisoners, in every case a larger proportion than they bear to the population in general; and that the merchants and manufacturers form a much smaller part of the prisoners than they do of the population as a whole, for they certainly constitute more than 5.45%, especially in France, a country where small industries still flourish.
Italy, 1891–1895.[138]
| Groups of Occupations. | Convicts. |
| Annual Average to 100,000 of Each Group of Occupations. | |
| Agriculture | 1,009.03 |
| Manufacturing, arts and trades | 855.78 |
| Commerce, transport, navigation and fishing | 1,677.46 |
| Domestic service | 410.96 |
| Employees, liberal professions, capitalists, pensioners | 288.58 |
These figures show that in Italy also the capitalists and liberal professions furnish a figure for criminality below that of the other groups. The same is true of the following table:
Italy, 1891–1895.[139]
| Groups of Professions. | Convicts. Annual Average to the 100,000 of the Population. | |
| Proprietors or Managers. | Dependents. | |
| Agriculture | 307.43 | 1,368.99 |
| Manufacturing, arts and trades | 678.56 | 861.57 |
| Commerce | 1,278.11 | 1,585.03 |
[[447]]
The following table is more detailed for certain occupations:
Italy, 1891–1895.[140]
| Occupations. | Convicts. | |
| Annual Average to 100,000 of Population. | ||
| Proprietors or Managers. | Dependents. | |
| Men. | ||
| Building trade | 1,654.52 | 1,895.18 |
| Manufacturing (textile, mechanical, chemical, alimentary, arts and trades) | 837.80 | 1,443.22 |
| Shoemaking | 1,080.95 | 2,254.63 |
| Meat business | 3,925.95 | 3,900.61 |
| Cafés, etc. | 1,542.12 | 914.68 |
| Sale of food and fuel | 1,035.58 | 2,411.66 |
| Other kinds of commerce | 1,649.80 | 1,383.12 |
| Navigation, fishing | 259.11 | 1.769.94 |
| Women. | ||
| Manufacturing (mines, building, tobacco, textile, alimentary, arts and trades) | 133.70 | 193.38 |
| Seamstresses, dressmakers, milliners | 285.00 | 138.15 |
| Sale of food and fuel | 460.46 | 511.49 |
| Other kinds of commerce | 2,403.88 | 3,113.34 |
We have now arrived at the end of our observations upon occupations among criminals. Other statistics are available, but either it is impossible to compare them with statistics of the non-criminal population, or they are without significance for some other reason. At any rate it seems to me that those I have given are enough to show that proportionately the non-possessors are more guilty of crime than the possessors.[141]
The thesis set forth above is confirmed, then, in three different ways. [[448]]The question still remains to be answered, to what must we attribute the greater criminality among the non-possessors?
As was remarked at the beginning of this section (on the egoistic tendency of the present economic system, and its consequences), there are three questions which present themselves in connection with the etiology of crime; first, what is the origin of the criminal idea? Second, what are the forces in man which prevent this idea from coming to realization? Third, the occasion for committing the crime. For the moment we shall concern ourselves with the second question only; and we shall ask ourselves the question, is the explanation that these forces are weaker with non-possessors than with others? It is very difficult, if not impossible, to give an answer to this question, for it is very complicated. In the first place it is necessary to prove that the environment of the non-possessors arouses thoughts for which that of the possessors offers no place. The circumstances in which the well-to-do live are in general of such a nature that the moral force has no need of offering combat, since the criminal thought does not exist. For example, in economic offenses one of the principal provocatives of criminal ideas is poverty, which is unknown to the bourgeoisie. It follows that nothing definite can be said about the relative force of the moral sentiments in these two groups of the population in counteracting criminal ideas. Other examples could be added, and I am of the opinion that this influence of the environment will be by itself sufficient to explain the difference in the criminality of the two groups.
It is impossible to decide with certainty whether, aside from the above-mentioned influence of the environment, the present economic system and its consequences have a harmful influence upon the social sentiments that is stronger in the case of non-possessors than it is in the case of possessors. It must be considered as certain (and the figures which I shall give farther along also show it) that the circumstances in which children and young people live among the proletariat is a cause of their being much more demoralized than the children of the bourgeoisie. The influences acting upon the adults of the two classes differ so much in nature and intensity that it is impossible to contrast their effects.
It is unnecessary to say that in what has preceded the possessing class has been contrasted with the proletariat alone, and not with the lower proletariat. It goes without saying that the environment in which the latter live makes them the class most destitute of the moral sense in the whole population. [[449]]
c. Marriage. To form an idea as to whether there is a relation between crime and marriage, and in this case, as to what its nature is, we must have recourse to statistics. Almost all the criminal statistics give information upon the civil status of criminals (England is the sole exception, I believe).
We shall commence with:
Austria, 1881–1899.[142]
| Status. | Years. | ||||||
| 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. | |
| Unmarried | 56.8 | 59.9 | 60.7 | 62.2 | 62.9 | 61.7 | 61.3 |
| Married | 39.9 | 36.9 | 36.2 | 34.7 | 34.1 | 35.3 | 35.3 |
| Widowers and widows | 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
Here the unmarried are more numerous than the married. It is different, however, in a neighboring country:
Hungary, 1888.[143]
| Status. | To 100 Convicts. | |||
| Men. | Women. | |||
| Assizes. | Corr. Tribun. | Assizes. | Corr. Tribun. | |
| Unmarried | 42.89 | 32.99 | 33.51 | 18.03 |
| Married | 54.66 | 62.31 | 53.08 | 69.29 |
| Widowers and widows | 2.36 | 4.06 | 13.08 | 11.46 |
| Divorced | 0.09 | 0.64 | 0.33 | 1.22 |
Here, then, the married persons far outnumber the unmarried. However, neither of these tables has much value, for first, nothing shows that from the total number of the unmarried those who have not yet reached marriageable age has been subtracted, and second, the corresponding figures for the non-criminal population are lacking, so that a comparison of the two is impossible. [[450]]
In these respects the following figures are better:
Italy, 1891–1895.[144]
| Status. | Annual Average Number (of Criminals) to 100,000 of the Population in Each Group over 14. |
| Unmarried | 978.47 |
| Married | 622.27 |
| Widowers and widows | 291.84 |
But as the Hungarian figures have already shown it is necessary to make a division for sexes, for first, women have a much lower figure for criminality than men, and second, the whole population is not equally divided between men and women.
The defects so far noted have been avoided in the following tables:
France, 1881–1900.[145]
| Status. | To 100,000 of the Same State of Life there were accused at the Assizes: | |||
| Men. | Women. | |||
| 1881–1885. | 1896–1900. | 1881–1885. | 1896–1900. | |
| Unmarried | 62 | 41 | 8 | 5 |
| Married | 18 | 12 | 3 | 2 |
| Widowers and widows | 24 | 14 | 5 | 3 |
Netherlands, 1899.[146]
| Status. | Men. | Women. | ||
| To 100 Men of Marriageable Age there were: | To 100 Male Convicts of Marriageable Age there were: | To 100 Women of Marriageable Age there were: | To 100 Female Convicts of Marriageable Age there were: | |
| Unmarried | 34.8 | 59.1 | 36.2 | 36.7 |
| Married | 58.8 | 36.7 | 52.4 | 52.6 |
| Widowers, widows, divorced | 6.4 | 4.2 | 11.4 | 10.7 |
[[451]]
Switzerland, 1892–1896.[147]
| Status. | Men. | Women. | ||
| To 100 of Population Over 12 Yrs. Old there were: | To 100 Prisoners there were: | To 100 of Population Over 12 Yrs. Old there were: | To 100 Prisoners there were: | |
| Unmarried | 49.3 | 64.0 | 45.7 | 48.5 |
| Married | 44.8 | 26.6 | 41.9 | 33.0 |
| Widowers and widows | 5.5 | 5.7 | 11.7 | 11.6 |
| Divorced | 0.4 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 6.9 |
These tables show that the unmarried men (but not the women) are in general more criminal than the married. However it is necessary to be careful as to this point. All these tables fail to connect civil status with age, a fact which reduces their importance almost to nothing, first because the tendency to crime differs much with age; and secondly, because the percentage of married persons is not the same for different ages. It is, therefore, necessary to compare the married and the unmarried at the same age. The German statistics are the only ones which furnish the necessary materials, and the conclusions to be drawn from these are the only ones which give us certain information as to the relation between crime and marriage. These statistics have served as the basis for the two studies of Dr. Prinzing’s already quoted from which we take the following tables.
First the relation between marriage and crime among men. But it must first be remarked that married men are acquitted oftener than bachelors, as a consequence of which the unmarried men are made, in the tables, to seem more criminal than they are—as the following table shows: [[452]]
Germany, 1886–1890.[148]
| Age. | Number Acquitted out of 100 Accused of Each Category of Age and Civil Status. | ||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers and Divorced. | |
| 18–21 | 15.0 | 20.7 | |
| 21–25 | 15.8 | 18.4 | |
| 25–30 | 15.9 | 20.1 | 16.1 |
| 30–40 | 15.1 | 22.3 | 16.0 |
| 40–50 | 13.4 | 23.7 | 15.2 |
| 50–60 | 13.4 | 24.9 | 18.0 |
| Over 60 | 14.2 | 28.1 | 22.3 |
Germany, 1888.[149]
Crimes in General.
| Age. | Number of Convicts to 100,000 Persons of Each Category. | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Wid. and Div. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 2,994.5 | 5,413.0 | 3,009.2 | |
| 21–25 | 3,107.0 | 3,566.3 | 3,163.8 | |
| 25–30 | 2,950.9 | 2,504.7 | 4,273.7 | 2,746.7 |
| 30–40 | 2,880.9 | 1,961.2 | 3,797.2 | 2,171.5 |
| 40–50 | 2,205.7 | 1,487.8 | 2,626.3 | 1,599.8 |
| 50–60 | 1,241.9 | 1,009.8 | 1,267.8 | 1,052.5 |
| Over 60 | 494.6 | 490.1 | 342.7 | 450.5 |
It appears then from this table, first, that in general the bachelors commit more crimes than the married men; second, that the contrary is true of the period between 18 and 25; third, that the criminality of married men is very great.
The following figures have to do with some important economic crimes.[150] [[453]]
Simple Theft.
| Age. | Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers, Widows and Divorced. | Total. |
| 18–21 | 551.7 | 1,418.3 | 555.3 | |
| 21–25 | 427.7 | 685.9 | 627.2 | 457.7 |
| 25–30 | 382.6 | 412.6 | 572.1 | 398.5 |
| 30–40 | 411.9 | 296.9 | 550.0 | 323.0 |
| 40–50 | 365.0 | 216.2 | 420.0 | 237.4 |
| 50–60 | 233.1 | 151.6 | 231.1 | 164.6 |
| Over 60 | 109.2 | 84.0 | 67.2 | 81.2 |
It is, then, in the period between 18 and 30 that married persons are more often guilty of theft than the unmarried; after 30 the parts are changed, except that under the last two age-classes the widows, widowers, and divorced persons show high figures.
Embezzlements.[151]
| Age. | Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers, Widows and Divorced. | Total. |
| 18–21 | 123.2 | 338.7 | 124.4 | |
| 21–25 | 131.6 | 163.6 | 295.6 | 135.5 |
| 25–30 | 139.7 | 109.8 | 291.6 | 126.1 |
| 30–40 | 161.8 | 86.1 | 279.6 | 103.4 |
| 40–50 | 128.0 | 61.1 | 168.8 | 71.3 |
| 50–60 | 66.2 | 37.7 | 71.3 | 42.7 |
| Over 60 | 28.3 | 16.6 | 13.9 | 16.7 |
In this crime also there is a greater criminality among married persons between 18 and 25 than among the unmarried, and the opposite for the later periods. The situation is entirely different in the case of the crime which follows:[152]
Fraudulent Bankruptcy.
| Age. | Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers, Widows and Divorced. | Total. |
| 18–21 | 0.3 | 33.9 | 0.3 | |
| 21–25 | 3.3 | 21.3 | 4.5 | |
| 25–30 | 3.9 | 14.8 | 9.8 | |
| 30–40 | 4.3 | 9.9 | 15.9 | 9.0 |
| 40–50 | 2.2 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 6.2 |
| 50–60 | 1.1 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.7 |
| Over 60 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
[[454]]
Here we have a higher degree of criminality among the married persons of all ages.
It is unnecessary to give the figures for all the economic crimes and it will be enough simply to give the general results for the rest. Unmarried persons are guilty of the following crimes more often than married persons: aggravated theft (at all ages); robbery and extortion (except between the ages of 21 and 25); fraud and criminal breach of trust (except between the ages of 21 and 25); forgery (except between 21 and 25, and over 60); and counterfeiting. The following offenses are more often committed by married persons than by unmarried: being accessory to theft, and receiving stolen goods (except between 30 and 40); violation of secrets; usury; and procuration. It must be added that widows, widowers and divorced persons show very high figures for economic offenses.
As to sexual crimes we have the following figures:[153]
| Age. | Incest. | Debauching through Abuse of Confidence. | ||||||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorced. | Total. | Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorced. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ||||
| 21–25 | 0.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.20 | 0.4 | 0.20 | ||
| 25–30 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.30 | 0.3 | 0.30 | ||
| 30–40 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 22.7 | 1.7 | 0.20 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 0.40 |
| 40–50 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 26.3 | 2.5 | 0.40 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.50 |
| 50–60 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 12.4 | 2.1 | 0.20 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.30 |
| Over 60 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | |
Consequently, as regards these crimes, the married persons are more often guilty than the unmarried, but the widowers, widows and divorced persons occupy the first rank.
| Age. | Rape, Etc.[154] | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers and Divorced. | Total. | |
| 21–25 | 26.3 | 24.1 | 26.1 | |
| 25–30 | 26.2 | 15.7 | 21.2 | |
| 30–40 | 39.7 | 12.8 | 61.4 | 18.6 |
| 40–50 | 44.5 | 9.9 | 56.2 | 14.8 |
| 50–60 | 36.8 | 8.4 | 28.3 | 12.3 |
| 60–70 | 28.3 | 6.8 | 18.7 | 11.1 |
| Over 70 | 18.7 | 5.6 | 10.3 | 8.6 |
[[455]]
Here the unmarried persons are guilty oftener than those married, and widowers and divorced persons oftenest of all. As for debauch contrary to nature it is the unmarried persons who are the most often guilty.
Here, finally, are figures for the more important remaining crimes:
| Age. | Rebellion.[155] | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers, Widows and Divorced. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 130.5 | 211.7 | — | 130.8 |
| 21–25 | 199.0 | 143.6 | — | 192.0 |
| 25–30 | 228.2 | 113.8 | 258.0 | 174.2 |
| 30–40 | 262.6 | 83.1 | 236.2 | 119.4 |
| 40–50 | 206.6 | 55.6 | 160.4 | 73.6 |
| 50–60 | 92.0 | 34.2 | 59.6 | 40.8 |
| Over 60 | 25.2 | 14.5 | 11.2 | 14.3 |
| Age. | Insults.[156] | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers and Divorced. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 111.1 | 444.5 | — | 112.5 |
| 21–25 | 173.3 | 279.0 | 448.0 | 186.7 |
| 25–30 | 222.9 | 270.6 | 381.4 | 249.3 |
| 30–40 | 277.4 | 316.2 | 377.3 | 312.8 |
| 40–50 | 240.7 | 311.3 | 317.3 | 307.3 |
| 50–60 | 158.1 | 237.7 | 187.5 | 229.4 |
| Over 60 | 66.4 | 122.9 | 66.6 | 103.7 |
Here the married persons have the highest figures at all ages.
| Age. | Assaults.[157] | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers and Divorced. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 1,084.2 | 1,778.2 | — | 1,087.3 |
| 21–25 | 1,132.5 | 1,051.5 | 1,344.0 | 1,124.1 |
| 25–30 | 904.6 | 692.9 | 964.7 | 803.3 |
| 30–40 | 552.6 | 434.1 | 602.3 | 459.7 |
| 40–50 | 262.9 | 268.1 | 316.1 | 269.6 |
| 50–60 | 117.7 | 161.9 | 144.6 | 157.2 |
| Over 60 | 43.5 | 68.6 | 40.9 | 59.0 |
[[456]]
The unmarried show in general higher figures than the married persons (except for the period between 18 and 21).
| Age. | Murder and Homicide.[158] | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers and Divorced. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 2.2 | 2.2 | ||
| 21–25 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 3.0 | |
| 25–30 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 2.6 | |
| 30–40 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 13.6 | 1.9 |
| 40–50 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 6.0 | 1.9 |
| 50–60 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 0.7 |
| Over 60 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Here it is the widowers, widows and divorced persons who are most involved, and then the unmarried.
For some other crimes we shall give only the results. Married persons are more often guilty of the following crimes than the unmarried; domiciliary trespass (except between 25 and 50); perjury (except between 21 and 25, and between 30 and 40) and other offenses against the obligation of taking oath; false accusation; unintentional homicide (except between 25 and 30); offenses against personal liberty (except between 30 and 50); and crimes and misdemeanors committed by public officials.
For the following crimes, on the other hand, the unmarried hold the first rank: offenses against public worship (except between 21 and 25); malicious mischief (except between 18 and 21); and arson. It is to be noted that for nearly all the above the widowers, widows and divorced persons show very high figures.
After an examination of the results found it is impossible to say that the married persons show absolutely a criminality less in degree than that of the unmarried; there is a variation for offenses as well as for ages. Only considered in general, the tendency to crime is less in the case of the married than of the unmarried.
As the following figures prove the connection between crime and marriage is quite different in the case of women. It is necessary, however, to show the following table before giving figures in support of this assertion. [[457]]
Germany, 1886–1890.[159]
| Age. | Number of Acquittals to 100 Accused Persons of Each Age Group. | ||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowed and Divorced. | |
| 18–21 | 15.1 | 25.6 | |
| 21–25 | 16.8 | 24.5 | 24.1 |
| 25–30 | 16.7 | 24.2 | 19.7 |
| 30–40 | 17.3 | 23.4 | 19.6 |
| 40–50 | 18.2 | 24.2 | 21.7 |
| 50–60 | 18.2 | 25.8 | 24.4 |
| Over 60 | 19.8 | 27.0 | 27.7 |
As in the case of men there are, then, a greater percentage of acquittals among the married than among the unmarried.
Germany, 1882–1893.[160]
Crimes in General.
| Age. | To 100,000 Persons of Each Age Group there were Sentenced: | ||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widowed and Divorced. | |
| 18–21 | 415.2 | 602.5 | |
| 21–25 | 417.5 | 469.9 | 1339.3 |
| 25–30 | 440.7 | 454.5 | 1149.2 |
| 30–40 | 446.2 | 500.0 | 1029.9 |
| 40–50 | 334.7 | 468.2 | 709.9 |
| 50–60 | 221.5 | 299.5 | 369.2 |
| Over 60 | 102.2 | 133.4 | 111.2 |
While married women of all ages lead the unmarried in general criminality, the highest figures are shown by the widows and divorcées.
The following tables have to do with the more important crimes, beginning with those affecting property:[161] [[458]]
Simple Theft.
| Age. | Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorcées. | Total. |
| 18–21 | 210.6 | 209.3 | 210.6 | |
| 21–25 | 177.1 | 147.8 | 385.7 | 169.3 |
| 25–30 | 158.5 | 132.0 | 318.5 | 144.0 |
| 30–40 | 136.6 | 127.1 | 265.9 | 135.1 |
| 40–50 | 92.2 | 104.0 | 175.9 | 111.6 |
| 50–60 | 61.2 | 64.4 | 88.6 | 70.3 |
| Over 60 | 32.0 | 31.1 | 28.0 | 29.5 |
The married women show, then, figures a little lower than those of the unmarried women, except between 40 and 60, and the widows and divorcées give the highest figures.
| Age. | Embezzlement. | Receiving Stolen Goods. | ||||||
| Unmar. | Mar. | Wid. and Div. | Total. | Unmar. | Mar. | Wid. and Div. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 25.3 | 35.2 | 25.8 | 9.2 | 33.7 | 10.7 | ||
| 21–25 | 25.9 | 23.4 | 92.8 | 25.4 | 10.6 | 26.3 | 48.2 | 15.3 |
| 25–30 | 26.0 | 20.3 | 80.7 | 23.2 | 12.6 | 23.9 | 52.4 | 20.2 |
| 30–40 | 25.3 | 21.6 | 63.4 | 24.2 | 17.2 | 32.6 | 61.3 | 31.4 |
| 40–50 | 18.6 | 18.3 | 40.3 | 21.1 | 16.1 | 36.4 | 56.4 | 36.6 |
| 50–60 | 11.0 | 10.3 | 17.2 | 12.2 | 11.4 | 22.6 | 29.6 | 23.3 |
| Over 60 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 8.8 | 7.4 | 7.6 |
Under the head of “embezzlement” the unmarried women show figures a little higher than those of the married women (except between 18 and 21); in the crime of receiving stolen goods the married women are more guilty than the unmarried; while in both offenses it is the widows and divorcées who lead.
Procuration.
| Age. | Unmarried. | Married. | Wid. and Div. | Total. |
| 18–21 | 0.6 | 5.2 | 0.9 | |
| 21–25 | 2.1 | 8.2 | 33.8 | 3.9 |
| 25–30 | 6.4 | 10.1 | 47.5 | 9.2 |
| 30–40 | 10.9 | 11.7 | 47.3 | 13.2 |
| 40–50 | 7.6 | 9.7 | 28.4 | 11.7 |
| 50–60 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 10.4 | 5.9 |
| Over 60 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 2.2 |
[[459]]
Here also the highest figures are found with the widows and divorcées and the lowest with the unmarried women. In the following economic offenses it is the married women who are oftenest guilty: aggravated theft (except between 18 and 21 and after 60); fraudulent bankruptcy; forgery (except between 25 and 50); and violation of secrets. We must once more note that the widows and divorcées show very high figures.
As to sexual crime we have the following:
| Age. | Incest. | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorcées. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 2.7 | 1.4 | 2.6 | |
| 21–25 | 2.1 | 0.6 | 1.7 | |
| 25–30 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 8.0 | 1.1 |
| 30–40 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 6.2 | 0.8 |
| 40–50 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 0.3 |
| 50–60 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
| Over 60 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 0.1 | 0.07 |
Here the widows and divorcées are at the head and the married women last. The other sexual crimes give figures for women too small to be of any value for our purpose.
Certain of the crimes which remain show the following figures:
| Age. | Insults. | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorcées. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 24.3 | 88.5 | 27.9 | |
| 21–25 | 34.9 | 85.7 | 157.1 | 50.0 |
| 25–30 | 44.2 | 99.8 | 137.1 | 76.7 |
| 30–40 | 57.3 | 116.8 | 138.4 | 108.1 |
| 40–50 | 58.4 | 121.4 | 121.7 | 114.5 |
| 50–60 | 43.6 | 84.8 | 77.1 | 78.5 |
| Over 60 | 22.4 | 38.3 | 26.7 | 30.2 |
The highest figures are those for widows and divorcées (except over 50), and the lowest for the unmarried. [[460]]
| Age. | Domiciliary Trespass. | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorcées. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 5.4 | 16.9 | 6.0 | |
| 21–25 | 6.9 | 13.3 | 28.6 | 8.9 |
| 25–30 | 8.6 | 15.2 | 28.2 | 13.0 |
| 30–40 | 11.1 | 21.2 | 32.7 | 20.1 |
| 40–50 | 10.6 | 23.9 | 27.2 | 22.8 |
| 50–60 | 6.2 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 14.4 |
| Over 60 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 4.2 | 4.7 |
The highest figures are for the widows and divorcées, the lowest for the unmarried.
| Age. | Assaults. | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorcées. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 20.4 | 67.5 | 23.0 | |
| 21–25 | 24.9 | 61.1 | 96.4 | 35.7 |
| 25–30 | 29.8 | 58.7 | 88.9 | 48.3 |
| 30–40 | 29.9 | 61.0 | 70.2 | 56.4 |
| 40–50 | 21.3 | 55.3 | 46.8 | 50.4 |
| 50–60 | 13.9 | 33.9 | 25.7 | 29.5 |
| Over 60 | 7.0 | 14.2 | 8.6 | 10.4 |
Here the highest figures are those for the married women except between the ages of 21 and 40 when they fall to the widows and divorcées.
| Age. | Crimes against the Life of a Child. | |||
| Unmarried. | Married. | Widows and Divorcées. | Total. | |
| 18–21 | 5.6 | 4.3 | 5.5 | |
| 21–25 | 9.8 | 1.7 | 7.1 | 7.4 |
| 25–30 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 16.1 | 4.5 |
| 30–40 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 12.5 | 2.4 |
| 40–50 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 3.4 | 1.2 |
| 50–60 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| Over 60 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
In this regard the widows and divorcées show the greatest criminality, the married women the lowest. [[461]]
Finally, we may add the results for some other crimes. The married women are more guilty than the unmarried in the following: rebellion[162] (except between 21 and 40); violation of factory laws; crimes against individual liberty; and malicious mischief (except between 25 and 40). In the following the unmarried women lead the married: perjury, false accusation, homicide and murder (except for the ages over 50), unintentional homicide (except after 50), and arson. It is to be noted that the widows and divorcées are at the head.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the married woman commits more crimes than the unmarried, but that this does not apply to all crimes nor to all ages.
So much for the figures themselves; now for their explanation.
It is very difficult, in examining the influence of marriage upon criminality, to separate the moral consequences from other factors. We are mistaken, for example, if we attribute to the moral influence of marriage the fact that married persons are less often guilty of the great majority of economic crimes than the unmarried. The fact that anyone marries is ordinarily an indication that he is in a material situation more or less good. The danger that he will commit an economic offense becomes, then, much less great than when he is in a less comfortable condition. The correctness of this position is clearly shown by the statistics given, according to which married men still young give a higher figure than that furnished by the bachelors. The reason is that proletarians marry while still young. The material cares of these husbands are then much greater than later on when their children have already left home, or are at least earning their own living.[163] If we examine the figures for insults we shall see that married men and women both are more guilty than the unmarried. It would be very erroneous to conclude that marriage increases the tendency to this offense. The explanation is to be found in the fact that when a single dwelling (or barrack rather) is the common habitation of several workmen’s families, living conditions easily become a permanent source of disputes. In this case it is not marriage but bad housing conditions which appear as a factor in the etiology of crime. If it were possible to separate these conditions [[462]]or these material consequences of marriage from its moral consequences, the difference between the criminality of the married and the unmarried would not appear very great. Especially is this true if we keep sight of the fact that the bourgeoisie generally marry at a more advanced age than the proletariat. This brings it about that there are more of the bourgeois among the older married people than among the younger; and since, from other causes, the bourgeoisie commit fewer crimes than the proletariat, the influence of marriage seems greater here than it really is.
As for the criminality of women it must be noted that the unmarried women of the bourgeoisie represent a greater proportion of the whole number of unmarried women than the women of this class do of women in general. And since from other causes the criminality of the women of this last class is very small, marriage seems to have a less favorable effect than it really has.
As for the consequences of marriage upon morality, I believe they are the following. In the first place marriage has a tendency to increase the feeling of responsibility, especially if there are children. Then when man and wife understand one another, when they are happy in their union, no one will deny that marriage has a strong moral influence, for, according to the proverb, happy people are not wicked. The proof of this is that married men participate less than bachelors in the crimes of rebellion, assault, homicide, murder, etc., while widowers are more often guilty of them, becoming addicted to alcohol after the death of their wives, or becoming demoralized in other ways. However, it would be more accurate to speak of the moral influence of love than of marriage in the sense of legal monogamy. Happy married couples do not owe their happiness to the legal sanction. Without it their happiness would be as great. On the other hand if the couple is ill-assorted for one reason or another, then marriage has a very demoralizing influence. Legal monogamy comes into play in such cases by rendering difficult the separation of persons who do not understand each other, or of whom one or the other conducts himself badly.
The great power of a man over his wife, as a consequence of his economic preponderance, may equally be a demoralizing cause. It is certain that there will always be abuse of power on the part of a number of those whom social circumstances have clothed with a certain authority. How many women there are who now have to endure the coarseness and bad treatment of their husbands, but would not hesitate to leave them if their economic dependence and the law [[463]]did not prevent. Holmes, the author of “Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts”, who for years saw all the unfortunates who came before these tribunals, says in this connection: “A good number of Englishmen seem to think they have as perfect a right to thrash or kick their wives as the American had to ‘lick his nigger.’ Yes, and some of these fellows are completely astonished when a magistrate ventures to hold a different opinion. I well remember a great hulking fellow, with a leg-of-mutton fist, being charged with assaulting a policeman. After all the evidence had been given, the magistrate inquired whether the prisoner had been previously charged. ‘Yes, your worship, he was here two months ago, charged with assaulting a female.’ As the prisoner declared this was false, and indignantly denied that he had ever assaulted a female, the gaoler brought in his book and proved the conviction. The prisoner then looked up in astonishment, and said: ‘Oh, why, it was only my own wife!’ Only their own wives; but how those wives suffer! Is there any misery equal to theirs, any slavery to compare with theirs? If so, I never heard of it. I have seen thousands of them, and their existence is our shame and degradation.”[164]
Further it goes without saying that a marriage entered into for reasons of self-interest is demoralizing.
Although the above consequences of marriage must be mentioned, that our discussion may be as complete as possible, and although they may have a certain importance for the etiology of crime, yet their influence is not very great. There are causes of criminality much more important, which may put those that have been named entirely in the shade.[165]
Before taking up the criminal consequences of the family, I am of the opinion that this is the best place to fix our attention for a moment upon the criminality of women. In treating above of the origin of marriage as it exists today, we have at the same time spoken of the social position of woman.
d. The criminality of women. In order to give an idea of its extent and nature we must begin with some statistics. [[464]]
Germany, 1886–1895.[166]
| Crimes. | To 100,000 Persons Over 12 of the Same Sex, There was an Average Number of Persons Sentenced of: | |
| Men. | Women. | |
| Simple theft | 352.49 | 132.25 |
| Aggravated theft | 57.95 | 7.19 |
| Embezzlement | 80.97 | 18.25 |
| Robbery and extortion | 2.44 | 0.10 |
| Receiving stolen goods | 28.21 | 16.33 |
| Fraud | 88.06 | 19.50 |
| Forgery | 18.78 | 3.75 |
| Perjury | 6.83 | 2.31 |
| Threats | 46.36 | 2.65 |
| Procuration | 5.21 | 7.23 |
| Rape, etc. | 20.63 | 0.15 |
| Insults | 204.32 | 69.52 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 90.38 | 12.25 |
| Malicious mischief | 80.37 | 4.85 |
| Arson | 2.43 | 0.54 |
| Violence and threats against officials | 77.45 | 5.90 |
| Minor assaults | 118.30 | 12.71 |
| Serious assaults | 256.86 | 25.99 |
| Murder | 0.56 | 0.13 |
| Homicide | 0.75 | 0.15 |
| Crimes in general | 1847.03 | 380.42 |
This table shows that women have a general criminality from 4 to 5 times less than that of men. The figure for women exceeds that for men in the case of one crime only, procuration; for the others it is smaller, and for some very small (e.g. assaults, assassination, etc.). The following table gives an idea still clearer and more detailed.
Germany, 1896.[167]
| Crimes. | Number of Persons Convicted to 100,000 of Same Sex. | Number of Women Convicted to Each 100 Men Convicted. | |||
| Men. | Women. | ||||
| Abandonment of children | 0 | .02 | 0 | .1 | 800.0 |
| Abortion | 0 | .4 | 1 | .7 | 437.3 |
| Procuration | 6 | .0 | 9 | .2 | 167.7 |
| Receiving stolen goods (repeated recidivism) | 0 | .07 | 0 | .1 | 158.3 |
| Receiving,, stolen,, goods,, (simple) | 26 | .5 | 13 | .1 | 53.9[[465]] |
| Simple theft | 274 | .6 | 100 | .8 | 40.1 |
| Perjury | 3 | .1 | 1 | .2 | 38.7 |
| Insults | 223 | .7 | 76 | .5 | 34.2 |
| Simple theft (repeated recidivism) | 51 | .7 | 14 | .4 | 30.5 |
| Homicide | 0 | .5 | 0 | .1 | 22.0 |
| Arson | 2 | .2 | 0 | .5 | 21.8 |
| Embezzlement | 85 | .6 | 17 | .6 | 20.6 |
| Fraud | 101 | .7 | 20 | .4 | 20.1 |
| Crimes in general | 2177 | .07 | 388 | .9 | 17.9 |
| Extortion | 3 | .0 | 0 | .4 | 14.3 |
| Aggravated theft | 45 | .0 | 5 | .6 | 13.5 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 103 | .8 | 12 | .3 | 11.8 |
| Minor assaults | 138 | .3 | 15 | .4 | 11.1 |
| Aggravated theft (repeated recidivism) | 14 | .4 | 1 | .2 | 9.1 |
| Serious assaults | 448 | .4 | 32 | .8 | 7.3 |
| Violence, etc. against officials | 88 | .3 | 5 | .6 | 6.3 |
| Violence and threats | 60 | .7 | 3 | .6 | 5.9 |
| Malicious mischief | 93 | .6 | 5 | .4 | 5.8 |
| Robbery | 2 | .4 | 0 | .07 | 2.9 |
| Crimes against morals upon children | 25 | .3 | 0 | .2 | 0.7 |
The country upon which we are about to fix our attention is:
England and Wales, 1893–1900.[168]
| Years. | Number of Women to the 100 Persons Sentenced for: | |
| Offenses tried on Indictment. | Offenses tried Summarily. | |
| 1893 | 13.07 | 23.39 |
| 1894 | 12.95 | 23.50 |
| 1895 | 13.26 | 23.94 |
| 1896 | 11.75 | 23.58 |
| 1897 | 12.00 | 23.99 |
| 1898 | 11.82 | 23.66 |
| 1899 | 11.70 | 23.89 |
| 1900 | 11.51 | 24.67 |
[[466]]
When we examine this table, as well as the one that follows, it must be noted that the women constitute more than half of the population (51.5% according to the census of 1901).[169]
The following table shows the relative proportion for the more important groups of offenses:
England and Wales, 1893–1894.[170]
| Crimes. | Number of Women to 100 Persons Sentenced. | |
| 1893. | 1894. | |
| Abortion and failure to report birth | 91 | 86 |
| Kidnapping and cruelty to children | 70 | 57 |
| Counterfeiting, etc. | 18 | 21 |
| Malicious mischief | 15 | 20 |
| Crimes against property without violence | 19 | 19 |
| Other crimes | 16 | 16 |
| Crimes of violence against persons | 11 | 13 |
| Robbery and extortion | 10 | 11 |
| Forgery | 9 | 8 |
| Domiciliary trespass, etc. | 3 | 4 |
| Sexual crimes | 4 | 3 |
These statistics show, then, that in England also the criminality of women is not as great as that of men. However there is great divergence in the crimes taken separately. [[467]]
Austria, 1899.[171]
| Crimes. | Of 100 Convicted of Each Crime there were: | |
| Men. | Women. | |
| Abandonment of children | 7.1 | 92.8 |
| Abortion | 10.7 | 89.2 |
| Murder | 69.6 | 30.3 |
| Fraud | 79.1 | 20.8 |
| Theft | 80.4 | 19.5 |
| Defamation | 80.9 | 19.0 |
| Arson | 85.2 | 14.7 |
| Crimes in general | 86.1 | 13.9 |
| Rebellion | 89.5 | 10.4 |
| Leze-majesty | 91.6 | 8.3 |
| Criminal breach of trust | 93.4 | 6.5 |
| Crime against religion | 94.8 | 5.1 |
| Robbery | 95.1 | 4.8 |
| Serious assaults | 95.8 | 4.1 |
| Sexual crime | 96.7 | 3.2 |
| Malicious mischief | 96.8 | 3.1 |
| Homicide | 97.3 | 2.6 |
| Blackmail | 97.4 | 2.5 |
In connection with this table we must note that, according to the census of 1890, 51.6% of the population over 14 are women.
France, 1881–1900 (Persons accused).[172]
| 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896–1900. | |||||
| Average Annual Number. | % | Average Annual Number. | % | Average Annual Number. | % | Average Annual Number. | % | |
| Before the Assizes: | ||||||||
| Men | 3,767 | 86 | 3,589 | 85 | 3,389 | 84 | 2,900 | 85 |
| Women | 615 | 14 | 646 | 15 | 631 | 16 | 500 | 15 |
| Before the Correctional Tribunals: | ||||||||
| Men | 162,573 | 86 | 172,162 | 86 | 179,194 | 86 | 165,586 | 86 |
| Women | 26,330 | 14 | 27,719 | 14 | 29,992 | 14 | 28,049 | 14 |
[[468]]
As the two following tables show, the part which women take in different crimes varies greatly, as in the countries cited above.
France, 1900 (Assizes).[173]
| Crimes. | To 100 Accused there where: | |
| Men. | Women. | |
| Infanticide | 5 | 95 |
| Abortion | 12 | 88 |
| Domestic theft | 82 | 18 |
| Murder | 84 | 16 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 84 | 16 |
| Arson | 84 | 16 |
| Counterfeiting | 85 | 15 |
| Serious assault | 86 | 14 |
| Crimes in general | 86 | 14 |
| Homicide | 90 | 10 |
| Other aggravated thefts | 91 | 9 |
| Parricide | 92 | 8 |
| Forgery | 92 | 8 |
| Concealment or false attribution of parentage | 93 | 7 |
| Rape and indecent assault upon children | 98 | 2 |
| Breach of trust | 98 | 2 |
| Theft with violence | 98 | 2 |
For the correctional tribunals the figures are as follows:
France, 1900 (Correctional Tribunals).[174]
| Offenses. | To 100 Persons Arraigned there were: | |
| Men. | Women. | |
| Concealment of parentage | 5 | 95 |
| Offenses against chastity | 29 | 71 |
| Adultery | 50 | 50 |
| Defamation and insult | 75 | 25 |
| Theft | 80 | 20 |
| Fraud | 83 | 17 |
| Offenses against public decency | 85 | 15 |
| All offenses | 87 | 13 |
| Criminal breach of trust | 88 | 12 |
| Assaults | 89 | 11 |
| Mendicity | 89 | 11 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 91 | 9 |
| Rebellion | 92 | 8 |
| Vagrancy | 95 | 5 |
[[469]]
It is only in some few crimes that women play a larger part than men (infanticide, abortion, concealment of parentage, offenses against chastity—including procuration); in all others they play a smaller part, and in some cases much smaller, than the men.
We turn now to Italy:
Italy, 1884–1895.[175]
| Years. | Number of Women Convicted. | |||||||
| Justices of the Peace. | Correctional Tribunals. | Assizes. | Total. | |||||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | |
| 1884 | 46,683 | 18.31 | — | — | 304 | 6.00 | — | — |
| 1885 | 48,063 | 17.58 | — | — | 304 | 5.91 | — | — |
| 1886 | 51,199 | 18.23 | — | — | 297 | 6.38 | — | — |
| 1887 | 45,598 | 17.58 | 4,690 | 9.30 | 265 | 5.11 | 50,553 | 16.05 |
| 1888 | 49,125 | 17.38 | 4,482 | 8.56 | 290 | 5.81 | 53,897 | 15.86 |
| 1889 | 53,690 | 18.38 | 4,910 | 9.08 | 272 | 5.68 | 58,872[176] | 16.78 |
| 1890 | — | — | — | — | — | — | 23,984 | 18.29 |
| 1891 | 26,182 | 18.23 | ||||||
| 1892 | 25,638 | 17.21 | ||||||
| 1893 | 22,959 | 16.21 | ||||||
| 1894 | 26,274 | 17.34 | ||||||
| 1895 | 28,502 | 16.96 | ||||||
The following table shows us to what extent the women are guilty of the different crimes:
Italy, 1891–1895.[177]
| Offenses. | To 100 Sentenced for Each Offense there were: | |
| Men. | Women. | |
| Infanticide | 7.70 | 92.30 |
| Procuration | 19.11 | 80.89 |
| Abortion | 21.65 | 78.35 |
| Defamation | 53.70 | 46.30 |
| Insults | 54.78 | 45.22 |
| Offenses against morals and order of the family | 58.27 | 41.73 |
| Abandonment of children, abuse of means of correction | 62.85 | 37.15[[470]] |
| Simple theft | 75.63 | 24.37 |
| Fraud in commerce and industry | 79.46 | 20.54 |
| Offenses in general | 82.81 | 17.19 |
| Minor assaults | 83.32 | 16.68 |
| Corruption of minors and offenses against decency | 84.80 | 15.20 |
| Fraud, etc. | 85.74 | 14.26 |
| Aggravated theft | 88.77 | 11.23 |
| Threats | 90.68 | 9.32 |
| Rebellion and insults to public officials | 90.95 | 9.05 |
| Forgery | 92.49 | 7.51 |
| Serious assaults | 93.61 | 6.39 |
| Murder | 93.91 | 6.09 |
| Counterfeit money | 95.02 | 4.98 |
| Homicide | 96.74 | 3.26 |
| Offenses against public order | 97.70 | 2.30 |
| Robbery, etc. | 97.77 | 2.23 |
| Rape, etc. | 99.04 | 0.96 |
According to the census of 1901 the population over 9 years old consisted of 49.4% men and 50.6% women.[178]
Finally some figures for the Netherlands:
Netherlands, 1896–1900.[179]
| Years. | Number Sentenced. | |||
| Men. | Women. | |||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | |
| 1896 | 13,964 | 89.6 | 1,625 | 10.4 |
| 1897 | 14,483 | 90.0 | 1,613 | 10.0 |
| 1898 | 14,018 | 89.5 | 1,646 | 10.5 |
| 1899 | 13,928 | 90.5 | 1,463 | 9.5 |
| 1900 | 13,234 | 91.3 | 1,254 | 8.7 |
[[471]]
Women participate in the different crimes in the following proportions:
Netherlands, 1901.[180]
| Crimes. | To 100 Sentenced there were: | |
| Men. | Women. | |
| Debauch of a minor (as principal or accessory) | 6.2 | 93.8 |
| Simple insults | 64.9 | 35.1 |
| Simple theft | 79.0 | 21.0 |
| Fraud | 80.0 | 20.0 |
| Offenses against public decency | 81.8 | 18.2 |
| Homicide | 89.5 | 10.5 |
| Aggravated theft | 90.5 | 9.5 |
| Embezzlement | 91.1 | 8.9 |
| Receiving stolen goods | 91.8 | 8.2 |
| Forgery | 92.1 | 7.9 |
| Assault | 93.5 | 6.5 |
| Serious assault | 94.7 | 5.3 |
| Malicious mischief | 95.5 | 4.5 |
| Mendicity and vagrancy | 96.5 | 3.5 |
| Assaults upon officials | 97.3 | 2.7 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 98.1 | 1.9 |
| Rebellion | 98.7 | 1.3 |
The whole population being divided in 1901 into 50.5% women and 49.5% men, the figures given above make the criminality of woman appear a little greater than it really is.
Here, then, are the facts, which may be reduced to this, that in all the countries named the criminality of women is much less than that of men. However, it is greater than we should suppose from the figures, since almost all the figures (except those for France) have to do with persons convicted, and acquittal is much more common in the case of women than in that of men. We have already given the figures for Germany in regard to this matter. In England the percentage of convictions is 82% for men and 79% for women.[181] [[472]]
In France the differences are still greater:
France, 1881–1890 (Assizes).[182]
| Sex. | Percentage of Acquittals. | |||
| 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896–1900. | |
| Men | 25 | 25 | 26 | 28 |
| Women | 45 | 47 | 50 | 52 |
1896–1900 (Correctional Tribunals).[183]
| Sex. | Percentage of Acquittals to Each Age-category. | ||
| Under 16. | 16 to 21. | Over 21. | |
| Men | 57 | 6 | 5 |
| Women | 58 | 9 | 7 |
These figures lead to the presumption that in other countries also women are more apt to be acquitted than men.
Other reasons why the criminality of women seems smaller than it really is are the following: As is shown by the statistics cited, the offenses of which women are most often guilty, are also those which it is most difficult to discover, namely those committed without violence. Then, those who have been injured are less likely to bring a complaint against a woman than against a man.[184] But even when we take account of all these things, the criminality of women remains much smaller than that of men. This may be explained as follows:
First. An examination of the tables shows that women participate less in the crimes which require strength or courage. The first cause is to be found in the fact, then, that the average woman of our time has less strength and courage than the average man, and consequently commits on the average fewer crimes than he.
Second. It is clear that women take small part in sexual crimes (for procuration is not a sexual crime but an economic one), which is to be explained by the fact that most sexual crimes cannot, from their [[473]]nature, be committed by women. Another reason is that the rôle of women in the sexual life (and thus in the criminal sexual life) is rather passive than active.
Third. The small part played by women in economic crimes committed because of poverty or even of greed, is explained by prostitution, which generally yields greater and more certain returns than crime, and avoids the risk of prison.
Fourth. A comparison of the criminal statistics of different countries has not much value for the different reasons already given (Pt. I, Ch. II, sec. XIX). Only when the figures are very different may one draw a conclusion from them. A comparison of the tables brings out the fact that the criminality of women does not differ much in the countries named. However, when we fix our attention upon the crimes and misdemeanors more or less grave in the Italian statistics (assizes and correctional tribunals) we discover that there is a considerable difference between England, for example, on the one side, and Italy on the other. While the former country shows about 12% (offenses tried on indictment) and 23% (offenses tried summarily) of women among those convicted, the figures are 5 to 6% (assizes) and about 9% (corr. trib.) in the latter country. This difference shows that the direction in which the principal reason for woman’s small part in crime must be sought, is in her social position. This differs less from that of the man in England than in Italy. However, there are figures much more significant than those I have just cited. Between 1893 and 1899 the percentage of convicts in prison in Scotland was between 36 and 37.[185] In Denmark from 1876 to 1885 about 26% of the convicts were women.[186] It is an incontestable fact that Denmark and Scotland are countries where the social position of women approaches most closely that of men. Let us set in opposition to this now a country like Algeria where the life of woman is entirely different. It appears that there between 1881 and 1900 3% of those arraigned before the assizes were women, and 4% of those arraigned before the correctional tribunals.[187]
An examination of the criminality of women in the different parts [[474]]of the same country, Germany for example, shows that the highest figures for female criminality are furnished by the great cities and the countries most developed economically.
Germany, 1897–1898.[188]
| Cities or Countries. | Percentage of Women among the Convicts. | |
| 1897. | 1898. | |
| Berlin | 27.8 | 27.6 |
| Hamburg | 24.7 | 25.3 |
| Saxony | 22.0 | 21.7 |
| Prussia | 21.8 | 21.5 |
| Germany as a whole | 20.6 | 20.3 |
| Bavaria | 18.6 | 18.6 |
| Alsace-Lorraine | 17.3 | 18.1 |
| Wurtemberg | 16.7 | 15.8 |
| Hesse | 15.2 | 14.4 |
| Baden | 13.8 | 12.1 |
As regards England, Morrison says that of misdemeanors 25% are committed by women in London (Metropolitan Police District), and 33% in Manchester; while women commit only 10% of the misdemeanors in Surrey, and about 14% in Lancashire.[189] The high percentages come then in the places where the social position of woman is most nearly equal to that of man.
Dr. H. Hoegel gives the following table for Austria. As the author says it proves that the country where the woman takes the greatest part in the economic life gives the highest figures for female criminality.
As to the movement of the criminality of women the data that I have given, and others that I have at my disposal, are not significant enough to lead to a definite conclusion. In England it has been made out that there is a small diminution of serious crimes and a slight increase of minor offenses, though the period of observation is very short. Between 1881 and 1900 the relative criminality of men and women remained constant. In Italy there was between 1890 and 1895 a slight increase in the absolute number, and a slight, but fluctuating, diminution in the relative number. In the Netherlands the proportions remained pretty constant from 1896 to 1901. [[475]]
Austria, 1889–1893.[190]
| Country. | Number of Women to | Number of Convictions for Crime to 10,000 of Population. | |
| 100 of Population. | 100 Convicts. | ||
| Moravia | 52.5 | 18.0 | 15.9 |
| Silesia | 52.5 | 17.8 | 17.8 |
| Salzburg | 50.9 | 17.6 | 17.6 |
| Bohemia | 52.0 | 17.2 | 8.9 |
| Lower Austria | 51.4 | 16.7 | 14.1 |
| Upper Austria | 50.9 | 16.1 | 13.9 |
| Austria | 51.4 | 14.9 | 12.6 |
| Carinthia | 51.6 | 14.7 | 18.5 |
| Galicia | 51.0 | 13.7 | 13.7–10.4[191] |
| Tyrol and Vorarlberg | 51.4 | 13.5 | 10.5–12.0[192] |
| Styria | 50.7 | 12.9 | 17.3 |
| Bukowina | 50.0 | 11.8 | 13.3 |
| Littoral of Trieste | 50.2 | 8.8 | 14.2 |
| Carniola | 52.5 | 7.5 | 19.5 |
| Dalmatia | 50.0 | 6.8 | 13.9 |
The following are the figures for Germany and Austria:
Germany, 1888–1900.[193]
| Number Convicted. | Number of Women Convicted to Each 100 Men Convicted. | ||
| To the 100,000 Men over 12. | To the 100,000 Women over 12. | ||
| 1888 | 1,821.7 | 358.0 | 19.7 |
| 1894 | 2,164.3 | 374.9 | 18.7 |
| 1896 | 2,177.7 | 388.9 | 17.9 |
| 1898 | — | — | 19.5 |
| 1900 | — | — | 19.3 |
There was, then, an increase in the criminality of women, but a smaller increase than that of men (except in 1898). [[476]]
Austria, 1881–1899.[194]
Percentage of Persons Convicted who were Women.
| 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. |
| 14.8 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 14.1 | 14.4 | 13.5 | 13.9 |
Here, then, there was a slight but fluctuating diminution in the criminality of women in proportion to that of men.
It must be conceded that the figures given do not contribute much to the support of the thesis that it is especially the social position of women which is the cause of their being less criminal. This position has been modified during the years to which the figures given refer. Women participate much more than formerly in the whole economic and social life. One would accordingly naturally look for a great increase in the criminality of women. Nevertheless these figures cannot, it seems to me, be used to refute the thesis in question, for the following reasons:
In the first place the figures given cover a short period only. They do not show very much, therefore; for, notwithstanding the continual increase of the importance of the rôle of woman in the economic life, the modification of her position in the whole social life is not made so quickly that one can expect much of an increase in female criminality in the criminal statistics of the last few years.[195]
In the second place, most of the figures give the ratio of the crimes of women to those of men; they do not then show whether the decrease in the percentage is due to a decrease in the criminality of women, or rather to an increase in that of men. This latter is the case, for example, in Germany.[196]
In the third place the statistics at my disposal are not sufficiently detailed with regard to the movement of the criminality of women, so that it is impossible to tell whether there are changes in the qualitative character of the crimes even though its quantitative character remains about the same.[197] [[477]]
A very conclusive proof of the thesis that the social position of woman is what explains her lower criminality, is as follows. The difference in the manner of life of the two sexes decreases as we descend the social scale. If the social position of woman is then an important determinant of her lower criminality, the figures ought to show that the criminality of men differs more from that of women in the well-to-do classes than in classes less privileged. Now the figures already given (pp. 482 ff.) upon the intellectual development of criminals confirm our hypothesis completely. Just so the tables upon the financial situation of criminals (see pp. 493, 494); in Austria, for example, 0.2% of the women convicted in 1899 came from the well-to-do classes, and 0.4% of the men. There were no well-to-do women at all among those convicted of the graver crimes. Just so again, in the table of Prussian recidivists the women form 4% of the well-to-do convicts and 14% of the poor convicts.
Finally the figures for the influence of marriage upon criminality show (see p. 513 ff.) that the criminality of widows is very great. This proves that the smaller criminality of woman is not to be sought in innate qualities, but rather in the social environment. For widows are generally forced to come into contact with the economic and social life of the world more than other women.
We have still to explain how social position is a cause of a lower degree of criminality. As to economic offenses, it must be remarked that the small part that woman plays in the economic life has the result that the desire to be enriched at some one else’s expense is less aroused in her than it is in man, and that the opportunity to accomplish the desire is presented to her less often than to him. As to crimes committed for vengeance etc., since women live more retired lives they enter less quickly into conflict with others, and hence are less in danger of committing such crimes. Then the fact that women are less addicted to alcohol must be taken into account. The almost wholly negligible participation of women in political life explains why they are almost never guilty of political crimes, a kind of crime rare enough in any case.
After the long detour that we have made (in order to comprehend what follows), we come now at last to the subject which especially [[478]]concerns us in this section, the influence of the economic and social life upon the social sentiments of women.
It results from this examination that, on the one hand, women feel generally less than men the direct harmful influences of the present economic system, and those of alcoholism; that the influence, very significant for criminality, of the environment in which she passes her youth, acts as strongly upon her as upon a man; and that militarism has no influence upon her, nor has prostitution itself upon the majority of the sex.
Then woman has lived for ages in a state of oppression injurious to the development of the social instincts, which forces her to have recourse to lying and hypocrisy, those two defensive weapons of the oppressed. Just so also her retired life has been an obstacle to the development of her feeling of solidarity with reference to persons outside of the family.
In looking the whole field over I see nothing to justify the opinion that the less criminal character of women indicates a higher morality, whether innate or acquired. The consequences of her manner of life, in so far as they are harmful to the formation of character, are probably counterbalanced by those which are favorable. Her smaller criminality is like the health of a hothouse plant; it is due not to innate qualities, but to the hothouse which protects it from harmful influences. If the life of women were like that of men their criminality would hardly differ at all as to quantity, though perhaps somewhat as to quality.[198]
e. The family. Here we have to take up the question of how far the family in which the criminal has been raised has contributed to make him such. It will be well to begin with some theoretical observations upon the question, what is the effect of moral education upon [[479]]a child (in the larger sense of moral surroundings), and how far does this education in the end affect the adult?
It is unnecessary for us to tarry long upon this. The facts which we shall cite below are more convincing than all the theoretical observations, and they show clearly how great this influence is. Nevertheless some brief observations are necessary. It is not far from the truth, it seems to me, to say that the power of moral education upon the character, and that of intellectual education upon the intelligence, are equal. The thesis has been maintained that the intellectual capacities of all men are equal, and that education is the sole cause of the great differences which exist. No reasonable person would maintain this theory; men differ enormously in their innate intellectual capacities; some have great intellectual power, others have very little, while between the two extremes is found the general average. What now is the rôle that education has to play?
Those who have small intellectual capacity naturally never become superior men, even if their education is the best possible; though by virtue of proper education they might become fairly useful. Those who have great intellectual capacity also need education (though less so than the run of mankind), for otherwise their faculties will remain dormant. Darwin would never have made his great discovery if he had been born and reared in the slums of a great city and had learned nothing (even supposing that, with his poor health, he had not succumbed to such an environment). His acquaintances would have doubtless thought him intelligent, but the scientific world would never have heard of him.
It must be much the same with the moral faculty. We are not born with moral precepts in our heads, but only with a greater or less predisposition to become moral. If this predisposition, even though it be very strong, is not cultivated, there is no question of morality.
The child, even more than the man, is an imitator, and responds to suggestion in everything, but especially in morals. If we put the question: how does it happen that there are honest persons? the answer must be: largely because in their youth they have become accustomed to be honest.[199] In his “Descent of Man”, Darwin says: … “Habit in the individual would … play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instinct, together with sympathy, is like any other instinct, greatly strengthened by [[480]]habit, and so consequently would be obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community.”[200]
A great proportion of the whole number of criminals have become such through the evil example of those about them, or have even been deliberately trained to crime. Even those who are endowed with great innate moral capacities cannot withdraw themselves from these influences. One of the men most competent to speak on this subject, M. Raux, director of one of the penitentiary districts in France, and author of one of the best books upon juvenile criminality says, after speaking of the miserable environment in which young criminals are brought up: “Let no one attempt to tell us after these revelations that the child, born in surroundings which asphyxiate him morally, can escape from vice. No nature would resist such demoralizing agencies. In order to convince ourselves of the truth of this it would only be necessary to try an experiment, which, it if were possible, would not fail to be conclusive.
“The method would be to transport some children of the middle or wealthy class, neither of which furnish any inmates to our reformatories, into families considered as types of those from which our young delinquents come, and to substitute for them in their former homes the children of poor families. This double substitution would have immediate effects. Little time would be needed, very little, we are convinced, for the former group of children to lose all trace of their early education and to become thoroughly bad characters. As to the other group, a moral movement in the other direction would be produced in them, but much more slowly. Vices are like diseases, they take hold quickly, and let go with difficulty. There would long remain to the second group a taste for vagabondage and gross pleasures. But when even these habits and impressions of childhood are painfully eradicated, well-being, advice, and care would always keep the child away from the possibility of theft, and after a certain time of probation passed in the bosom of well-to-do and respectable families the public would certainly regard our subjects, grown to be men, as upright and worthy of all confidence. Thus we should have transformed children of good character into malefactors, and of the malefactor we should have made an honest man.
“This experiment, which no good family would consent to try for fear of the result, would prove on the one hand, that any child placed in the living conditions of most of our young delinquents would inevitably become vicious and criminal, and on the other that if [[481]]circumstances easily make a malefactor of a child well brought-up, it is much more difficult to transform a bad character into an honest man.”[201]
In consequence of what we have just said we may put two questions; first, do all those who are brought up in such an environment inevitably become criminals; second, is there, then, no difference as to morality between two persons of whom one is born with a strong and the other with a weak moral disposition (supposing that both live in the same unfavorable moral environment)?
The answer to the first question must be that there may be sometimes those who succeed notwithstanding the very bad surroundings of their youth. (As we have seen, an expert like Raux denies this possibility.) But such cases are very rare and prove nothing against the theory of environment, for it may readily happen that such persons fall in with a better environment (at school, for example) which puts them on the right track, if they have a strong moral disposition by nature.
To the second question the answer must be made that one endowed with a strong moral disposition, but raised in unfavorable surroundings, will perhaps become criminal, and yet need not be as bad as another with a weak moral disposition, raised in a like environment.
There are criminals and criminals. Anyone who has given himself the trouble of reading the biographies of great criminals knows that all have not been entirely corrupted. It is with morals as with intelligence; in unfavorable circumstances Darwin would not have become a genius, but even in such environment he would nevertheless have been recognized as intelligent; so a child with great moral capacity would not become an honest man when brought up in the company of thieves and assassins, but in his own circle would have been considered as a good boy.
Beside very bad environments there are the great mass of those that are neither the one thing nor the other, in which the children neither have bad examples, nor are, properly speaking, deserted, but in which, nevertheless, they do not receive an education positively good. What is the influence of such environments? They are absolutely insufficient for children with little moral disposition. These have need of a strong and well-taught guide, without which they run much danger of leaving, sooner or later, the straight path. It is evident that an education such as that in question, is insufficient for the great middle class. The future lot of these young people will depend [[482]]especially upon the circumstances in which chance shall place them. The surroundings spoken of will be enough for those who have great moral capacities, in the sense not that a better environment would not have had a better effect upon them but in the sense that they are more susceptible to the good than to the evil influences and—except in rare circumstances—they will cause less trouble to their fellows.
Finally, how far does the effect of a good education extend? What can a good education do for a person born with weak social instincts? This is the well-known controversy. For no one denies that those who are endowed with strong social instincts, as well as those who have them only in moderation, and who constitute the great majority, do not become bad when they are brought up in a good environment.
It will perhaps be impossible to give a decisive answer to this question. For, since we cannot make experiments with living persons, we cannot get sure results. And then an education really good is so great a rarity that the number of cases where children with little moral disposition are excellently brought up is certainly very small.[202]
We may consider it as certain that children not well endowed will never become very altruistic even if brought up under the best conditions imaginable. But on the other hand no one would doubt that a favorable environment would develop, however little, their weak social instincts (for no one is wholly without such instincts). For the moment we cannot decide how far this influence may extend.
After this introduction we come to the organization of education in present-day society. Before stating the facts we must sum up what has been said above (see Ch. I., Sec. III, B, of this part). The organization of our present social system charges the legitimate parents of the child with his support and education. Most authors who treat of the family wax so enthusiastic that they lose all critical sense. They note that there are parents who love their children, perform all their duties towards them, etc., and they wish to make themselves believe that this is the general rule. But the subject must be considered in cold blood. Certainly it would be ridiculous to deny the social importance of the family; we may even say without hesitation that without the family our present society could not exist. But all this would not be a reason for not seeing its defects.
Are there not many who are bad, even aside from criminals? Is not the majority of mankind made up of those weak in character? [[483]]Are there not many alcoholics? Are there not persons who do not love their children at all? Are not the persons numerous who have little patience and tact to guide children, or who are lacking in other pedagogic qualities? Is it not true that nearly everyone is ignorant of psychological and pedagogical principles? And have not most men their whole time taken up with the struggle for existence, so that they are not able to concern themselves with the education of their children?
These are the questions that we must ask ourselves; and the answer to all of them is categorically: yes. And have not all these persons offspring? Most certainly. Then the results may be imagined. It will be of the highest importance to know how many children receive an education that is really good. I do not know of any statistics covering any very great number of children. But it will not be far from the truth to infer that the following figures are applicable, not simply to a limited number, but in general to all children. These figures are given by Ferriani:[203]
To each 100 children between 8 and 12 years of age:
| Good education | 5 |
| Education fair | 10 |
| Education,, superficial | 20 |
| Education,, partially neglected | 17 |
| Education,, entirely neglected,, | 42 |
| Education,, bad | 6 |
| 100 |
One of the characteristics of our present education is that it makes children egoistic. It is to be expected. The organization of society obliges men to be egoistic, and “like father, like son.” An apparent morality is the consequence. Children are taught that they ought to do or leave undone this or that, not because it is needful to help their fellows or not to injure them, but because it will be advantageous to them to act morally, or because otherwise they will be punished. It is unnecessary to say that brought up in such a manner, the individual will not recoil from crime because of any moral restraint, when the opportunity presents itself of making a profit, or when the risk of being punished is not great.
As to education among the well-to-do classes, there it is especially egoistic. The children—speaking of course in a general way—are [[484]]brought up with the idea that they must succeed, no matter how; the aim of life is presented to them as getting money and shining in the world. Such principles are incompatible with a really moral education, and the education of this class aims only at an apparent morality instead of a real one.[204]
Whatever may be the defects of this education, it is at least an education; the children are watched, prevented from getting into bad society, etc. The consequence is that the children of the well-to-do almost never get into the courts. This sad monopoly is reserved for the children of the poor.[205] This is not to say that the defects of education among the well-to-do classes are not among the causes of the criminality to be met with in the adults of these classes. When a poor devil appears in court it will often happen that his counsel in defending him will draw attention to the fact that the environment in which his client has grown up is one of the causes of his fall; but it does not often happen that the advocate makes a similar appeal when his client is from the well-to-do. It is generally believed that nothing is wanting in the moral education of one who has not known poverty, and has not been neglected; but this is a mistake. There can be no doubt that one of the factors of criminality among the bourgeoisie is bad education.
The figures of the following tables show that it is almost exclusively the children of the poor who are guilty of crime.
England and Scotland.
According to the English law the parents of children placed in a “Reformatory” or an “Industrial School” must, if they are able, contribute toward their children’s expenses. The following table shows the assessments due in 1882 (in shillings per week).[206] [[485]]
| Total. | Exempt. | Less than 1 Shill. | 1 Shill. and More. | 2 Shill. and More. | 3 Shill. and More. | 4 Shill. and More. | 5 Shill. | |
| Reformatories | ||||||||
| Absolute numbers | 6,601 | 3,858 | 257 | 1,818 | 573 | 66 | 15 | 14 |
| Percentage | 100.0 | 58.5 | 3.9 | 27.5 | 8.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Industrial Schools | ||||||||
| Absolute numbers | 17,641 | 10,406 | 600 | 3,904 | 2,316 | 301 | 67 | 20 |
| Percentage | 100.0 | 59.1 | 3.4 | 22.2 | 13.1 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
A little less than 60% of the parents, then, were unable to make any contribution, 25 to 30% of them were able to pay less than two shillings, while the remaining 10 or 15% were working people not at all well-to-do.[207]
France.[207]
The French “statistique pénitentiaire” gives information with regard to the financial condition of the parents of the children received into the “Etablissements d’éducation correctionnelle.” The following figures covering the years 1878 to 1882[208] will give a sufficiently accurate notion, as figures for a longer period would lead to the same results.
| Children Belonging to Parents | 1878. | 1879. | 1880. | 1881. | 1882. | 1878–1882 Average Percentage. | ||||||
| Boys. | Girls. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | |
| Well-to-do | 81 | 32 | 75 | 60 | 61 | 3 | 50 | 4 | 43 | 5 | 0.9 | 1.2 |
| Living by their own labor | 5,874 | 1,254 | 5,799 | 1,177 | 5,800 | 1,224 | 5,455 | 1,154 | 5,300 | 1,090 | 79.3 | 68.7 |
| Mendicants, vagabonds, prostitutes | 923 | 421 | 956 | 433 | 809 | 429 | 726 | 395 | 697 | 349 | 11.5 | 23.6 |
| Unknown, disappeared, deceased | 707 | 133 | 684 | 138 | 545 | 102 | 546 | 84 | 486 | 101 | 8.3 | 6.5 |
| Total | 7,585 | 1,840 | 7,514 | 1,808 | 7,215 | 1,758 | 6,777 | 1,637 | 6,527 | 1,545 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
After 1882 the penitentiary statistics no longer mention the financial condition of the parents, but their occupation. The results confirm those that we have just cited. [[486]]
France, 1890–1895.[209]
| Children Belonging to Parents | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1890–1895 Average Percentage. | |||||||
| Boys. | Girls. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | |
| Property owners or possessing incomes | 29 | 2 | 36 | 1 | 36 | 1 | 36 | 2 | 34 | 2 | 29 | 0 | 0.6 | 0.1 |
| Practicing liberal professions | 31 | 2 | 28 | 0 | 31 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 42 | 17 | 46 | 0 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
| Agricultural | 1,000 | 125 | 1,192 | 105 | 1,199 | 101 | 1,252 | 138 | 893 | 102 | 929 | 115 | 20.8 | 10.0 |
| Industrial | 1,252 | 193 | 1,186 | 179 | 1,059 | 163 | 1,237 | 240 | 1,304 | 300 | 1,317 | 304 | 23.7 | 20.1 |
| Miscellaneous | 2,084 | 572 | 1,937 | 493 | 2,130 | 413 | 1,866 | 373 | 2,199 | 311 | 2,120 | 327 | 39.8 | 36.4 |
| Mendicants, vagabonds, prostitutes | 391 | 201 | 434 | 224 | 423 | 287 | 440 | 294 | 403 | 286 | 333 | 300 | 7.8 | 23.3 |
| Unknown or disappeared | 364 | 91 | 342 | 133 | 347 | 136 | 374 | 129 | 325 | 95 | 263 | 106 | 6.5 | 10.1 |
| Total | 5,151 | 1,186 | 5,155 | 1,135 | 5,225 | 1,101 | 5,235 | 1,176 | 5,200 | 1,131 | 5,037 | 1,152 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
These figures show clearly that it is only an insignificant number of young criminals who come from the well-to-do classes.[210]
I have been able to procure only a few data from other countries; their results, however, are identical with those for England and France.
Italy.
Of the 2,000 young criminals examined by Ferriani, there were 1,758, or 87.9%, coming from families where a profound poverty reigned, and only 148 (7.4%) from families that had never known poverty.[211]
Prussia.
77.8% of the children received in the correctional educational institutions during the year 1901–02 came from very poor families.[212] [[487]]
It is then the poorest classes that furnish the greatest number of juvenile criminals.
We come now to education among the proletariat. Here we meet first, insufficiency of the pecuniary means which education requires; second, bad housing conditions, which oblige the children to pass a great part of the day in the street; third, the total absence of pedagogical ideas; fourth, the absence during the greater part of the day of the father of the family, and in many cases even of the mother. The number of married women who work away from home is continually increasing. In 1882 there were in Germany, for example, 507,784 married working-women, and by 1895 this figure had risen to 807,172—an increase of 299,388 (59%) in 13 years. In 1882 17.3% of the working-women were married; in 1895 21.5%.[213] There are no official figures but Braun[214] calculates that in Germany there are 500,000 children under 14 years of age, whose mothers are working-women. In Austria 44.6% of the working-women are married, and in France 20.6%.[215] We have seen above (pp. 409 ff.) that juvenile criminality is increasing. This is explained in part by the increase in the labor of married women, from which it results that an increasing number of children are brought up without the proper care.
Among the working classes there is no question of education properly speaking. We can consider the children as fortunate if their parents do not set them a bad example, are not continually engaging in disputes, and are not given to alcohol. It is plain that all this does not make up a proper education; and yet how many children there are who do not have even so much of an education as this![216]
In the lower proletariat the situation is naturally worse. Not only is there a total lack of care and surveillance, but children are even brought up to crime.
Up to this point we have supposed the parents to be living. From the present organization of society it follows that the condition of the children of the poor becomes very bad as soon as the parents or even [[488]]one of them dies. Often private or public charity intervenes, but generally the community does nothing for the orphan.
As a last consequence of the present system it must be noted that children born of illegitimate unions are in a still more precarious situation, since it is only the mother who has to protect them.
The community (in this case the state) concerns itself little with the education of children; it makes education compulsory (at least in some countries) and deprives parents of the charge of their children when they neglect them too much (this again in some countries only).
Now we come to the facts. They prove that the surroundings in which many children live are an important factor in the etiology of crime. The figures at my disposal are not as numerous as I could wish, but official statistics are not yet as full as is desirable for sociological purposes.
In reading the statistics which follow we must not lose sight of the fact that when it is stated that a certain percentage of children were brought up in a bad environment, it does not follow that all the others had a good education. The figures record only the very grave cases, as, for example, where the parents have been convicted, or the children entirely abandoned, etc. It is easier to prove, in making an investigation into the condition of a family, that the children do not receive a good education than it is to prove the contrary. Raux says that 36% of the parents of the juvenile criminals whom he had examined had a good reputation. The author adds, however, that this figure is too high for the following reason: “For certain officials charged with furnishing information on this point, every man who, without being absolutely irreproachable, has not been complained against, is a person of good character. So we have been made to add to the list of those of good reputation certain families where the father, drunken, idle, and unchaste, sets a very bad example to his son.”[217]
Some readers will see in what follows only a tiresome mass of figures—quite wrongly, for those who know how to read the figures find in them a language much more convincing and more shocking than that which can be expressed in words.
Before beginning, the following remark must be made. We shall give, as far as possible, the percentages of criminals born of illegitimate unions together with the percentages of illegitimate births in general. We shall see that with some exceptions, even so, the percentage for criminals is much greater than that for the population in [[489]]general. However, to make the comparisons exact it is necessary to know the percentage of illegitimate persons among the population of an age to commit crime, and not among the newly born. This percentage is very much less, because, first, the mortality among illegitimate children is especially great, second, because a considerable number are legitimated. In general the percentage of illegitimate persons among the adult population is unknown. From researches by Neumann (“Die jugendlichen Berliner unehelicher Herkunft”) and Spann (“Untersuchungen über die uneheliche Bevölkerung in Frankfurt a/M.”), it appears that 3.6 times fewer illegitimate children in proportion, than legitimate, reach the age of 20 years![218]
Austria, 1883–1889.[219]
The following figures have to do with illegitimacy among the criminals imprisoned in the years 1883 and 1884.
| Sex. | 1883. | 1884. | ||||
| Total Number of Criminals Imprisoned. | Illegitimate. | Total Number of Criminals Imprisoned. | Illegitimate. | |||
| Absolute Number. | To 100 Prisoners. | Absolute Number. | To 100 Prisoners. | |||
| Men | 4,988 | 595 | 11.9 | 4,512 | 626 | 13.8 |
| Women | 781 | 149 | 19.0 | 751 | 156 | 20.7 |
| Total | 5,769 | 746 | 12.9 | 5,263 | 782 | 14.8 |
| Recidivists. | ||||||
| Men | 2,719 | 392 | 14.4 | 2,353 | 366 | 15.5 |
| Women | 425 | 93 | 21.8 | 365 | 97 | 26.5 |
| Total | 3,144 | 485 | 15.4 | 2,718 | 463 | 17.0 |
[[490]]
For the years 1896 and 1899 I have the following data, bearing upon the persons convicted of crime during those years.[220]
| Sex. | 1896. | 1897 | ||||
| Total Convicted. | Illegitimate. | Total Convicted. | Illegitimate. | |||
| Absolute Number. | To 100 Convicted. | Absolute Number. | To 100 Convicted. | |||
| Men | 24,833 | 2,095 | 8.4 | 28,984 | 2,838 | 9.7 |
| Women | 4,065 | 621 | 15.2 | 4,679 | 642 | 13.7 |
| Total | 28,898 | 2,716 | 9.3 | 33,663 | 3,480 | 10.3 |
In order to be able to make a comparison we must have the figures for illegitimate births in the population in general. For Austria they are very high: in the period 1876–1880 13.84% of the children born living were illegitimate, and in the period 1887–1891 14.67%.[221] During the period between 1883 and 1892 the general mortality of children under a year old was 24.9% as against 30.3% for illegitimate children.[222]
Baden, 1887–1891.[223]
In 1887 correctional education (Zwangserziehung) was introduced into the Grand Duchy of Baden. The family conditions of the children received between 1887 and 1891 were as follows:
| Years. | To Each 100 Children there were: | |||
| Illegitimate. | Full Orphans. | Motherless. | Fatherless. | |
| 1887 | 18.5 | 3.3 | 21.8 | 24.3 |
| 1888 | 17.0 | 4.7 | 16.2 | 30.2 |
| 1889 | 15.9 | 5.0 | 16.5 | 30.6 |
| 1890 | 15.0 | 4.8 | 16.6 | 32.8 |
| 1891 | 15.6 | 4.1 | 17.7 | 32.6 |
England and Scotland, 1887–1899.
With regard to the children received into the “Industrial Schools” during the years 1887 to 1891 there are the following data: 5% were [[491]]illegitimate, while for the same period 4.52% of all children born living were illegitimate.[224] Here we must take into consideration the greater mortality among illegitimate children. There are no recent data, but in England in 1875 this mortality was twice as great as that of legitimate children, and in some countries it is four times as great.
4% were full orphans; 34% half orphans, 20% being fatherless and 14% motherless; 6% had been abandoned by their parents; and 2% were the children of habitual criminals. 51%, therefore, were living under unfavorable conditions. For the pupils of the “Reformatories” in the same period this percentage was 53.[225]
The following figures indicate also the relative numbers for the two sexes:
Industrial Schools, 1891.[226]
| Boys. | Girls. | |||
| Number. | % | Number. | % | |
| Illegitimate | 233 | 6.8 | 108 | 11.6 |
| Full orphans | 115 | 3.4 | 65 | 6.7 |
| Fatherless only | 532 | 15.6 | 181 | 18.6 |
| Motherless only | 535 | 15.7 | 171 | 17.6 |
| Abandoned by parents | 193 | 5.7 | 76 | 7.8 |
| One or both parents perverted or criminal | 118 | 3.5 | 53 | 5.5 |
| Parents living and able to care for children | 1,681 | 49.3 | 317 | 32.7 |
| Total | 3,407 | 100.0 | 971 | 100.0 |
It is interesting to note that with girls the influence of bad family surroundings is worse than it is with boys, more than two thirds living under abnormal circumstances.
However, confining ourselves to figures for the period 1887–1891, 49% and 47% of the children in the two classes of institutions respectively came from normal families. In what follows we see what their education was; different competent witnesses before the “Royal Commission on Reformatory and Industrial Schools” affirmed that the environment from which these children came was very unfavorable. The most important testimony was that of Mr. Macdonald, one of the officers who receive the contributions of the parents to the support of their children in the “Industrial Schools.” According [[492]]to him only 6% of the children came from homes favorable to their moral education. In Manchester 68% of the parents of children in the industrial schools had a bad reputation; 14.7% were of doubtful character; and only 17% conducted themselves well.[227]
Of 1,209 juvenile delinquents in the English prisons (1898–99) 90 (7.4%) had had no education; 512 (42.3%) had had very little; 496 (41%) a fair education; and of 111 (9.1%) only could it be said that their education was good. 211 (17.4%) were without father or mother; 183 (15.1%) had bad homes; 198 (16.3%) had none at all; and 30 (2.4%) slept in night-lodgings.[228]
If the environment in which the young criminals have lived is the cause of their fall, a considerable portion of them ought to return to the right way as a result of the education given in the schools in question. If this is not the case with all, this proves nothing against the influence of environment, for the impressions received by the child in the surroundings in which he has lived before his conviction are too strong to be effaced by a comparatively brief stay in an educational institution (even if these reform-schools were perfect). Finally, after they are set at liberty environment may once more contribute to recidivism. The following figures show the facts in the case:[229]
| Years. | To Each 100 Released there were: | |||||||
| Boys. | Girls. | |||||||
| Good Conduct. | Doubtful Conduct. | Recidivists. | Conduct Unknown. | Good Conduct. | Doubtful Conduct. | Recidivists. | Conduct Unknown. | |
| a. Reformatory Schools. | ||||||||
| 1882 | 76 | 3 | 14 | 7 | 72 | 7 | 6 | 15 |
| 1883 | 76 | 3 | 14 | 7 | 69 | 9 | 8 | 14 |
| 1884 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 70 | 9 | 6 | 15 |
| 1885 | 79 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 72 | 9 | 6 | 13 |
| 1886 | 77 | 3 | 14 | 6 | 73 | 11 | 5 | 11 |
| 1887 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 75 | 10 | 5 | 10 |
| 1888 | 76 | 1 | 17 | 6 | 75 | 9 | 6 | 10 |
| 1889 | 74 | 2 | 18 | 6 | 76 | 9 | 6 | 9 |
| 1890 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 73 | 10 | 7 | 10 |
| 1891 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 76 | 8 | 5 | 11[[493]] |
| b. Industrial Schools. | ||||||||
| 1882 | 81 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 79 | 7 | 1 | 13 |
| 1883 | 80 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 79 | 7 | 2 | 12 |
| 1884 | 81 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 80 | 7 | 2 | 11 |
| 1885 | 81 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 81 | 7 | 2 | 10 |
| 1886 | 82.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 10 | 83 | 8 | 1 | 8 |
| 1887 | 83.3 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 84 | 7 | 1 | 8 |
| 1888 | 83 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 81 | 8 | 1 | 10 |
| 1889 | 83 | 3 | 5 | 9 | 82 | 8 | 1 | 9 |
| 1890 | 84 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 83 | 7 | 1 | 8 |
| 1891 | 85.5 | 2 | 4.5 | 8 | 84 | 7 | 1 | 8 |
The percentage of those who conduct themselves well is considerable, therefore, and indicates how great the influence of an unfavorable environment upon these children has been.[230]
France, 1890–1895.[231]
The following important data concern the children in the “établissements d’éducation correctionnelle”:
| Condition as to Family. | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1890–1895 Average Percentage. | |||||||
| B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | |
| Illegitimate | 693 | 236 | 669 | 238 | 654 | 277 | 635 | 295 | 589 | 289 | 535 | 395 | 2.1 | 25.1 |
| Half orphans | 1,676 | 432 | 1,641 | 419 | 1,753 | 418 | 1,634 | 410 | 1,690 | 428 | 1,492 | 452 | 1.7 | 37.1 |
| Full orphans | 384 | 152 | 310 | 172 | 323 | 203 | 333 | 212 | 324 | 236 | 271 | 225 | 6.2 | 17.4 |
| Parents: Convicted one or more times | 977 | 412 | 875 | 443 | 864 | 570 | 922 | 566 | 853 | 481 | 801 | 488 | 7.0 | 43.0 |
| Mendicants, vagabonds, or prostitutes | 391 | 201 | 434 | 224 | 423 | 287 | 444 | 294 | 403 | 286 | 333 | 300 | 7.8 | 43.0 |
| Unknown or disappeared | 364 | 91 | 342 | 135 | 347 | 136 | 374 | 129 | 325 | 95 | 263 | 106 | 6.5 | 10.0 |
| Total of juvenile delinquents | 5,151 | 1,186 | 5,155 | 1,135 | 5,225 | 1,101 | 5,235 | 1,176 | 5,200 | 1,131 | 5,037 | 1,152 | ||
[[494]]
Out of 100 children born living 8.41 were illegitimate (1887–1891),[232] while the mortality in the first year of life rose to 28.8% of the illegitimate children, and only to 16.7% of the legitimate.[233]
The figures given above constitute a crushing accusation against present conditions. If we suppose that the number of persons born of illegitimate unions who have attained the age at which it is physically possible to commit a crime are 6% of the whole population (a figure which is certainly rather too low than too high), it follows that a natural son runs twice as much danger of becoming a criminal as he would if legitimate, and that this danger is even four times as great in the case of a natural daughter. The other data are striking, especially those which deal with girls. There were 54% who were orphans or half-orphans; 43% had criminal parents; 33% had parents who were vagabonds or prostitutes, or who had deserted their children![234]
As the official statistics furnish no other data, we will pass on to some of those given by private individuals. In the work already more than once quoted, Raux gives the following table, based upon careful researches and dealing with 385 juvenile prisoners received in the “Quartier correctionnel” at Lyons, to which the juvenile delinquents guilty of grave crimes are sent:[235]
| Juvenile Prisoners. | |||||
| Under normal | surveillance | 51 | 51 | 13% | |
| Under,, weak | surveillance,, | 90 | | 158 | 41% |
| Under,, impotent | surveillance,, | 44 | |||
| Under,, brutal | surveillance,, | 24 | |||
| Morally abandoned | 98 | | 145 | 38% | |
| Completely abandoned,, | 47 | ||||
| Excited to crime by the example of parents | 15 | | 31 | 8% | |
| Having committed crime under the instigation and with the complicity of parents | 16 | ||||
| Total | 385 | 385 | 100% | ||
Only 13% among them enjoyed a normal education (and who could say how far it was really good?), while 87% had an education [[495]]insufficient or bad. The author arrives at the following conclusion: “… the population of the ‘quartier correctionnel’ of Lyons, more unfortunate than guilty, has been recruited for more than 16 years from families the majority of which bore within themselves, by reason of the vices of their constitution, the principle of disintegration; whose morality was detestable or very doubtful, and whose means of subsistence were insufficient or totally lacking.
“It is to these different causes that the young delinquents owe first their deplorable antecedents, then their recklessness at the moment of the crime, their perversity, their corruption, and finally, their arrest.”[236]
The opinion of M. Grosmolard, of great value because of the competence of the author, who has been attached to the penal institutions of Lyons, is entirely in accord with what has just been quoted. After having spoken of the strong influence of poverty upon juvenile criminality, Grosmolard continues thus: “Besides material poverty, and as an auxiliary to this factor, we find the moral poverty of the home, manifested by the disorganization of the family. Whether it is due to the misconduct of the father or of the mother, or of both, the disruption, whether private through separation of the couple, or officialized by divorce, has no less deplorable consequences for the children. There is always the depressing spectacle of domestic disputes, the abandonment of the home, the weakening of parental discipline.”[237]
Concerning 400 children in a parental school in Paris we have the following figures:[238]
| There were: | |
| Natural children | 11.25% |
| Half orphans | 35.00% |
| Full orphans | 10.00% |
| Children whose parents had disappeared or been convicted | 13.25% |
| Whose parents had separated or been divorced | 16.25% |
| Coming from a normal family | 14.25% |
| 100.00% | |
These results agree, therefore, with those of the official statistics and of Raux. The normal families were those which did not present any of the external marks of demoralization, and it is more than probable that their “morality”, in many cases was only apparent. [[496]]
Out of 600 families from which juvenile criminals had issued, studied by Dr. L. Albanel, 303 (50.5%) had been disorganized by death, divorce, desertion, etc. In 268 (44.6%) families the fathers and mothers worked away from home and the children were entirely neglected; 291 children (48.5%) were confided to persons outside of the family; and 41 (6.8%) were brought up by their grandparents, etc.[239]
Finally, there is the following fact about the children undergoing correction in Paris during the period 1874–1878: nearly 68% of them received visits from no one at all, not even from their parents. What complete misery! Out of 100 children 68 in whom no one was interested, not even when they were in prison.[240]
The results obtained by correctional education (probably no more perfect in France than elsewhere) prove the correctness of what has been advanced. If the thesis that the environment is the cause of the criminality of minors is true, the conduct of most of those set free ought to be good. Here are the results obtained in the “Quartier correctionnel” of Lyons:[241]
| 101 | discharged prisoners led a good life, i.e. | 60% |
| 20 | conducted themselves passably, i.e. | 12% |
| 24 | were put down as bad, i.e. | 14% |
| 24 | disappeared (died, etc.), i.e. | 14% |
| 169 | discharged prisoners | 100% |
As I have already remarked, the fact that all do not lead good lives proves nothing against the theory of environment, for it is quite possible that earlier evil influences have not been eliminated in a comparatively short detention. To prove how strong an influence the environment exercises anew upon discharged prisoners, let us look at the following figures, which also have to do with the pupils of the Lyons “Quartier correctionnel”:[242] [[497]]
| Discharged Inmates whose Parents: | Reformed. | Recidivists. | |
| Had a good | reputation | 83% | 5% |
| Had,, a,, doubtful | reputation,, | 52% | 16% |
| Had,, a,, bad | reputation,, | 37% | 16% |
| Had,, been convicted | 50% | 29% | |
Ireland, 1891.
Among the children subjected to correctional education in 1891 there were: 1.2% of illegitimate birth; 8.1% who had lost their parents; 16.2% without father; 19.3% without mother; and 0.6% who had been abandoned or whose parents were unknown.[243] 43.6%, then, were entirely or partially orphaned. These figures have no great value since they relate to so small a number (160).
Italy, 1885–1889.
With regard to illegitimacy among criminals I have data for the years 1885, 1886, and 1889. In these years there were among those convicted at the assizes 2.35%, 2.25%, and 2.21% respectively, of illegitimate birth.[244] The number of natural children in general in the years 1872–1889 was about 7%;[245] the mortality among children in general in the first year was 19%, and that among the illegitimate children 26% (these percentages are the averages for the years 1884–1893).[246] Italy is an exception, therefore to the rule, good everywhere else, that a larger proportion of criminals than of the general population are illegitimate.
In his “Entartete Mütter”, Ferriani says that more than 25% of the 806 juvenile criminals examined by him had become such because of the depravity of their families.[247] In his “Minderjährige Verbrecher” he gives the following results from an examination of 2,000 juvenile criminals: 207 (10.3%) came from families of which one or more members had been convicted; 53 (2.6%) from families entirely demoralized; 701 (35.0%) from families of bad reputation; and 169 (8.4%) from families with a doubtful reputation—all together 56.3%; while 896 (44.8%) had been corrupted by bad examples.[248] [[498]]
Dr. A. Marro gives the following figures:[249] of 507 criminals examined by him there were:
| 19 | ( 3.6%) | whose father or mother was a criminal |
| 98 | (13.4%) | who had a criminal brother or sister |
| 115 | (22.6%) | whose father was immoral or violent |
| 56 | (11.0%) | whose,, mother was,, immoral,, or,, violent,, |
| 209 | (41.0%) | whose,, father was alcoholic |
| 26 | ( 5.1%) | whose,, mother was,, alcoholic,, |
| 120 | (24.1%) | had lost their father before the age of 16 |
| 90 | (18.1%) | had,, lost,, their,, mother before,, the,, age,, of,, 16,, |
| and 36 | (7.0%) | were orphans before the age of 16. |
Netherlands, 1896–1901.
The data concerning the Netherlands are limited to the following:[250]
Percentage of Persons of Illegitimate Birth.
| Years. | Convicts. | Recidivists. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | Total. | Men. | Women. | Total. | |
| 1896 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 1.7 | 2.2 | 6.8 | 2.4 |
| 1897 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 3.5 | 2.0 |
| 1898 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| 1899 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
| 1900 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.9 |
| 1901 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 1.6 |
In the period 1887–1891 the number of illegitimate children to 100 born living was 3.2[251]; the mortality among illegitimate children during their first year rose to 26.6% as against 17.5% among children in general (1885–1893).[252] It is not possible to calculate for [[499]]the population in general the number of individuals born of illegitimate unions and arrived at the age at which they are capable of committing crime, but it is certain that the mortality is greater among illegitimate children at each age than among legitimate children, and that the number of children legitimated is very considerable. The percentage of illegitimates to the whole population, then, is much smaller than 3.2. It is consequently probable that in Holland also illegitimate children are more likely to become criminals than legitimate children.
As to juvenile criminals there are the following figures to be gathered from the criminal statistics for the years from 1899 to 1901:
| Years. | To 100 of Each Category. | |||||
| Boys. | Girls. | |||||
| Illeg. | Orph. | Half-Orph. | Illeg. | Orph. | Half-Orph. | |
| 1899 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 18.8 | 4.3 | 2.2 | 27.2 |
| 1900 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 18.3 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 29.6 |
| 1901 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 15.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 19.6 |
New York (State), 1875–1897.
Dugdale gives the following figures in “The Jukes.” They deal with 233 criminals imprisoned in New York in 1875. 40.77% were orphans; 46.78% had been neglected in their youth; 17.16% were descended from criminal families, and 42.49% from intemperate families.[253]
The following very interesting figures are taken from the annual reports of the Elmira Reformatory. [[500]]
| Year. | To Each 100 Prisoners. | |||||||
| Parents Alcoholic. | Character of Home Environment. | Length of Stay at Home. | ||||||
| Plainly. | Probably. | Positively Bad. | Fair. | Good. | Left Home. | |||
| Before 10. | Between 10 and 14. | Soon after the Age of 14. | ||||||
| 1881 | 33.8 | 18.0 | 47.7 | 44.0 | 8.3 | 5.4 | 7.6 | 22.5 |
| 1882 | 35.1 | 16.0 | 48.1 | 41.1 | 10.8 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 22.7 |
| 1883 | 35.6 | 14.1 | 49.3 | 39.1 | 11.6 | 5.2 | 7.0 | 23.6 |
| 1884 | 35.9 | 13.3 | 50.0 | 39.2 | 10.8 | 4.4 | 6.8 | 25.0 |
| 1885 | 36.4 | 12.8 | 50.6 | 38.9 | 10.5 | 4.9 | 6.8 | 25.5 |
| 1886 | 37.5 | 12.0 | 52.4 | 37.4 | 10.2 | 4.6 | 6.4 | 25.5 |
| 1888 | 38.4 | 10.9 | 52.1 | 38.9 | 9.0 | 5.2 | 6.3 | 29.5 |
| 1889 | 38.7 | 11.1 | 51.8 | 39.9 | 8.3 | 5.2 | 6.2 | 30.8 |
| 1890 | 38.4 | 11.4 | 52.0 | 40.4 | 7.6 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 29.5 |
| 1891 | 38.4 | 13.0 | 52.6 | 39.8 | 7.6 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 30.7 |
| 1892 | 38.3 | 13.1 | 54.1 | 38.3 | 7.6 | 4.1 | 5.8 | 32.0 |
| 1893 | 37.8 | 12.7 | 50.3 | 40.0 | 9.7 | 3.8 | 6.1 | 32.6 |
| 1894 | 37.5 | 12.1 | 49.0 | 40.6 | 10.4 | 3.8 | 6.1 | 31.8 |
| 1896 | 37.5 | 11.3 | 47.0 | 41.3 | 11.7 | 3.6 | 6.7 | 33.0 |
| 1897 | 37.6 | 51.7? | 46.7 | 41.1 | 12.2 | 3.7 | 6.3 | 34.2 |
In round numbers then: 50% of the criminals come from a corrupt environment, and only 10% from a good environment; 40% had left home before the age of 15; and further, 40 to 45% had alcoholic parents.[254]
Norway, 1897–1900.[255]
The following figures deal with illegitimacy of birth among the prisoners in Norway.
| Years. | Persons of Illegitimate Birth to 100 Prisoners of Each Category. | ||
| Men. | Women. | Total. | |
| 1897–1898 | 12.7 | 14.7 | 13.0 |
| 1898–1899 | 11.8 | 17.2 | 12.6 |
| 1899–1900 | — | — | 12.0 |
[[501]]
During the years 1887–1891, out of 100 living births 7.33 were illegitimate,[256] while the mortality of natural children in the first year was 15.3% and that of children in general 9.5%.[257] Persons of illegitimate birth formed a much greater proportion of the prisoners than of the population in general.
Prussia, 1891–1900.[258]
| To 100 Prisoners Born of Illegitimate Unions there were: | |||||
| In Houses of Detention. (1891–1900). | In Correctional Prisons. (1896–1900). | In Institutions for Correctional Education. (1895–1900). | |||
| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. |
| 8.5 | 10.2 | 8.3 | 12.5 | 11.6 | 15.1 |
In the years 1887–1891 there were 7.81 illegitimate children out of each 100 living births; 35.7% of the illegitimate children died in the first year as against 20.8% of children in general (1884–1893).[259] In Prussia also, then, the influence of illegitimacy upon criminality is very marked.
The following table gives the figures for 18,049 recidivists in Prussian houses of detention in the years 1894–1897.[260]
| Absolute Numbers. | % | |||
| Of illegitimate birth | 2,218 | 11.2 | ||
| Had lost father before age of 14 | 3,230 | 17.8 | | 35.1 |
| Had,, lost,, mother lost,, age,, of,, 14,, | 2,116 | 11.7 | ||
| Had,, lost,, both lost,, age,, of,, 14,, | 1,027 | 5.6 | ||
| Had,, lost,, father after age,, of,, 14,, but before 18 | 1,183 | 6.5 | | 12.2 |
| Had,, lost,, mother after the age of 14 but before 18 | 880 | 4.8 | ||
| Had,, both after the age of 14 but before before 18 | 167 | 0.9 | ||
| Had,, committed their first crime before the age of 14 | 1,150 | 6.3 | | 33.6 |
| Had,, committed their first crime between the ages of 14 and 18 | 4,936 | 27.3 | ||
[[502]]
Consequently 47.3% had lost one or both parents before reaching the age of 18; 11.2% were of illegitimate birth—a total, therefore, of 58.5% brought up under abnormal home surroundings. And what was the environment under which the other 41.5% had lived? The table gives no answer to this question, but we may imagine it on the basis of the figures given above.
Switzerland, 1892–1896.
Among the 14,612 persons confined in the Swiss prisons during the years 1892–1896 there were 1,359 of illegitimate birth—1,044 men (8.5%) and 315 women (13.9%).[261] In the period 1871–1890 there were only 5 illegitimate births to the 100, while the mortality during the first year was 24.0 to the 100 natural children as against 16.4 to the 100 children in general.[262] The influence of illegitimate birth upon criminality, therefore, is very great in Switzerland; an illegitimate child is at least three times as likely to become a criminal as a legitimate child.
As regards the education of criminals, 22% of the women and 17% of the men had been brought up by persons outside of the family. The following table bears upon the others, i.e. those who were brought up at home:[263]
| Education. | Number of Prisoners. | ||||
| Men. | Women. | Illegitimate. | |||
| Total. | % | Total. | % | % | |
| Good | 4,696 | 57 | 586 | 44 | 37.6 |
| Defective | 3,096 | 37 | 619 | 46 | 47.6 |
| Bad | 481 | 6 | 141 | 10 | 14.8 |
| Total | 8,273 | 100 | 1,346 | 100 | 100.0 |
These figures show that the education of a very great number of criminals was very insufficient, and especially so in the case of illegitimate children.
The following table, dealing with the canton of Berne, gives still further details.[264] [[503]]
| Categories of Convicts. | To 100 Convicts of Each Category the Education had been: | |||
| Good. | Defective. | Bad. | Not known. | |
| Legitimate | 33.0 | 54.0 | 11.0 | 2.0 |
| Illegitimate | 8.4 | 63.4 | 25.3 | 2.8 |
| Brought up at home | 38.0 | 11.0 | 49.0 | 2.0 |
| Brought,, up,, in another family | 9.0 | 17.0 | 73.0 | 1.0 |
| Brought,, up,, in,, an institution | 16.0 | 19.0 | 53.0 | 13.0 |
The figures concerning the bad education of illegitimate persons are very striking, as well as those brought up in families other than their own; of the latter only 9% had received a good education even as that term is used in the table.
Wurtemberg, 1877–1888.
The following figures have to do with 3,181 criminals in prison in Wurtemberg during the years mentioned:
Out of 100 in each group there were the following number of illegitimate births:
| All prisoners | 27.0 |
| Habitual criminals | 30.6 |
| Occasional criminals | 17.4 |
| Thieves | 32.4 |
| Swindlers | 23.1 |
| Sexual criminals | 21.0 |
| Perjurers | 13.0 |
| Incendiaries | 12.9 |
Between 1876 and 1885 there were 8.76% of illegitimate births in the general population; and while the general mortality of children in their first year was 26.1% (1884–1893) that of illegitimate children was 32%.[265] The influence of illegitimacy is very strong here, therefore.
To 100 persons of each category the following were brought up outside of their own family: [[504]]
| Prisoners in general | 16.0 |
| Habitual criminals | 19.3 |
| Occasional criminals | 7.6 |
| Thieves | 20.9 |
| Incendiaries | 11.0 |
| Swindlers | 10.8 |
| Sexual criminals | 9.4 |
| Perjurers | 6.0 |
To 100 persons of each category there were the following one or both of whose parents had led an immoral or criminal life:
| Prisoners in general | 43.7 |
| Sexual criminals | 51.7 |
| Thieves | 47.3 |
| Swindlers | 34.8 |
| Incendiaries | 31.0 |
| Perjurers | 23.0 |
Finally it must be mentioned that 16.2% of 1,714 in the detention prison had alcoholic parents.
We are now at the end of our statistical data and also of our observations upon the environment in which criminals are brought up; for it seems to me superfluous to make further comments: the great influence of environment is indubitable.
Tomel and Rollet close their work “Enfants en prison” with these words, which I make my own, and which are as applicable to adult as to juvenile criminals: “Has society done everything that it ought to spare children the prison? We believe that with ourselves [the reader] will answer, ‘No!’ Each child to whom we refuse protection will become a delinquent. It is a wolf that we are preparing for the sheep-fold. If tomorrow he makes his fellows pay his own arrears of injustice, if he steals, if he kills, he will not say, ‘I commit a crime’; he will say, ‘I make reprisals.’ ”[266]
f. Prostitution. Prostitution has a special importance for the etiology of sexual offenses and of procuration. However, it is not with this that we are concerned at present, but with the correlation between prostitution and criminality in general, in the sense, that is, that prostitution has a demoralizing effect upon the women who practice it and upon the men who have intercourse with them. [[505]]
Let us begin with the effect upon the prostitutes themselves. And as with all observations upon the relation between certain social phenomena and criminality, these must be preceded by statistical data.
How large a quota do prostitutes contribute to crime? This is a hard question to answer, because, first, most criminal statistics make no mention of the occupation of prostitute; second, when the statistics do mention prostitution they do not give the real truth, since the facts will often be concealed by the woman interested; third, the extent of prostitution is almost unknown, so that it is impossible to make the necessary calculations.
The following figures give us some information on the subject.
Austria, 1896–1898.
It is to the study of Dr. A. Baumgarten “Die Beziehungen der Prostitution zum Verbrechen”, that I owe the following figures (which, I believe, bear wholly upon Vienna). In the years 1896–98 there were 34 annually convicted out of a total of 2,400 prostitutes, or 1.4%, not counting those who were punished for infraction of the regulations covering prostitution.[267] The author thinks this degree of criminality very small. I venture to be of a different opinion. If we note that criminal statistics, those of Germany, for example, show that there are annually only 0.3 women over 12 years of age convicted to the 100, we shall see that the part that prostitutes take in crime must be called more than a small one.
England, 1836–1900.
The English penitentiary statistics show whether the female prisoners are prostitutes or not. As we have seen above (p. 499) the percentage of prostitutes rose in the period between 1894–1900 to 15% of the total. The figures bearing upon earlier years, however, show a much higher percentage; in the years 1836–1854 25.2% of the women convicted (in London) were prostitutes[268]; in the years 1858–1862 prostitutes made up 24.7% of the women arrested.[269]
However, when we examine these exceptionally high figures, we must not forget that, according to the “Vagrant Act”, the fact of being a prostitute itself is a misdemeanor; a part of these women, [[506]]therefore, were convicted for this and not for having committed some other offense. The following figure however, where this circumstance is excluded, also shows a great criminality upon the part of prostitutes, and gains added weight from the fact that many persons would not care to make complaint for fear of scandal: to each 100 persons of both sexes convicted in London between 1843 and 1854 of “theft from the person”, there were 36.0 prostitutes.[270]
France, 1890–1895.
In citing the figures upon the occupations of the prisoners (1890–1895) we showed (p. 501) that about 5% were prostitutes. Compared with that given in the corresponding statistics for England this percentage is small. It must, however, be taken into consideration that a great number of occasional prostitutes figure in the penitentiary statistics under the head of another occupation.
Germany, 1885.
For this country I have been able to find only the following. Among the 2,900 women imprisoned in the 16 great German prisons there were found in 1885 500 (17.2%) who had already been punished for professional prostitution.[271] Although there are no positive data upon the extent of prostitution, it is nevertheless certain that much less than 17.2% of women in general are prostitutes. The figure cited shows that prostitutes take a relatively large part in crime.
Italy, 1891–1895.
1,949 (1.5%) out of 126,717 women convicted in the years 1891–1895 were prostitutes.[272] Here also it must be taken into account that this number is made up only of prostitutes by occupation, and that those who follow it as an auxiliary calling are grouped under other occupations. Also, L. Ferriani, in his “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, concludes that of the 460 young female criminals studied by him, 243 (52.8%) were prostitutes.[273]
What data I have been able to secure do not prove—but render [[507]]exceedingly probable—the assertion that prostitutes show a high degree of criminality. In my opinion this phenomenon is to be explained as follows.
First. From its nature the profession opens a vast field for committing economic offenses.
Second. Prostitution has a very demoralizing effect upon those that practice it. Those who have not sufficiently taken account of the real causes of prostitution consider this a confusing of cause and effect, and believe that it is the demoralization which causes prostitution. In reasoning thus they forget that part of the prostitutes are forced by poverty to take up this profession, and that in such cases there is no need of supposing demoralization. Whatever may be the case with regard to the rest, the profession would increase the demoralization already existing.
All the authors who have taken up the question are agreed that this is really the case. It is impossible to imagine a more degrading situation than that of a prostitute. A woman who is continually forced to act in opposition to her feelings, who is obliged to enter into intimate relations with the first comer however abject he may be, who has become unaccustomed to all work, and who is despised, inevitably loses all respect for herself and falls lower and lower.[274]
A second bond of connection between criminality and prostitution is that it makes possible a category of persons who constitute a permanent danger to society, namely the “protectors.” The unregistered prostitutes need a man who will look after them, and to whom they may attach themselves in their forlorn condition. In exchange for this protection the prostitute gives up a large part of her earnings. In examining the biographies of great criminals we see that a large number of them have belonged to this category. It is evident that only demoralized persons can lead such a life, but that this life in its turn increases their demoralization.[275] [[508]]
In the third place, prostitution has a demoralizing effect upon the men who come into contact with the prostitutes. We cannot lay it to chance that it is shown in many criminal procedures that guilty persons have had relations with the world of prostitution. This world includes only a relatively small number of persons; but the men who frequent it are numerous, and the demoralization which ensues is prejudicial to society. This demoralization is easily explained, as Dr. Lux shows in his “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, in these words: “The venality of the delights of love debases the pleasure; the man learns to see in woman only a means of satisfying his lust; all higher regard for woman is lost to him, his thoughts become frivolous and cynical, his character continually more vulgar. Whoever has an opportunity to come to know the young men of the large cities, must, unless he is already tainted with their opinions himself, be shocked at the brutality and coarseness of their thought and speech. The whole conversational material of our gilded youth consists of filth and obscenities; they boast of things that a decent man would blush to be charged with. The young man is demoralized and depraved by association with prostitutes, of whose standard of morality he must beware lest he stifle in it every nobler feeling.”[276]
g. Alcoholism. Here we have to take up but a single one of the ways in which alcoholism is connected with criminality. For while acute alcohol-poisoning enters into the etiology of sexual offenses and those committed in revenge, etc., it has almost no relation to the largest of the classes, namely economic crimes. Acute alcoholism, therefore, has no place among our general observations. With chronic alcoholism it is otherwise; for the man who is subject to this undergoes a general demoralization by which he is predisposed to crime even when he is not drunk. The manner in which this demoralization takes place is not a question within the province of [[509]]sociology; it is sufficient for us that this consequence of chronic alcoholism is universally recognized.[277]
To show the influence of chronic alcoholism upon criminality we can use only the direct statistical method; that is to say, we must find the number of chronic alcoholics among criminals, and then place beside this the number among the non-criminal population, in order that we may compare them. If the latter figures are lacking, a comparison is impossible. However, as we shall see, the percentage of chronic alcoholics is so great among the criminals, that we can affirm that among the non-criminals the percentage is very small. Consequently the influence of chronic alcoholism, whether greater or less, is indubitably proved. Here are the statistics which we have at our disposal.
Belgium, 1874–1900.
M. Masoin tells us that out of 2,588 convicts (sentenced for 5 years at least) who entered the central institution at Louvain between 1874 and 1895, there were 1,157 (44.7%) addicted to drunkenness. Out of 216 sentenced to hard labor for life there were 118 (54.6%), and out of 202 sentenced to death 121 (60%).[278]
In the prison of Mons Dr. Morel shows that out of 325 recidivists 181 (53.9%) were given to alcoholic excesses.[279]
It appears from the “Statistique Judiciaire de la Belgique” of 1900, that in 1898, out of 19,169 recidivists (men) there were 5,976 (31.2%) who had already been convicted of breaking the law against drunkenness, and out of 22,904 non-recidivists (men) 1,984 (8.7%). Among the women the figures were 8% (recidivists) and 1.1% (non-recidivists).[280]
Denmark, 1871–1897.
Out of 2,982 prisoners received between 1871 and 1880 in the prison at Vridslöselille, 797 (27%) were drunkards. The penitentiary statistics show us that during the years 1891–1897, among the non-recidivists 16.3% of the men were drunkards, and 4.6% of the women.[281] [[510]]
England and Wales, 1858–1897.
The following figures are taken from the police statistics[282]:
| Years. | Number of Persons Prosecuted. | Of whom there were Habitual Drinkers:[283] | |||||
| Men. | Women. | Total. | |||||
| Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | ||
| 1858 | 434,492 | 13,553 | 3.7 | 4,130 | 4.5 | 17,683 | 4.1 |
| 1859 | 419,929 | 18,440 | 5.6 | 5,303 | 5.9 | 23,743 | 5.7 |
| 1860 | 409,780 | 19,471 | 6.0 | 5,210 | 6.0 | 24,681 | 6.0 |
| 1861 | 421,891 | 19,475 | 5.8 | 4,960 | 5.7 | 24,425 | 5.8 |
| 1862 | 438,228 | 20,830 | 6.0 | 5,209 | 5.8 | 26,039 | 5.9 |
| 1894 | 689,761 | 19,224 | 3.3 | 6,557 | 5.3 | 25,781 | 3.6 |
| 1895 | 687,075 | 16,268 | 2.8 | 5,695 | 4.7 | 21,963 | 3.1 |
| 1896 | 728,374 | 17,308 | 2.8 | 6,015 | 4.7 | 23,323 | 3.2 |
| 1897 | 757,485 | 17,012 | 2.7 | 6,084 | 4.6 | 23,096 | 3.0 |
These figures have no great value; they represent the number of habitual drinkers to be less than it really is. The statistics cited divide all persons prosecuted into eight groups (habitual criminals, prostitutes, vagrants, etc.) and under the heading of habitual drinkers only those alcoholics figure who are not included under other headings. If a vagrant, for example, is also a habitual drinker, he will be counted among the vagrants and not among the habitual drinkers; hence this latter group is much larger than the figures would indicate.[284]
France.
At the penitentiary Congress in Brussels (1900), M. V. Marambat, well known for his studies on the relation between criminality and alcoholism, gave the following figures:[285] [[511]]
| Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Number of Convicts. | Number of Drunkards. | % |
| Murder, assault, and other crimes of violence | 787 | 649 | 82.4 |
| Malicious mischief, etc. | 433 | 344 | 79.4 |
| Theft and other economic offenses | 3,359 | 2,156 | 64.2 |
| Arson | 42 | 26 | 61.9 |
| Rape and other sexual offenses | 683 | 352 | 51.5 |
| Other offenses | 18 | 9 | 50.0 |
| Total | 5,322 | 3,536 | 66.4 |
At the same congress Dr. Malgat reported the following results of an investigation made by him in the prison at Nice:[286]
| Offenses. | Entered. | Drinkers. | % |
| Insults and violence to public officers | 138 | 91 | 65.9 |
| Theft | 579 | 357 | 61.6 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 56 | 34 | 60.7 |
| Assaults | 275 | 160 | 58.1 |
| Vagrancy | 346 | 196 | 56.6 |
| Indecent assault | 52 | 29 | 55.7 |
| Homicide | 33 | 18 | 54.5 |
| Expelled offenders | 175 | 95 | 54.2 |
| Breach of trust | 63 | 33 | 52.3 |
| Other offenses | 133 | 80 | 60.1 |
| Total | 1,850 | 1,093 | 56.3 |
Germany.
An inquiry made by Dr. A. Baer with regard to the inmates of the German prisons, in the period after 1870, gives the following results:[287]
| Number of Prisoners. | Number of Drinkers. | ||||||
| In General. | Occasional. | Habitual. | |||||
| Absolute. | % | Absolute. | % | Absolute. | % | ||
| Men | 30,041 | 13,199 | 43.9 | 7,071 | 23.5 | 6,128 | 20.4 |
| Women | 2,796 | 507 | 18.1 | 198 | 7.1 | 309 | 11.0 |
| Total | 32,837 | 13,706 | 41.7 | 7,269 | 22.1 | 6,437 | 19.6 |
[[512]]
For the different crimes and misdemeanors the figures are as follows:[288]
| Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Number of Prisoners (Men). | Drinkers. | Among the Drinkers there were: | ||||
| Occasional. | Habitual. | ||||||
| Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % | ||
| A. Houses of Correction. | |||||||
| Assaults | 773 | 575 | 74.5 | 418 | 72.7 | 157 | 27.3 |
| Robbery, etc. | 898 | 618 | 68.8 | 353 | 57.1 | 265 | 42.9 |
| Homicide | 348 | 220 | 63.2 | 129 | 58.6 | 91 | 41.4 |
| Rape, etc. | 954 | 575 | 60.2 | 352 | 61.2 | 223 | 38.8 |
| Theft | 10,033 | 5,212 | 51.9 | 2,513 | 48.2 | 2,699 | 51.8 |
| Attempted homicide | 252 | 128 | 50.8 | 78 | 60.9 | 50 | 39.1 |
| Arson | 804 | 383 | 47.6 | 184 | 48.0 | 199 | 52.0 |
| Murder | 514 | 237 | 46.1 | 139 | 58.6 | 98 | 41.4 |
| Various crimes | 1,689 | 712 | 42.2 | 358 | 50.2 | 354 | 49.8 |
| Perjury | 590 | 157 | 26.6 | 82 | 52.2 | 75 | 47.8 |
| B. Houses of Detention. | |||||||
| Offenses against morals | 200 | 154 | 77.0 | 113 | 73.3 | 41 | 26.7 |
| Rebellion | 652 | 489 | 76.5 | 445 | 89.0 | 54 | 11.0 |
| Assaults | 1,130 | 716 | 63.4 | 581 | 81.1 | 135 | 18.9 |
| Robbery | 48 | 28 | 58.3 | 16 | 57.0 | 12 | 43.0 |
| Domiciliary trespass | 411 | 223 | 54.2 | 210 | 94.2 | 13 | 5.8 |
| Disturbance of public peace | 34 | 18 | 52.9 | 12 | 66.6 | 6 | 33.3 |
| Various misdemeanors | 826 | 433 | 52.4 | 306 | 70.7 | 127 | 29.3 |
| Arson | 23 | 11 | 48.0 | 5 | 45.4 | 6 | 54.6 |
| Theft | 3,282 | 1,048 | 32.0 | 666 | 63.5 | 382 | 36.5 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses, forgery, embez. | 786 | 194 | 24.7 | 111 | 57.2 | 83 | 42.8 |
Out of a total of 359 vagabonds and mendicants Dr. Bonhoeffer found 281 (78.2 %) alcoholics.[289] [[513]]
Italy.
Out of a total of 507 criminals examined by him Dr. Marro found 379 (74.7%) addicted to excess in alcohol, and only eight (1.5%) abstainers or “unknown.”[290]
Netherlands, 1900–1901.
It was only in 1900 that the criminal statistics mentioned for the first time the number of habitual drunkards among the convicts. Here are the results:
| Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Percentage of Habitual Drunkards in Each Category. |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 16 |
| Crimes against the public authority | 13 |
| Mendicity and vagabondage | 10 |
| Crimes of violence | 10 |
| Crimes against morals | 10 |
| All crimes | 8.31 |
| Assault | 7 |
| Theft | 7 |
| Receiving stolen goods | .5 |
| Poaching | 3 |
Among the recidivists the drunkards formed 11.6%.
The data for 1901 are more detailed and also more worthy of confidence.
| Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Percentage of Habitual Drunkards in Each Category. |
| Mendicity and vagabondage | 26.51 |
| Rebellion | 21.16 |
| Embezzlement | 19.20 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 18.26 |
| Serious assaults | 16.94 |
| Malicious mischief | 16.59 |
| Insult to public official | 16.10 |
| Disturbing the public peace | 14.33 |
| Simple theft | 11.61 |
| Sexual offenses | 10.84 |
| Assaults | 10.87 |
| Insults | 9.96 |
| Aggravated theft | 8.84 |
| Poaching | 1.46 |
| All crimes | 13.00 |
[[514]]
Of the recidivists 21.96% were habitual drunkards.[291]
New York (State), 1869–1870.
In his “Dangerous Classes of New York”, C. L. Brace states that in 1870, out of 49,423 criminals in the prisons of New York City there were 30,507 (61.6%) habitual drunkards, and 893 (81.6%) of the 1,093 prisoners in the Albany penitentiary in the years 1869–70 likewise were drunkards.[292]
R. L. Dugdale gives the following figures for the 233 criminals examined by him:[293]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Habitual Drunkards. |
| Theft from the person | 55.00 |
| Robbery | 47.36 |
| Crimes against persons | 40.47 |
| Theft | 39.28 |
| All crimes | 39.05 |
| Crimes against property | 38.74 |
| Burglary | 33.33 |
Prussia, 1894–1897.
Out of 18,049 recidivists in the houses of correction in the years 1849–1897, there were 4,930 (27.3%) habitual drunkards, of whom 4,473 (28.7%) were men, and 457 (18.2%) were women.[294]
Sweden, 1887–1897.
Out of 27,452 inmates in the prisons during the years 1887–1897 there were 3,273 (11.9%) addicted to drink, of whom 3,101 (12.7%) were men and 99 (3.2%) women.[295] These figures, however, are below the reality, since only those are counted as alcoholics who were drunk at the time they committed the crime. When we take into consideration [[515]]that the number of criminals who were in a state of intoxication when they committed their crimes was 52.6%, we may be certain that a considerable number of them were habitual drunkards.
Switzerland, 1892–1896.
On the 1st of January, 1892, there were 2,201 persons in the 35 penitentiaries; 1,816 men and 385 women. Among these there were 880 drunkards (39.9%); 762 (42%) men, and 118 (31%) women.[296]
In the years 1892–1896, the Swiss criminal statistics give alcoholism as the cause of crime in 23.1% of the cases.[297] This figure, however, has no great value; not only are the statistics concerning alcoholism as a cause little worthy of confidence, as the author of them confesses (indeed, it is impossible to speak of “the cause” of a criminal act, since there are always several); but further there is no distinction made between acute and chronic alcoholism.
Wurtemberg, 1887–1888.
Among the 3,181 prisoners examined by Sichart in the years 1887–1888, there were 939 (29.5%) habitual drunkards. The figures for some of the more important crimes are as follows:[298]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Drunkards in Each Category. |
| Crimes against morals | 36.3 |
| Arson | 34.2 |
| Theft | 28.0 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 25.7 |
| Perjury | 24.0 |
The data given above show sufficiently, it seems to me, what the relation is between chronic alcoholism and criminality. Notwithstanding their divergences the percentages in the different countries are generally very high, and in every case much higher than among the non-criminal population. The danger that these statistics are [[516]]based upon inaccurate data is not great, since the culprit has every reason to pretend that his act has been committed in a state of intoxication, in order that he may be less severely punished, and not that he is a chronic alcoholic.
There still remains the question as to what is the degree of influence which chronic alcoholism has upon crime. We should be exaggerating if we were to declare (as is sometimes done by total abstainers) that whenever a criminal is an habitual alcoholic, alcoholism is one of the principal causes of his crime. It is evident that in many cases it is only an accidental phenomenon. Nevertheless, the figures given above agree with the thesis that chronic alcoholism is a demoralizing agent and as such belongs to the etiology of crime. Its influence naturally cannot be exactly expressed in figures.[299]
h. Militarism. Although the influence of militarism upon criminality may not be an important factor in comparison with some others, it is still necessary to speak of it here briefly, and under two heads: its influence in time of peace, and its influence in time of war.
First, the influence of militarism in time of peace. The army is recruited in great part among those who do not volunteer, in other words among persons who have not the least taste for the military life and only serve for fear of incurring severe penalties. Then a great number of the volunteers have become soldiers only from necessity, because they could not find a place for themselves anywhere else. Finally one class of volunteers have enlisted very young, for a long term of service, perhaps at the instance of their parents, or drawn by the brilliant uniform, or other means of advertising peculiar to the army. It is unnecessary to add that for the last two classes the military service is often a deception, which makes them regret having engaged in it.
The first source of demoralization in an army is to be found in its composition. When you bring together a number of men, uneducated for the most part, with nothing to unite them but constraint, and when there are already certain bad elements among them, the [[517]]demoralizing influence makes itself felt at once. No moral bond unites these men, but on the contrary a vague irritation begins to spread. And this demoralization is not counteracted by that great moral force, work; a great part of the time among the soldiers is passed in forced idleness, and the rest in learning things in which they have little interest, if indeed they do not feel an aversion to them.
It is naturally only by a discipline of iron that order can be maintained and the recruits taught their trade. As soon as a man is debased by excessive discipline to the rôle of a machine, his moral qualities deteriorate; the state of things thus created brings it about that the great power given to superiors often degenerates into a thirst for domination, and renders the subordinates servile, and yet of the opinion that anything is right for them so long as they are not found out.[300]
Since most soldiers are only under arms for a short time, the consequences named are not of great importance for them, but those consequences nevertheless exist for the professional soldier. The best known set of statistics upon the criminality among soldiers is that of Hausner,[301] who shows that it is 25 times as great as the criminality of civilians. These figures, however, have little value, because among the civilians are counted not simply the men of military age, but the whole population. Further, a statistical comparison of military and civil criminality will always meet with great difficulties, for, first, there are offenses of which only soldiers can be guilty; second, the number of the soldiers is not constant even in any one year. Although we cannot, therefore, express in figures the harmful influences of militarism, it exists, nevertheless. But even if we had the figures and they were to show—supposing a most improbable case—that criminality was no greater among soldiers than in civil life, even this would not contradict the evil influence of military life, since repression and the fear of punishment are greater among soldiers than among civilians, and abject poverty, one of the powerful factors in economic criminality, is totally lacking in the army.[302] [[518]]
The question may be raised as to whether the disadvantages spoken of above are inseparable from every form of organization of the army. The answer must be that this is the case in part only. The harmful consequences will partially disappear when the army is adapted to the democratic spirit, and the service remains limited to the time strictly necessary to make a good soldier; but the fact that the great mass of which the army is composed has no sympathy with its aim and end but remains in service only by constraint, will continue to exist. This latter circumstance will disappear only in the country where the army is exclusively for the purposes of defense, to repulse an enemy that wishes to destroy democratic institutions.
We come now to the influence of war itself. That which, at ordinary times, is one of the gravest crimes, homicide, is commanded in war; ravages and burnings are the order of the day. It is inevitable that those who are driven to commit such acts, lose little by little their respect for the lives and property of their fellows. War arouses a spirit of violence, not only in those who take part in it, but in the whole population.
Happily wars are neither so numerous nor so long continued as formerly, so that the consequences have no longer so wide a scope.
Statistical research into the influence of war upon criminality is very difficult, for criminality diminishes in time of war in an abnormal fashion, first, because a great part of the male population of the age most disposed to crime is under arms; second, the repression of crime being less vigorous makes the degree of criminality appear smaller than it really is, which explains why the figures for the criminality of women and juveniles are less.
We often hear that war has also a good moral influence, since the whole nation is then animated with a single ideal. This is true only in the very rare cases where a war is really popular, in place of being the means of procuring material profits for a small minority, while the great majority remain indifferent. It goes without saying that even in these exceptional cases, the harmful consequences to the participants still remain.[303] [[519]]
We have examined the tendencies of the present economic system and of its consequences. Before concluding we must treat of the effect of
i. The penalty. The present codes give prominence to three kinds of penalties: fines, different kinds of imprisonment, and capital punishment. We naturally do not have to say anything of the first of these, since there can be no question raised as to its effect upon the person upon whom the fine is laid. All that we can say is that this penalty fails of its object since no account is taken of the financial condition of the person sentenced to it, and it follows that while the punishment involved is only trifling for the rich, it constitutes a heavy burden for the poor. Often a fine for a poor man who cannot pay is simply a sentence to a short imprisonment.
The death penalty also naturally is outside of our present discussion. I would simply observe that among the numerous arguments against this penalty it must be noted that it has no intimidating effect upon those who are present, as one would suppose, but on the contrary a demoralizing influence; besides which the attention of the ignorant class is drawn to the crime and the perpetrator of it. Those who are condemned to death have almost all been present at executions. Out of a total of 511 of whom we have information, there were only 15 (about 3%) who had never witnessed an execution.[304]
In investigating the influence of punishment upon morality it is imprisonment alone, therefore, which must be taken into consideration, so much the more since even in the case of minor crimes it is almost always inflicted, while capital punishment is either altogether abolished, as in some countries, or else rarely pronounced and still more rarely executed.
The following table shows how many times imprisonment is inflicted in comparison with other forms of punishment. [[520]]
Germany, 1882–1895.[305]
| Years. | Penalties to Each 1,000 Persons Sentenced. | |||||
| Death. | Imprisonment (All kinds.) | Fines. | Public Admonition. | |||
| 1882 | 0.3 | 736.3 | 253 | 10 | ||
| 1883–87 | | annual average | 0.2 | 697.4 | 291 | 11 |
| 1888–92 | 0.1 | 660.2 | 323 | 17 | ||
| 1893 | 0.1 | 619.2 | 363 | 18 | ||
| 1894 | 0.1 | 607.2 | 375 | 18 | ||
| 1895 | 0.1 | 595.2 | 386 | 19 | ||
60% to 70% of the sentences, then, were deprivation of liberty. What is the effect of this? The answer to this question must be found in the statistics of recidivism. Here are the results for certain countries of Europe, which probably are not much different from those of other countries.
Germany, 1882–1900.[306]
| Years. | Numbers of Recidivists to 100 Convicts. | To 100,000 of the Population over 12 there were Recidivists who were Convicted | |||
| Once. | Twice. | 3 to 5 Times. | 6 Times and Over. | ||
| 1882 | 24.9 | 115 | 56 | 64 | 23 |
| 1883 | 25.8 | 119 | 59 | 69 | 20 |
| 1884 | 26.3 | 127 | 63 | 72 | 22 |
| 1885 | 27.4 | 127 | 63 | 75 | 26 |
| 1886 | 28.0 | 129 | 65 | 79 | 30 |
| 1887 | 28.8 | 131 | 66 | 81 | 34 |
| 1888 | 29.3 | 127 | 65 | 80 | 35 |
| 1889 | 31.2 | 142 | 71 | 87 | 40 |
| 1890 | 32.7 | 150 | 76 | 93 | 43 |
| 1891 | 34.0 | 158 | 79 | 99 | 47 |
| 1892 | 34.7 | 169 | 87 | 107 | 54 |
| 1893 | 35.2 | 171 | 88 | 111 | 57 |
| 1894 | 36.9 | 181 | 93 | 120 | 65 |
| 1895 | 37.9 | 184 | 96 | 124 | 69 |
| 1896 | 38.8 | 183 | 96 | 129 | 75 |
| 1897 | 39.6 | 186 | 99 | 129 | 78 |
| 1898 | 40.1 | 189 | 100 | 133 | 83 |
| 1899 | 40.8 | 187 | 100 | 133 | 85 |
| 1900 | 41.2 | 180 | 96 | 131 | 86 |
[[521]] Recidivism has regularly increased, then: a little more than 65% in 18 years.
It is present in different crimes in very various degrees. For the following crimes it is very great.
Germany, 1882–1895.[307]
| Crimes. | Number of Recidivists having undergone Imprisonment to Each 100 Convicts in the Years | |||
| 1882. | 1886. | 1890. | 1895. | |
| Leze-majesty | 40.7 | 41.3 | 43.2 | 52.8 |
| Rebellion | 31.8 | 41.3 | 46.8 | 52.7 |
| Robbery and blackmail | 44.4 | 45.6 | 51.5 | 50.9 |
| False accusation | 34.8 | 37.1 | 42.1 | 48.3 |
| Crimes of fraud | 32.9 | 38.9 | 42.9 | 45.4 |
| Crimes against personal liberty | 26.6 | 32.3 | 37.8 | 42.8 |
| Theft and embezzlement | 32.1 | 35.2 | 37.2 | 40.4 |
| Crimes against morals | 24.1 | 31.3 | 35.9 | 38.3 |
| Counterfeiting | 28.5 | 31.1 | 35.1 | 38.2 |
The following figures give a picture of recidivism in
England and Wales, 1871–1900.[308]
| Years. | Percentage of Recidivists among Convicts. | Percentage among Convicts of Recidivists who have been Convicted | |||||
| Once. | 2 to 5 Times. | 6 to 10 Times. | 11 to 20 Times. | Over 20 Times. | |||
| 1871–77 | 40 | ||||||
| 1880–92 | 48 | ||||||
| 1894 | 54 | .5 | 15.2 | 18.3 | 7.7 | 6.2 | 6.9 |
| 1895 | 55 | .5 | 15.7 | 18.0 | 8.9 | 6.9 | 5.9 |
| 1896 | 57 | .3 | 14.8 | 19.1 | 9.0 | 7.7 | 6.6 |
| 1897 | 57 | .6 | 18.9 | 19.0 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 7.1 |
| 1898 | 59 | .9 | 16.2 | 20.0 | 8.9 | 7.5 | 7.1 |
| 1899 | 60 | .2 | 16.4 | 19.9 | 9.2 | 7.6 | 7.0 |
| 1900 | 59 | .3 | 15.8 | 19.2 | 9.2 | 7.7 | 7.4 |
Here also, then, as in Germany there is a great increase in recidivism; 72% in 29 years. [[522]]
For some offenses recidivism is more common than for others, as the following figures show.
England and Wales, 1899–1900.[309]
(Assizes and Quarter Sessions.)
| Years. | Number of Recidivists to 100 Persons Convicted of the Following Crimes. | |||||
| Crimes against Persons. | Crimes against Property with Violence. | Crimes against Property without Violence. | Malicious Mischief. | Forgery and Counterfeiting. | Other Crimes. | |
| 1894 | 32.1 | 67.3 | 64.1 | 42.5 | 41.1 | 27.9 |
| 1895 | 35.2 | 67.3 | 66.1 | 51.8 | 38.5 | 24.4 |
| 1896 | 36.1 | 67.2 | 66.3 | 44.3 | 37.4 | 25.0 |
| 1897 | 38.0 | 68.7 | 66.4 | 51.1 | 40.0 | 28.1 |
| 1898 | 39.3 | 68.1 | 68.3 | 56.0 | 43.2 | 32.4 |
| 1899 | 37.7 | 69.9 | 67.4 | 58.3 | 40.0 | 35.2 |
| 1900 | 39.7 | 71.0 | 68.9 | 59.4 | 40.9 | 29.8 |
The following table has to do with
Austria, 1866–1899.[310]
| Years. | Percentage of Convicts Who | ||||
| Had been convicted of Crime Once Before. | Had been convicted of Crime Several Times. | Total. | Had been already convicted of a Misdemeanor or Contravention. | Recidivists. | |
| 1866–1870 | 11.9 | 15.5 | 27.4 | 17.5 | 44.9 |
| 1871–1875 | 11.6 | 14.2 | 25.8 | 17.9 | 43.7 |
| 1876–1880 | 10.9 | 14.6 | 25.5 | 22.2 | 47.7 |
| 1881–1885 | 10.6 | 14.2 | 24.8 | 25.2 | 50.0 |
| 1886–1890 | 10.9 | 12.9 | 23.8 | 27.9 | 51.7 |
| 1891–1895 | 11.1 | 12.5 | 23.6 | 28.9 | 52.5 |
| 1896 | 12.5 | 10.7 | 23.2 | 31.5 | 54.7 |
| 1897 | 12.7 | 10.6 | 23.3 | 30.4 | 53.8 |
| 1898 | 12.5 | 9.9 | 22.4 | 29.1 | 51.5 |
| 1899 | 12.4 | 10.1 | 22.5 | 29.8 | 52.4 |
[[523]]
This table has only a little value for the problem of recidivism; it bears only upon those convicted of crime and leaves out of account those convicted of misdemeanors; and in the last two columns are included persons convicted of contraventions, who ought not to figure in statistics of recidivism.
The following figures have much greater value.
France, 1850–1900.[311]
| Years. | Percentage of Recidivists in Each Group of Convicts. | ||
| Assizes. | Correctional Tribunals. | Total. | |
| 1850–1855 | 33 | — | — |
| 1856–1860 | 36 | — | 31 |
| 1861–1865 | 38 | — | 34 |
| 1866–1870 | 41 | — | 38 |
| 1871–1875 | 47 | — | 42 |
| 1876–1880 | 48 | — | 44 |
| 1881–1885 | 52 | 44 | 44 |
| 1886–1890 | 56 | 47 | 47 |
| 1891–1895 | 57 | 46 | 46 |
| 1896–1900 | 57 | 46 | 46 |
Here, then, is a steady increase, checked only in the last 15 years by the law of May 27th, 1885, upon recidivism.
The following table shows recidivism for certain offenses.[312]
| Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Percentage of Recidivists among Convicts. | |||
| 1881–85. | 1886–90. | 1891–95. | 1896–1900. | |
| Drunkenness | 81 | 79 | 79 | 86 |
| Vagabondage | 73 | 78 | 79 | 82 |
| Mendicity | 72 | 77 | 75 | 80 |
| Assaults upon parents, etc. | 69 | 63 | 55 | 80 |
| Aggravated theft | 73 | 77 | 79 | 79 |
| Counterfeiting | 50 | 54 | 57 | 55 |
| Insults and violence to public officials | 48 | 50 | 51 | 51 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 51 | 50 | 51 | 50[[524]] |
| Homicide | 42 | 50 | 52 | 50 |
| Murder | 46 | 44 | 44 | 48 |
| Arson | 53 | 50 | 52 | 46 |
| Theft | 47 | 51 | 47 | 46 |
| Serious assaults | 40 | 35 | 42 | 46 |
| Domestic theft | 47 | 45 | 42 | 44 |
| Forgery | 37 | 43 | 46 | 44 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 33 | 26 | 31 | 44 |
| Misdemeanor connected with fishing | 35 | 39 | 39 | 41 |
| Breach of trust | 41 | 43 | 41 | 39 |
| Offenses connected with hunting | 26 | 32 | 34 | 38 |
| Minor assaults | 32 | 36 | 35 | 35 |
| Offenses against morals | 31 | 30 | 32 | 31 |
| Maltreatment of children | 32 | 25 | 21 | 25 |
| Infanticide | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 |
Here are the figures for
Italy, 1876–1889.[313]
| Years. | Percentage of Recidivists among those arraigned Before. | |
| Assizes. | Correctional tribunals. | |
| 1876 | 10.4 | — |
| 1877 | 11.2 | — |
| 1878 | 13.2 | — |
| 1879 | 20.7 | — |
| 1880 | 21.5 | — |
| 1881 | 26.5 | 20.2 |
| 1882 | 28.8 | 21.1 |
| 1883 | 29.4 | 22.6 |
| 1884 | 32.8 | 23.6 |
| 1885 | 34.7 | 27.6 |
| 1886 | 34.0 | 27.8 |
| 1887 | 36.0 | 32.2 |
| 1888 | 32.2 | 30.6 |
| 1889 | 36.3 | 32.3 |
In Italy also, then, there is a constant increase of recidivism (except in 1888). [[525]]
In conclusion, here are the figures for the
Netherlands, 1896–1901.[314]
| Years. | Convicts. | Recidivists. | Percentage of Recidivists. | Percentage of Convicts who had been Convicted. | ||
| Once. | 2 to 5 times. | 6 times or more. | ||||
| 1896 | 17,205 | 5,097 | 29.6 | 17.1 | 10.3 | 2.2 |
| 1897 | 16,832 | 5,566 | 33.0 | 19.6 | 11.6 | 1.8 |
| 1898 | 16,368 | 5,997 | 36.6 | 21.2 | 13.2 | 2.2 |
| 1899 | 15,631 | 6,092 | 38.9 | 20.7 | 15.4 | 2.8 |
| 1900 | 15,169 | 6,048 | 39.8 | 20.3 | 16.2 | 3.3 |
The imperfection of the present mode of combating crime is shown even by the evidence of the statistics we have given. It would be hard to imagine a more complete fiasco; in place of a decrease there has been an increase of recidivism; in place of making men better, the prison makes them worse.
Here is in brief the explanation of the fact. As we have already observed above in treating of the definition of crime, one of the important elements in the present system of punishment consists, for many people, in the desire to satisfy their revengeful feelings excited by the crime. Those who realize that the punishment must be especially aimed at the improvement of the criminal form only a small minority. The present forms of punishment and the manner in which they are inflicted are little if at all in accord with this latter point of view. At present the penalty is not much more than an evil inflicted upon the criminal to satisfy the vengeance of a great part of mankind, and at the same time to make it impossible for the criminal to do harm, either for a time or else forever, and finally to terrify him and other men into not committing crimes. So long as punishment has this characteristic, so long as it does not aim at the improvement of the criminal, so long will it fail to effect a decrease in crime, but will rather bring an increase, as the facts prove. No one, not even the most dangerous criminal is morally improved in the slightest degree by vengeance wreaked upon him. Vengeance engenders only vengeance and no other feeling. We can expect to see good results [[526]]from punishment only if the criminal, from the manner in which he is treated, perceives that those who have him in charge wish him well, are trying to improve him, and that his act was wicked and intolerable.
There are two types of imprisonment; imprisonment in common, and in separate cells. It is very easy to understand that a term of imprisonment served in common has disastrous consequences for the prisoner. It is because of this system that the prison has had the name of a school of crime, which would be a good joke if the facts were less serious. All kinds of criminals, young and old, those sentenced for minor offenses,[315] and those guilty of grave crimes, criminals against property and criminals against persons, all find themselves massed together, so that instead of leaving prison bettered, almost every one leaves it worse than he went in. No work is done, or at least only stupefying labors; a real trade is neither practiced nor learned.[316]
The disadvantages of this system have led to the cellular plan by which the contagious influences of the prison are gotten rid of. Much was hoped for from the change, but the statistics of recidivism show the hope to have been ill-founded; separate confinement improves the prisoner no more than the older type. This fact is not difficult to explain. Starting from the false theory that man has a free will, the non-determinists have believed, and unhappily still believe, that the criminal left to himself and to his own reflections will repent. As Sacker in “Der Rückfall” judiciously remarks, the criminal must not be left to his thoughts—if he has any—but must be given new ideas. It is unnecessary to remark that it is not life in a cell that will give them to him.
Man is a social being; without life among his fellows he is like an animal out of its element. How can he become better if he lives alone. The cell stupefies him, isolation and monotony make him a machine, which later will not be fit for a free life. I do not know a better description of the consequences of separate confinement than that given by the competent author of “Pictures and Problems from [[527]]London Police Courts”, Th. Holmes. He says: “How is it that a man’s facial expression changes during a long detention? How is it that his voice becomes hard and unnatural? How is it that his eyes become shifty, cunning, and wild? It is no fault of the prison officials; they cannot help these things; from the governor downward they are not to blame. It is not because of hard work. From conversation with, and knowledge of, such men, I gather that some of them at any rate would be thankful for more work. It is the system that does it, the long-continued, soul-and-mind-destroying monotony, the long, silent nights in which for hours men lie awake thinking, thinking, thinking, driven in upon themselves and to be their own selves’ only companion. No interchange of ideas is possible, no sound of human voices comes to call forth their own, and their own vocal organs rust. Nor does returning day bring change, nothing but the same duties, performed in the same way, at the same hour, and the same food, in the same quantities, served in the same demoralizing way. They become strangers to the usages of civilized society, and devour their food even as the beasts, but not with the wild beast’s relish. To the use of knife and fork they become strangers; to a knowledge of their own lineaments they become strangers; to high thoughts, amiable words, courtesy, love of truth, and all that makes a man they become strangers, for these virtues cannot dwell with senseless monotony. But if these things die of atrophy, other but less desirable qualities are developed. A low cunning takes their place; the wits are sharpened to deceive or to gain small ends; hypocrisy is developed, and men come out of prison hating it, loathing it, but less fitted to perform the duties of life than when they entered it.”[317]
Read further the opinion of Dostoievsky: “I am firmly convinced that the boasted cellular system pursues but a false, if specious, aim. It sucks the vital power out of a man, enervates his mind, weakens and cows him, and finally presents the desiccated mummy of a man made half mad, as a picture of reformation and repentance.”[318]
It would be possible to fill these pages with the well-supported opinions of those who regard the cellular system as “an aberration of the 19th century” (Ferri).[319] [[528]]
To sum up then, we come to the conclusion that the system of imprisonment is not in a condition to arrest the tide of criminality, but further that it is even one of the causes of the increase of crime, since it makes the prisoners still worse. It may be that in consequence of what I have just said the reader will remark that there is no other expedient possible than imprisonment, whether in common or cellular. Although the question of the treatment of the criminal as it ought to be is not one of those with which we are at present occupied, I shall nevertheless say a few words on the subject.
It is possible to practice a third system, which takes its origin from the idea that the crime does not proceed from the free will, but from causes which it will be necessary to try to remove, in place of inflicting a useless punishment. It is to the credit of the State of New York that it should be the first to put in practice this sort of a system of combating crime (in the Elmira Reformatory). An effort is made to make a man of the criminal, to turn him into a strong and sound individual; he is taught a trade, his mind is elevated, his feeling of honor revived, in short, everything is done that is necessary to stimulate the development of what is human in the man. And the results prove that those who are following this method are surely on the right road.[320]
There is only one objection to this system; that many persons who have not committed crime lead a life which in various ways is worse than that of the criminals so treated. However, this very sound objection does not condemn the system, but rather the present organization of society, which obliges a great number of persons to drag out a miserable existence. The question of crime and the social question are inseparable; he who examines the first without the second will not do much toward solving it.
j. Imitation. Before concluding we must give our attention to one more factor: imitation. We have already pointed this out in speaking of the moral education of the young, but it is also of importance with adults (e.g. the influence of the press, etc.; see above, C., a., in this chapter), though not to so great an extent. When society shows very egoistic tendencies imitation strengthens these considerably; when we see persons with whom we have to do, always acting in an egoistic manner, our anti-egoistic forces weaken little by little [[529]]and we end by doing as the others do.[321] In the crime of mobs imitation plays an important part.
The proofs to support the power of imitation in the etiology of crime are to be found in the biographies of most great criminals; bad example plays generally a preponderant rôle in the drama of life. I know only a single set of statistics giving exact information of the atmosphere in which criminals have lived, and so furnishing an idea of the influence of imitation. It is that furnished by the “Elmira Reformatory”. According to the “Twenty-second Yearbook” (1897) the character of the people with whom the inmates had associated was as follows:[322]
| Character of Associates. | Prisoners. | |
| Absolute Number. | % | |
| Positively bad | 4,511 | 54.2 |
| Less bad | 3,614 | 43.4 |
| Doubtful | 81 | 1.4 |
| Good | 113 | 1.0 |
| Total | 8,319 | 100.0 |
A second proof of the influence of the contagion of crime is found in the fact that the criminality in the cities, where people come more into contact with each other, is in general greater than that in the country. Although it is evident that we cannot impute this exclusively to imitation (it is due, among other things, in part to the great differences of fortune found in the cities), it still plays an important part.[323] The following figures give a picture of the criminality in the large cities and in the country.[324] [[530]]
England and Wales, 1894–1898.
| Districts. | Crimes Known to the Police, to the 100,000 of the Population. | |||||||
| All Indictable Offenses. | Crimes Against Property. | Crimes Against Persons. | ||||||
| Crimes of Violence. | Sexual Crimes. | |||||||
| 1894. | 1898. | 1894. | 1898. | 1894. | 1898. | 1894. | 1898. | |
| London | 416.77 | 391.56 | 386.24 | 358.90 | 11.95 | 10.63 | 5.93 | 5.72 |
| Mining districts | 234.33 | 230.84 | 214.32 | 211.07 | 8.39 | 7.19 | 8.11 | 7.89 |
| Manufacturing cities | 351.84 | 325.93 | 332.48 | 306.21 | 6.66 | 6.74 | 4.43 | 4.00 |
| Sea-ports | 643.60 | 611.10 | 597.91 | 575.60 | 22.54 | 16.72 | 8.44 | 5.95 |
| Watering places, etc. | 265.70 | 302.25 | 250.37 | 283.34 | 4.38 | 5.93 | 4.14 | 6.16 |
| Agricultural districts divided into: | ||||||||
| 1st. Eastern | 128.20 | 120.23 | 119.06 | 107.84 | 3.76 | 3.22 | 3.63 | 5.45 |
| 2nd. South-eastern | 182.97 | 195.86 | 163.52 | 176.55 | 5.29 | 6.22 | 8.10 | 8.70 |
| 3rd. Around London | 202.13 | 198.07 | 185.97 | 181.41 | 4.29 | 4.94 | 6.53 | 6.32 |
| England and Wales | 296.70 | 284.20 | 275.93 | 262.83 | 7.28 | 7.39 | 6.09 | 5.94 |
The following table[325] relates to
Bavaria, 1883–1897.
| Crimes. | Number of Convicts to 10,000 of the Population over 12 Years of Age. | |||||
| 1883–1887. | 1888–1892. | 1893–1897. | ||||
| City. | Country. | City. | Country. | City. | Country. | |
| Assault | 19.9 | 27.7 | 19.9 | 31.2 | 22.4 | 32.8 |
| Theft | 37.4 | 26.6 | 39.7 | 26.1 | 37.3 | 25.9 |
| Fraud | 10.2 | 5.0 | 12.1 | 6.9 | 12.5 | 6.9 |
| Violence and threats against public officials | 4.7 | 2.7 | 4.5 | 2.4 | 4.9 | 2.6 |
| All crimes | 137.1 | 114.0 | 133.7 | 119.6 | 139.4 | 123.1 |
As in England the criminality in the cities is in general greater than in the country.
We find the same picture in the figures for [[531]]
France, 1881–1900.[326]
| Residence. | Number of Persons Arraigned to 100,000 of the Population. | |
| 1881–1885. | 1896–1900. | |
| Urban | 15.4 | 11.1 |
| Rural | 7.8 | 5.4 |
The following table gives figures for certain important crimes.[327]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Persons Arraigned. | |||
| Living in Rural Communes. | Living in Urban Communes. | |||
| 1881. | 1900. | 1881. | 1900. | |
| Murder | 64 | 50 | 36 | 50 |
| Homicide | 58 | 54 | 42 | 46 |
| Assaults | 50 | 56 | 50 | 44 |
| Indecent assaults | 55 | 53 | 45 | 47 |
| Forgery | 37 | 37 | 63 | 63 |
| Breach of trust | 35 | 14 | 65 | 86 |
| Arson | 77 | 74 | 23 | 26 |
| Theft | 33 | 21 | 67 | 79 |
In studying the preceding table it must be noted that in the two periods 34% and 39% of the population respectively were urban.
Netherlands, 1901.[328]
| Places where the Offense was Committed. | Percentage of Convicts who had Committed their Crimes in the Groups of Communes Designated. | Percentage of Whole Population Living in the Groups Designated. | ||||
| Total. | Rebellion. | Simple Assaults. | Simple Theft. | Aggravated Theft. | ||
| Communes of more than 20,000 inhabitants | 38.3 | 45.3 | 21.2 | 41.7 | 50.4 | 36.8 |
| Communes of less than 20,000 inhabitants | 61.7 | 54.7 | 78.8 | 58.3 | 49.6 | 63.2 |
[[532]]
An examination of the statistics given shows that except for a few offenses the cities are more criminal than the country.[329] However, it must not be forgotten that the cities have proportionately a greater number of inhabitants at the age at which there is the greatest tendency to crime, and that the figures therefore give the criminality of the cities as a little greater than it is. On the other hand there is a greater proportion of crimes that are not prosecuted, or whose authors remain undiscovered. The English statistics, which do not speak of the persons arraigned or convicted, but of the crimes known to the police, are better in this regard.
It is unnecessary to treat more fully of the rôle of imitation in the etiology of crime; no one will deny it. As I have already noted, in Part I, in my criticism of the theory of Tarde, imitation is not an independent factor, but dependent upon others. In our present society, with its pronounced egoistic tendencies, imitation strengthens these, as it would strengthen the altruistic tendencies produced by another form of society. Man does not imitate that which is egoistic simply, but also that which is altruistic. It is only as a consequence of the predominance of egoism in our present society that the error is made of supposing the effect of imitation to be necessarily evil.
k. Conclusions. In recapitulating now the egoistic tendencies of the present economic system and of its consequences, we see clearly that they are very strong. Because of these tendencies the social instinct of man is not greatly developed; they have weakened the moral force in man which combats the inclination towards egoistic acts, and hence towards the crimes which are one form of these acts. To mention only the most important things, in a society in which, as in ours, the economic interests of all are in eternal conflict among themselves, compassion for the misfortunes of others inevitably becomes blunted, and a great part of morality consequently disappears. The slight value that is attached to the opinion of others is also a consequence of the strife of economic interests, for we can be responsive to that opinion only when we do not see adversaries in our fellows.
The fluctuations of the mind of the person in whom the criminal [[533]]idea is born may be compared with the oscillations of a balance; and it is upon sociology that must devolve the task of examining the forces which throw a weight on one side or the other. When the organization of society influences men in an altruistic way there is then a considerable force which can prevent the balance from inclining towards the egoistic side. In our present society, the organization of which does not exert an altruistic influence, this force is very weak, or does not exist at all. Since, however, in every society, man must abstain from a number of egoistic acts, substitutes have been devised to take the place of the weak or wanting social sentiments. The hope of reward (whether terrestrial or celestial) and the fear of being punished (whether by man or God) are charged with the duty of keeping men in order. As believers themselves know very well, most men are not very responsive to divine rewards and punishments—heaven and hell are too far off. Is it not believers who are the strongest partisans of rewards and punishments here below for human acts? However, this expedient is only a very insufficient one. We know too well that the rewards are very often lacking, and the punishments as well. This is why many persons take the risk of committing the crime they have planned.
The present environment exercises an egoistic influence upon all men. We all participate, for example, in exchange, which, as we have seen, is a great egoistic factor; and other similar factors could be named that act upon all. On the other hand there are other egoistic factors which exercise their influence only upon some of us.
Let us compare two totally different environments in which an individual grows up. Let us place him first in the slums of a great city; his father is alcoholic, his mother a prostitute; he has never attended school, passing his time in vagabondage up to the day when, still young, he has been committed to prison, where his education in crime is completed. Now let us suppose this same individual to have grown up in a healthy environment, where neither poverty nor extreme riches exercised their pernicious influence. He has been brought up by rational and loving parents, his mind has been developed, he has found later a good career, in which the greed of gold has not been aroused in him. We shall then have before us two extremes, between which a great many degrees are to be found. The environment is a very important cause of the great diversity among men. However, it is not the only one; we still must give our attention for a moment to: [[534]]
D. Individual Differences.
Men differ in height, in strength, in weight, in intellectual capacity, in everything, in short. Apparently no regularity is to be seen in their diversity. If, for example, we look at a crowd with reference to the heights of the individuals composing it, there seems to be no regularity about them. However, this is only in appearance. By placing all the persons in a line according to their height, and drawing a line at the top of their heads we shall always get a curve differing little from the one below (the greater the number of persons, the lower the point A, the higher the point D, and the more nearly horizontal the line BC).
The irregularity is, then, only apparent; there is regularity in this sense, that the persons of average height predominate very greatly in number, and that the very short and very tall persons form minorities. This regularity in the individual differences, discovered by Quetelet, has been recognized as a universal law, applicable to everything living. The scientist named has demonstrated this not only for the height of the human body, but also for its weight, strength, quickness, etc.
Galton has proved the existence of this law for the intellectual capacity of man, and a number of other scientists have done the same for the animal and vegetable kingdoms.[330] Hence, “uniformity in variability” for all living nature must be considered as a universal law.
The same thing must be true for men’s moral qualities. In ranking any number of persons according to the intensity of their innate social sentiments (supposing it were possible to apply a measure to these), we should find that here also the law in question held good; with the great majority the social sentiments would have only a [[535]]moderate intensity, while there would be one small minority in which they would be weak, and another in which they would be very strong. We have no need to revert to the influence of the environment, for we have seen that it gives to all an egoistic or altruistic impulse, differing naturally according to the individual.[331] Supposing that the environment were the same for all, there would still be great differences between men as to the intensity of their social sentiments.
What is now the importance of this fact for the etiology of crime? In my opinion, the answer to this question will not be different from those which have been given to analogous questions when we were treating of the etiology of prostitution and alcoholism (pp. 407, 408 and 428), namely, that in every society, everywhere and always, an individual, according as his social sentiments are weaker or stronger than another’s, runs more or less risk than he of becoming a criminal, supposing the environment of the two to be the same in effect. The man who, according to the intensity of his social sentiments, would be placed in the line between A and B, would run more danger of becoming a criminal than the man who belonged between C and D. This point is of great importance for anyone who is investigating why the first falls into crime and not the latter. But it has little weight for criminal sociology, which concerns itself, not with definite persons, but only with general social facts.
The evidence that individuals differ quantitatively always and everywhere does not give the explanation of the problems whose solution sociology seeks, although they must be taken into account. The task that is incumbent upon it is to explain why individuals who, as a consequence of their innate qualities, run more danger than others of becoming criminals, actually become so. He who is born with weak social instincts runs more danger of becoming a criminal. But the certainty that he will become such does not exist—that depends upon the environment.
To sum up; I am of the opinion that individual differences are of great importance for one who is studying an individual by himself, but that they do not belong to the domain of the etiology of criminality. [[536]]
E. The Classification of Crime.
Before proceeding to the treatment of crimes separately, it is necessary to divide them into some main groups. It is a grave error (committed, however, by many criminologists) not to take account of the very different nature of crimes, if one is concerned with their etiology. It is, to be sure, permissible to treat conjointly moral forces which may prevent the execution of criminal ideas and which apply to all crimes. I have done so in the preceding pages. But we cannot treat the origin of the criminal idea itself in this same way. There are criminals and criminals. There are enormous differences between a professional thief, and a man who has been guilty of assault and battery in a state of intoxication, just as there are between a ravisher and a political criminal. And anyone who does not take account of these differences must necessarily limit himself to certain generalities.
I propose to treat of crimes divided into four categories in accordance with the motives which led their authors to commit them. Three of these categories form quite definite units, while the fourth is more heterogeneous.
The first is composed of crimes that have an economic aim (economic crimes). The greater part of the so-called crimes against property, such as theft, embezzlement, etc., belong to this category, but not all, for malicious mischief, for example, is generally dictated by a desire for vengeance. On the other hand some crimes against the person, like procuration, the object of which is economic and not sexual, belong here. As for crimes against the state, we must add counterfeiting to this category. Then there are other crimes that may be committed either for economic or non-economic reasons; for example, murder (for the purpose of robbery or for revenge), perjury (for the profit of winning a civil suit, or to prevent the conviction of a friend), arson (to get the insurance money, or for revenge), etc.
It may be urged here that, notwithstanding the similarity of their motives the crimes of any class still present many differences. This is true in part, and I have accordingly subdivided them. But on the other hand these differences are not very great from the standpoint of criminal sociology. For the jurist the difference between counterfeiting bank-notes, burning a house to get the insurance, and procuration is very important; but for sociology it is much less so. A man who knows how to make counterfeit bank-notes, will commit this crime, whenever he wishes for any reason to enrich himself in a dishonest [[537]]fashion, but he will become neither an incendiary nor a procurer. A former prostitute, on the contrary, will not think of making bank-notes, but will become a procuress. The kind of economic crime committed by the person who has a mind to commit such a crime, depends principally upon chance (occupation etc.).
The second category includes sexual crimes, and the fourth political crimes—two categories quite distinct therefore.
The other misdemeanors and crimes form the third category, and are more or less heterogeneous. The principal motive of these crimes is vengeance. Among them are insults, malicious mischief, assaults, homicide, etc. Other motives are: the fear of shame (infanticide, which, however, may also be committed for economic reasons); then fear of falling into the hands of justice (perjury, rebellion); and some others beside.[332]
Finally, to give a picture of the quantitative proportions of the principal crimes, I add here some figures upon criminality in some of the countries of Europe. These figures may at the same time serve to show to those who are not acquainted with criminal statistics, how regular a course crime has from one year to another.
It is crimes of vengeance, therefore, which form the largest group, then come economic crimes, and then sexual and political crimes, both with low figures. If we do not count the very minor offense of insult in the third group, the first and third groups will be nearly of the same size. There are, then, almost no political crimes in England. As in Germany, sexual crimes are very rare, and it is the economic crimes and those committed out of revenge, etc., that are the most important. The latter preponderate even more in England than in Germany. [[538]]
Germany, 1896–1900.[333]
| Crimes. | Number of Persons Convicted of the Following Crimes in | ||||||
| 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. | 1900. | 1896–1900 Average. | ||
| Absolute Number. | % | ||||||
| Theft and embezzlement | 109,545 | 112,591 | 116,977 | 113,159 | 114,831 | 113,420 | 29.96 |
| Receiving stolen goods and being accessory after the fact in general | 8,164 | 7,922 | 8,490 | 8,124 | 8,068 | 8,153 | 2.15 |
| Procuration, etc. | 2,816 | 2,671 | 2,765 | 2,622 | 2,648 | 2,711 | 0.72 |
| Counterfeiting | 234 | 166 | 203 | 212 | 186 | 200 | 0.05 |
| Perjury | 1,523 | 1,450 | 1,478 | 1,316 | 1,198 | 1,393 | 0.37 |
| Criminal breach of trust and obtaining money under false pretenses | 28,649 | 25,169 | 26,546 | 26,580 | 26,079 | 25,604 | 6.76 |
| Forgery | 4,761 | 5,068 | 5,185 | 5,479 | 5,231 | 5,144 | 1.36 |
| Robbery and extortion | 1,048 | 995 | 1,114 | 1,114 | 1,009 | 1,056 | 0.28 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 931 | 924 | 871 | 952 | 905 | 916 | 0.24 |
| Total of economic crimes | — | — | — | — | — | — | 41.89 |
| Bigamy | 76 | 72 | 64 | 70 | 64 | 69 | 0.02 |
| Incest | 462 | 381 | 397 | 411 | 448 | 419 | 0.11 |
| Rape, etc. | 4,483 | 4,182 | 4,507 | 4,597 | 4,762 | 4,506 | 1.19 |
| Total of sexual crimes | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.32 |
| Insults | 53,968 | 54,143 | 55,988 | 55,514 | 52,883 | 54,499 | 14.39 |
| Malicious mischief | 17,485 | 17,486 | 18,213 | 18,858 | 18,261 | 18,060 | 4.77 |
| Arson | 479 | 468 | 501 | 519 | 472 | 487 | 0.13 |
| Assaults | 116,613 | 117,864 | 122,561 | 126,490 | 124,646 | 121,632 | 32.12 |
| Rebellion | 18,377 | 18,484 | 17,968 | 19,817 | 17,951 | 18,393 | 4.86 |
| Homicide | 1,511 | 1,562 | 1,468 | 1,542 | 1,580 | 1,532 | 0.40 |
| Total of crimes of vengeance, etc. | — | — | — | — | — | — | 56.67 |
| Political crimes | 561 | 428 | 466 | 416 | 305 | 435 | 0.12 |
| General total | — | — | — | — | — | 378,629 | 100.00 |
[[539]]
England, 1881–1900.
| Crimes. | Number Arraigned for Each of the Crimes Given: | |||||
| Annual Averages. | 1881–1900 Average. | |||||
| 1881–85. | 1886–90. | 1891–95. | 1896–1900. | Absolute Number. | % | |
| Theft (of every kind) | 57,373 | 52,573 | 50,432 | 45,960 | 51,584 | 32.92 |
| Embezzlement | 1,475 | 1,345 | 1,335 | 1,387 | 1,385 | 0.88 |
| Receiving stolen goods | 1,302 | 1,239 | 1,348 | 1,241 | 1,282 | 0.82 |
| Burglary | 1,464 | 1,530 | 1,665 | 1,630 | 1,572 | 1.00 |
| Robbery and extortion | 320 | 322 | 310 | 278 | 307 | 0.20 |
| Fraud | 1,054 | 965 | 997 | 870 | 971 | 0.62 |
| Counterfeiting, etc. | 534 | 410 | 365 | 309 | 402 | 0.26 |
| Perjury | 100 | 85 | 78 | 77 | 85 | 0.05 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 49 | 41 | 43 | 35 | 42 | 0.03 |
| Total of economic crimes | — | — | — | — | — | 36.78 |
| Bigamy | 116 | 99 | 104 | 103 | 105 | 0.07 |
| Indecent assault upon girls under 16 | — | 305 | 258 | 236 | 249 | 0.16 |
| Rape, etc. upon adults | 647 | 639 | 636 | 595 | 629 | 0.40 |
| Total of sexual crimes | — | — | — | — | — | 0.63 |
| Malicious mischief | 21,779 | 19,646 | 18,484 | 17,470 | 19,594 | 12.51 |
| Arson | 155 | 133 | 117 | 104 | 127 | 0.08 |
| Assaults | 72,707 | 66,020 | 63,601 | 59,611 | 65,484 | 41.80 |
| Assaults upon officers | 322 | 285 | 291 | 278 | 294 | 0.19 |
| Homicide (including attempted homicide) | 13,223 | 11,850 | 12,626 | 12,524 | 12,555 | 8.01 |
| Total of crimes of vengeance | — | — | — | — | — | 62.59 |
| Political crimes | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 |
| General total | — | — | — | — | 156,668 | 100.00 |
[[540]]
France, 1881–1900.[334]
| Crimes. | Number Arraigned for Each Crime. | |||||
| Annual Averages. | 1881–1900 Averages. | |||||
| 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896–1900. | Average Number. | % | |
| Vagrancy | 15,629 | 19,050 | 18,449 | 14,148 | 16,819 | 11.17 |
| Mendicity | 9,421 | 14,625 | 14,707 | 11,274 | 12,506 | 8.30 |
| Aggravated theft | 1,668 | 1,715 | 1,517 | 1,308 | 1,552 | 1.03 |
| Simple theft | 44,596 | 47,941 | 49,145 | 43,750 | 46,358 | 30.78 |
| Counterfeiting | 98 | 141 | 134 | 111 | 121 | 0.08 |
| Procuration | 341 | 361 | 406 | 304 | 353 | 0.23 |
| Forgery | 355 | 304 | 237 | 224 | 280 | 0.19 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 4,210 | 4,422 | 3,898 | 3,496 | 4,006 | 2.66 |
| Breach of trust | 4,106 | 4,495 | 4,488 | 4,834 | 4,480 | 2.98 |
| Commercial frauds | 3,221 | 3,015 | 2,607 | 2,931 | 2,941 | 1.95 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 86 | 63 | 63 | 44 | 64 | 0.04 |
| Simple bankruptcy | 934 | 967 | 802 | 860 | 890 | 0.59 |
| Perjury | 126 | 126 | 151 | 136 | 134 | 0.09 |
| Total of economic crimes | — | — | — | — | — | 60.09 |
| Bigamy | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 0.00 |
| Adultery | 1,038 | 1,758 | 1,838 | 2,212 | 1,711 | 1.14 |
| Rape and indecent assault upon adults | 103 | 76 | 95 | 70 | 86 | 0.06 |
| Rape and indecent assault upon children | 717 | 592 | 584 | 452 | 586 | 0.39 |
| Total of sexual crimes | — | — | — | — | — | 1.59 |
| Defamation and insults | 3,513 | 2,918 | 2,940 | 2,877 | 3,062 | 2.03 |
| Insults to officials | 13,492 | 13,728 | 15,258 | 13,450 | 13,982 | 9.28 |
| Malicious mischief | 3,291 | 4,876 | 4,530 | 4,382 | 4,269 | 2.84 |
| Arson | 207 | 245 | 263 | 213 | 252 | 0.17 |
| Serious assaults | 187 | 155 | 178 | 183 | 175 | 0.12 |
| Intentional assaults | 27,768 | 28,971 | 33,443 | 36,158 | 31,585 | 20.97 |
| Violence to officials | 3,721 | 3,746 | 3,926 | 3,502 | 3,723 | 2.47 |
| Homicide | 518 | 506 | 515 | 461 | 500 | 0.33 |
| Infanticide | 191 | 191 | 157 | 118 | 164 | 0.11 |
| Total of crimes of vengeance, etc. | — | — | — | — | — | 38.32 |
| Political crimes | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 |
| General total | — | — | — | — | 150,607 | 100.00 |
[[541]]
Here, also, the political crimes and the sexual offenses show the smallest figures. The economic crimes exceed considerably those committed out of revenge, etc., a fact to be accounted for in great part by the inclusion of vagrancy and mendicity among the economic crimes. These tables hardly lend themselves to international comparison, since certain acts are regarded as misdemeanors in one country, and as contraventions in another.
Italy, 1891–1895.[335]
| Crimes. | Number Convicted of Each Crime. | ||||||
| 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | Average 1891–1895. | ||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | ||||||
| Simple theft | 44,380 | 38,750 | 35,343 | 37,022 | 41,875 | 39,474 | 29.07 |
| Aggravated theft | 14,512 | 15,103 | 15,230 | 15,238 | 17,132 | 15,441 | 11.37 |
| Fraud (of every kind) | 6,288 | 6,202 | 6,446 | 6,861 | 7,917 | 6,742 | 4.97 |
| Counterfeiting, etc. | 85 | 59 | 59 | 68 | 90 | 72 | 0.05 |
| Forgery | 788 | 626 | 683 | 726 | 839 | 732 | 0.54 |
| Procuration | 182 | 188 | 185 | 162 | 267 | 196 | 0.15 |
| Robbery, extortion, etc. | 683 | 719 | 824 | 879 | 966 | 814 | 0.60 |
| Total of economic crimes | — | — | — | — | — | — | 46.75 |
| Rape etc. | 724 | 797 | 879 | 902 | 1,066 | 873 | 0.64 |
| Corruption of minors and other offenses against morals and the order of the family | 1,036 | 1,246 | 1,269 | 1,373 | 1,411 | 1,267 | 0.93 |
| Total of sexual crimes | — | — | — | — | — | — | 1.57 |
| Defamation and insults | 9,030 | 9,957 | 9,005 | 11,247 | 12,196 | 10,287 | 7.58 |
| Malicious mischief | 5,396 | 4,938 | 4,493 | 5,069 | 5,617 | 5,102 | 3.76 |
| Arson | 213 | 156 | 197 | 210 | 197 | 194 | 0.14 |
| Minor assaults | 24,275 | 27,617 | 23,740 | 27,479 | 28,924 | 26,407 | 19.45 |
| Serious assaults | 6,491 | 8,440 | 9,124 | 8,211 | 9,199 | 8,293 | 6.11 |
| Threats | 4,788 | 5,997 | 5,875 | 6,702 | 8,053 | 6,283 | 4.63 |
| Violence, insults, etc., to officials | 10,293 | 11,829 | 11,999 | 11,835 | 11,800 | 11,551 | 8.51 |
| Homicide | 1,686 | 1,946 | 2,145 | 2,035 | 2,049 | 1,972 | 1.45 |
| Infanticide and abortion | 60 | 59 | 54 | 64 | 81 | 63 | 0.05 |
| Total of crimes of vengeance, etc. | — | — | — | — | — | — | 51.68 |
| Crimes against the safety of the state | 11 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 10 | 0.00 |
| General total | — | — | — | — | — | 135,773 | 100.00 |
[[542]]
The results of the Italian statistics agree in general with those that have gone before.
Netherlands, 1897–1901.[336]
| Crimes. | Number of Convicts for Each Crime. | ||||||
| 1897. | 1898. | 1899. | 1900. | 1901. | Average 1897–1901. | ||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | ||||||
| Vagrancy and mendicity | 2,139 | 2,173 | 2,209 | 1,873 | 1,857 | 2,050 | 16.42 |
| Simple theft | 1,685 | 1,830 | 1,740 | 1,544 | 1,758 | 1,711 | 13.71 |
| Aggravated theft | 936 | 919 | 761 | 837 | 1,029 | 896 | 17.18 |
| Receiving stolen goods | 95 | 69 | 88 | 82 | 98 | 86 | 0.69 |
| Embezzlement | 320 | 262 | 295 | 309 | 269 | 291 | 2.33 |
| Causing or being accessory to the debauch of a minor | 14 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 16 | 12 | 0.10 |
| Obtaining money under false pretenses | 102 | 115 | 97 | 112 | 115 | 108 | 0.87 |
| Extortion and blackmail | 8 | 12 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 0.07 |
| Forgery | 75 | 72 | 49 | 64 | 42 | 60 | 0.48 |
| Perjury | 29 | 18 | 15 | 22 | 18 | 20 | 0.16 |
| Fraudulent bankruptcy | 14 | 14 | 12 | 20 | 12 | 14 | 0.11 |
| Total of economic crimes | 42.12 | ||||||
| Rape and indecent assault upon adults | 88 | 81 | 94 | 110 | 97 | 94 | 0.75 |
| Rape and indecent assault upon children | 13 | 5 | 13 | 6 | 18 | 11 | 0.09 |
| Total of sexual crimes | 0.84 | ||||||
| Simple insults | 356 | 319 | 330 | 288 | 291 | 316 | 2.53 |
| Insults to officials | 549 | 508 | 431 | 421 | 440 | 469 | 3.76 |
| Malicious mischief | 916 | 900 | 861 | 857 | 874 | 881 | 7.06 |
| Arson | 10 | 12 | 22 | 25 | 15 | 17 | 0.14 |
| Rebellion, etc. | 1,188 | 1,091 | 1,069 | 1,166 | 1,112 | 1,125 | 9.01 |
| Assaults | 4,241 | 4,020 | 4,101 | 3,814 | 3,715 | 3,978 | 31.87 |
| Assaults upon officials | 340 | 286 | 331 | 330 | 296 | 316 | 2.53 |
| Homicide | 16 | 16 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 15 | 0.12 |
| Infanticide and abortion | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0.02 |
| Total of crimes of vengeance, etc. | 57.04 | ||||||
| Political crimes | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 |
| General total | 12,482 | 100.00 | |||||
[[543]]
These figures thus confirm in general the results of the preceding tables. The most frequent crimes are those committed out of revenge etc. and the economic crimes. The sexual crimes only reach low figures, and the political crimes are negligible.
We have placed certain crimes, like homicide and arson, in all the tables, among the crimes of vengeance, etc., although they may also be committed from an economic motive. The French and Italian criminal statistics give information upon the frequency of the motives which lead to these crimes.
France, 1881–1900.[337]
| Presumable Motive of the Crimes. | Percentage of the Crimes of Homicide and Arson due to Each Cause. | |||
| 1881–1885. | 1886–1890. | 1891–1895. | 1896–1900. | |
| Cupidity | 26 | 28 | 31 | 26 |
| Love, jealousy | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Adultery | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Concubinage, debauch | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Hate, revenge | 24 | 27 | 28 | 28 |
| Domestic disputes | 15 | 13 | 9 | 12 |
| Drink-shop quarrels | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Various motives | 22 | 20 | 18 | 20 |
About 28% of the crimes, then, had an economic motive, about 12% had a sexual motive, and 40% were committed out of revenge.
Italy, 1880–1881.[338]
| Presumable Motive of the Crimes. | Percentage of Crimes of Blood due to Each Cause. | |
| 1880. | 1881. | |
| Cupidity | 9.2 | 9.98 |
| Question of interests | 4.2 | 8.76 |
| Love, lawful or unlawful | 7.5 | 8.76 |
| Family relations and questions of honor | 2.6 | 3.11 |
| Defense of life | 4.9 | 3.04 |
| Defense,, of,, property | 1.7 | 1.89 |
| Domestic disputes | 3.0 | 4.43 |
| Anger | 30.3 | 23.67 |
| Hate and revenge | 26.5 | 28.46 |
| Cruelty | 4.1 | 2.72 |
| Drunkenness | 3.2 | 4.25 |
| Politics | 0.1 | 0.14 |
| Various and unknown motives | 2.6 | 0.79 |
[[544]]
Finally, it must not be forgotten that certain crimes of a different kind (leze-majesty and malicious mischief, for example) are sometimes committed simply that the author of them may get himself imprisoned, and hence should be classed as economic crimes.
We have now reached the question: how close a connection have the different crimes with economic conditions? We shall give only a detailed sketch of the subject; to treat it more fully would require extensive monographs. We shall limit ourselves to indicating the general lines. [[545]]
CHAPTER II.
ECONOMIC CRIMES.
It is necessary to divide these crimes into separate groups. Notwithstanding their partial similarity they differ too much among themselves to be treated together. I propose to speak of them under the four following heads: A. Vagrancy and mendicity; B. Theft, and analogous crimes; C. Robbery, homicide for economic reasons, etc. (that is to say, economic crimes committed with violence or directed against life); D. Fraudulent bankruptcy, adulteration of food, etc. (that is to say, economic crimes committed almost exclusively by the bourgeoisie, while those of the first three categories are committed almost exclusively by the poor). Some crimes, like that of embezzlement, belong to the second class as well as to the fourth (for example, a workman’s making off with a bicycle loaned to him, and the embezzlement of deposits by a bank director).
It seems to me unnecessary to explain this division. It creates four fairly distinct groups, which contain all the economic crimes. However, I must point out why I treat vagrancy and mendicity in this way, while both are generally regarded not as misdemeanors but as contraventions.[339] Properly speaking they ought not, therefore, to appear in a work on criminality, but the following are the reasons why they nevertheless find a place here; first, they are the most important and the most common contraventions; second, there is a very close relation between vagrancy on the one hand, and criminality properly speaking on the other. This relation has been shown by many authors. As Professor Prins says in his “Criminalité et répression”, vagrancy and mendicity are the novitiate of crime. I will only recall here the opinions of two writers, Josiah Flynt and E. Sichart. The former, the author of “Tramping with Tramps”, has given up a part of his life to tramping for some years in America, [[546]]Germany, and in other countries, in order to familiarize himself with the vagrant and the criminal; his conclusions accordingly have great value. He is of the opinion that the vagrants endowed with great energy become professional criminals, to fall again into vagrancy as soon as their physical and mental forces decline so as no longer to permit them to carry on their criminal trade with success.[340]
Sichart, the prison director, having examined 3,181 convicts, found that 28% of them had been convicted before for vagrancy, and 27% for mendicity—55% in all.[341] These figures differed according to the kind of criminal. There were to
| each 100 thieves | 44.2 | vagrants, | 35.0 | mendicants |
| each,, 100 swindlers | 11.1 | vagrants,,, | 20.2 | mendicants,, |
| each,, 100 sexual offenders | 14.0 | vagrants,,, | 17.3 | mendicants,, |
| each,, 100 incendiaries | 15.1 | vagrants,,, | 15.5 | mendicants,, |
| each,, 100 perjurers | 4.2 | vagrants,,, | 4.7 | mendicants,, |
For these reasons, then, it is necessary to treat of vagrancy and mendicity.
A. Vagrancy and Mendicity.
In examining the etiology of these contraventions, we perceive that different causes lead to them. We shall treat them successively and endeavor to find their relation to the economic life.
First. As a first cause of vagrancy and mendicity is the fact that under capitalism there are always workmen who cannot sell their labor. The number of these persons increases greatly at the time of a crisis. When the men out of work have no resource in their family and no longer receive aid from their union, they are obliged to go from place to place looking for employment, and if they do not succeed in finding it must have recourse to begging in order not to die of hunger. Statistics furnish the proof that the army of vagrants and mendicants [[547]]is in fact made up in part of the unemployed who, though they wish to, cannot find work.
In the first place, vagrancy and mendicity increase in winter (as in general all economic criminality does), when forced unemployment is at its height, and needs are most pressing, while they diminish in summer. The following figures with reference to some of the German states show these facts.
Grand-Duchy of Baden, 1884–1891.[342]
| Months. | Number Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. | Number Convicted per Diem, the Minimum = 100. |
| January | 7,232 | 364 |
| February | 6,315 | 336 |
| March | 4,816 | 235 |
| April | 2,945 | 148 |
| May | 2,743 | 133 |
| June | 2,475 | 124 |
| July | 2,540 | 124 |
| August | 2,410 | 118 |
| September | 1,989 | 100 |
| October | 2,672 | 130 |
| November | 3,857 | 195 |
| December | 5,310 | 259 |
Hesse, 1899–1900.[343]
| Months. | Number Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. | |
| Absolute Number. | Daily Average. | |
| December–February | 479 | 5.32 |
| March–May | 334 | 3.63 |
| June–August | 259 | 2.82 |
| September–November | 531 | 3.64 |
[[548]]
The following figures confirm those that have preceded.
Saxony, 1882–1887.[344]
| Years. | Number Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. | |||||||
| First Quarter. | Second Quarter. | Third Quarter. | Fourth Quarter. | |||||
| Absolute Numbers. | Percentage of Annual Total. | Absolute Numbers. | Percentage of Annual Total. | Absolute Numbers. | Percentage of Annual Total. | Absolute Numbers. | Percentage of Annual Total. | |
| 1882 | 6,752 | 36.1 | 4,220 | 22.6 | 3,181 | 17.0 | 4,546 | 24.3 |
| 1883 | 6,619 | 36.6 | 3,934 | 21.7 | 2,957 | 16.5 | 4,567 | 25.2 |
| 1884 | 6,641 | 37.6 | 3,855 | 21.8 | 2,721 | 15.5 | 4,462 | 25.2 |
| 1885 | 6,555 | 35.9 | 3,424 | 18.7 | 2,872 | 15.7 | 5,440 | 29.7 |
| 1886 | 7,139 | 41.5 | 3,507 | 20.4 | 2,654 | 15.4 | 3,900 | 22.7 |
| 1887 | 5,787 | 39.1 | 3,344 | 22.6 | 2,251 | 15.2 | 3,411 | 23.1 |
These statistics justify the conclusion drawn by Ostwald, from whom I have taken the figures for Hesse. This author is a competent witness, as he tramped as a vagrant for some time himself. He says: “These figures directly contradict the statement that antipathy to regular work forms the principal source of vagrancy and mendicity; especially as there is no inclination to frequent the highways in winter. It is the need that comes of unemployment that drives out these poorest of the poor; and whoever wishes to do away with vagrancy must make the economic existence of the working people secure, instead of visiting the victims of poverty with Draconian punishments.”[345]
Another proof in support of the assertion that unemployment is a cause of mendicity and vagrancy, is to be found in the fact that the figures for vagrancy and mendicity rise considerably at the time of economic crises. The same phenomenon occurs more or less when the price of grain or bread goes up. Then those whose labor is only poorly paid must find some means of increasing their resources; and further when bread is dear less of other things can be bought, which brings about a decrease in production and consequently an increase in forced idleness.
In the first part of this work I have mentioned authors who have shown for different countries that the curve of vagrancy rises or falls as economic conditions become worse or better. I add here the data that I have been able to find elsewhere. [[549]]
England, 1856–1896.[346]
| Years. | Vagrants Convicted. | Years. | Vagrants Convicted. | |||
| Absolute Numbers. | To 100,000 of the Population. | Absolute Numbers. | To 100,000 of the Population. | |||
| 1856–57 | 19,270 | 99.7 | 1876–77 | 22,475 | 90.9 | |
| 1857–58 | 21,473 | 109.9 | 1877–78 | 23,662 | 94.5 | |
| 1858–59 | 16,401 | 83.0 | 1878–79 | 25,790 | 101.6 | |
| 1859–60 | 16,374 | 82.2 | 1879–80 | 30,323 | 117.5 | |
| 1860–61 | 17,496 | 86.9 | 1880–81 | 28,088 | 107.8 | |
| 1861–62 | 20,636 | 101.4 | 1881–82 | 28,729 | 109.0 | |
| 1862–63 | 21,758 | 105.8 | 1882–83 | 28,825 | 108.2 | |
| 1863–64 | 20,414 | 97.7 | 1883–84 | 28,370 | 105.3 | |
| 1864–65 | 20,307 | 96.7 | 1884–85 | 27,467 | 100.9 | |
| 1865–66 | 19,607 | 91.8 | 1885–86 | 26,546 | 96.4 | |
| 1866–67 | 21,071 | 97.5 | 1886–87 | 28,690 | 103.0 | |
| 1867–68 | 24,125 | 110.2 | 1887–88 | 31,380 | 111.5 | |
| 1868–69 | 29,890 | 134.8 | 1888–89 | 28,032 | 98.5 | |
| 1869–70 | 28,367 | 126.3 | 1889–90 | 25,001 | 86.5 | |
| 1870–71 | 24,902 | 109.4 | 1890–91 | 22,577 | 77.6 | |
| 1871–72 | 21,325 | 92.4 | 1891–92 | 23,623 | 80.3 | |
| 1872–73 | 19,433 | 83.2 | 1893 | 24,830 | 83.3 | |
| 1873–74 | 19,582 | 82.8 | 1894 | 25,676 | 85.4 | |
| 1874–75 | 17,692 | 73.5 | 1895 | 23,524 | 77.4 | |
| 1875–76 | 19,841 | 81.4 | 1896 | 25,188 | 81.9 | |
When we compare these figures with the course of economic events, we find the following: 1856 was a bad year economically, and 1857 and 1858 were still worse; in 1859 the situation improved, to become worse again in 1860, 1861, and 1862. The improvement was restored in 1863, while 1864 and 1865 were fair; in 1866, 1867, and 1868 conditions became worse again, but improved from 1869 to 1874. With 1875 things took a turn for the worse, and this condition lasted till 1879, when there was a slight improvement; 1880, 1881, and 1882 were fair, while 1883 was a passably good year. In 1884 a period of depression began, which lasted till 1888, following which there was an improvement until 1891, with the succeeding years up to 1894 not so good. In 1895 things once more took a turn for the better.[347] [[550]]
With some exceptions the curve of vagrancy rises and falls, then, pretty much as the economic situation grows worse or improves.
Bavaria, 1835–1861.
Dr. G. Mayr has proved that during the period named there was a close connection between the movement of the price of grain and the figures for vagrancy. (See p. 42 of this work.)[348]
Flanders, 1839–1848.
Ducpetiaux had given proofs of the same correlation. (See pp. 33–37.)
France, 1840–1886.
Lafargue has proved that vagrancy and mendicity follow in general the curve for bankruptcies. (See p. 235.)[349]
Hesse, 1895–1900.[350]
| Years. | Number of those Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. | |
| Absolute Figures. | To 100,000 of the Population. | |
| 1895 | 2,583 | 21.96 |
| 1896 | 2,244 | 21.49 |
| 1897 | 1,968 | 18.49 |
| 1898 | 1,658 | 15.60 |
| 1899 | 1,267 | 11.82 |
| 1900 | 1,442 | 12.95 |
In this period the economic depression in Germany, dating from about 1890, began to decrease.
Netherlands, 1860–1891.
Since there are no statistical investigations of the course of vagrancy and mendicity I have composed the following chart from the official data. [[551]]
I. Number Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity to 100,000 of the Population. II. Price of Bread (in Centimes per Kilogram).
A comparison of the two curves shows that there is a parallelism, tolerably constant up to 1869. After this it ceases with some exceptions. The great fall in the price of bread, beginning with 1878 (as a consequence of the agrarian crisis), even coincides with a considerable increase in vagrancy and mendicity. To explain this we must consult the statistics of failures. These show that the great increase of vagrancy and mendicity coincide with an equally great increase in the number of bankruptcies, beginning in 1875 and lasting to 1882. For the following years there is no relation between the two phenomena apparent.
Prussia, 1854–1870.
I have composed the following table by means of the data given by Starke in his “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen” (pp. 55 and 115). [[552]]
| Years. | Number of New Cases of Vagrancy and Mendicity. | Price of 50 Kilograms in Marks. | ||
| Wheat. | Rye. | Potatoes. | ||
| 1854 | 14,619 | 12.90 | 10.40 | 3.17 |
| 1855 | 16,665 | 14.21 | 11.45 | 3.37 |
| 1856 | 20,414 | 13.51 | 10.64 | 3.13 |
| 1857 | 15,801 | 10.18 | 6.87 | 2.18 |
| 1858 | 15,318 | 9.08 | 6.38 | 1.91 |
| 1859 | 16,978 | 8.93 | 6.79 | 1.98 |
| 1860 | 16,320 | 10.48 | 7.65 | 2.41 |
| 1861 | 14,239 | 11.04 | 7.71 | 2.79 |
| 1862 | 12,846 | 10.68 | 7.97 | 2.47 |
| 1863 | 11,840 | 9.18 | 6.78 | 2.04 |
| 1864 | 12,026 | 7.95 | 5.69 | 2.10 |
| 1865 | 11,640 | 8.13 | 6.24 | 2.03 |
| 1866 | 13,664 | 9.80 | 7.30 | 2.05 |
| 1867 | 15,339 | 12.89 | 9.87 | 2.95 |
| 1868 | 14,801 | 12.48 | 9.84 | 2.62 |
| 1869 | 15,091 | 9.70 | 8.08 | 2.16 |
| 1870 | 13,320 | 11.04 | 7.78 | 2.58 |
Although the curves of the price of foodstuffs and of vagrancy do not exactly conform, the influence of the price is none the less evident. The three periods of high prices (1854–56, 1860–62, and 1867–68) coincide with high figures for vagrancy and mendicity. (It is to be noted that the effect of an economic depression does not always make itself felt the following year.)
Kingdom of Saxony, 1889–1892.
Bebel showed that mendicity increased greatly in the above period (a crisis of great intensity). (See pp. 228–229 of this work.)[351]
I am of the opinion that these data show sufficiently that the increase or diminution of vagrancy and mendicity are regulated by the economic situation; in other words, that a great many persons become guilty of these contraventions not because they are not willing to work, but entirely as a consequence of an unfavorable economic environment. There are some exceptions to this rule. Above (pp. 89–90) I have shown that these exceptions do not weaken the general conclusion; the unfavorable influence of the economic depression may be neutralized by counter-determinants. It must [[553]]further be remarked especially with regard to vagrancy and mendicity, that the application of the laws relative to these offenses is quite arbitrary, and it happens at the time of a crisis that the courts do not punish those who are guilty of them, whence it follows that the statistics do not give an accurate picture of the reality.[352]
It is impossible to fix exactly how far the influence of economic depressions extends; in other words, we cannot determine the number of vagrants and mendicants who become such directly through forced idleness. When it is necessary to record a certain number of convictions for vagrancy and mendicity, although the economic conditions are most favorable, we shall not even then be able to say that this proves that the convictions fell only upon persons who could have found work, but did not wish it.
Under the present economic system unemployment is chronic, that is to say, it is present even in times of economic prosperity. Consequently it has not been proved that those who are convicted during these periods are necessarily lazy and do not want to work. The only figure that I have been able to find with regard to the importance of this cause of vagrancy and mendicity is this: that in Germany, out of a total of 200,000 mendicants, there are 80,000 (40%) who are really in search of work.[353] This figure being only approximate, its significance is not great.
Before leaving the subject of this cause, we must say something with regard to the objection that the workers who, on account of a long period of unemployment, fall finally into vagrancy, are inferior to the average, generally do not know a trade, and are often addicted to alcohol; and that consequently in this case an individual factor plays a rôle beside the economic factor.
It is true that most of the vagrants and mendicants do not know a trade, nor are worth much as workmen. In his study Dr. Bonhoeffer says that 55.4% of the vagrants and mendicants examined by him had not learned a trade, or had learned it insufficiently.[354] This author also shows (we shall return to this later) that a great proportion of these people are also physically inferior to the average. This inferiority is in part not the cause but the effect of the conditions under which they have been living (insufficient food, etc.),[355] and in part congenital weakness.
However, supposing that each of these individuals knew a trade, [[554]]supposing also that they were all robust and healthy and in a condition to work regularly, would there then be fewer persons without work than there are now? The answer to this question must be negative. Even if every workman knew a trade, this fact would not increase the demand for skilled workmen. At any given time the labor market demands only a certain number of skilled workmen, and a certain other number of unskilled laborers; the number of unskilled laborers available has no influence. The same thing is true as to fitness for work; if all the workmen had the same energy, the same zeal, etc., this would not increase the demand for workmen; this demand is regulated by other factors.
In my opinion it cannot be a question of individual causes; individual differences explain partially who remain without work, and so become vagrants; but it is the economic system which causes the existence of persons without work. Vagrancy and mendicity would be no less extensive even if all the workers knew a trade and were equal in zeal and energy.
In the second place the world of vagrants and mendicants is composed of people too old to work, or more or less incapable of working, from physical or psychical causes, so that they are no longer employed. So far as I know the data concerning the age of vagrants and mendicants are not numerous; I can cite those that follow.
England, 1894–1900.[356]
| Years. | Number of Mendicants Convicted. | Of Whom there were of the Age of | |||
| 50 to 60 years. | Over 60. | ||||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | Absolute Numbers. | % | ||
| 1894 | 13,021 | 1,638 | 12 | 1,916 | 14 |
| 1895 | 10,497 | 1,387 | 13 | 1,490 | 14 |
| 1896 | 11,839 | 1,512 | 12 | 1,801 | 15 |
| 1897 | 10,735 | 1,338 | 12 | 1,701 | 15 |
| 1898 | 11,047 | 1,540 | 13 | 1,838 | 16 |
| 1899 | 9,308 | 1,374 | 14 | 1,667 | 17 |
| 1900 | 8,402 | 1,253 | 14 | 1,690 | 20 |
[[555]]
Netherlands, 1896–1901.[357]
| Years. | Number of Persons Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. | Of Whom there were of the Age of | |||
| 50 to 60 years. | Over 60. | ||||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | Absolute Numbers. | % | ||
| 1896 | 2,181 | 541 | 24 | 273 | 12 |
| 1897 | 2,139 | 529 | 25 | 278 | 13 |
| 1898 | 2,173 | 534 | 24 | 291 | 13 |
| 1899 | 2,215 | 564 | 25 | 285 | 12 |
| 1901 | 1,857 | 491 | 26 | 257 | 13 |
Russia, 1897.
In the work of Löwenstimm already cited we find mentioned the fact that out of a total of 7,916 mendicants arrested in St. Petersburg, 1,185 (14.9%) were between 50 and 60 years of age, and 982 (12.4%) over 60.[358]
As has been said, a certain number of vagrants are weak or sickly, and consequently are nearly or quite unable to work. In “Les habitués des prisons de Paris”, Dr. Laurent gives the following description of some vagrants observed by him, true types of this kind of individual. “I have known at the Santé in recent years an individual who has passed almost the whole of his life in prison, who was born and lived in misery. A natural child, his mother received him as a mistake and a burden and tried to destroy herself and him. Later, convulsions twisted him upon a hospital bed, and he has remained half-paralyzed. So far from knowing how to read or write he can hardly see clearly, for an opaque film covers his left eye. He has undergone more than twenty sentences for mendicity and vagrancy, and he is still only 37 years old. He leaves prison only to enter it again. So he complains bitterly and blames the judicial authorities, who, instead of placing him in an asylum, where he belongs, cast him into prison, because, says he, the food does not cost so much.
“An individual 29 years old, the son of a drunkard and a consumptive, has already been seven times sentenced for mendicity. He has been half-paralyzed since he was 13 months old and can walk only with crutches. Epileptic in addition, he drifts from prison to prison.
“These facts are very common, and it is impossible to estimate how [[556]]many of these poor devils live in the prisons, which are a kind of refuge for them. Lately I saw a blind man who had been arrested for mendicity and sentenced to a fortnight in prison.”[359]
The following figures, taken from the work just quoted, inform us as to the number of such individuals.
Breslau.
| Physical and Mental Condition. | Absolute Numbers. | % |
| Physical condition weak | 337 | 91 |
| Incapable of military service from physical weakness | 236 | 64 |
| Mental anomalies | 322 | 87 |
| Epilepsy | 43 | 11 |
| Imbecility | 86 | 23 |
| Total number examined | 369 | 100 |
Here it must be noted that in the years 1896–97 there were on the average only 9% of the conscripts of Silesia who were incapable of military service.
The other figures that are known agree with the ones I have just cited. Dr. Kurella found 20% to 30% of imbeciles or epileptics among the vagrants.[360] Dr. Mendel also found a great number of psychic abnormalities among the vagrants.[361]
All that I have just said demonstrates sufficiently, I believe, that the cause named above plays a considerable rôle in the etiology of mendicity and vagrancy. It is still necessary to give an answer to the question: do all the individuals who fall under the unfavorable conditions named under one and two, become vagrants or mendicants? It is evident that the answer must be negative. Three expedients offer themselves to one who has fallen into the blackest poverty; mendicity, theft, and suicide. It is partly chance (opportunity etc.), and partly the individual predisposition which fixes what anyone under the conditions named will become, whether a mendicant or a thief. Generally those who have still some intelligence [[557]]and energy become thieves, the rest vagrants.[362] The third expedient, suicide, also is frequently met with among the lower proletariat.[363] Those who have recourse to it are either those who have known better conditions and find that the miserable existence that mendicity procures is not worth the trouble of living, or those who have lost all energy. Sometimes persons commit suicide to escape the shame of begging or stealing. These have been called “the heroes of virtue”; but, considered from another point of view, they may also be called the “victims of vice”, the vice of others, of course. These have been born with a very strong moral disposition and have lived in an environment where this disposition has been developed. These cases prove the degree of intensity that the social sentiments can attain; they are stronger than the fundamental desire to live, although those whom these “heroes” are unwilling to injure, reject these sentiments, by abandoning their fellows who find themselves in want.
Third. A third category of mendicants and vagrants is made up of children and young people. Let us see what relation there is between this fact and the economic and social environment. All those who have taken up this subject are agreed that a great proportion of the children are systematically taught to beg by their parents. Whatever may be the cause for which the parents act thus, these children are entirely the victims of the detestable atmosphere in which they are forced to live. Brought up in a wholesome environment they would become neither mendicants nor vagrants.[364]
Another part of the vagrant body is made up of children who are either illegitimate or orphans, or deserted by their parents, or forced by bad treatment to run away from home. Tomel and Rollet mention the following typical case. A girl of 16 was charged with vagrancy, and made this heart-rending statement of her case before the tribunal: “I went on Friday to find the police commissioner of the ward; I told him that I had been without a lodging place for 15 days, and that I had not eaten for 48 hours. I was employed at the house of a wine merchant, who, when my mother died three years ago, took me as a servant (at 13 years of age) at two sous a day as wages. But my employer failed, his shop was closed, and I had to go out and wander in search of work without finding anything. My father, sentenced [[558]]to hard labor for life, died in New Caledonia. I have no longer any mother, and since I did not wish to imitate my grown-up sister, who leads a bad life, I preferred to get myself arrested.”[365]
It is difficult to tell how many of these children there are. The only figures that I know of are the following.
Italy, 1885–1889.[366]
Among the minors sent to a house of correction for vagrancy there were
| Divisions. | Absolute Numbers. | % |
| Illegitimate children | 91 | 8.0 |
| Orphans | 498 | 43.8 |
| Children whose parents were in prison | 25 | 2.2 |
| Other children | 524 | 46.0 |
| Total | 1,138 | 100.0 |
We must now speak of another kind of vagrant and mendicant, those whom some criminologists have called born-vagabonds; children who run away from home to meet with adventures and to see something more than the neighborhood where they live. It makes little difference to us here whence comes this desire; everyone, especially every child, has it more or less (who is there who does not love to travel?) and there are those in whom it is very strong. “Who among us,” say Tomel and Rollet, “at certain moments of existence, does not feel the desire to break with social conventions, or more simply, to break through the circle of his horizon, in order to depart in search of the unknown? Put money in the pocket of the tramp and you make a tourist. The sportsman and the delinquent are separated only by the thickness of some hundred-sou pieces.”[367]
These authors have hit the truth of the matter. Such children are called born-vagabonds, but then we meet thousands of born-vagabonds who have never become vagabonds in reality. The children who have a great love of adventure are found in all classes of society, but only those who come from among the poor become vagrants. It is in [[559]]poverty then that we find the “causa efficiens”; the same inclination that brings poor children to prison, would perhaps lead them to a post of honor if they had lived in better surroundings. There are people of all kinds among criminals, and it cannot be denied that the majority of them are inferior in every way. But this does not apply to this class of little vagrants. Those who, as a consequence of years of experience, have a right to speak, are agreed that such children can be made useful members of society, if they are rationally guided.[368] They are bold and energetic lads. Could it be believed that all the boys who, in 1889, came on foot to Paris from all parts of France to see the Eiffel tower (there were some of them under seven years of age) were not brave and energetic? Brought up in another environment they would have become sailors or explorers, or would have undertaken long journeys as tourists—while now they get into prison, to descend later lower and lower.[369]
Fourth. Finally, the fourth category of vagrants and mendicants. This consists of those not included in the other three classes of people who are physically in a condition to work and who have opportunity to do so, but are not willing to work. It is hard to determine with certainty how large a part of the army of vagrants and mendicants they make up. But it seems to me certain that the facts given above prove that they are not as numerous as some authors and many other people believe. Besides, how is it that the philanthropic institutions where everyone admitted has to work, are always full, if it is true that most vagrants are persons who are not willing to work?
The vagrants of this class are then lazy persons, unwilling to work, but living at the expense of others, and consequently parasites. It is with reason that many authors have blamed such persons (though, as Dr. Colajanni says, justice would require that we should include all do-nothings, and not the poor only). But this does not advance the cause of sociology; her task is to find the causes of the phenomenon.
It is incontestable that the zeal and energy, evidenced by modern peoples in their work, are not innate but acquired. All sound individuals [[560]]have, not in the same measure, it is true, an innate tendency to exercise their muscles and their intellectual faculties, but without external causes this inclination does not go very far. The primitive peoples work no more than is necessary to provide for their very moderate needs. They find people laughable who work more than is strictly necessary.[370] The enormous change which took place in the method of production little by little induced men to produce a greater and greater amount of work; on the one hand were the slaves, forced to labor hard, and on the other hand the property owners driven to work by the desire of profit. In our present society the case is almost the same; the great mass are forced to work by fear of poverty, the smaller number by the desire for gain. And then the great majority of men have been accustomed to work from infancy; much work is done from necessity, but much from habit, which causes a feeling of uneasiness when one cannot work.
The first reason why there are people who do not want to work, is that they have not been accustomed to it from childhood. In general children, like primitive people, who are analogous to them in many ways, show little zeal for work. It is necessary to train them for a fairly long time before they set themselves to work assiduously. What will all those children whose parents have neglected them, or who have even taught them to beg, turn into when they are grown up, if not into vagrants and mendicants? They have never learned any trade, have never become accustomed to work, have never found any pleasure in it, so that later in life they will never have any desire to do anything.[371]
Part of those who have not been able to work for a long time go the same road, they lose the habit of working, become lazy, and in the end are not willing to do anything any more.[372] These, to be sure, are the least diligent by nature, but that would not alone send them into vagrancy if they had always been able to find work.
However, there is still one more thing to be said about the circumstances which give rise to this class of individuals. In the first place, the long duration, the monotony, and the disagreeable features of the work of the proletariat, which, as a consequence is rather hated than loved.[373] In the second place: the small wages of a large part of the workers, and the comparatively large amounts that clever beggars [[561]]are able to secure. Flynt gives the following data as to the “earnings” of tramps; in New York, $1 a day; in the Eastern States generally, from 50 cents to $1 or $2, without counting food; in New Orleans a skilful beggar can “earn” $1 a day. He estimates that in Germany the daily receipts of a beggar are from a mark and a half to four marks, and food; in England most beggars get from 18 pence to two shillings, though some very clever ones even get as much as 10 shillings.[374] Löwenstimm tells that in Petrograd a skilful beggar has a daily income of three rubles.[375] Florian and Cavaglieri say that in Paris a beggar gets four francs, and if he is very clever, even as much as twenty-five francs, a day.[376]
In some cases, then, it is more profitable, and in all cases more easy, not to work. In consequence of these facts we read very often that the public ought not to give to these idlers. But the public cannot distinguish this class of mendicants from the others. It is certainly true that professional mendicity would diminish if nothing were given to mendicants; but on the other hand the great misery among the other poor would be aggravated still more. And I venture to doubt whether the advantage thus gained on one side would counterbalance the disadvantage created on the other.
And these laments upon the subject of the stupidity of the public are generally accompanied by anathemas upon those who prefer the life of the parasite to work. No one would naturally be inclined to excuse these individuals. But it is necessary to look at the question from both sides. If these people are blamed, blame must be attached also to a state of society in which honest labor is so poorly paid that begging is often more lucrative. These individuals are cunning egoists and as long as society is organized as it is, they are right from their point of view. To be sure, they have no feeling of honor, they attach no value to the opinion of others, but the feeling of honor is not innate but acquired. As the facts show, vagrants generally come from an environment where there can be no question of a development of moral qualities. Dr. Bonhoeffer shows, for example, that about 45% of the vagrants examined by him had been brought up in bad home surroundings (alcoholism of the parents, etc.). Then, as we have seen above, the social feelings can be developed only where there is reciprocity. I should like to know whether society really concerns itself with the fate of these unfortunates to such an extent that they in their turn care greatly for the opinion of this same society. [[562]]Certainly not. They are pariahs, and since they are such the contempt of a hostile world is a matter of indifference.
As we come to the conclusion of our observations upon the etiology of vagrancy and mendicity, we have still but one category to consider, that of those who are indolent by nature. There are individuals in whom assiduous labor of any kind awakens a strong feeling of discomfort.[377] As we have already stated above, in speaking of poverty in general (see p. 288), the cause of this phenomenon is a species of neurasthenia, more especially physical. It is necessary to recognize that, while these individuals are out of harmony with society, they are sick and must be cared for if society is to avoid trouble. Besides, Professor Benedict, who was the first to point out physical neurasthenia, himself recognizes[378] that such sick persons need not become vagrants, if they are brought up in a favorable environment, and that later the struggle for existence will not be painful to them.
To sum up, it is evident that the principal causes of vagrancy and mendicity are lack of work, the want of care for the old, the sick, and the weak, the abandonment of poor children, the low wages and long hours of the workers. The persons who run most danger of being incorporated in the army of vagrants are the weak, whether mentally or physically, but this need not necessarily happen; the “causa causarum” is the environment.[379]
History proves this also. If vagrancy and mendicity sprang from the innate qualities of man, there would always have been vagrants and mendicants, which is not the case. The appearance of these is due to the economic structure of society. It is not possible to discuss this at length and the reader is referred to the work of Florian and Cavaglieri, “I vagabondi” (I, Part One). These authors show that the first type of vagrant was the runaway slave, and then the serf [[563]]who had fled from his lord’s domain. In the following periods the penalties with which vagrants were threatened (and they were very severe) were especially designed to force the proletariat to serve the purposes of the possessors of the means of production.[380] In measure as the number of available workers increases and the proletariat submits to the will of the capitalists, this cause becomes less important, and disappears almost completely in our own time. It is rather the contrary that takes place, since the army of vagrants and mendicants is now mainly composed of those who have not been able to find work. Vagabondage and mendicity are at present punishable because of the importunity of the mendicants, the losses experienced by persons living in the country especially, and also because of the danger to society from the fact that the dangerous criminals are partly recruited from this class.
B. Theft and Analogous Crimes.
Before examining the motives inducing the commission of theft (the most important crime of this group, the others being mostly modifications of it) we must first stop a moment to ask the question, “Is honesty an innate characteristic or is it acquired?”
In my opinion it is indisputable that honesty is as little innate as any other moral conception.[381] No child can distinguish between mine and thine, it is only little by little that he gains this concept. On the contrary he has the tendency to monopolize everything that he desires (the prehensory instinct, Lafargue names it).[382] It is just this instinct that must be combated to make a child honest. It would, therefore, be more correct to say that dishonesty is innate. Unless one takes account of this fact it is impossible to give the etiology of theft and crimes of the same nature.
The motives for these crimes with which we are now occupied we shall speak of under three heads. The first group includes the crimes committed from poverty, the second those that result from cupidity, and in the third group we shall treat of the criminals by profession. [[564]]
a. THEFTS COMMITTED FROM POVERTY.
There are some needs which a man must satisfy, without which his existence is impossible. These are fundamental needs, independent of environment. If a man has not sufficient food, if he has not (at least in non-tropical countries) clothing to protect him against cold, if opportunity for rest is lacking, etc., his life is in danger. In our present society there are always a number of persons who are in want of the strict necessaries of life, and who are therefore obliged to steal if they do not wish to succumb to poverty. It is evident that the word “poverty” is not to be taken in the most limited sense, so that one who can still buy a morsel of bread, and yet steals, may still be considered as a thief from poverty.
We must make here one more observation before we enter upon the proofs of this thesis. We have defined crime as an egoistic act. However, the same act may be at once egoistic and altruistic, and this is the case with some crimes committed from poverty, when an individual steals in order not to have those in his charge die of hunger. What conflicts of duty our present society creates!
The proofs that absolute poverty provokes a number of thefts are of three kinds. The first two are based upon the dynamics of criminality.
First. In winter, when poverty is most pressing, the number of thefts etc. is much greater than in summer. This is a fact so well known that it is unnecessary to give detailed proofs of it, and I think it will be sufficient to give the following statistics dealing with two important countries for a great number of years. [[565]]
Germany, 1883–1892.[383]
| Crimes.[384] | Number of Punishable Acts Committed in the Months of | |||||||||||||
| January. | February. | March. | April. | May. | June. | July. | August. | September. | October. | November. | December. | |||
| Simple theft | | a | 7,991 | 7,342 | 6,909 | 5,777 | 6,097 | 6,003 | 6,230 | 6,481 | 6,249 | 7,436 | 7,966 | 8,523 |
| b | 113 | 115 | 98 | 85 | 87 | 88 | 88 | 92 | 92 | 106 | 117 | 121 | ||
| Aggravated theft | | a | 913 | 877 | 830 | 777 | 840 | 856 | 879 | 866 | 818 | 956 | 971 | 996 |
| b | 102 | 107 | 92 | 89 | 94 | 98 | 98 | 96 | 94 | 106 | 112 | 111 | ||
| Embezzlement | | a | 1,539 | 1,358 | 1,454 | 1,397 | 1,505 | 1,485 | 1,583 | 1,551 | 1,459 | 1,604 | 1,573 | 1,659 |
| b | 100 | 97 | 94 | 94 | 98 | 100 | 103 | 101 | 98 | 104 | 105 | 108 | ||
| Receiving stolen goods | | a | 682 | 615 | 571 | 442 | 458 | 447 | 444 | 451 | 451 | 556 | 643 | 789 |
| b | 123 | 122 | 103 | 82 | 82 | 83 | 80 | 81 | 81 | 100 | 120 | 142 | ||
| Professional and habitual receiving of stolen goods | | a | 3 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
| b | 71 | 130 | 94 | 195 | 94 | 73 | 71 | 71 | 146 | 71 | 73 | 118 | ||
| Fraud | | a | 2,174 | 2,050 | 1,909 | 1,744 | 1,823 | 1,869 | 1,932 | 1,845 | 1,758 | 2,065 | 2,279 | 2,432 |
| b | 107 | 111 | 94 | 89 | 90 | 95 | 95 | 91 | 90 | 102 | 116 | 120 | ||
There is, then, a pretty considerable increase as winter approaches, and a decrease with the summer months. I would call the attention of the reader especially to the fact that it is the crimes of simple theft and the receiving of stolen goods which show this change in the most marked way, while aggravated theft, embezzlement and the professional and habitual receiving of stolen goods show it in less degree. It is the two former crimes which have poverty as their cause, while the three latter are more apt to be committed from cupidity and by professional criminals. [[566]]
The following figures, taken from the criminal calendar composed by Professor Lacassagne, have to do with
France, 1827–1870.[385]
Number of Crimes Against Property for Each Month, Reduced to an Equal Duration of 31 Days.
| January. | 16,350 |
| February. | 15,400 |
| March. | 14,250 |
| April. | 13,450 |
| May. | 13,625 |
| June. | 13,450 |
| July. | 13,225 |
| August. | 13,425 |
| September. | 13,875 |
| October. | 14,400 |
| November. | 16,100 |
| December. | 16,825 |
We have here, then, as always, a great increase in fall and winter, and a corresponding decrease in spring and summer.
Second. A second proof of the importance of absolute poverty as a cause of crime etc. is furnished by the fact that there is a considerable increase of the crimes in question in times of economic depression (high price of bread, lack of work, etc.). In Part One I have cited many works in which this phenomenon is proved for a number of countries. I refer the reader, therefore, to the more important of these, and add other data here. [[567]]
Germany, 1882–1911.[386]
| Years. | Price of Rye in Marks per 1000 Kilogr. (Berlin.) | Imports and Exports in Billions of Marks. | Number of Persons Convicted of Crimes given below, to 100,000 of Population over 12Years of Age. | ||||
| Simple Theft. | Aggravated Theft. | Receiving Stolen Goods. | Fraud. | Embezzlement. | |||
| 1882 | 152.3 | 6.3 | 250 | 28 | 26 | 37 | 46 |
| 1883 | 144.7 | 6.5 | 241 | 25 | 24 | 38 | 46 |
| 1884 | 143.3 | 6.4 | 231 | 25 | 23 | 39 | 46 |
| 1885 | 140.6 | 5.8 | 214 | 22 | 22 | 38 | 45 |
| 1886 | 130.6 | 5.9 | 210 | 20 | 21 | 41 | 45 |
| 1887 | 120.9 | 6.2 | 198 | 21 | 20 | 43 | 44 |
| 1888 | 134.5 | 6.7 | 194 | 21 | 20 | 44 | 44 |
| 1889 | 155.5 | 7.2 | 211 | 23 | 21 | 49 | 47 |
| 1890 | 170.0 | 7.6 | 206 | 24 | 21 | 50 | 47 |
| 1891 | 211.2 | 7.7 | 216 | 25 | 22 | 54 | 50 |
| 1892 | 176.3 | 7.3 | 236 | 31 | 25 | 59 | 52 |
| 1893 | 133.7 | 7.3 | 202 | 26 | 22 | 58 | 51 |
| 1894 | 117.8 | 7.2 | 198 | 27 | 22 | 60 | 52 |
| 1895 | 119.8 | 7.6 | 192 | 24 | 22 | 61 | 53 |
| 1896 | 118.8 | 8.2 | 184 | 24 | 19 | 58 | 50 |
| 1897 | 130.1 | 8.5 | 188 | 23 | 18 | 61 | 51 |
| 1898 | 146.3 | 9.4 | 191 | 25 | 19 | 63 | 52 |
| 1899 | 146.3 | 10.0 | 179 | 24 | 19 | 63 | 53 |
| 1900 | 142.6 | 10.7 | 181 | 23 | 18 | 60 | 51 |
| 1901 | 140.7 | 10.2 | 190 | 26 | 19 | 64 | 52 |
| 1902 | 144.2 | 10.6 | 191 | 28 | 20 | 66 | 55 |
| 1903 | 132.3 | 11.4 | 182 | 26 | 19 | 64 | 54 |
| 1904 | 135.1 | 12.1 | 176 | 24 | 17 | 62 | 54 |
| 1905 | 151.9 | 13.2 | 175 | 25 | 17 | 61 | 56 |
| 1906 | 160.6 | 14.8[387] | 179 | 28 | 18 | 62 | 58 |
| 1907 | 193.2[388] | 15.5 | 178 | 28 | 18 | 61 | 60 |
| 1908 | 186.5 | 14.0 | 189 | 32 | 20 | 61 | 63 |
| 1909 | 176.5 | 15.1 | 182 | 33 | 20 | 62 | 65 |
| 1910 | 152.3 | 16.4 | 176 | 32 | 19 | 63 | 65 |
| 1911 | 168.3 | 17.8 | 169 | 30 | 19 | 63 | 65 |
If, in examining the preceding table, we do not lose sight of the fact that the rise or fall of the price of grain does not make itself felt immediately, and that in the criminal statistics of a certain year there appear also persons who have committed their crime in a preceding year, it is clear how enormous is the influence of the economic [[568]]movement upon economic crimes. The price of grain had formerly a decisive influence upon the trend of economic crimes; now, in industrial countries like Germany, it is rather the industrial situation, without, however, the price of cereals losing all influence.[389]
England, 1823–1896.
Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky proved for the periods 1823–1850 and 1871–1896 the correlation between good and bad times and the decrease and increase of criminality.
For the period 1858–1864 the same proof is given by Mayr (see Part I); and for the years 1840–1890 by Fornasari di Verce (see Part I). The figures of the former have reference only to crime in general, and do not, therefore, show sufficiently the effect upon crimes that are merely economic.[390]
Grand-Duchy of Baden, 1875–1892.[389]
J. S(chmidt), the statistician, shows the parallelism of the two curves for the period mentioned (p. 243).
Bavaria, 1835–1861.
Dr. G. Mayr was one of the first statisticians to show the influence of the price of grain upon crimes against property (pp. 39–42).
Belgium, 1839–1890.
Dr. Weisz has proved the influence of the price of grain during the period from 1841 to 1860 (p. 61) and Professor Denis that of the economic happenings for the period from 1840 to 1890 (pp. 235–237), while Ducpetiaux draws attention especially to the enormous increase of criminality in Flanders during the years of crisis, 1846–1847 (pp. 32–37).[391]
France, 1825–1886.
The influence of the price of grain upon crimes against property has been shown for the periods 1845–1864, 1850–1864, and 1855–1864 respectively, by Drs. Weisz (pp. 60–61), Corne (pp. 48–49), and Mayr (pp. 46–47). Lacassagne and Lafargue have shown the correlation between the fluctuations of the economic life and those of economic [[569]]crime for the years 1825–80 and 1840–86 respectively (pp. 149 and 231 ff.).
Italy, 1873–1890.
For this period Fornasari di Verce has shown the parallelism between the curves of economic occurrences and of economic crime (pp. 138–143).
New South Wales, 1882–1891.
The same author has shown here also the same correlation (p. 144).
Netherlands, 1860–1891.
Since researches for this country upon our subject are lacking, I have composed the following diagram from the official data.
I. Number of those Convicted for Theft to 100,000 of the Population.
II. Price of Bread per Kilogram in Centimes.
The parallelism of the two curves is striking, there being simply a slight exception in the years 1871–1873. The increase of theft in the years 1879–1881 coincides with a very great increase in the number of bankruptcies, which continued until 1882.[392]
The same parallelism has also been shown for Prussia, Russia, Wurtemberg, and Zürich by Starke and Müller, Tarnowsky, Rettich, and Meyer, as quoted in Part I of this work.[393] [[570]]
Few sociological theses, it seems to me, have been proved as conclusively as the one of which we have just been speaking. The important influence of the trend of economic events upon that of economic criminality has been shown for thirteen different countries for different periods of the nineteenth century. Some authors are of the opinion that poverty cannot be the cause of crimes that are committed when economic conditions are most favorable, and when economic crimes have consequently reached their minimum. This assertion still needs fuller proof, as I have already pointed out, since there are still many persons who are in want of the necessaries of life even in times of prosperity.
I must say here a few words in answer to a final objection to the preceding observation; namely, that the increase of theft etc., in times of economic depression, is, in great part, a consequence, not of absolute poverty, but of the impossibility of satisfying needs that have sprung up in more favorable times; and that the increase will be, therefore, in large measure due to an increase of crimes committed from cupidity, and not from poverty. This may be true in some cases, but not, in my opinion in the great majority of cases, for the following reasons. When the economic situation is favorable, when earnings are more than usual, and when, consequently, wants increase and become more intense, can everyone satisfy the desires awakened in him by the spirit of imitation? Surely not; even at such times of prosperity there are still many individuals with whom desire is awakened but who are not able to satisfy it in a lawful manner. On the other hand, wants in general diminish in times of crisis; cupidity is therefore less excited, and with a limited income men are quite satisfied with having the means of subsistence, when there are so many who lack the very necessaries of life. In my opinion, crimes from cupidity increase rather than diminish in times of prosperity, while in times of depression the opposite takes place. This cannot be proved for each economic crime separately, since criminal statistics do not show whether a crime is committed from poverty or cupidity. However, embezzlement, fraud, and aggravated theft are committed in a greater degree from cupidity than is simple theft, (and by professional criminals). Now statistics show that it is chiefly simple theft that follows the course of economic events, the other crimes named doing so much less; the same is true of the changes during the [[571]]different seasons. Finally, while absolute poverty in countries like Germany has decreased and simple theft also, luxury and cupidity have increased, together with the other crimes named.[394]
The third proof that poverty is a great factor in the etiology of theft is the enormous number of widows and divorced women who participate in these crimes (see pp. 452, 453). There is no reason to believe that these women are more covetous than married women or spinsters; but it is certain that their economic situation is often very burdensome.[395]
We shall not employ any further methods to establish our thesis; since for the reasons already stated they would lead to results of no great significance, and it seems that the accuracy of the thesis has been sufficiently shown by the proofs cited.
We have now come to the end of our consideration of the subject of thefts committed from poverty. There are two ways in which it is the cause of theft. On the one hand it incites directly the appropriation of the property of others, and on the other hand it exercises a demoralizing influence.
b. THEFT COMMITTED FROM CUPIDITY.
We have now to deal with crimes of persons who steal neither from absolute poverty, nor by profession. Those who are guilty of these crimes earn enough to satisfy their more pressing needs, and they steal only when the occasion presents itself (whence their name of occasional criminals)[396] in order to satisfy their desire for luxury.
The first question, then, which must be answered here is this: how do these needs arise? The answer can be brief; they are aroused by the environment. In a society where some are rich, who have more income than is needed to supply the fundamental necessities, and who create other needs for themselves, in such a society the cupidity of those who have not similar incomes at their disposal will be [[572]]awakened. The desires which the criminals of whom we are speaking wish to satisfy by their misdeeds are not different from those of the well-to-do. It goes without saying that no one has ever desired any luxury that he has not seen someone else enjoying. It would be a waste of time to discuss this. Every need that is not strictly necessary, is not innate but acquired. If one has much, the other, an imitator, wants the same. There is but one piece of advice to give to those who are not convinced of this simple truth; that they read some ethnological works treating of peoples among whom there are neither rich nor poor. They will then see that cupidity, with us a universal quality, is there unknown.[397]
The division between rich and poor is many centuries old and does not belong to capitalism alone, although under capitalism the distance between the two has greatly increased and is still increasing. The greater this distance is, the more, other things being equal, cupidity increases.[398]
The cupidity of those who can satisfy only the desire for the bare necessities is not awakened in the same measure in each of them. As has already been remarked by Guerry and Quetelet (see Part I), economic crimes are most numerous in the countries where manufacturing and commerce are most developed, and where the contrasts of fortune are consequently the greatest. It is for this reason that the cities, where the contrasts between poverty and wealth are greatest, give also very high figures for crimes against property (see pp. 530–531).
Those who live in the same country or the same city are not, in spite of that, in the same environment. Every great city has thousands of workers who, because of the character of their labor, have no contact with luxury; others, on the contrary, have the desire for luxury awakened in them by the fact that their work brings them in touch with wealth. Hence it is, for example, that so large a number of economic crimes are committed by workers occupied in commerce (see p. 446), and by servants.[399] There are workmen who have never been accustomed to more than they are able to earn at the time, but there are also those who have known better days and to whom the impossibility of satisfying needs previously acquired is a constant source of suffering. [[573]]
However, the contrast between rich and poor is not the only cause of the origin of cupidity. We must also sketch in addition to the above, especially the manner in which commercial capital tries to draw buyers. The times are long gone by when the producer worked principally to order. Modern industry manufactures enormous quantities of goods without the outlet for them being known. The desire to buy must, then, be excited in the public. Beautiful displays, dazzling illuminations, and many other means are used to attain the desired end. The perfection of this system is reached in the great modern retail store, where persons may enter freely, and see and handle everything, where, in short, the public is drawn as a moth to a flame. The result of these tactics is that the cupidity of the crowd is highly excited.[400]
After what has been said it is unnecessary to dwell longer upon the different ways in which cupidity is awakened in our present society. However we must note the following. Almost all the thefts of the class of which we are speaking (those committed by so-called occasional criminals) are thefts of articles of very small value (see the figures on p. 201); the exceptions are the thefts of large sums of money. The authors of these last are in general the employes of banks, etc., persons who, from the nature of their work, have the opportunity to appropriate other people’s money. When we investigate the reasons for their committing their misdeeds, we shall see that nine times out of ten (I cannot prove it by figures, but no one will contradict me) the criminal is a speculator who has lost, or perhaps an individual who visits prostitutes, and hence has great need of money.
Cupidity is thus excited by the environment, but not in the same degree in every case, the environment not being the same for all. However, even supposing that the environment were exactly identical for a number of persons, cupidity would not be excited in the same measure in some as in others, since they are not alike, one being born with more intense desires than others (admitting that it is the environment that calls forth the desires). The more intense a man’s desires, the more risk he runs, other things being equal, of falling foul of the law. As I have already remarked above, this is important for the person who is seeking the reason why A and not B has stolen, though both live in the same environment; for sociology this fact is only of [[574]]secondary importance, for it does not ask “Who becomes criminal?” but rather “How does it happen that there are crimes?”
We have now examined one of the sides of the question; the principal cause of these crimes is the cupidity awakened by the environment. If the environment were different, cupidity would not be aroused and the crimes would not be committed. In my opinion most criminologists do not sufficiently appreciate the importance of this fact. It is very difficult for anyone who lives at ease to form an idea of what is passing in the mind of one who has only the bare necessaries of life and is deprived of every comfort and amusement, while he sees others who have too much, and yet often work less than he does.
Let us now examine the other side of the question. For this purpose let us make use once more of the figure of balances in describing the process that goes on in the brain of the man who hesitates. Upon one of the pans cupidity exercises its force, in different measure according to the person. What are the weights upon the other pan balancing the first? It is the moral forces which must be considered first. I have fully explained above how the economic environment has prevented the social instincts from being developed in man, and how this is especially true for certain classes of persons. It is unnecessary to repeat this here. It will be sufficient to note certain points which have a special importance for the kind of crimes with which we are occupied at the moment.
He who steals, prejudices the interests of another, does him harm, and at the same time injures society, the existence of which would become impossible were theft permitted. In my opinion, the present organization of society, of which the struggle of all against all is the fundamental principle, has reduced this moral factor to very small dimensions. In the economic domain each must be egoistic, for without egoism he would lose in the struggle for existence. In the case of theft and similar crimes, those injured are almost exclusively well-to-do persons, to whom the damage is disagreeable, but who, in general do not suffer much. The thieves, on the other hand, are almost exclusively persons who have to live on very little. How can we expect a poor man to take care not to do a small injury to the rich for fear of causing them a little discomfort, when most rich people are insensible to the suffering which without intermission, overwhelms the poor. The present organization of society is responsible for the fact that a slight sensibility to the misfortune of others offers only a trifling counterpoise to the tendency to realize one’s desires in [[575]]a dishonest manner.[401] The idea that society in itself is injured by theft cannot constitute any considerable counterpoise, since he who violates the eighth commandment cannot feel himself at one with a society which never has helped him when he was in difficulties.
After this general observation let us pass on to particular remarks that apply to certain classes of persons only. How does it happen that a great proportion of mankind are honest? To this question the answer must be, “because they have been accustomed to it from infancy.” The opposite also is true; a great number of thieves are such because any moral education was out of the question in the environment in which they were brought up. They satisfy their “prehensory instinct” without being conscious of any ill-doing. With these the balance inclines to the side of dishonesty, unless a counterpoise of some magnitude is found. Above (pp. 489 ff.) we have seen that most criminals, especially thieves, come from a totally corrupt environment.[402]
This does not apply to another category of thieves; those who do not proceed from an absolutely corrupt environment—yet whose surroundings are not good and wholesome. Ferriani[403] and Aschaffenburg[404] go so far as to say that almost every child has once stolen something. This may be a little exaggerated but it certainly has truth at the bottom of it. If the child has no one to take the trouble to teach him that he ought not to steal, it is more than likely that he will have to answer for theft later (occasional theft is committed by children and minors especially). It is true that all the children whose [[576]]education has been defective do not become thieves, nor even the majority of them; there are those for whom a single prohibition will be enough to make them respect the property of others for the rest of their lives. There are others of them, weak characters who, notwithstanding such prohibition, cannot resist when the temptation is strong. If their education had been good, the environment in which they were brought up more favorable, they would not have had to be turned over to justice. Hear the opinion of one of those most competent to judge of the matter, Raux, who, having put to himself the question whether the young people detained in the “Quartier correctionnel” of Lyons have a real tendency to steal, answers as follows. “Evidently not. Without entering into the analysis of the circumstances which provoke crime, we shall give, in support of our assertion, an observation as simple as conclusive. Young prisoners condemned for theft have shown us upon different occasions a probity, a most praiseworthy disinterestedness, in the presence of things that they might have appropriated without exposing themselves to any reproof.”[405]
We might close our observations upon theft from cupidity at this point if there were not fear of an objection drawn from what has just been said, namely the following. If the occasional thief has become such, on the one side because of the cupidity awakened in him, and on the other side in consequence of his lack of a good education, and if he differs, not qualitatively, but only quantitatively from the honest man, possessing less strength of character than the average—if all this is true, then the figures for theft should be higher than the statistics show. All of which would go to prove that it is wrong to deny that criminals constitute a biological anomaly.
Here is my reply. First. Moral forces do not constitute the only counterpoise to the tendency toward theft. Since the moral check often lacks efficacy, another has been created which acts in the same way to turn the egoist away from crime, namely the fear inspired by the possibility of punishment. Any one would be credulous indeed to fancy that those who have an opportunity to steal and do not profit by it are deterred by moral forces. Without punishment criminality would be much more extensive than it now is. Where the danger of being found out is not great, the number of transgressions is enormous (think, for example, of the cases of smuggling).[406]
Second. Many persons remain honest, not for moral reasons, but [[577]]because they lack the courage, cleverness, or other qualities necessary for being otherwise, qualities which in themselves have nothing to do with crime.
Third. Still others remain honest for reasons based upon mature reflection. They find that it is too dangerous to commit an offense, but do not hesitate in the presence of acts essentially criminal, although they do not fall under the ban of the law.[407] No one is ignorant of this, and only certain anthropologists who examine no one but prisoners, have lost sight of it.
Those who compose the criminal world are by nature very diverse. Some are the most dangerous individuals that it is possible to imagine, others are rather weak than wicked. Among these last are ranged the occasional criminals, who, taken together, form a danger to society, but taken singly are not dangerous men in the strict sense. Leuss, who learned to know prisoners, not as judge, or as medical expert, but as a prisoner himself, says: “The great mass of prisoners are more good-natured than the average man; the good-nature of thieves corresponds with their weakness of will, that invincible obstacle to their maintaining themselves in the world of industry. Stress must constantly be laid upon the fact that these weak-willed, good-natured persons are the ones who swell the number of crimes.”[408]
When we place beside the occasional thieves, those who never steal but commit all sorts of reprehensible (though not illegal) acts, the comparison is not to the advantage of the latter. Their trickery, their pitiless egoism, often make them more dangerous to society than the others; which should be a reason for criminal anthropology not to build a system based solely upon investigations of prisoners.
Fourth. Finally many more crimes are committed than are mentioned by criminal statistics. Although I have already spoken of this (p. 84), I must return to it. In the first place, most criminal statistics give the figures only for those convicted. Those acquitted have no place, although, with few exceptions, a crime has nevertheless been committed. We know that the number of acquittals is very considerable. In Germany, there were 15 to 20 acquittals to 100 cases tried (1882–1896);[409] in Italy the number of acquittals ran as high as 51.37% (1890–1895).[410] [[578]]
In the second place, in many cases the prosecution is postponed for different reasons, with the result that there is neither an acquittal nor a condemnation. Then a great many cases never come to trial because justice cannot discover the authors of the crimes. In Germany, for example, of all the cases on the dockets in the criminal courts between 1881 and 1891, only 43 to 45% actually came before the judges.[411] During the period between 1886 and 1890, the examining judges dismissed on an average 8900 cases, either because the author of the crime was unknown, or because the proof was insufficient. During the same period and for the same reasons, 98,741 cases on the average were not prosecuted by the authorities.[412] The authors of about 25% of the crimes committed in Italy remained unknown (1887–1894).[413]
These two reasons by themselves show that the number of crimes is much greater than the statistics would generally lead one to suppose, even if one takes account of the fact that some of the complaints made to the prosecutors are false.
In the third place, we have been speaking so far of the cases that come to the notice of the officers, while in a great number of cases no complaint is made, especially in the matter of petty theft, either because the person injured wishes to avoid the annoyance of having to appear in the police court as witness, or because he wishes to spare the delinquent.
In the fourth place, a great many small thefts remain unknown even to the person injured, since he does not notice the loss that he has suffered.
All this goes to show that crime, taken in the strict sense, and especially theft, is much more extensive than one would expect at first, and the objection that might have been made to my thesis is hence without weight. It is evident that the number of criminals unpunished cannot be fixed with certainty. Dr. Puibaraud places it at 50%;[414] while Tarde believes that it is greater;[415] Yvernès, the well-known French statistician, says that 90% of the professional thieves remain unknown, and Dr. Thomsen, from whom I take this [[579]]last fact, says that this applies to other categories of criminals also.[416] However this may be the number in any case is very considerable.
To sum up. I believe I have shown that the fundamental causes of theft and similar crimes committed from cupidity are, on the one hand, the cupidity aroused by the environment and, on the other, neglected childhood among the poor. It is especially those weak in character who run the greatest risk of becoming guilty of these crimes.
c. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS.
In considering all the kinds of theft and analogous crimes, we note that the thefts committed by professional criminals represent only a minority. But as soon as we limit our consideration to the more serious forms of theft, such as burglary and similar crimes, we shall discover that they are committed almost exclusively by individuals whose principal or subsidiary occupation is theft, and who, in general, do not consider it shameful, and do not feel the slightest repentance.
The question arises, how it is possible for anyone to embrace so abject a profession, and thus become so harmful a parasite.[417] There are authors who would have us believe that there are persons who have chosen crime from pleasure in it. As Leuss observes in his work, “Aus dem Zuchthause”, this opinion is so absurd that it would be a waste of time to consider it. No one of sound mind could possibly prefer so abominable a profession, and one so full of risks from the point of view of simple calculation. There must be other reasons for the existence of such persons.[418] If we wish to examine these causes we must divide professional criminals into separate groups. [[580]]
The first category is composed of children. Sad as this is it is none the less true. It is plain that not a single child follows the profession of thief from pleasure, for a child prefers not to work at all. These children, then, are taught to steal by their parents. If they are not very numerous, in the great cities there are always some cases of this kind. Dr. Puibaraud, former police official in Paris, describes one of these as follows. “We recall that one day, on visiting the Petite-Roquette, we found in a cell a child scarcely eight years old, with a wide-awake face, a quick eye, but whose physiognomy was already very peculiar. It was a young pickpocket who had been found drunk upon the street, and who, being arrested by an agent and taken to the station, had confessed that the gold he had in his possession was the proceeds of a theft committed by him without the knowledge of his ‘papa.’ This capture ended by the whole family’s being arrested at their lodgings, near the Place Maubert.
“This gamin was very intelligent and gave the following account of himself, which was corroborated by what was brought out in the examination. ‘My father showed me how to pick pockets, but so far I have only “done” ladies because that is easier. With gentlemen you may touch their leg when you stick your hand in their pocket and they turn round, and that’s no joke! With ladies you do not get so close and they do not feel your hand. It isn’t hard at all. Papa taught me well. We went every day together to the Palais Royal and Place de la Bastille omnibus stations. The Palais Royal is no good. The best is the Madeleine, but Mother G. works that and she quarrels with papa. We don’t go there any more. Last week papa told me to wait for him at the Palais Royal omnibus stand. He didn’t come, and, “ma foi!” I went to work by myself. I got a purse from an old lady. There were sixty francs in it. I drank a bit and then I was arrested.’ ”[419]
As we see this child found theft the most natural thing in the world (and any other child in the same environment would think the same); he “worked” with his father. If exceptionally favorable circumstances do not happen to present themselves to such children they will belong to the army of professional criminals all their lives.
Now, as for the others, those who have not been brought up for a life of crime, yet practice it as their profession—how can we explain [[581]]their manner of life? The answer to this question can be found only in the works of those who have familiarized themselves with the life of criminals, and who have lived in their midst in order to know them (like Flynt, for example), or who are in a position, because of their profession, to study them in detail, and become their confidants (like the well-known almoners of the Grande-Roquette: Crozes, Moreau, and Faure).[420]
Except for a few subsidiary circumstances the life of the professional criminal may be summed up as follows. With very rare exceptions he springs from a corrupt environment, perhaps having lost his parents while still very young, or having even been abandoned by them. Being misled by bad company, he commits an “occasional” theft while still a child, for which he must pay the penalty of an imprisonment; he may, at times owe his entrance into prison to a non-economic misdeed. This, however, is a very rare exception.[421] As we have remarked above, prison never improves him, and generally makes him worse. If he is in contact with the other prisoners, among whom there are naturally a number of out and out criminals, he hears the recital of their adventurous life, learns their tricks and all that he still needs to know to be thoroughly informed as to “the profession.” Nor will the separate cell be any more profitable to him, brutalized as he already is by his earlier environment. Then after a certain time he is set at liberty and returned to society. The partisans of free will say that he has expiated his fault and can now commence a new life.
That is easy to say, and certainly justice will not concern itself with him any further until he commits a new offense. But this is not the same as saying that society pardons him and aids him, in order that he may remain in the right path. On the contrary, forgetting that we must forgive those who have trespassed against us, society makes life hard for him. It is almost impossible for him to find work; the fact that he has been in prison is enough to insure his being refused everywhere. Why should anyone hire an old prisoner when there are so many others who have never got into the courts? And then [[582]]most prisoners have never learned a trade, and this is one reason more why they cannot easily find employment. The liberated convict becomes a nomad, begins by losing all contact with the normal world (supposing he ever had any) and feels himself a social pariah. On the other hand he has relations more and more frequent with the “under world”, with those who recognize no duty toward a society which is not interested in their fate. His moral sense comes to be more and more blunted until he becomes a criminal by profession, having a feeling neither of shame nor of repentance.
The ignorant public, who know nothing about the professional criminal except when he appears before the tribunal, is astonished to find that there are persons so abject. This astonishment is like that of some one who has never seen a house built, and cannot imagine how such a colossus can be put up. But he who has seen how the house has been erected by adding one small brick to another no longer feels any astonishment. It is the same with the professional criminal; he who has followed the story of the criminal’s life recognizes with Dr. Havelock Ellis, that his crime is but the last link of a solidly forged chain.
Generally the professional criminal does not give the least sign of repentance. He does as much injury to society as he can, without having any shame about it. Yet he is not entirely deprived of moral sense, only it extends merely to those who are really his fellows. All the tales of the world of professional criminals which depict them as void of all sense of duty toward their fellows, proceed rather from the imagination of the authors than from facts really observed. The only competent authors are those who have been able to study the criminal in his own environment, and not in prison, where his true character makes itself known as little as that of an animal in a cage. Hear the opinion of Flynt, for example. “It is often said that his (the professional criminal’s) lack of remorse for his crimes proves him to be morally incompetent; but this opinion is formed on insufficient knowledge of his life. He has two systems of morality: one for his business and the other for the hang-out.”[422] There follows the description of the relations existing between him and society of which we have already spoken, after which the author continues as follows.
“In the bosom of his hang-out, however—and this is where we ought to study his ethics,—he is a very different man. His code of morals there will compare favorably with that of any class of society; and there is no class in which fair dealing is more seriously preached, [[583]]and unfair dealing more severely condemned. The average criminal will stand by a fellow-craftsman through thick and thin; and the only human being he will not tolerate is the one who turns traitor. The remorse of this traitor when brought to bay by his former brethren I have never seen exceeded anywhere.”[423]
After expatiating upon this subject, Flynt continues: “It is thought by criminologists that the good fellowship of the criminal is due to self-preservation and the fear that each man will hang separately if all do not hang together. They maintain that his good feeling is not genuine and spontaneous emotion, and that it is immaterial what happens to a ‘pal’ so long as he himself succeeds. This is not my experience in his company. He has never had the slightest intimation that I would return favors that he did me; and in the majority of instances he has had every reason to know that it was not in my power to show him the friendliness he wanted. Yet he has treated me with an altruism that even a Tolstoi might admire. At the hang-out I have been hospitably entertained on all occasions; and I have never met a criminal there who would not have given me money or seen me through a squabble, had I needed his assistance and he was able to give it. This same comradeship is noticeable in all his relations with men who are in the least connected with his life and business; and it is notorious fact that he will ‘divvy’ his last meal with a pal. To have to refuse the request of one of his fellows, or to do him an unkindness, is as much regretted by the criminal as by anyone else; and I have never known him to tell me a lie or to cheat me or to make fun of me behind my back.”[424]
This is altogether different from what is generally said and written by those who allow themselves to be led away by their imagination. It is plain that the manner in which criminals act toward a society that is hostile to them will not fail to influence the relations they have with their fellows, just as war for those who take part in it cannot leave their moral sense as regards their compatriots unharmed. However, nothing permits us to put the actions of these persons among themselves in the same rank as those towards society. In my opinion this fact has great significance for the moralist and the criminologist; it is one of the forms of the dualism of ethics. It is of very high importance for the criminologist, for its shows that we are upon the wrong track, since it is precisely the more serious forms of crime that the present methods of repression favor. [[584]]
In imprisoning young people who have committed merely misdemeanors of minor importance, and who have not yet lost all touch with normal society, and putting them in contact with inveterate criminals, or perhaps putting them into a cage like beasts, without striving to enlighten their darkened minds or teach them morality, and without making them capable of sustaining the struggle for existence by teaching them a trade, we are bringing up professional criminals. Punishment, as a means of intimidation, misses its aim in great part, for the professional criminals are recruited among individuals who are not easily intimidated.
We have now come to the question why a certain number only of those whose childhood has been neglected and who have committed a light offense, become professional criminals. In the first place there are those whom chance favors, since they are assisted, it may be by their families, it may be by some philanthropist, and so return to the right path. There are those also who have the advantage of being able to find work, since no one knows that they have been in prison.
Others have less chance; no one aids them, there is no work for them; all, however, do not become professional thieves. Those who become such are the more intelligent, energetic, ambitious, and courageous of these outcasts; the others become vagrants and mendicants. Here is the opinion of Flynt upon the criminal by profession, an opinion which agrees with that of other competent authors. “I must say … that those criminals who are known to me are not, as is also popularly supposed, the scum of their environment. On the contrary, they are above their environment, and are often gifted with talents which would enable them to do well in any class, could they only be brought to realize its responsibilities and to take advantage of its opportunities. The notion that the criminal is the lowest type of his class arises from a false conception of that class and of the people who compose it.…
“In this same class, however, there are some who are born with ambitions, and who have energy enough to try to fulfil them. These break away from class conditions; but unfortunately, the ladder of respectable business has no foothold in their environment.…
“Not all of these ambitious ones are endowed with an equal amount of energy. Some are capable only of tramp life, which, despite its many trials and vicissitudes, is more attractive than the life they seek to escape. Those with greater energy go into crime proper; and they may be called, mentally as well as physically, the aristocracy [[585]]of their class. This is my analysis of the majority of the criminal men and women I have encountered in the open, and I believe it will hold good throughout their entire class.”[425]
There are readers, perhaps, who will find that these qualities of the professional criminal give the lie to the environment hypothesis, since individual factors are recognized in a certain way. For myself I do not find it so. The qualities mentioned have nothing to do with crime as such; they can be utilized to the profit as well as to the detriment of society; it will depend upon the environment in which the individual endowed with them has been raised what direction he will take. It would not be difficult to name a number of historic celebrities (Napoleon, for example) who, if they had been born in the lower stratum of a great city, in place of in a favorable environment, would have had only the sad celebrity of criminals exceptionally endowed.
The psychology of this kind of criminals is not yet complete however. Besides intelligence, energy, and courage we find cupidity as their great characteristic.[426] They see others who can enjoy themselves without working hard, and it is their ambition to do the same, cost what it may. Since fate has made it impossible for them to attain it honestly they risk another method. This type of criminal is well delineated in the remark made by the notorious Lemaire, when he said to the president of the court: “If I were a property owner, I should not be here.”[427]
To have invested funds, to spend plenty of money, not to have to work much, this is their ideal; to share the lot of the working-man, who, notwithstanding his long and hard labor, never succeeds in procuring for himself the pleasures of the rich, makes life insipid in their eyes. M. Gisquet, former prefect of police, gives in his memoirs the following declaration made by Leblanc, the notorious professional criminal. “If I were not a thief by vocation I should become one by calculation; it is the best profession. I have computed the good and bad chances of all the others, and I am convinced by the comparisons that there is none more favorable or more independent than that of thief, nor one that does not offer at least an equal amount of danger.
“What should I have become in the society of honest men? [[586]]A natural child, with no one to protect me or to recommend me, I could only choose a disagreeable trade, become a delivery-boy in a store, or at most reach the miserable place of shipping clerk in a warehouse; and there, a supernumerary for many years, I should have died of hunger before I reached a salary of six hundred francs. As a workman in any class whatever you exhaust yourself quickly through the fatigues of your labor, to earn a miserable wage, and to live from day to day; then when accident, sickness, or old age come you must go beg or die in the poorhouse.…
“In our condition we depend only on ourselves; and if we acquire skill and experience at least they profit ourselves alone. I know very well that we have risks to run, that the police and the courts are at hand, that the prison is not very far distant; but out of eight thousand thieves in Paris, you never have more than seven or eight hundred in jail; that is not a tenth of the whole. We enjoy, then, on the average, nine years of liberty to one in prison. Well, where is the worker who has not a dead season? Besides, what does he do when he is without work? He carries his possessions to the Mont-de-Piété; while we others, if we are free, lack for nothing; our existence is a continual round of feasting and pleasure.”[428]
This is the type of the perfect egoist. In ranking men according to their social sentiments, such an individual would be put at the very lowest point in the scale. And then he has grown up under unfavorable circumstances (illegitimate birth, etc.). The innate egoism of this individual may perhaps be modified by the individual factor. But this in no way diminishes the truth of the environment hypothesis, for we are treating for the moment the question why this particular individual has become a criminal, and not that of the cause of the existence of professional criminals. And these two questions are far from being identical. The existence of individual differences is the reason why one runs more danger of becoming a professional criminal than another; but it is the environment which brings it about that the predisposed individual actually becomes such. The falsity of the environment hypothesis would be demonstrated if such individuals could be proved to become criminals under all circumstances. This is of course not the case. When individuals like these are not brought up in an atmosphere of poverty, they no longer see on the one side persons who enjoy everything while doing nothing, and on the other side those who, while toiling hard, live in poverty,—they will not [[587]]become examples of altruism indeed, but they will not become guilty of crime. They may even become very useful members of society, since they are generally more largely endowed with intelligence, energy, and courage than the average man. Rightly exercised, these qualities are very useful; but badly directed they are very harmful to society.[429]
So far we have been treating of the etiology of theft and analogous crimes; we shall conclude this section with some observations upon the causes that have led to the designating of these acts as crime.
Theft is a crime only because it is very harmful to society.[430] If in the majority of cases the individual does not take account of this, the assertion is nevertheless true. Everything that is harmful to society the individual considers as immoral. (Why this is so is a psychological question, with which we are not concerned here.) If we picture to ourselves present-day society, based as it is upon exchange, without the strict prohibition of theft, we shall see that it could not possibly exist. Life would be especially impossible in a society where the division of labor has attained a high degree of development, if it were permissible to take anything without giving an equivalent.
Since the human race has existed there has been private property, however trifling and unimportant it may have been. It is therefore very unlikely that theft has ever been permitted[431] (it is impossible to produce proofs in support of this), since it is difficult to imagine that anyone would consent to see himself stripped of things destined for his own use, to which, further he was more or less attached.[432] But there is a great difference between a prohibited act and a crime. It is proved that among primitive peoples theft is not reckoned among the crimes. Hear the opinion of one of the greatest specialists in this field, Dr. Post. “We find here and there a phenomenon very surprising from our modern point of view, namely that theft is not universally regarded as a misdemeanor, but the thief rather respected [[588]]for his cleverness. The maximum obligation that a theft lays upon the thief is simple restitution of the stolen property. The consequence of theft is thus simply the duty of restitution under the civil law.… Theft lies entirely outside of the province of criminal law.”[433]
It is not difficult to explain the cause of this. Let the reader picture to himself the primitive forms of society, so different from those we have at present; contrasts of possessions were unknown, and the needs of men consequently less numerous; men produced only for their own consumption and not for exchange. If by chance more was produced than was needed, the surplus was given to others, for it was impossible to exchange it, or to preserve it for any great length of time, the necessary technique for this not having yet been acquired. “The law of hospitality” was universal and enjoined men to provide those in need with whatever they lacked.[434] It is quite comprehensible that at such a stage of development theft should not be in evidence, for the motives which drive men to it would be lacking. On the one hand cupidity was not awakened, and theft did not result from absolute poverty, since if there was poverty the whole group suffered together.[435] On the other hand the social instincts, being highly developed by the environment, constituted a restraint that would prevent the execution of a theft if the thought of it should occur. But even supposing that in such a society a theft, for no matter what cause, should nevertheless be committed, it would be little thought of, and certainly the thief would not be severely punished, for his act would not be very harmful to society.
As the social structure changed the ideas about theft changed equally; with the origin of the system of exchange and of the contrasts of property, came powerful motives for theft, and at the same time the social instincts grew weaker. Thus theft came to be considered a more serious matter than before, and the graded system of punishments for it, beginning with a fine, ended in capital punishment.[436] It is not our task to investigate the reason why the punishment for theft has not always been the same during the whole civilized period; [[589]]it is enough for us to establish the fact that the act has always been considered as a grave offense, the perpetrator of which incurred severe penalties.
C. Robbery and Analogous Crimes.
As the figures reproduced above (pp. 535–542) have shown, the crimes with which we have now to concern ourselves are relatively rare. It is unnecessary to say that this has not always been so, but that there have been great changes in this regard. At one time robbery and similar acts of violence were the ordinary forms of professional crime. Happily for peaceable folk this is no longer the case; these crimes have been in large measure replaced by others less serious, like theft and fraud.[437] All modern states have not reached the same stage of development, nor all parts of the same state. There are those of them that, more than others, recall the past to us. So is it in regard to their criminality. While robbery may be said to have disappeared from the states of northern Europe, it is still very common in a country like Italy, and is met much less frequently in the modernized provinces of northern Italy than in the backward southern provinces, as the following figures show.[438]
Italy, 1887–1889.
| Provinces. | Average to 100,000 Inhabitants. | |
| Robbery, etc., with Homicide. | Robbery, etc., without Homicide. | |
| Apulia | 5.01 | 0.27 |
| Basilicata | 2.42 | 4.18 |
| Sardinia | 2.06 | 12.11 |
| Sicily | 1.22 | 14.56 |
| Liguria | 1.07 | 8.65 |
| Calabria | 0.97 | 6.36 |
| Latium | 0.89 | 17.15 |
| Campania and Molise | 0.71 | 8.08 |
| Piedmont | 0.63 | 4.67 |
| Romagna | 0.63 | 6.47 |
| Abruzzo | 0.58 | 2.07 |
| Marches and Ombria | 0.55 | 2.46 |
| Venetia | 0.33 | 2.58 |
| Emilia | 0.28 | 5.80 |
| Lombardy | 0.21 | 3.14 |
| Tuscany | — | 5.68 |
[[590]]
According to the figures given by Dr. Bosco, in the United States, also, the most backward states give the highest figures for homicide.[439]
The poorer classes have more resemblance to the people of a bygone day than have the well-to-do; it appears from the statistics (see pp. 438 ff.) that economic criminality takes a more violent form among the former than among the latter.[440]
An investigation into the causes of this change in the form of economic criminality will indicate also the principal causes of the persistent existence of this kind of crime, however it may have decreased in modern times. In my opinion these causes are as follows:
First. The opportunity for committing them presented itself more often formerly, since the means of communication were very primitive, travelers had to traverse uninhabited countries, etc., and in addition the states were not so well organized as at present, and had not the means of suppressing bands of brigands vigorously.
Second. While the opportunity to commit violent economic crimes successfully was diminishing, there was a constantly increasing opportunity to commit other economic crimes, such as theft, embezzlement, and fraud. The accumulation of great wealth in the cities, the development of credit, in short, the enormous extension of capitalism, has multiplied the opportunity for economic crimes without violence.
Third. One of the consequences of the development of society has been the gradual diminution of the importance of the rôle played by violence, and, since criminality presents itself always and everywhere under the same forms as the normal life, violent economic criminality has also commenced to form a smaller and smaller part in the totality of economic crimes. The assertion that violence has lost the importance of its rôle upon the human stage might surprise one, and appear ironical in times like ours when war is the chronic condition, when the military preparations of all the states have reached a degree hitherto unknown. Violence, however, has decreased in so far as it is exercised by the individual as such. The greater becomes the centralization of the state, the more it claims for itself the exclusive right to use violence in the cases where it judges it necessary, and the more it prohibits individual acts of violence.
It is not the development of the state that is alone to be considered in this regard; the economic system enters in also. Under capitalism [[591]]violence is of no use; he who is master of the means of production attains his end, i.e. makes a profit, without the use of violence. Where it is necessary, however, modern man does not recoil from it, as the wars of expansion prove.
Fourth. Civilization (in the proper sense of the word) has become more general. Formerly the privilege of a few only, it now extends to a greater number. The great mass are still deprived of it, but primary instruction contributes to its development.
When we consider the gradual diminution in the number of economic crimes committed with violence, it clearly appears how false is the notion that anyone committing such a crime is for that reason a biologically abnormal being. Will anyone claim that the number of biologically abnormal persons has constantly diminished? The contrary is much more likely.
We need not concern ourselves with the details of this question, since it has already been thoroughly treated by Professor Manouvrier (see Pt. I of this work, pp. 168–171). He who uses violence to attain an economic end may perhaps, physiologically considered, be a perfectly normal man. How many children are there who do not use force to take a toy from a weaker child? Must we class them as abnormal on that account? And are those who voluntarily take part in a war abnormal? Certainly there is a great difference between those who take part in a war, and those who, for economic reasons, commit a crime, but this difference is of a social nature. Our ideas of war and homicide are not the same, but the act of killing one’s neighbor remains identical. If homicide were the evident proof of biological abnormality the soldier also would be abnormal.
Scientific questions can be solved by reason alone, and not by sentiment. We who experience a profound repulsion at the thought of a murderer, hold him for a being apart, since we feel ourselves so remote from him. Scientific research tells us that this feeling is not innate but acquired, for we detest such acts because the environment in which we live has accustomed us to hate them. If our environment were different, our feelings would likewise be different. Besides, war proves that these feelings are not innate, by hardening the mildest persons in a very brief time.
With time the number of persons who have a horror of violence has increased. Does this prove that men have become better, or simply that they feel a repugnance to the act only and not to its effect? J. J. Rousseau once said: “If, in order to fall heir to the property of a rich mandarin living at the farthest confines of China, whom one had [[592]]never seen or heard spoken of, it were enough to push a button to make him die, which of us would not push that button?”
It is certain that beside a great number of persons who would not wish to charge their consciences with such a crime, there would also be plenty who would commit it, and their number would be great enough to make the order of mandarins pass into legendary history. There is no reason to suppose that there are fewer persons in our day who would commit such acts, than formerly; if men are no longer as violent as they once were, they do not recoil any more than formerly when it is a question of suppressing, through the agency of a third party, those who oppose them; as witness the wars of expansion.
As the motives of these crimes are the same as those of economic crimes without violence, we shall treat first those that are caused by poverty; secondly, those that are committed from cupidity; and thirdly, those that are the work of professional criminals.
Statistics show that a part of the economic crimes of violence are committed from poverty, for their movement is influenced by the fluctuations of economic conditions. We take from the German criminal statistics the following table of the course of these crimes in the different months of the year.
Germany, 1888–1892.[441]
Number of Crimes a Day in the Different Months, on the Basis of an Average of 100 Crimes a Day throughout the Year.
Number of Crimes a Day in the Different Months, on the Basis of an Average of 100 Crimes a Day throughout the Year.
| Crimes. | January. | February. | March. | April. | May. | June. | July. | August. | September. | October. | November. | December. |
| Robbery, etc. | 100 | 87 | 78 | 84 | 94 | 98 | 99 | 106 | 84 | 120 | 132 | 116 |
The highest figures are shown in the winter months when poverty is at its height. (The slight increase from April to August, which appears also in the case of a number of other economic crimes, I am unable to explain.)
As we have seen in the statistics in Part One, the economic situation also exercises its influence upon the movement of these crimes during a period of years. We refer to them here while adding some others. [[593]]
Germany, 1882–1898.[442]
| Years. | Price of Wheat and Rye per 100 Kilogr. in Marks. | To 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 there were Convicted for | |
| Robbery. | Extortion. | ||
| 1882 | 185.19 | 1.3 | 1.7 |
| 1883 | 165.37 | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| 1884 | 159.73 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
| 1885 | 154.01 | 1.1 | 1.4 |
| 1886 | 147.26 | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| 1887 | 145.99 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 1888 | 155.43 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 1889 | 169.64 | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 1890 | 181.32 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| 1891 | 216.31 | 1.3 | 1.4 |
| 1892 | 184.00 | 1.4 | 1.8 |
| 1893 | 146.94 | 1.1 | 1.6 |
| 1894 | 127.10 | 1.3 | 1.7 |
| 1895 | 132.17 | 1.1 | 1.9 |
| 1896 | 139.29 | 1.2 | 1.7 |
| 1897 | 152.08 | 1.0 | 1.7 |
| 1898 | 170.55 | 1.3 | 1.6 |
Although there are exceptions, the influence of the price of grain makes itself felt. It should be remarked that the years 1889–1892 were years of crisis.
France, 1825–1882.
In his study “De la criminalité en France et en Italie” Dr. Bournet shows that in the period mentioned the maxima of assassinations coincide with the years of economic crises, namely: 1839, 1840, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881.[443] It should be remarked that assassinations are committed not simply from economic motives, but for other reasons, whence it follows that the parallelism cannot be as great as in the case of economic crimes that are not committed from other motives.
Italy, 1873–1890.
Dr. Fornasari proves that economic events have a great influence upon these crimes (see Part One, p. 143). [[594]]
Prussia, 1854–1896.
Dr. Starke (see Part One, p. 64) and Dr. Müller (see pp. 76–78) have proved that the changes of economic conditions are here also cause of an increase or diminution of these crimes.
Although these data are less numerous than we might desire, they show sufficiently that, in part, violent economic crimes are committed because of poverty.[444]
Above I have shown how it happens that only some of those who live in absolute poverty commit crime. We have only, then, to ask ourselves why one commits a crime with violence and the other without violence. The causes are of different kinds. Oftenest it is chance, i.e. opportunity, that is the cause. No one uses violence if it is not necessary, and since the opportunity of committing a successful theft is much greater than that of committing an economic crime with violence, it is the first that is most often practiced. Those who, when driven by abject poverty, commit an economic crime with violence, when the opportunity presents itself, are persons who lack neither the force nor the courage necessary, and in whom the environment in which they live has not inspired a great aversion to violence. Further, absolute poverty is so powerful a factor that it often neutralizes the important influences of education and environment.
From cupidity. The class of criminals who use violence or commit a homicide from cupidity is very small. They furnish only a minor part of violent economic crimes, the total number of which is not itself very great. To show how far the influence of economic environment goes I will cite some striking cases taken at random.
First. In 1892 a certain Scheffer was convicted at Linz (Austria) of attempted murder. His crime was the following. He and his wife could earn their living only by working hard. Chance brought a change. One of their relatives, a young girl who had lost her father and mother a short time before, came to live with them. The girl being very rich, the condition of the Scheffers was entirely changed; from then on they could live in abundance. Once habituated to this wealth they were filled with the fear that their relative would marry and the money pass to someone else. Little by little the idea came to them of persuading the girl to make a will in their favor, and then killing her, an idea which they rejected at first, but which nevertheless [[595]]became stronger and stronger. From unforeseen circumstances the crime was never consummated, but stopped in the attempt.[445]
Second. In a little village upon the frontier of Austria and Bavaria there was committed in 1893 a murder under the following circumstances. One evening, while returning by himself along a lonely road, a rich peasant who was in the habit of carrying a considerable sum of money with him, was killed and robbed. It was proved that his servant was the author of the crime. This man was a natural child, very poor, and had had to work very hard all his life. Seeing his strength going he was in great fear of being no longer able to earn a living. His sole enjoyment in his monotonous and toilsome life was getting drunk on Sundays. Like most of the inhabitants of his commune he was an ardent poacher.[446]
Third. In 1892 the wife of an employe of the post office was assassinated in her dwelling in Berlin, and all her money stolen. The criminals were two young workmen of 17 and 18 years of age, one of whom knew by chance that the woman had savings.[447]
These three cases, types of hundreds of others, have in common the opportunity which had excited, in an unusual degree, the cupidity of the criminals, and the fact that these were very poor. Whatever other causes may have entered in, it is certain that without the great difference of fortune between the authors of the crimes and their victims, the crimes would never have been committed.
Finally, we come to the influence of the environment upon the authors of the crimes. As we have seen, the conditions under which criminals are brought up are in general very unfavorable, and this is especially the case with dangerous criminals. Consider, for example, the second case (we know nothing of the environment of the criminals in the first). What a life this murderer had behind him. The influences which give most men their aversion to violence were entirely lacking. On the contrary his environment had brutalized him. A natural child, he had been brought up in very poor circumstances, and was stupefied by long and toilsome work, with a weekly intoxication as his sole relaxation. No one would assert that this same individual would have become an assassin if he had lived under totally different conditions.
Or look at the third case. One of the guilty parties had been [[596]]brought up under unfavorable conditions (of the education of the other we know nothing), both were forced, quite young, to earn their living and had been thrown with bad companions, and one of them had already been sentenced to imprisonment.
It is a mistake to believe that such a case is the exception instead of being the general rule. He who takes the trouble to read the biographies of these criminals knows that they have always been brought up in an unfavorable environment, that they have suffered imprisonment at an early age, and have fallen lower and lower. As far as I know there are no statistics upon this subject except those of Dr. Baer in his study already referred to. Out of 22 young assassins examined by him 9 (40%) had had a bad education, 11 (50%) a defective education, and only 2 (10%) a better education; 8 (36%) were orphans; 11 (50%) had been brought up in very poor circumstances and were obliged while quite young to contribute to the support of the family; 10 (45%) had grown up in the streets of a great city and had thus been exposed to demoralizing influences; and 13 (60%) had received an insufficient primary education.[448]
The researches of Dr. Baer have to do with Germany, but they hold good for other countries also. Take, for example, the opinion of Tomel and Rollet, who are authors of great experience. In speaking of the “criminal type” they say: “Well, no, this type does not exist, since we always find the same conditions in the genesis of the criminal temperament, and if these educational and environmental conditions had been absent, the destiny of the little assassin might have been quite different.”[449]
We have still to fix our attention upon one side of the environment in which the authors of the crimes with which we are concerned at the moment, have lived. They come generally from an environment where,
First, education often consists simply in the administration of a sound beating to the child, a fact which habituates him to the idea that violence is an ordinary act, especially as he sees the members of the family often strike one another;
Second, the men ordinarily carry a knife, and do not hesitate to threaten with it, or even to use it in case of a dispute. It is evident that the influence of this upon character is great at the impressionable age of childhood. The tendency toward violence, combated among children of the well-to-do classes, is, on the contrary, often strengthened among the children of the poor. If later chance places [[597]]in their way an opportunity to profit by violence they recoil from it less than others.[450]
The authors of violent economic crimes spring nearly always from the lower classes of the population; the exceptions are few in number. We will take up one of these exceptions which has attained considerable notoriety, an evident proof of the rarity of these cases.
In 1878 an old woman was murdered in Paris and all her papers of value were stolen. It was proved that Barré, a business agent, and Lebiez, a medical student, both of whom had passed their youth in a favorable environment, were the guilty persons. This is one of those very rare cases where objection can be made to the environment hypothesis with a semblance of truth, but a closer examination shows that environment nevertheless played its part in this frightful tragedy. The two criminals, sprung from fairly well-to-do provincial families, having gone to Paris, had been living in straitened circumstances. At the time of their deciding to commit the crime their pecuniary condition was very bad. In the second place, both had constant recourse to prostitutes; and in the third place both were ardent speculators. Because of his business Barré was in contact with those who gambled at the bourse, and seeing men enrich themselves without work he entered feverishly into speculation. He lost, drew his father into a new deal, and was still unfortunate. In order to go on and retrieve his losses he used money entrusted to him (his first crime), but still lost. Going from one malversation to another he finally, in order to extricate himself, had recourse to the crime narrated above. His accomplice was found in nearly the same situation.[451]
The effect of environment is to be discerned, then, as easily in this case as in those that have been referred to before. Limiting ourselves to the principal influence alone, we see that if these individuals had not been in contact with the world of speculation, their cupidity would not have been excited to such a point that they were induced to commit crime. Here the rôle played by chance in such cases clearly appears; if they had been fortunate in their speculations they would never have become criminals.
As with all crimes, the question presents itself as to how far individual factors were active, in other words, do the individuals who are guilty of such crimes differ from other men? Certainly, and that to a considerable extent. But in granting this we do not, however, recognize [[598]]a qualitative difference between them and other men such as would make them biologically abnormal. The motives which have induced these persons to commit crime, are present, though only in small measure, in everyone. Those who commit these crimes have by nature very intense material needs; in the curve A D (see p. 534) they occupy the places near D. As regards their social sentiments they are ranged near the other end of the curve, and their repugnance to violence is very small. Further, they have the necessary courage and strength.[452] If we consider how little chance there is of finding all this united in one individual, it will become clear that few individuals are predisposed to these crimes, and when they are committed the criminal is found in a special environment. In my opinion there can be no question of individual factors, then; it is the environment that decides here. There will be persons always and everywhere who run more danger than others of committing such a crime; but it is the environment which will decide whether they will commit it or not.
Professional criminals. The great majority of violent economic crimes are committed by professional criminals. When an individual has fallen, from whatever reason, into the world of professional crime, sooner or later comes the time when he must use violence if he wishes to attain his end. Joly has very well said in his social study, “Le crime”: “The man who has formed the habit of breaking into houses and bursting open safes, is forcibly drawn sooner or later to rid himself of witnesses who surprise him at this work, or of a victim who might perhaps recognize him.”[453] It cannot be asserted of these individuals any more than of others, that they are born with a special tendency toward assassination, a tendency to be explained by atavism, or something approaching it. They have been living in an environment in which such acts are considered as a necessary evil inherent in their trade. Driven by the tendency to imitate, they do as others do. Certainly there are those of them who do not commit these crimes, but that proves nothing, for it may be that chance has favored them and they have never been under the necessity of using violence, or they have less courage and force than the average man, or, it may be, have an exceptional innate aversion to violence.
As Professor Manouvrier remarks, the case would be entirely different if such criminals killed without plausible motives, if they committed murder without anything but the act in view. The facts [[599]]show that this is not so. Note the opinion of Flynt. “The taking of life is … [a] deed that he [the professional criminal] regrets more than he has been given credit for. One thinks of the criminal as the man who has no respect for life, as one who takes it without any twitchings of conscience; but this is not the general rule. The business criminal never takes a life, if he can help it.”[454]
We need not treat here of the causes which have led to the designating of these acts as crimes; they are the same as those given above in connection with economic crimes without violence. The harm done by these crimes is naturally greater than in the case of crimes without violence, since they put life as well as property in danger. It is interesting to note here, once more, the dualism of ethics; many primitive peoples consider these acts as crimes when they are committed within the same group, but very honorable when once the act passes beyond the limits of the group.[455] Further, with modern peoples this difference still persists; colonial wars often resemble a colossal robbery.
D. Fraudulent Bankruptcy, Adulteration of Food, and Analogous Crimes.
We reach now the last group of economic crimes, those which are committed wholly, or in great part, by the bourgeoisie. The motives of these crimes are not all the same; here too it is necessary to make distinctions. The categories into which we must distribute the motives leading to these crimes are analogous to those which lead to theft etc., poverty and cupidity. And as in the case of theft it is necessary to add a third category, that of the great criminals, who can be compared with criminals by profession.
The first category may be compared with that of theft committed from poverty; those who fall into this class are persons who, for one reason or another, have seen their business decline, and not knowing any other way to escape from their difficulties, hope to retrieve their losses and save themselves by committing a misdeed. I take from Moreau’s “Le Monde des Prisons” a typical case. After having described how a certain R. had succeeded in setting himself up in business and had been successful, the author speaks as follows. [[600]]“Unhappily the panic caught him among the first. His business became worse and worse. In a few months he lost several thousand francs. Two of his traveling salesmen ran off with their goods. Orders ceased coming in. It was failure, dishonor. He fought, but was wrecked.…”[456] Finally, in order to escape ruin he committed a breach of trust; he was discovered and convicted.
We cannot say that it is absolute poverty that drives these persons to commit a crime, for generally they have enough left to keep them from dying of hunger. And if not, they are generally members of families who are in a position to keep them from the worst poverty. Further they can try to provide for their wants by paid labor. Nevertheless these cases are somewhat analogous to those of absolute poverty. Picture to yourself the state of mind of one who has led a more or less comfortable life, who has been independent, and enjoyed the esteem granted to a man who is well-to-do, and who sees that the time is approaching when all this will come to an end, and that there remains nothing for him to do but accept some minor poorly paid employment, and lead henceforth an existence that cannot satisfy him in any way. Imagine also that chance throws in his way an opportunity to commit a crime with good hope of success. It must be granted that we find here very powerful determinants to crime.
This cause of crimes of this class is of an entirely social nature. Under another mode of production, for example, under that of village communities, the idea of committing such crimes could not arise. For this reason we cannot say that social causes have often nothing to do with the matter, but that it is the man’s own fault if his business goes to pieces. This is certainly true at times; but it is the present organization of society which makes it possible for a man to be in charge of an enterprise which he is not fitted to conduct, while another who is fitted for it cannot find employment for his talents. It is only in a society where complete anarchy reigns in the economic life, that it is possible for a man to think he is capable of directing a business merely because he happens to have capital.
Let us now examine the other side of the question. What are the forces capable of preventing these projects from being realized? First let us ask, what is the environment in which many of these individuals who are guilty of such crimes are brought up? Certainly they have learned that one must be honest, that it is wrong to pick pockets, etc., and they will not fail in this regard. But they have learned also that the principal end in life is to grow rich, to succeed. [[601]]Too often this is contrary to the principle of probity. “Be honest, be honest, if possible, but … make money!” This is the principal rule imprinted upon the minds of the children in certain bourgeois environments. It is an honesty of a special kind that is inculcated, not a moral honesty, but an honesty for the sake of one’s own interests. “Honesty is the best policy” says the quasi-moral precept. Those whose probity has this for a basis have only a weak check to prevent them from becoming criminal, when the thought of the wrong act arises within them. They remain honest so long as it is to their advantage, but woe to society when this is no longer the case.
But further, the environment in which these persons have lived after their youth has not contributed to reinforce the social sentiments, and consequently those that are working in an anti-criminal direction. “Every man for himself” is the principle of success in such an environment. It is evident that the social sentiments must be strongly opposed in their development if the maxim just given is that which dominates. To act morally implies sacrificing one’s own advantage for the sake of the general good. He who is compelled always to have his own interests at heart can give very little thought to the interests of others.
As in the case of all crimes, it is necessary with regard to these also to put the question, are the individuals who are guilty of them, as regards their innate qualities, like those who have lived and still live under the same conditions? And as is the case with all crimes, the answer here must be in the negative. Those who are guilty of these crimes are, in general, those who are below the average in the strength of their moral qualities. They are rather weak than bad; they are conscious of the harm that they do to others and are ashamed of it, but they are too weak to resist the pressure of circumstances. As always it is the environment that is the cause of the crimes’ taking place; it is the individual differences which explain in part who is the one to commit them. Adapting the well-known sentence of Quetelet we may say, “it is society that prepares the crimes, it is the men of inferior moral caliber who execute them.” If the environment were entirely different the men of inferior moral caliber would not be guilty of crime.
It may be observed, perhaps, that if it is true that a special predisposition on the part of the individual is unnecessary for the explanation of these crimes, they ought to be more numerous than they are. This is true enough, but it does not refute the opinion which has been expressed. For, first, as is the case with all the others, these crimes [[602]]are more numerous than the criminal statistics show; second, there are reasons why some men do not commit crime, although all circumstances lead to it, and their moral condition does not prevent. For example, there are those who, as a consequence of the struggle for existence, have lost all energy and all courage, and give up the fight, even the fight with dishonest weapons; others, prudent by nature, take into consideration the fact that, bad as their situation may be, it would be worse if the crime were discovered, etc.
Statistics prove that it is really the decline of business that is the cause of a great number of bourgeois crimes. In the first part of this work I have given some which show this correlation, namely:
Italy, 1873–1890.
For this country the statistics on this question (see p. 144) have been compiled by Dr. Fornasari di Verce. This author has shown that with the exception of fraudulent bankruptcy (an astonishing and inexplicable fact), commercial crimes are strongly influenced by economic happenings.
Prussia, 1854–1878.
Dr. Starke has proved that the curve of these crimes is parallel with that of economic events (p. 65).
These statistics, to be sure, are not numerous, since the number of crimes committed by the bourgeoisie is small, and the other economic crimes, like theft, for example, are much more important, and hence draw the attention of statisticians more.[457]
We come now to the second category; bourgeois economic crimes from cupidity (as is always the case, the line of demarcation between this group and the preceding one is not distinctly traced, there being many gradations between the two). They are committed, not, as in the first category, by those whose business is declining, but by those whose affairs are more or less flourishing. The only motive, then, is cupidity; what they get by honest business is not enough for them, they wish to become richer. After what has been already said about cupidity it is unnecessary to go into detail here. It has been shown that it is only under certain special circumstances that this desire for wealth arises, and that it is unknown under others. It will be necessary only to point out the fact that although cupidity is a strong motive with all classes of our present society, it is especially so among the bourgeoisie, as a consequence of their position in the economic [[603]]life. This, then, is the first and most important cause of these crimes, a cause which is not individual, but entirely of a social nature.
In the second place, the opportunity to commit these offenses undetected is enormous (I refer especially to the adulteration of food). In general the consumer cannot judge whether the merchandise is pure or not, and in most cases there is no inspection by experts, or else it is worthless, since the experts are named by the producers themselves.
In the third place, we have to ask ourselves, in what way does the environment in which these persons live exercise an influence upon their social sentiments? We have already called attention to this point some pages above, and can be brief therefore. This environment tends to weaken the social sentiments which might act as a check upon very egoistic acts.
Considered from the point of view of the consumer the adulteration of food products is a grave crime, for it injures the health and may even endanger the life. But what moral impropriety will be seen in it by a producer who derives great profits from the exploitation of children, or who, by a corner in grain, causes a great increase in the price of bread? Is there, sociologically speaking, a difference between these two groups of acts? Certainly not; the one is as harmful as the other, nay, the last two probably more harmful than the first.
This kind of crime must be the despair of those who seek for some biological anomaly of the criminal as the primary cause of crime, for here the anomaly forms almost the rule. Dr. Puibaraud, in his “Malfaiteurs de profession”, rightly says: “The adulteration of food is carried on under our eyes, at our very doors, and we are so used to it that we say nothing. They put fuchsine in our wine, margarine in our butter, chicory in our coffee, tallow in our chocolate, and we swallow it all in perfect good humor. What is the use of protesting? So things are, and ‘business could not be carried on’ if they gave us really pure food. So we swallow it all without gagging or moving a muscle. Provided we are not poisoned—too quickly—we profess ourselves satisfied.”[458]
Everyone knows that the adulteration of food is enormous. If anyone has any doubts let him read the reports of the chemists upon a product whose adulteration is easy, milk, for example. His doubts will disappear rapidly; at least half of the milk is adulterated. It is only the adulteration of food products that constitutes a legal offense, [[604]]but the adulteration of other articles does not differ from this when considered from a sociological point of view, and it is unnecessary to say that there too the adulteration is enormous.
There are, to be sure, manufacturers and merchants who are not guilty of such acts; first, because certain articles cannot be adulterated; second, because in certain branches the oversight in the interests of the consumers is very rigorous; third, because certain producers find it more advantageous to be honest, knowing that thereby they will procure a large body of regular customers. These three reasons have nothing moral in them, though there is a fourth reason which affects certain producers, namely that they have scruples against such practices.[459]
Let us consider once more the curve of the individual differences. Those persons who should be placed between A and B are those who, if the conditions we have named are present, will commit without scruple misdeeds of the kind we are considering. The great average class, between B and C are those who, in general, are not guilty of acts prohibited by law, but who probably do things which in reality do not differ much from these, and, in any case, are not permissible by the moral code of the consumers (for commerce has a morality of its own). These are the persons who get rid of their merchandise by means of all sorts of tricks and dodges, are silent about the bad qualities of their wares and exaggerate the good ones; these are the dairymen who put water in their milk (“for absolutely pure milk is not wholesome”, they say); the doctors who make visits when they are no longer necessary; these are those who.… But let us stop; we could fill pages with the practices of those whose honesty is not proof against trial.[460]
In going from B to C the moral aversion to such acts, observed in individuals, becomes gradually greater, and the danger that they will commit such practices diminishes, and we finally approach those who should be placed between C and D, those who are in no way guilty of such acts.
As is always the case with economic crimes, it is, then, the environment that is the cause of these offenses, while individual differences explain in part who are the authors of them. [[605]]
We come now to the last category of the criminals of this group, to the great criminals, to those who throw themselves into gigantic enterprises while knowing beforehand that these will certainly or probably fail, or those who make great purchases of stock, and afterward cause a rise in price through the dissemination of false news, etc.
If there is any kind of crime that is the consequence of the economic environment exclusively, this is the one. Such crimes can arise only in a time like ours, with its insatiable thirst for gold, with the unlimited opportunity to deceive the public, greedy for great profits. A superficial knowledge of economic history is enough to make it plain that the bourgeois crimes, and especially those which we are now discussing, can be committed only under an economic system of the kind that ours is.
This should make those anthropologists reflect who wish always to find the causes of crime in the man himself and not in his surroundings. Naturally the originators of such deeds are marked out by characteristic traits. But there is no reason to admit that persons with such dispositions could not have been born also under a different economic system. Yet such crimes do not appear under any other mode of production.
What is the kind of persons who commit these crimes which society has prepared for? We note first that chance must have prepared such individuals in the proper environment, for a crime of this kind. If they were in the class of agriculturists, for example, the idea of committing it would not have occurred to them; it is only in a special environment that such crimes can be committed.
These people are characterized, in the first place, by excessive cupidity. In this regard they come high in the curve. Their prodigality is without limits; once they have executed a great coup they buy splendid palaces, give costly fêtes, support several mistresses, etc. An individual of this type, Arton, had a mistress who cost him 300,000 francs in one year; he needed a million to cover his annual expenses.[461] This is why they are not content with the large incomes which they could obtain honestly; they wish to surpass others in wealth, being ordinarily very vain.[462]
We have said that such individuals would probably have succeeded in securing large incomes honestly, for all are of a high order of intelligence. In following their machinations we are astonished by their perspicacity and their cleverness. Plans like theirs could never [[606]]have been conceived and still less executed by men of mediocre intelligence.[463]
“I believe,” says Professor Morselli in his preface to Laschi’s work which we have quoted, “in fact, that no common intelligence is needed to cover up malversations for a long time, to organize clever swindles, outrageous frauds and bankruptcies, exploitations of the credulous public. It needs no more talent, perhaps it needs less, to accomplish a great number of useful and honest things, to make a so-called discovery or invention. We have, as I have said elsewhere, a fetishism with regard to genius, talent, higher intelligence. The effort of mental energy which is required by the complex planning and execution of a financial crime does not differ, as far as cerebral dynamics are concerned, from the effort demanded by an action that is perfectly regular from a moral point of view.”[464]
In the third place, this class consists of persons who, as to the intensity of their moral sentiments, take the lowest place. What an ordinary criminal does in a small way, they do on a gigantic scale; while the former injures a single person, or only a few, the latter bring misfortune to great numbers. And they do it with indifference, for the disapprobation of honest men does not touch them.
As I have already shown elsewhere, brought up in no matter what environment, such individuals would not excel in the strength of their social sentiments. But I have added that, nevertheless, the influence of the environment of these persons is very great. We do not know much of the circumstances under which they have passed their youth. At least Laschi makes no mention of them in “Le crime financier”, the principal work upon this class of misdeeds. It is more than probable that their moral education is totally lacking, or has been only very superficial. Theresa Humbert, for example, had already been instructed by her father in the art of swindling on a large scale.
On the other hand we know the environment in which they have generally passed the rest of their lives. They belong to the world of speculation, an environment which has very special ideas upon economic morals. In most of the cases of this kind, facts are brought out which show that the moral ideas in these circles differ much from those of the rest of mankind. It is evident that those who commit these crimes go farther than the morality of their world permits. [[607]]But it takes great moral perspicacity to distinguish in this field the demarcations between what is permitted and what is not, and it is just this perspicacity that some persons lack. This is why most criminals of this kind, when they are brought into court, say with sincere conviction that they are innocent, that they have done nothing that is incompatible with morality.[465]
Then, speculation etc. is one of the infallible means for killing all social sentiments; it is egoism pure and simple. Can we be astonished that some of these individuals[466] in such an environment enter into conflict with the penal law? It seems to me not. Nor is there any reason to grant that they are abnormal from a biological point of view. So even the Italian school is forced to admit that the stigmata found elsewhere cannot be pointed out in these individuals.[467] Furthermore, in this case we can hardly speak of atavism. It may be that our ancestors were great offenders, but it is not probable that they ever were guilty of swindles of this kind.
It is not necessary to speak fully of the reasons which cause these acts to be classed as crimes. They are harmful to the regular progress of capitalism and consequently are threatened with penalties. The punishment of the adulteration of food-stuffs, on the contrary, is a consequence of the opposition of the consumers to one of the harmful effects of this system.
In this connection it is interesting to note, first, that the penalties prescribed for these crimes are relatively light as compared with those for ordinary economic crimes, like theft, for example, especially when we reflect that the harm done by them is much greater; second, that the number of punishable acts is very limited as compared with those which really deserve punishment. As Baccaro observes in his work, “Genesi e funzione delle leggi penali”, it is these crimes which show clearly the class character of the penal law.[468] [[608]]
CHAPTER III.
SEXUAL CRIMES.
Most authors who treat of the correlation between criminality and economic conditions, have devoted their attention to economic crimes especially, and have had little or nothing to say about sexual crimes. Man’s sexual instincts, they say, have nothing to do with the economic life, they are a factor apart, and accordingly there is no relation between criminal sexuality and economic conditions.
We flatter ourselves that we shall be able to show that their opinion is erroneous, that a relation between sexual criminality and economic conditions does exist, although it is by nature less direct than that between economic crimes and the mode of production.
Having already remarked that the social forms of the sexual life (marriage and prostitution) are, in the last analysis, determined by the mode of production, we will not return to this topic. And it does not fall within the province of this work to speak of the relation of the intensity of the sexual life in general to economic conditions. From history we see that the sexual life plays now a greater, now a smaller part. It would be hard to admit that the causes of these changes are within man and not outside of him, particularly when very evident causes are to be found in the environment. Who does not see that the intensity of the sexual life of the upper classes of Rome of the decadence is explained by the exaggerated luxury, the idle existence of this group, and the dependent position of a part of the women (slaves).
In our present society the relation between the sexual life and economic conditions is equally clear. Everyone knows that the sexuality which occupies a very great place in that part of the bourgeoisie which passes its life in idleness and prodigality, is the consequence of this manner of living. On the other hand the low intellectual condition of the proletariat is the cause of a sexual life much more intense than it would be if the environment permitted a harmonious development of the whole nature. Engels, in his “Condition of the Working-class in England”, says of the English proletarians, what is applicable [[609]]to the workers in other countries also. “Next to intemperance in the enjoyment of intoxicating liquors, one of the principal faults of English working-men is sexual license. But this, too, follows with relentless logic, with inevitable necessity out of the position of a class left to itself, with no means of making use of its freedom. The bourgeoisie has left the working-class only these two pleasures, while imposing upon it a multitude of labors and hardships, and the consequence is that the working-men, in order to get something out of life, concentrate their whole energy upon these two enjoyments, carry them to excess, surrender to them in the most unbridled manner.”[469]
Further the dependent economic position of woman in our present society is also a factor of the increase of the intensity of the sexual life (especially prostitution).
However, it is not this question but sexual criminality upon which we must fix our attention. Here also we must divide the crimes into groups, as they differ too much among themselves to be treated of together. We shall take up in order, then: A. Adultery; B. Rape and indecent assault upon adults; C. Rape and indecent assault upon children.
A. Adultery.
It has been said, “the history of property is also that of theft.” In the same way we may say that the history of monogamy is also that of adultery, or in other words, that there is no monogamy without adultery. There must be, therefore, powerful and constant causes occasioning this offense. As we have seen above when we were setting forth briefly the history of marriage, adultery by the man was a permitted act at different stages of the social development.[470] If we ask why men committed this permitted act, but one reason can be alleged; they are not monogamous by nature. On the part of the woman the same act constituted, on the other hand, most often a very serious offense, threatened with the most severe penalties, which did not, however, prevent adultery on her side also. The cause is not different for the two sexes; women, too, are not monogamous by nature, though perhaps more nearly so than men.
From what we have just said the etiology of this crime is fixed. The only difference between the present and the past is that adultery [[610]]by the man also is punished in our time—there is no change in the etiology of the crime. It may be said that the fundamental cause of adultery is to be found in the nature of man, then, and that it is thus anthropological and not social. I cannot admit this view of the matter any more than I can believe that the ultimate cause of theft is the necessity of eating in order to live. If the fundamental cause of the offense of which we are treating is to be found in man, it would be present always and everywhere without reference to the environment. Sociology shows however, that this is not so. Up to a certain degree of social development men and women alike have been free in this respect; in other cases it is only the woman who is forced to remain true to her husband; and at times both have been compelled to remain faithful. Consequently, for one who does not consider society as an immovable body, but sees that everything is in motion, the fundamental cause of this crime is to be found in the structure of society itself, which in certain cases, prohibits a man from satisfying his natural inclinations. When the polygamous tendencies are stronger than the pressure of society a crime is committed.
If we consulted only the criminal statistics we should hardly ever meet with adultery. It is unnecessary to add that the penal laws dealing with this matter are so drawn up that a prosecution for adultery almost never takes place; it goes without saying, however, that in reality the offense is very common.
In the first place we must look into the question of the classes of society in which the offense occurs oftenest. Though there are no statistics on the matter I believe that we shall not be far wrong in saying that adultery takes place oftenest in that part of the bourgeoisie that lives in idleness, often also among the proletariat, and least often among the intellectual bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie. In seeking for the causes of this fact we see clearly that they cannot be found in the man himself, for the individuals forming these classes do not differ as to their innate characteristics. Consequently, these causes must be found in the environment; the following being the principal ones.
First. The more marriage is contracted for convenience the greater the danger of adultery. This is one reason why adultery is more common among the “upper ten thousand”, where marriage is often a commercial affair, and why it is less frequent among the intellectual bourgeoisie, in which there are more marriages of inclination.
Second. The more frivolous and trifling the life any class leads, the more frequent will adultery be in it. This is another reason why [[611]]adultery is frequent among the idle rich, and less frequent in the intellectual class and the petty bourgeoisie.
Third. The more the social causes of marriage are felt in a certain class, the greater the moral aversion to adultery. This is one reason why this offense is found less often among the petty bourgeoisie than in the working class.
Fourth. The greater the number of marriages concluded for purely physical reasons without any intellectual reasons entering in, the more numerous will be the cases of adultery. This applies especially to the proletariat, among whom most of the marriages are contracted from affection, but where, because of lack of culture, there is often no possibility of intellectual communion. When this harmony is lacking it comes about that the difficulties of life, so great in this class, cause an estrangement from which infidelities frequently result.
Finally, let us consider briefly the question of which individuals in the different classes are guilty of adultery. The predisposition to polygamy is not the same for all. In the second place, the sexual instincts are much more intense in some cases than in others. In the third place the environment in which one has lived is not the same as that of another, and opportunities do not occur in the same way for each. The joint action of these causes explains sufficiently why one commits the offense in question and not another.
In setting forth the etiology of adultery we have been giving the reasons why it has been designated as a crime. Little by little the conception of marriage has been modified in consequence of the social changes that have taken place; there is a growing number of persons who consider the life in common permissible only when both parties desire it without being constrained by the law. The partisans of this opinion disapprove of adultery, but for different reasons from others, who consider it as the infraction of an acquired right. Professor Ferri formulates this new morality as follows. “What is vile about adultery is not that it is an assault upon individual property, it is the disloyalty of the act, the trickery and hypocrisy of it.”[471]
While finding adultery immoral the adherents of this opinion believe that the law has no right to interfere. Even the persons who do not share their point of view believe that the penal code should cease to concern itself with this crime. Hence it comes, among other things, that the laws are so drawn that prosecutions are very rare. It is probable that adultery will disappear from the list of offenses. [[612]]
B. Rape and Indecent Assault upon Adults.
In his work, “Genèse normale du crime”, Professor Manouvrier expresses himself as follows upon the crime of rape. “Every normally constituted man would be a born violator if the sexual appetite could find no other means of satisfaction than rape. The crime is rare, however, and we know why; there are women for the ugliest and the poorest. However, famine may come; there is also opportunity, and many devils capable of leading into temptation the brute that every man is at his birth. For the ‘criminologists’ must not delude themselves upon this point if they wish to make criminal anthropology truly scientific. If we were to take a well-born child of a distinguished European family, and isolate him from his birth from all the influences of environment except those strictly necessary for the preservation of his life, we do not know what strange beast he would turn into. On the other hand we do know that behind our acquired polish our natural brutality still persists.”[472] Here in a few words is the environment theory applied to the origin of the most serious sexual crimes. Let us consult some facts to see whether the theory is correct.
First of all it must be remarked that this crime is not the act of a pervert but of a brute. It is important not to forget this since perversion does play a part in the crimes which we shall take up under C. Some authors do not make a distinction between these two kinds of crimes, which prevents their giving a really fundamental treatment of the etiology of them.
Let us see what the movement of this crime teaches. Its curve in the different months shows that it rises towards spring, to reach its maximum in summer, after which it regularly decreases, reaching its minimum in winter. An example of this is given in the following table, which includes also crimes committed against children.[473] [[613]]
France, 1827–1869.
| Months. | Sexual Crimes Committed Upon | Days of Conception 1863–1871. | ||||
| Adults. | Children. | |||||
| Absolute Figures. | % | Absolute Figures. | % | Absolute Figures. | % | |
| January | 584 | 7.09 | 1,106 | 5.57 | 2,603 | 7.84 |
| February | 563 | 6.84 | 1,041 | 5.23 | 2,661 | 8.02 |
| March | 643 | 7.82 | 1,366 | 6.88 | 2,608 | 7.85 |
| April | 608 | 7.39 | 1,700 | 8.56 | 2,887 | 8.69 |
| May | 904 | 10.98 | 2,175 | 10.95 | 3,000 | 9.21 |
| June | 1,043 | 12.67 | 2,585 | 13.03 | 3,018 | 9.08 |
| July | 860 | 10.45 | 2,459 | 12.42 | 2,911 | 8.76 |
| August | 794 | 9.64 | 2,208 | 11.13 | 2,742 | 8.25 |
| September | 653 | 7.93 | 1,773 | 8.93 | 2,810 | 8.46 |
| October | 523 | 6.46 | 1,447 | 7.29 | 2,625 | 7.91 |
| November | 514 | 6.24 | 983 | 4.95 | 2,620 | 7.89 |
| December | 534 | 6.49 | 939 | 5.05 | 2,665 | 8.02 |
The movement of sexual crimes does not tell us much about their etiology. It is plain that the opportunity of committing them occurs much oftener in summer than in winter, and the chance of catching the criminal “in flagrante delicto” is also much greater during the hot months. Even without statistics we should know that the temptation to these acts is greater in warm weather, and further, the rise of temperature towards spring probably increases the sexual tendencies. But all this does not explain the origin of this class of crimes, for if it is true that the sexual tendencies in man are increased by the rise of the temperature toward spring, this affects the sexual life in general, and not the sexual criminality alone (as is shown by the column of the days of conception).
In the same way we learn little of the etiology of these crimes from their movement in the course of the years. In the first part of this work we have given some statistics on this question, which we recapitulate here with additional data.
England.
The author of the English criminal statistics of 1899 fixes attention upon the fact that the maximum of sexual crimes was reached in 1893 and 1894, when the price of wheat was very low (p. 48). [[614]]
France, 1825–1878.
As Professor Ferri shows in his study upon the influence of temperature,[474] the curve of rape committed upon adults presents some resemblance to that of economic events, the years that were economically bad coinciding with the minimum figures for the crime in question. Thus the unfavorable years of 1835–37, 1846–47, 1865–68 brought a diminution of rapes committed upon adults, and the favorable years of 1832–35, 1847–50, 1857–59 an increase. Although there are some exceptions, the influence of the economic situation is indubitable.
Italy, 1873–1890.
Dr. Fornasari di Verce says that indecent assaults increase with the improvement in economic conditions, and vice versa (p. 143). On the other hand, Dr. Colajanni proved for the different parts of Italy (1875–1880) that a greater consumption of meat did not lead in most cases (22 out of 35) to an increase in the number of indecent assaults (op. cit., pp. 501–504).
New South Wales, 1882–1891.
As we have seen in Part One (p. 144) Dr. Fornasari di Verce has shown that in this country sexual crimes increase in prosperous years, and vice versa.
Prussia, 1854–1896.
As to this country, Professor von Oettingen gives, for the years 1854–1859 and 1862–1871, some figures which show a slight connection between the price of grain and sexual crimes (Part One, pp. 53, 54). Dr. Müller also shows (see the tables pp. 77, 78 and pp. 80, 81) that economic conditions exercise an influence upon sexual crimes; thus, for example, the years 1857–1859 were characterized by cheap grain and high figures for sexual crimes; the same was true of the years 1863–1866 and 1869. On the contrary the years 1854–1856 and 1861, show a high price for grain and low figures for the crimes in question. There were, however, some exceptions; during the crisis of 1873–74 the sexual crimes did not decrease, and in the following years the correspondence of the curve of these crimes with that of the economic situation is no longer to be noted.
The data upon the relation between the economic situation and [[615]]these crimes are not as numerous as those upon economic crimes, and there are also many exceptions. With some reservations, however, we can say that an improvement in economic conditions tends to increase the crimes in question. However, this does not teach us much with regard to the etiology of them; the statistics of births have long since shown us that the sexual life is more intense during the periods of economic prosperity, than during those of depression.[475] Better nourishment renders the sexual instincts stronger, without its being necessary that they should manifest themselves in a criminal manner. The proof of this is furnished by those who are sufficiently nourished both in good times and bad and are yet not guilty of these crimes. (For statistical proofs see the statistics given later.)
We must then try to discover the true crime-producing factors in other statistical data. First let us inquire whether married or unmarried persons are more often guilty? As we have seen above, German criminal statistics are the only ones which give us absolutely certain information on this point. These show (see p. 454) that at all ages bachelors, widowers, and divorced men are more often guilty of sexual crimes than married men, and at certain ages much more so. Unfortunately these statistics do not distinguish the rapes committed upon adults from those committed upon children. The data of Dr. J. Socquet give us some slight information.[476]
France, 1876–1880.
| Civil Status. | To 1,000,000 of the Population in Each Group there were Charged with Rape upon Adults |
| Bachelors | 8 |
| Married men | 3 |
| Widowers | 2 |
Marriage, then, tends to diminish the number of these crimes. The economic life having, in its turn an influence upon the number of marriages the relation between this life and the crimes in question is clear. If the economic situation of many persons did not prevent their contracting marriage at the period of life indicated by nature, these [[616]]crimes would be much less frequent. As Dr. Augagneur says: “Our laws and physiological exigencies do not harmonize.”
A second question is, what is the class of the population that commits these crimes? As we have seen, the statistics of Italy and Austria show (see pp. 437, 438) that it is almost exclusively the poor who are guilty of sexual crimes. In Italy 92.1% are indigent or have only the strict necessaries of life; in Austria 91.2% are without fortune, and only 0.2% are well-to-do.
The statistics of the professions of convicts in Germany (see p. 441) show also that those who are arraigned for these crimes are especially working-men, and particularly unskilled laborers (among whom the statistics include also white-slave traders, professional criminals, etc., see p. 442). Unfortunately these statistics do not distinguish between sexual crimes committed upon adults and those committed upon children. The following table shows that the number is greater for the first than for the second of these crimes.[477]
France, 1836–1880.
| 1836–1840. | 1876–1880. | |||
| Percentage of Total Number Accused of Rape and Indecent Assault Committed Upon | ||||
| Adults. | Children. | Adults. | Children. | |
| Engaged in the cultivation of the soil, laborers, farm servants, etc. | 38 | 33 | 52 | 39 |
| Workers engaged in handling the products of the soil, iron, wood, etc. | 30 | 26 | 25 | 25 |
| Bakers, butchers, cabinet-makers, etc. | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Tailors, wigmakers, hat-makers | 7 | 8 | 3 | 6 |
| Merchants | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Sailors, carters, porters | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Domestic servants and keepers of inns, lodging houses and cafés | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Liberal professions | 5 | 11 | 4.5 | 10 |
| Vagrants | 3 | 4 | 1.5 | 4 |
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
Although this table by itself has little value, since the comparative figures for the population in general are lacking, it suffices to show, by comparison with the preceding tables, that the crime with which we are concerned is committed by working-people especially. The [[617]]criminals in a large number of the cases are rural, as the last table proves to a certain extent, and as further appears from the following.[478]
France, 1846–1880.
| Residence. | 1846–1850. | 1876–1880. | ||
| Absolute Numbers. | % | Absolute Numbers. | % | |
| Rural population | 804 | 74 | 412 | 67 |
| Urban population | 264 | 24 | 160 | 27 |
| Residence unknown | 16 | 2 | 38 | 6 |
| Total | 1,084 | 100 | 610 | 100 |
Even when we take account of the fact that the rural population in France is more numerous than the urban, we still see that the crime in question is committed in the country especially.[479]
We must further inquire what is the part of the proletariat that is guilty of rape upon adults? The answer must be that it is that which forms the lowest stratum of society. As preceding statistics have shown us (see pp. 427–430, 432), the number of illiterates or of those who know only how to read and write, is very great among the authors of sexual crimes. The following table gives us data more detailed and concerned only with rape upon adults.[480]
France, 1875–1884.
| Education. | Absolute Numbers. | % | To 100 Persons upon the Conscription Lists (1880). |
| Unable to read or write | 319 | 28 | 13.8 |
| Able to read and write | 802 | 71 | — |
| With a higher education | 12 | 1 | — |
Upon the basis of this table we have the right to say, then, that this crime is almost never committed by persons having more than a primary education. [[618]]
This fact destroys the theory that the “human beast” exists independent of environment; for if such were the case, this crime would be relatively as frequent among more highly developed persons as among those that are less so. This table proves what is always forgotten by criminal anthropologists, that a man becomes a brute only under certain fixed circumstances, and commits then acts that would be repugnant to him if he lived in a different environment.
Those who commit these acts come from the strata of society in which, in consequence of their living conditions, the sexual life is considered from a purely animal point of view. What is the environment in which the children of the lowest classes grow up, and what is the sexual morality that they derive from it? The simple truth is that there is no sexual morality for them. In consequence of the detestable housing conditions (compare what was said upon this subject in connection with prostitution) and of the bad society with which they are thrown, the children are thoroughly conversant with the sexual life in its most bestial manifestations. Their attention is fixed upon the sexual life at an age at which it is still a closed book to children brought up in a wholesome environment. As Dr. Lux says in his excellent study upon sexual crimes, “Need, misery, and vice are the natural surroundings of the children of the proletariat, and especially of the lower proletariat; they form the environment out of which the child draws his first and most lasting impressions; they are the school from which they derive the lessons of a system of ethics which is in marked contrast with the ethics of progressive humanity. Conceptions of moral restraints can hardly be awakened in the offspring of the lowest ranks of the proletariat; on the contrary, so far as the sexual sphere is concerned, they are suppressed by the undisguised sexual intercourse of parents, other adults, and prostitutes, with whom the children are continually coming into contact.…”[481]
One of the consequences of the lower position of woman in our present society is that man considers women as destined to submit to his sexual will. This is especially the case in the lower strata of the [[619]]population, where the woman is often only a means by which the man may satisfy his desires.
Finally, alcoholism is still to be added as a criminogenous factor. Above (pp. 509 ff.) we have seen that there are many chronic alcoholics among the authors of these crimes; in Germany 23.3% and 20.5%, in France 51.5% and 55.7%, in the Netherlands 10.84%, and in Wurtemberg 36.3%.
There is still another way in which alcoholism figures in the etiology of these crimes. At a certain stage of intoxication the sexual instincts are stimulated, while the moral forces are weakened.[482] So in the cases where a sexual crime has been committed in a state of drunkenness we may be sure that alcohol has been one of the principal factors of it. The following figures give us some information on this point.
England.
In his report to the international penitentiary congress at Brussels, Dr. M. W. C. Sullivan shows, as the result of an investigation, that more than 50% of the sexual crimes were caused by alcoholism, and that acute alcoholism is especially active in the case of rape upon adults.[483]
Austria, 1896–1897.
Out of 179 cases of rape, etc., there were 46 (25.7%) committed in a state of drunkenness.[484]
France.
In his report at the Congress mentioned above, Marambat says that 6.6% of the rapes and indecent assaults have been committed in a state of intoxication.[485]
Netherlands.
The criminal statistics show that 11.82% of those convicted of sexual crimes commit them under the influence of alcoholic drinks.[486]
Sweden.
Sigfrid Wieselgren, director general of the penitentiary establishments of Sweden, in his report to the Brussels Congress gives a table [[620]]which shows that about 36% of those guilty of indecent assault were drunk at the time of the crime.[487]
Switzerland, 1892–1896.
According to the criminal statistics, 21.5% of all the sexual crimes are due to alcoholism.[488]
To sum up, we see that the causes of these crimes are the economic condition which prevents some individuals from marrying at the natural age, the inferior social position of woman, alcoholism, and above all the sexual demoralization and lack of civilization in the lowest strata of society.
It is plain that not all the individuals who live in this environment are guilty of the crimes in question. The sexual instincts do not have equal force at all ages, nor with all individuals. There are individuals who have very pronounced sexual propensities, others who are almost indifferent in this respect, and between the two extremes lies the great majority. It is only for the first class that the danger of a crime against morals is great, for the others it is less so. If the opportunity (rape is almost always an “occasional” crime) presents itself to persons already predisposed, the moral check to restrain them is lacking. If they had lived in another environment, this act would be repugnant to them, as statistics prove; for this crime is not committed by persons of the other classes, although there are naturally proportionally more persons with strong sexual instincts among them. The opportunity to commit these crimes is happily not very frequent. As Voltaire has expressed it, “Rape is a crime as hard to prove as it is to commit.”
We must add a few words upon the history of this crime and the causes that have led to its being classified as such. As Dr. Post (the principal authority upon this question) has shown, among many primitive peoples rape is only considered as a detriment to the property of the man.[489] It is only little by little as the position of woman [[621]]improves, and her individuality is recognized, that rape is considered as a grave encroachment upon the liberty of the woman, and that it is punished as such.
C. Rape and Indecent Assault upon Children.
An examination of the etiology of these crimes shows that in great part the individuals who are guilty of them belong to the same category of criminals as those who commit sexual crimes upon adults. If they seduce or outrage a child and not a woman it is from accidental reasons (opportunity, lack of bodily strength, etc.); they are brutes who wish to satisfy their sexual instincts at any price; they are not, however, perverts. Although there is a quantitative difference between the man who violates an adult and one who commits this act upon a child (the latter being grosser and more egoistic than the former), there is no qualitative difference between the two so far as the majority of the criminals of whom we are speaking are concerned. We should only repeat ourselves if we treated of the etiology of these crimes more fully.
As with the crimes of which we were speaking above, there is with crimes against children also, a great increase toward spring, the maximum being reached in the month of June, after which there is a decrease, with the minimum in winter.[490] The statistics given for France show also that in this country the periods of economic prosperity bring an increase of these crimes, and the periods of depression a decrease.[491] And it is probably the same with other countries. As has been said also of the crimes against adults, all this shows us very little of the etiology of these crimes, since the intensity of the sexual life in general rises and falls in accordance with the economic situation.
Here also the married men play a smaller part than the unmarried and divorced; the poor classes show a larger number of crimes than those that have property (see p. 616); the illiterate, and persons who know how to read and write simply, show also proportionately higher figures than persons with a higher education,[492] and alcoholism again takes its place among the causes of this crime.[493] [[622]]
A minute comparison of the statistics of sexual crimes committed upon adults and of those upon children shows that a part of the latter are of a character quite different from the former. By comparing, for example, the statistics of the civil status of persons arraigned, we see that the number of married men and widowers is proportionately much greater in the case of crimes against children than against adults. The following table shows this:[494]
France, 1876–1880.
| Civil Status. | To 1,000,000 of the Population of Each Group there were Arraigned For Rape Upon | |
| Adults. | Children. | |
| Bachelors | 8 | 37 |
| Married men | 3 | 25 |
| Widowers | 3 | 50 |
A comparison of the statistics of the occupation of the two groups of these criminals (see p. 616) shows that in the crimes upon children, the liberal professions show twice as many as those committed upon adults. The same is true of merchants.[495]
The figures with regard to education show that the illiterate are about equally numerous in both groups of criminals, but that the percentage of those who have a higher education is 5 in the case of crimes upon children, and barely 1 for those upon adults.[496]
While, as we have seen, sexual crimes upon adults are chiefly committed in the country, the cities and manufacturing centers occupy a much more important place in the statistics of those upon children, as the following table proves.[497] [[623]]
France, 1876–1880.
| Residence. | Rape and Indecent Assault Upon | |
| Adults. | Children. | |
| % | % | |
| Rural | 67 | 53 |
| Urban | 27 | 43 |
| Unknown | 6 | 4 |
Contrary to what we find with regard to sexual crimes against adults it is also the departments with the great cities which, in comparison with the rural districts, give the highest figures.[498]
It appears from an examination of these data that sexual crimes upon children and those upon adults have, in part a different etiology. Many sexual crimes upon children are committed by persons who could also satisfy their desires with adults, but abuse children instead. These, then, are cases of sexual perverts.
A thorough examination of the causes of this perversion would be ill placed in the midst of our investigation of the social etiology of crime, for they are principally of a pathological nature. However prostitution should be mentioned as contributing more to sexual demoralization than any other cause. As Dr. Després says in his work “La prostitution en France”, “Physicians think that rape[499] is an aberration of the genetic faculty and that this crime is more often the result of satiety than of deprivation of the natural exercise of the genital functions.”[500]
Dr. Ladame expresses himself thus. “All the causes which divert the genetic faculty from its natural end may lead to crime, and among these causes prostitution plays, without doubt, the principal part.”[501]
It is plainly difficult to show by figures the degree of importance of [[624]]prostitution in the etiology of sexual crimes. The Swiss statistics, which try, though very imperfectly, to record the causes of crimes, say that 5.3% of the sexual crimes are caused by prostitution.[502] It is unnecessary to say that this figure is too low.
We may add in conclusion that it is almost always upon the children of the poor that these crimes are committed. The children of well-to-do parents are so well guarded that crimes against them are the rare exceptions.[503] [[625]]
CHAPTER IV.
CRIMES FROM VENGEANCE AND OTHER MOTIVES.
Besides economic, sexual, and political criminality, there is still a fourth category of crimes, the motives of which are quite diverse. We shall treat, A. Crimes from vengeance, and B. Infanticide. The first group is important both quantitatively and qualitatively; the second, especially, qualitatively. The crimes committed from other motives are either very rare, or very insignificant, or may be explained by the same causes as those included under A, and hence may be passed over in silence.[504]
A. Crimes Committed from Vengeance.
In a sociological work like ours we need not consider the psychology of vengeance.[505] For our subject it is sufficient to show that the feeling is innate in everyone, although in different degrees. As soon as one person injures another, whether bodily, or in his interests, or his honor, the desire to retaliate in one way or another immediately appears. If this desire transforms itself into act, this act calls forth a stronger reaction on the part of the opposing party, etc. It is this that is called the instinct of vengeance.[506] [[626]]
We must then begin by treating the causes calling forth feelings of revenge, and by fixing our attention upon the two principal categories of causes, those which spring from the economic life, and those which are due to the sexual life.
We shall speak first of the causes that are due to the economic life. The fundamental principle of the mode of production in which we live is competition, strife—in other words, doing injury to others. So there are innumerable cases in which the desire for revenge is excited by the economic life. Many sociologists extol the beauty of this struggle and pretend that its effect upon society is excellent. We shall refrain from examining the truth or falsity of this statement; for the matter in hand we need not concern ourselves with the fortunate victors, but simply with the vanquished. After the exposition of the present system of production it is superfluous to show all the opposing economic interests and the feelings resulting therefrom; we shall mention a few, and the others will be easily understood.
Imagine, for example, the state of mind of a small retailer who finds himself totally ruined by the competition of a large department store in the neighborhood; of that of working-men suffering great privations during a strike, who see themselves supplanted by others, who think only of their immediate interest in acting as strike-breakers. Or imagine, again, the innumerable cases in which questions of inheritance awaken vengeful feelings. And side by side with all this, picture the economic life of village-communities where all the economic interests were parallel, and where consequently the economic life engendered neither envy nor jealousy. Anyone who grasps the enormous difference between these two modes of production, will understand also how the feelings of revenge are excited by the present economic system.[507]
In the second place, how far are vengeful feelings aroused by sexuality?[508] As Sutherland remarks in his “Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct”, there are no peoples who are not more or less jealous in sexual matters,[509] but great differences are to be observed in this respect. While Nansen, for example tells how the Eskimo women are almost ignorant of sexual jealousy,[510] there are other peoples among [[627]]whom the woman is killed by her husband if another man evinces any regard for her.[511]
The facts show that the greater the power of the man over the woman, the greater also is the sexual jealousy of the man, a jealousy which, among other things, manifests itself in the very severe punishment of adultery.[512] He who has a right to something wishes to keep it for himself and does not tolerate injury to it on the part of anyone else. When the man considers the woman as his chattel, or when he has great power over her, sexual jealousy is strengthened by the feelings connected with property. These latter feelings were more predominant among the primitive peoples than true sexual jealousy, a proof of which is that fact that among many of these peoples the law of hospitality required putting the wife at the disposal of the guest.
From the present form of marriage (as among many primitive peoples) it follows that each party has a right with relation to the other.[513] The violation of this right is considered as a serious injury and gives rise to a desire for revenge. This phenomenon is not natural, but historical. If the present state of society did not necessitate an artificial stability in sexual relationships, if the man and his wife were economically independent, they would not believe that they had rights over each other.[514]
Here is the first bond between sexual jealousy and the social environment, but there is also a second, though a more remote one, namely, that it is with those who have a gross conception of the relations of man and wife, that revengeful feelings arise after love disappears. Those who, because of the environment in which they live, have formed a different idea of the relation between man and wife, while feeling the most violent grief, remain strangers to the desire for revenge. He who knows that neither love nor sympathy can be bidden, knows also that a right in this matter can bring no change in the feelings, and must remain only a nominal thing; he sees only the action of fate, where the brute sees an evil will. This is one reason why the number of crimes of passion is smaller among civilized people than among the partly civilized.
We must notice, further, one kind of crime of passion, the revenge of a woman seduced and then abandoned. Besides sexual jealousy [[628]]there are, in these cases, other motives playing their part. Often the woman has not given herself for love alone, but also with the prospect of a marriage, or a betterment of her economic position. It is not sexual vengeance that is the sole motive here then, but also vengeance for economic reasons.[515] Further the prohibition of inquiring into the question of paternity may also enter in.[516]
After having pointed out the two principal categories of causes that awaken revengeful feelings we must now enquire why, with certain individuals, these feelings are translated into acts. Many criminologists prefer to find environment of small importance in these crimes and the individual factors the predominant ones. Let us see whether the facts will uphold this theory. To begin with let us ask what the movement of these crimes teaches us.
As statistics show, they increase towards spring, reach their maximum in summer, after which a decrease follows with the minimum in winter, as the following table proves.[517]
Germany, 1883–1892.
| Crimes. | ||
| On the basis of a supposed Average of 100 Crimes a Day the Daily Average for the DifferentMonths would be | ||
| Serious assaults | Homicides | |
| January. | 75 | 88 |
| February. | 78 | 84 |
| March. | 78 | 100 |
| April. | 84 | 95 |
| May. | 102 | 108 |
| June. | 116 | 113 |
| July. | 119 | 118 |
| August. | 116 | 133 |
| September. | 110 | 124 |
| October. | 106 | 106 |
| November. | 93 | 93 |
| December. | 80 | 78 |
Some authors seek for a remote explanation, when there is one near at hand: in summer persons are more in contact with each other, a fact which gives opportunity for disputes, and an increased danger of consequent crimes.
We may sum up the principal data upon the movement of these crimes in relation to the economic situation (given in Part One of this work) as follows.
England, 1840–1890.
Fornasari di Verce draws attention to the fact that crimes against persons (represented in great part by crimes of vengeance) increase [[629]]in times of economic prosperity and vice versa (see p. 144. See also the data of Mayr, pp. 43 and 44).
Bavaria, 1835–1861.
Mayr shows for this period that crimes against persons increase when the price of grain falls and vice versa (see pp. 40–42).
Italy, 1873–1890.
According to Fornasari di Verce there is a diminution of homicides and assaults when economic conditions grow worse, and vice versa (see p. 143).
New South Wales, 1882–1891.
The same author says that homicides and assaults increase, while minor offenses against persons decrease, when economic conditions grow worse and vice versa (see p. 144).
Prussia, 1854–1896.
Dr. Starke and Dr. Müller show that the crimes we are considering increase when economic conditions improve, and decrease when they grow worse (see pp. 66 and 83). However, they show at the same time that these phenomena did not take place at the beginning of the period observed by them. Later they follow the regular course.[518]
Canton of Zürich, 1853–1892.
For the period mentioned Meyer proves that crimes against persons increase when economic conditions improve (see p. 69).
Examining these results we observe that the crimes in question increase in the periods of prosperity, and vice versa; but we see at the same time that there are also noteworthy exceptions (New South Wales and France), and that in Germany in the last 20 or 30 years, this tendency is no longer present.[519] It is not difficult, it seems to me, [[630]]to explain why these crimes increase in periods of prosperity. Men are thrown then into contact more frequently, they live a little more for amusement, and consume (and this is certainly one of the principal reasons) more alcohol than usual. Some authors see in this movement of crimes against persons a natural law, according to which criminality would be a fixed quantity, manifesting itself in economic crimes in periods of depression, and in crimes against the person in periods of prosperity.
As I have already said more than once this theory is erroneous. If it were really true that an improvement of the economic situation inevitably brought about an increase of crimes against persons, the class of individuals who are always in fairly good circumstances would also be largely guilty of these crimes. Statistics show us the contrary.
Thus we arrive at the very important question, what are the classes of the population which are especially guilty of these crimes? As the statistics already given show they are the poorest classes (see pp. 437 ff.). In Italy, for example, 89.8% of those who commit homicide, and 91.1% of those guilty of assault, were indigent or had only the bare necessities of life, though these form but 60% of the population. The same is true of Austria, and the statistics of occupations gives a similar result for Germany (see pp. 441 and 442).
The statistics that give information upon the degree of education of these criminals are more interesting still. As we have seen above, only 0.1% of those guilty of assault had a higher education, while 40.5% of these criminals were illiterate, and 59.4% knew only how to read, or to read and write. In France from 1896 to 1900 the completely illiterate constituted 16% of those guilty of assault, and 15% of the assassins, while in the general population there were only 4.5% who did not know how to sign their names. In Italy only 1% of the assassins and only 0.6% of those guilty of assault had a higher education, 99% and 99.4% respectively were illiterate or knew only how to read and write. These are striking figures.
In this connection let us stop for a moment to consider the geography of these crimes, and place beside the figures on this point those of illiteracy. We will begin with a table of figures for homicide and assaults followed by death, for some of the countries of Europe.[520] [[631]]
| Country.[521] | Years. | Homicides and Assaults followed by Death to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Years. | Illiteracy %. |
| Italy | 1880–84 | 70.0 | 1882 | 57.43 |
| Spain | 1883–84 | 64.9 | 1889 | 68.10 |
| Hungary | 1876–80 | 56.2 | 1880 | 59.70 |
| Austria | 1877–81 | 10.8 | 1880,, | 40.10 |
| Belgium | 1876–80 | 8.5 | 1880,, | 21.66 |
| Ireland | 1880–84 | 8.1 | 1882 | 30.00 |
| France | 1880–84,, | 6.4 | 1882,, | 13.10 |
| Scotland | 1880–84,, | 4.4 | 1882,, | 11.00 |
| England | 1880–84,, | 3.9 | 1883 | 14.00 |
| Germany | 1882–84 | 3.4 | 1881–82 | 1.54 |
| Holland | 1880–81 | 3.1 | 1880 | 11.50 |
No one will deny the striking parallelism between these columns, the highest figures for homicide being found where there are also the largest figures for illiteracy. As we have seen already, however, international statistics have inherent defects. The following figures are better in this regard:[522]
United States.
| Birthplace. | Number of Homicides to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Illiteracy %. |
| Sweden, Norway, Denmark | 5.8 | 0.42 |
| Germany | 9.7 | 0.57 |
| England and Scotland | 10.4 | 2.50 |
| Austria | 12.2 | 16.73 |
| Ireland | 17.5 | 41.65 |
| France | 27.4 | 43.60 |
| Italy | 58.1 | 51.77 |
We have here also, then, a striking parallelism. We will now take up the geography of homicide, etc., in different parts of one country; some of the faults inherent in the geography of crime are thus eliminated. [[632]]
Germany, 1893–1897.[523]
| States and Provinces. | Number of Persons Convicted for Serious Assaults to 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 Years of Age.[524] | Percentage of Illiterates among the Recruits 1892–1893. | Percentage of Votes Given to the Socialist in the Election of 1898.[525] |
| Bavaria | 391 | 0.03 | 18.0 |
| West Prussia | 334 | 4.01 | 4.9 |
| Posen | 326 | 1.72 | 1.7 |
| East Prussia | 265 | 0.98 | 18.3 |
| Silesia | 252 | 0.57 | 22.3 |
| Baden (Grand Duchy) | 250 | 0.02 | 19.1 |
| Hesse | 248 | 0.03 | 33.9 |
| Alsace-Lorraine | 237 | 0.30 | 22.7 |
| Pomerania | 227 | 0.22 | 17.2 |
| Westphalia | 223 | 0.08 | 17.7 |
| Germany | 219 | 0.38 | 27.1 |
| Prussia | 211 | 0.59 | 24.1 |
| Rhine Province | 201 | 0.08 | 15.0 |
| Wurtemberg | 197 | 0.04 | 20.3 |
| Saxony (Province) | 185 | 0.07 | 34.0 |
| Brandenburg | 184 | 0.15 | 35.6 |
| Hesse-Nassau | 161 | 0.14 | 30.9 |
| Hanover | 146 | 0.04 | 25.6 |
| Sleswick-Holstein | 106 | 0.10 | 38.9 |
| Saxony (Kingdom) | 82 | 0.01 | 49.4 |
The parallelism between the first two columns is undeniable; the states and provinces with low figures for illiteracy show also a small number of assaults, and vice versa, with some exceptions—notably Bavaria. The reason why Bavaria is at the head of the list is undoubtedly because of the alcoholism that prevails there. [[633]]
United States, 1890–1900.[526]
| States. | Number of Inhabitants in 1900 to Each Murder (Annual Average from 1890 to 1900). | Percentage of Illiteracy in Population Over 10 Years of Age (1900). | States. | Number of Inhabitants in 1900 to Each Murder (Annual Average from 1890 to 1900). | Percentage of Illiteracy in Population Over 10 Years of Age (1900). | |
| Nevada | 1,086 | 12.8 | Nebraska | 6,360 | 3.1 | |
| Colorado | 2,141 | 5.2 | N. Carolina | 6,645 | 35.7 | |
| Montana | 2,704 | 5.5 | United States | 7,649 | 13.3 | |
| Texas | 2,986 | 19.7 | Rhode Island | 8,241 | 9.8 | |
| Mississippi | 3,001 | 40.0 | Missouri | 8,582 | 9.1 | |
| Florida | 3,367 | 27.8 | S. Dakota | 8,924 | 4.2 | |
| California | 3,519 | 7.7 | N. Dakota | 11,005 | 6.0 | |
| Delaware | 3,849 | 14.3 | W. Virginia | 11,021 | 14.4 | |
| Louisiana | 3,859 | 45.8 | Indiana | 11,037 | 6.3 | |
| Alabama | 3,966 | 41.0 | Minnesota | 11,105 | 6.0 | |
| Wyoming | 4,206 | 3.4 | Iowa | 11,147 | 3.6 | |
| Maryland | 4,250 | 15.7 | Michigan | 11,810 | 5.9 | |
| Arkansas | 4,300 | 26.6 | Connecticut | 12,443 | 5.3 | |
| Utah | 4,855 | 5.6 | Ohio | 12,523 | 5.2 | |
| Tennessee | 4,957 | 26.6 | Wisconsin | 13,435 | 6.7 | |
| Washington | 5,079 | 4.3 | New York | 14,195 | 5.5 | |
| Oregon | 5,235 | 4.1 | Illinois | 15,306 | 5.2 | |
| Kentucky | 5,394 | 21.6 | New Jersey | 15,697 | 6.5 | |
| Georgia | 5,817 | 39.8 | Pennsylvania | 20,169 | 6.8 | |
| Idaho | 5,992 | 5.1 | Massachusetts | 29,222 | 6.2 | |
| S. Carolina | 6,064 | 45.0 | Maine | 38,581 | 3.3 | |
| Virginia | 6,079 | 30.2 | New Hampshire | 45,732 | 6.8 | |
| Kansas | 6,253 | 4.0 | Vermont | 57,274 | 6.7 |
Although less complete than in the preceding table, the parallelism here is nevertheless striking; all the states below the average for illiteracy, except one, rank low also in the number of murders. There are however some very remarkable exceptions to the general tendency, some states with small figures for illiteracy having nevertheless high figures for homicide. It is not possible for me to explain the cause of this, the details with regard to this country being lacking (it is very remarkable that the newest states are those that constitute the exceptions). The relation between these crimes and illiteracy is undeniable however. [[634]]
Italy, 1880–1883.[527]
| Provinces. | Simple Homicides and Assaults Followed by Death to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Illiteracy among the Conscripts (1896). %[528] | Provinces. | Simple Homicides and Assaults Followed by Death to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Illiteracy among the Conscripts (1896). %[528] | |
| Girgenti | 36.5 | 65.15 | Italy | 7.0 | 36.65 | |
| Campobasso | 29.5 | 56.35 | Lecce | 6.9 | 58.57 | |
| Avellino | 29.5 | 56.07 | Ascoli Piceno | 6.7 | 53.81 | |
| Caltanissetta | 29.0 | 58.02 | Pisa | 6.0 | 35.86 | |
| Cantanzaro | 27.3 | 65.76 | Treviso | 5.9 | 24.95 | |
| Trapani | 26.1 | 58.49 | Cueno | 5.5 | 18.68 | |
| Cosenza | 25.7 | 44.17 | Alessandria | 5.2 | 9.86 | |
| Palermo | 22.3 | 45.21 | Turin | 4.9 | 19.71 | |
| Naples | 22.2 | 45.15 | Florence | 4.3 | 35.16 | |
| Potenza | 21.4 | 55.63 | Genoa | 4.2 | 24.16 | |
| Caserte | 21.3 | 43.11 | Mantua | 4.0 | 25.06 | |
| Aquila | 20.7 | 38.56 | Udine | 4.0 | 11.08 | |
| Calabria | 19.5 | 43.95 | Venice | 3.9 | 31.92 | |
| Rome | 17.7 | 35.33 | Bologna | 3.9 | 24.68 | |
| Salerno | 17.4 | 60.37 | Sienna | 3.9 | 48.56 | |
| Catania | 16.7 | 64.04 | Piacenza | 3.5 | 37.82 | |
| Chieti | 16.6 | 57.44 | Padua | 3.0 | 34.32 | |
| Sassari | 16.1 | 53.09 | Porto Maurizio | 3.0 | 13.64 | |
| Leghorn | 14.0 | 15.68 | Novara | 2.9 | 12.18 | |
| Teramo | 13.8 | 61.37 | Bergama | 2.8 | 27.00 | |
| Arezzo | 13.4 | 38.60 | Vicenza | 2.5 | 31.41 | |
| Ancona | 13.1 | 36.24 | Brescia | 2.5 | 20.72 | |
| Lucca | 11.9 | 18.49 | Emilia | 2.4 | 33.08 | |
| Messina | 10.9 | 49.52 | Como | 2.3 | 8.89 | |
| Forli | 10.2 | 49.63 | Pavia | 2.3 | 21.39 | |
| Grosseto | 10.2 | 61.42 | Verona | 2.3 | 31.86 | |
| Bari | 10.1 | 64.60 | Ferrara | 2.2 | 36.97 | |
| Ravenna | 10.1 | 43.23 | Modena | 1.8 | 35.41 | |
| Perugia | 10.0 | 48.99 | Belluno | 1.7 | 25.62 | |
| Cagliari | 9.7 | 68.08 | Cremona | 1.6 | 12.71 | |
| Pesaro e Urbino | 9.4 | 53.94 | Milan | 1.4 | 18.85 | |
| Massa e Carrara | 8.3 | 34.46 | Parma | 1.1 | 31.68 | |
| Macerata | 7.5 | 43.43 |
In this country also the parallelism is undeniable; almost all the provinces with low figures for illiteracy have also low figures for criminality, and vice versa. [[635]]
To conclude, here are some figures with regard to
The Netherlands, 1901.[529]
| Provinces. | Assaults to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Illiteracy among the Conscripts. % |
| Drenthe | 15.9 | 7.2 |
| Limburg | 13.7 | 3.6 |
| North Brabant | 12.9 | 4.1 |
| Groningen | 12.6 | 2.8 |
| Zeeland | 8.3 | 2.3 |
| Overijssel | 8.2 | 3.3 |
| Gelderland | 8.2 | 1.7 |
| Netherlands | 7.6 | 2.3 |
| Friesland | 7.3 | 2.3 |
| Utrecht | 6.9 | 1.1 |
| South Holland | 4.2 | 1.1 |
| North Holland | 3.8 | 1.2 |
We have here then a confirmation in a general way of the rule proved for other countries.
In view of all the preceding data we must conclude that it is the less civilized persons who commit crimes of this class. How is this to be explained? This is what we shall proceed to examine.
The first reason is that the more civilized a person is the less revengeful feelings arise when some one injures him. The more the motives of actions are appreciated, the less the desire for revenge springs up. A child wants to revenge himself even upon an inanimate object that has hurt him; it is almost the same with uncivilized peoples, who so rarely take account of the motives of human action. It is not so long ago that men took vengeance upon maniacs, a thing which could not happen today.
In the second place, when the idea of revenge arises in a civilized man he is more in a position to restrain himself than the uncivilized; he is less impulsive; he knows that later he will repent of his act, and that it may have disagreeable consequences for him.
In the third place civilization inspires a great aversion to acts of violence.
Thus we come to the correlation between these crimes and the [[636]]education of the poor. The child is often moved to revenge, there is no inner check to restrain his passions. When his education has been neglected he runs, as his age advances, more danger than others of being guilty of these crimes. And then children are very imitative. If we had good statistics with regard to violent criminals we should see that they almost always spring from surroundings in which violence is common. All authors who are especially concerned with this matter are in agreement on this point.[530] The fact that parents among the lower classes use blows as a means of instruction has for its national consequence that when the children are grown they themselves have no fear of making use of violence.[531]
One further observation must be made here. Many persons think it quite natural that one should not have the right to avenge himself for an injury. Sociology, however, teaches us quite otherwise. Among primitive peoples revenge, instead of being a thing prohibited, is a sacred duty. Little by little vengeance, at first unlimited, became confined to “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; this in turn was replaced by the so called “compensation”; and this in its turn yielded to penalties inflicted by an authority superior to both parties.[532]
If we enquire which are the countries where homicides and assaults are committed most frequently we find that they are the most backward, and thus give a picture of time past. Here we have in mind especially Sicily (see the table with regard to Italy some pages higher) and Corsica (while between 1880 and 1884 there was an annual average of 6.4 homicides to the million inhabitants, the figure for homicides in Corsica was 110.2). Nothing is more mistaken than to believe that we have here a question of race. As Professor Tarde remarks (see the quotation on pp. 109–110), there have been times when the people of these countries were much less violent than the northern peoples, now so little given to this kind of crime. These two islands have so high a figure because the “vendetta” is still universal there, and because it is considered as a duty.[533]
Although in less degree, the case is almost the same with the lower classes of other countries as regards this type of crime. There are those who from their manner of life most resemble our distant ancestors. [[637]]They are not, at least so much as other classes of society, instilled with the idea that they have no right to avenge themselves personally. On the contrary it is often considered an act of cowardice to allow an insult or an injury to pass without taking revenge. This is why the police are often resisted and their interference considered as an intrusive meddling with matters with which they have no concern.
Such, in my opinion, are the principal reasons why the less civilized classes are guilty of these crimes, and thus we are given an idea of their etiology.
In the first table upon the relation between illiteracy and serious assaults (Germany) we added also the percentage of votes given to the socialists. As the table shows the percentage of these votes is in general smaller in the localities where the kind of crime of which we have been treating is most frequent; and vice versa. It is, then, evident that there is a correlation between the two phenomena, and this is easily explained. In the working circles in which socialism is beginning to make its way, there is growing little by little, an interest in things other than those which formerly occupied the working-men in their leisure hours. They begin to become civilized and to have an aversion to the coarser amusements. At the same time the feeling of solidarity is awakened in them, and thus a powerful moral check is created.
It was especially the figures for the crimes of vengeance that we placed beside those for the votes given to the socialists, since the relation between the two phenomena stands out very distinctly. This correlation, however, holds for criminality in general, for almost all the countries with a large number of socialist voters show also fairly low figures for criminality, and vice versa. Nevertheless this correlation is not as great for other crimes as for those which we are at present considering, which is explained by the fact that most of the criminals who are guilty of them are not much like other criminals, especially those who have no respect for property (criminals from poverty excepted). These last, greedy of pleasure, and always looking out for their own interests, are those who, as regards the intensity of their social instincts, occupy the last place. All this is inapplicable to criminals by violence; they are not always really wicked, and after their crime they often show a sincere repentance. Socialism exercises no influence upon the category of individuals from whom the economic criminals (from cupidity) are recruited, persons, that is to say, who think only of their own interest, and show themselves insensible to a movement for the well-being of the whole working class. [[638]]
We have still to speak of one question which is sometimes put in treating of this subject. If it is true, says some one, that it is principally in consequence of their ignorance and their lack of civilization that the lower classes commit the crimes in question, these crimes must little by little present themselves less often, for the development of these classes is improving, even if only gradually. Now criminal statistics do show a gradual diminution in these crimes. Homicide, the gravest form, has continually decreased in England, Switzerland, France, and Sweden (where it has been reduced to a very small figure), and in Italy (where a considerable diminution has been shown).[534] If we had criminal statistics much more ancient than the existing ones it would be shown that this crime has decreased enormously compared with remote epochs. The progress of civilization in the lower strata of society is very slow, and criminal statistics are all of relatively recent date.
Germany is, as far as I know, the only country where there has been any considerable increase in these crimes (except those against life) in the last twenty years. This exception does not, in my opinion, invalidate the rule. The lack of civilization among the lower orders is not the sole cause of these crimes; the innumerable conflicts engendered by the present social system are also a cause. Besides, the impulse given by the economic development in Germany during this period has hardly been equalled in other countries; it has seen its population grow and become congested, and conflicts increase in like proportion,[535] a cause sufficient to neutralize the civilization which brings it about. Further there is the possibility that the police and the courts have been more efficient during this period, so as to make the increase of crime seem greater than it really is.[536] Finally, alcoholism is increasing, and may also neutralize the effect of civilization.[537] [[639]]
We come, then, to one of the most important causes of this kind of crime, namely alcoholism. Not only is chronic alcoholism demoralizing (as we have seen on pp. 509 ff.), but drunkenness at the acute stage makes a person more disposed to commit acts of violence, and at the same time less able to control his instincts and passions. Further, the degree of civilization reached by the individual has a great influence upon his conduct when he is intoxicated; the civilized man is then much less dangerous than the man without education. Dr. Grotjahn puts it as follows: “The development of the moral consciousness is not without influence upon the harmlessness or danger of intoxication. Persons in whom the sense of responsibility for the consequences of their actions has been sharpened by education, whether they owe this to their teachers or their parents or to their own experience, in case they become intoxicated to the point of having their minds clouded, will still always keep a remnant of their power of judgment, which will hold them back from violent and disastrous actions. On the other hand, in the case of persons who lack all moral training, the scanty moral restraints which check their native impulses most quickly disappear.”[538]
An examination of the physiological process caused by large doses of alcohol not coming properly within the scope of a sociological work like this, it is sufficient to show that great quantities of alcohol undoubtedly do have this effect.[539] We shall accordingly pass on to the question of the correlation between violent crime and the acute stage of alcoholism.
There are different ways of attempting to settle this question. In Part One we have seen that some authors have tried the dynamic method, Fornasari di Verce, for example, showing that in Italy, Great Britain, Ireland, and New South Wales, these crimes increase and diminish with the consumption of alcohol. Professor Ferri shows that during the years 1849–1880 the increase and diminution of cases of assault in France coincide with the success and failure of the vintage.[540] [[640]]
Another method consists in inquiring what day of the week assaults are most frequent. If the abuse of alcohol is really an important factor in the etiology of these crimes more of them must be committed upon Sunday, Saturday, and Monday, for the abuse of alcohol is greatest on these days. The following table throws some light on the matter.[541]
Number of Assaults Committed on Different Days.
| Vienna | Korneuburg | Canton of Zürich | Düsseldorf. | Worms | ||
| (1896–97). | (1896–97). | (1890). | (1896–98). | |||
| Sunday | 68 | 72 | 60 | 121 | 142 | |
| Monday | 49 | 12 | 22 | 32 | 57 | |
| Tuesday | 27 | 11 | | 41 | 9 | 34 |
| Wednesday | 19 | 14 | 9 | 34 | ||
| Thursday | 19 | 15 | 5 | 35 | ||
| Friday | 18 | 4 | 4 | 27 | ||
| Saturday | 28 | 11 | 18 | 35 | 37 | |
The figures and the thesis agree, then, perfectly. It is plain, to be sure, that we cannot charge all the cases falling on Sunday to alcohol, since people come together more on that day, and hence the danger of a conflict is greater, but most of the Sunday cases are certainly due to alcohol.
Other authors compare the geography of these crimes with the consumption of alcohol. Professor Aschaffenburg, for example, in the study already quoted, points out the fact that in Germany the countries with the greatest number of assaults are also those where there is the largest consumption of alcohol.[542]
However, although these indirect methods are not without value, it seems to me that since they contain so many elements of uncertainty they yield to the direct method.[543] It is for this reason that I shall follow here especially the direct method and shall indicate the percentage of those who have committed these crimes when they were in a state of intoxication. Though making use of this direct method I do not think it infallible, but it is less liable to error than the others. [[641]]The especial weakness of it is that the persons who are accused pretend in extenuation that they committed their crimes in a state of drunkenness. Good statistics do not rely solely upon the statements of the prisoners, but also upon the facts brought out at the trial. And then, as Professor Löffler remarks, all those arraigned are not acute enough to simulate a state of drunkenness, and there are even those who, although addicted to overindulgence in alcohol, will deny that they were intoxicated, either from shame, or for fear of a more severe punishment.
Most criminal statistics do not concern themselves with this subject, and even those that do are less detailed than we might wish. Nevertheless they are sufficient, I believe, to prove the correlation in question.
Austria, 1896–1897.[544]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Convicts who Committed their Crimes in a State of Drunkenness. | |
| Vienna. | Korneuburg. | |
| Rebellion | 77.7 | 70.0 |
| Malicious mischief | 63.4 | 43.5 |
| Threats | 56.8 | 46.7 |
| Serious assaults | 54.1 | 56.4 |
Baden (Grand Duchy), 1895.
In 1895 64% of the cases of rebellion and 46% of the assaults were committed in a state of inebriety.[545]
Belgium, 1872–1895.
Out of the 2,045 convicts who entered the central prison at Louvain from 1874 to 1895, 344 or 16.8% were drunk at the time of committing the crime; of the 130 sentenced to hard labor for life 53, or 40.7%; of the 88 condemned to death 38, or 43.1%.[546] If we consider that a very great number of these criminals were guilty of economic crimes, and doubtless did not commit these in a state of intoxication, the percentage of those who must have committed crimes of vengeance in such a condition becomes very large. [[642]]
France.
At the penitentiary congress at Brussels Marambat reported that out of a total of 787 convicted of homicide, assault, etc., studied by him, there were 260 or 33% who committed their crimes in a state of drunkenness.[547]
Hungary, 1897.
At the same congress Dr. J. Fekete stated that in 1897, 75% of the 25,000 street brawls, 66% of the 1,574 cases of resistance to the authorities, 50% of the 13,564 serious assaults, and most of the homicides were committed in a state of intoxication.[548]
Massachusetts, 1894–1895.[549]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Crimes Committed in a State of Intoxication. |
| Malicious mischief | 70.0 |
| Homicide | 64.7 |
| Threats and violence | 59.6 |
| Murder | 25.0 |
| Resistance to officers | 19.0 |
Norway, 1886–1889.[550]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Prisoners who had Committed their Crimes in a State of Intoxication. |
| Resistance to officers | 81.8 |
| Homicide | 66.6 |
| Assault | 55.0 |
| Threats | 40.0 |
Netherlands, 1901.
The criminal statistics of the Netherlands being among the few that give any information upon this point, the following table is of real importance:[551]
| Crimes. | Percentage of Convicts who Committed their Crimes in a State of Intoxication. |
| Serious assaults | 51.88 |
| Resistance to officers | 58.04 |
| Malicious mischief | 41.69 |
| Threats | 39.77 |
| Assaults | 31.27 |
[[643]]
Sweden, 1887–1897.
During this period, out of 2,020 convicted of crimes against the authorities, 1,648, or 81.5%, had committed their crimes in a state of intoxication, and 4,358, or 67.4% out of 6,464 convicted of murder, homicide, and other crimes of violence.[552]
Switzerland, 1892–1896.
The official statistics for these years tell us that 34.8% of the assaults and homicides were caused by alcohol.[553]
It cannot be claimed, of course, that none of these crimes would have been committed if their authors had not been drunk, but everyone will agree with me that these high percentages show that acute alcoholism is a very important cause.
We have now reached the end of our remarks upon the etiology of these crimes, and have shown that the principal causes are, first, the present structure of society, which brings about innumerable conflicts; second, the lack of civilization and education among the poorer classes; and third, alcoholism, which is in turn a consequence of the social environment.[554]
What part is played in these crimes by the so-called individual factors? It seems to me that it is like that which the individual factors play in other crimes—they explain in part which are the individuals that commit the crimes, but they do not explain why the crimes are committed.
This is totally contrary to what many criminologists claim, namely that it is especially the effect of individual factors that is seen in these crimes. Statistics prove the inaccuracy of this. If it were true these crimes ought to appear equally in all classes of society, which, as we have seen, is not the case. A choleric person naturally runs more danger of committing such a crime than one who is phlegmatic; but no one will deny that in all classes the proportion of the persons born with a choleric disposition is the same. However, the influence of environment brings it about that in the well-to-do classes even the [[644]]choleric run little danger of such a crime. Superficial civilization (for a veneer is all that a great part of the bourgeoisie possesses) is sufficient to limit these crimes to an insignificant minimum.
The obviousness of the reasons which have caused these acts to be classed as crimes is such that it is needless to speak of them. In a society like ours, with its numerous conflicts and its dense population, life would be impossible if the individual were not forbidden to avenge himself personally. Sociology teaches us that vengeance, at first permitted, and even obligatory, has become a prohibited act, because of the great harm it does to society.[555]
B. Infanticide.
There are two chief motives for infanticide, which operate separately or together, namely, fear of dishonor, and poverty. We shall speak first of the former and put the question to begin with, what sort of persons are guilty of this crime? Criminal statistics answer that—
First, they are, almost without exception, women.
Second, they are unmarried women much oftener than married.
Third, the guilty are almost exclusively very poor. According to Italian statistics 88.1% of them are indigent; in Austria, 90.8%; and there are no rich or well-to-do women among them.
Fourth, the women of the working class are much more often guilty than those of the independent class, and the class of domestics furnishes especially a very high figure (Germany). These results are confirmed by the data of other countries. In Austria 80% of those convicted between 1880 and 1882 were domestics,[556] and in France the same was true of 35% of those convicted between 1876 and 1880.[557]
Fifth, the women working in the fields are especially likely to fall into this crime (Germany); the data of other countries also show that it is especially in the country that infanticide is committed. Dr. Socquet shows that in France between 1871 and 1875 there were, to the million inhabitants, 35 persons arraigned out of the rural population, and 22 to the urban.[558]
Sixth, illiteracy is very frequent among those convicted of infanticide. We have seen that in Austria 39.5%, in France 20.0%, and [[645]]in Italy 92.9% were illiterate. Women knowing more than how to read and write were not found among these criminals.
Most of the cases of infanticide are identical; it generally is, as Fournier says, “a girl who has allowed herself to have a child without the permission of the municipality”, and who has been abandoned by her lover.
The ruling moral ideas place before her a frightful dilemma; if her pregnancy is known by those about her and the child remains alive, she is covered with ignominy, and a painful life awaits her. On the other hand if she makes the child disappear, the others ignore everything, and she avoids dishonor and its consequences. She therefore attempts to conceal her pregnancy as long as possible, in the hope of a miscarriage. But when she finds herself disappointed, when not only terrible physical pains, but also mental tortures are making her almost mad[559]—then it happens that she kills her child.
Statistics show that most of these crimes are committed by women of the lower classes. The number of unmarried mothers is here relatively great; infanticide is quite rare (though a little more frequent than one would suppose from the criminal statistics). There must be special circumstances, therefore, to lead some of these women to this crime. As we have seen in treating of marriage, the ideas of intimate relations between persons who are not married are much less severe in the proletariat, than in the bourgeoisie (a consequence of the fact that the social causes of marriage are much less strong in the latter than in the former), so that among the proletariat these relations are pretty common. If they have consequences, the father and mother generally marry. In this case the idea of killing the child does not come to the woman. The unmarried mothers (very often domestics), who are guilty of this crime are especially those who, seduced and then abandoned by men of a higher class, have no family that can receive them.
Besides women of the working class, there are also among the infanticides some of the petty bourgeoisie, where the moral disapproval of extra-matrimonial sexual commerce is very severe.
Not all women who find themselves in the situation described commit the crime in question, of course. One will reason more than another, and will prefer dishonor to the danger of a criminal trial; one woman has the maternal instinct more fully developed than another, etc. In relation to the social sentiments we see here a situation [[646]]contrary to what occurs in the case of most crimes. Crime is an egoistic act, that is to say an act which injures the interests of others. This is true of infanticide, but this differs from most of the other crimes in being committed to escape moral disapproval, while they are committed only to obtain a personal profit or to satisfy the passions. This is why those guilty of infanticide are not generally those whose social sentiments have little intensity, as is mostly the case with those who are guilty of economic or sexual crimes. Infanticides are persons sensitive to the opinion of others, while those who have little social feeling easily bear shame.[560]
These individual differences explain in part which are the individuals who become guilty of the crime in question, but not the cause of its existence. There are only a few crimes whose social origin is as clear as that of infanticide. If the present structure of society did not make the present form of marriage necessary, and thus bring about moral disapprobation of extra-matrimonial sexual relations, there would be no infanticide caused by fear of dishonor.[561]
The repression of some of the strongest natural desires, required by our present society, is so great that these requirements are bound to be violated by some individuals in whom these desires are very pronounced. This is true not only in the sphere of the economic life, but also in that of the sexual life. As long as cupidity is awakened in many, while only a few can satisfy it, theft will exist; as long as the satisfaction of the sexual desires is permitted only after certain economic conditions have been complied with, the prohibition will be violated, and some persons will try to destroy the evidence of their acts.[562]
Besides the fear of shame, poverty also plays a part in the etiology of infanticide. Again, it is the two motives combined that are responsible. The great number of infanticides among domestics are not committed simply from fear of shame, but also because the mother, abandoned by everyone (especially in a country where inquiry into paternity is prohibited) does not know how to support her child. Besides these cases there are some committed from [[647]]poverty alone, for example when married women commit this crime (something, it should be added, which happens very rarely).
Some statistical data will show that poverty is a fairly important factor in the etiology of infanticide. Dr. Weiss shows that in Belgium infanticide increased greatly in the years that were bad economically (see p. 63 of Pt. I), and Dr. Starke does the same for Prussia (see p. 66).[563]
As we have pointed out above, infanticide for the cause of poverty was quite general among primitive peoples, since they were not in a position to support a large population. It was for this reason that the act was not considered immoral, and that it was even required in some cases. In consequence of the continually increasing productivity of labor, infanticide fell more and more into desuetude, and at the same time was considered more and more reprehensible.[564] [[648]]
CHAPTER V.
POLITICAL CRIMES.
Finally we have still to treat of political offenses, offenses which, in comparison with others, occur very rarely, and which by their nature are totally different.[565]
The origin of the state, and the possibility of political crimes, are bound up with a certain phase of the development of the economic life, that is to say with the origin of marked contrasts of fortune. Those who had monopolized the power in the state defended their position by laws whose infraction was threatened with severe penalties. Economic conditions, however, undergo considerable changes, and when these have reached a certain degree, the oppressed class, having become the more powerful, breaks the political power of the ruling class and seizes it for itself. If the dominant class does all that it can to maintain its position unimpaired to the last moment, it will necessarily happen that this development will lead to political crimes. This kind of political crime may be called great political criminality. In western Europe the last great struggle of this nature was that of the feudal classes and the bourgeoisie. The former, once necessary, had become superfluous and harmful; the bourgeoisie on the other hand, from an insignificant class had become the most important. It overturned the whole political system which embarrassed it, seized the power, and transformed the state according to the exigencies of the economic system. A repetition of the same process in eastern Europe we are now witnessing in the changes going on in Russia. The economic development no longer corresponds to the political system, [[649]]which sooner or later will inevitably be replaced by the modern system.
It would be a waste of time to insist upon the fact that those who commit these acts have nothing in common with ordinary criminals but the name. Most criminals are individuals whose social sentiments are reduced to a minimum, and who injure others purely for the satisfaction of their own desires. The political criminals of whom we are speaking, on the other hand, are the direct opposite; they risk their most sacred interests, their liberty and their life, for the benefit of society; they injure the ruling class only to aid the oppressed classes, and consequently all humanity. While the ordinary criminal is generally “l’homme canaille” (as van Benedikt phrases it in his “Biologie und Kriminalstatistik”) the political criminal is “homo nobilis.” History rights the matter, for the name of the ordinary great criminal is pronounced only with horror, and ends by falling into oblivion, while the political criminal survives in the memory of posterity as a hero.[566]
We must put in the same class the political criminals who aim to deliver a subjugated people from their oppressors. The authors of these crimes also have nothing in common with ordinary criminals.
Besides these two kinds of political crimes, which are plainly collective in their nature, there are cases of crimes committed by individuals which for the most part are attempts upon the life of the monarch or of one of his representatives. The more absolute a government, the more liberty is restricted, and the less chance there is, consequently, of seeing the situation changed by legal means, the greater will become the danger that one of those oppressed will kill the autocrat, either to better the situation or to take revenge for what he and his have suffered. Anyone who wants to follow the genesis of this kind of crime has only to turn to Russia. There all the factors meet which lead to political homicide; the repression of all freedom, a corrupt bureaucracy, and the impossibility of obtaining the least change by legal means.
These circumstances naturally excite the revengeful feelings which sooner or later show themselves in acts. Though we may have the conviction that these acts are almost always useless, though we may have a deep aversion to violence—this does not justify us in ranking those who do these things with ordinary criminals. It matters not [[650]]how we may abhor violence as such; every reasonable man will justify it when it serves to defend oneself, and most of the acts of political criminals in Russia are only acts of defense against the unheard-of cruelty and violence of the government.[567]
Finally there remains a third kind of political crimes, analogous to ordinary crime, the assassination of the monarch by individuals who thus attempt to place themselves in power. These are actuated by the same vile motives that inspire the robber-murderer—cupidity, desire to dominate, etc.
Now what are the political crimes committed in our days? Leaving aside the case of Russia, which is still living in an epoch that western Europe has left behind, there are only the political crimes of socialists and anarchists. There is little to be said about those committed by socialists. The international social democracy attempts to reach its end by legal means. Since the fall of absolutism it has been possible to exercise an influence on the state in this way, an influence which varies with the country. It is this possibility that the social democracy makes use of. In conformity with its fundamental principles it rejects all violence against the head of the state. Accordingly its partisans have never committed such acts. The more democratic the constitution of a country, the less justification the social democracy will have for political crimes, as in Switzerland, for example, a country where the penal code, moreover, mentions but few political crimes. In other countries, where the democratic institutions are weak, where the constitutional monarchy has still an absolutist character, and where social democracy has become powerful, as in Germany, political crimes are inevitable. Their number, however, is insignificant in comparison with ordinary crimes. From a criminological point of view they have little importance, though often punished severely, and they are generally limited to the crime of leze majesty. Social democrats are, then, sometimes guilty of minor political offenses, and in some countries only. Whether this party will not in the future be guilty of crime of the great political type, or, in other words, whether it will not come to political revolution, is another question and one that no one can answer with certainty. Like all the bourgeoisie when the contest with the feudal classes was still going on, the social democrats are a revolutionary class; they wish to place society upon a basis different from the [[651]]present one. It is possible that in democratic countries they will attain this by legal means, and consequently without there being any reason for political crime. However, it may also happen that at a given moment when the proletariat forms the majority of the legislative body, the ruling class may have recourse to a “coup d’état”, to a political crime, in order to prevent the proletariat from governing. This possibility is even a probability in some countries, where the opposition of classes is very marked. In Germany, for example, where the social democracy is very powerful, it is very likely that the government will attempt some day to suppress universal suffrage by a “coup d’état.” It is only in such a case that the social democracy will in its turn abandon the legal way and be forced to have recourse to other methods.
In the second place there are the political crimes of anarchists. Their number is not great enough for us to learn their etiology from statistics.[568] We must therefore analyze individual cases. What are the individuals that are guilty of these? The anarchists of the propaganda are most exclusively young men. Leauthier and Langs were 20 years old, Angelillo also, Henry 21, Caserio 21, Schwabe 23, Pallas 24, Lucheni 25, Vaillant and Bresci 31, and Salvador 33, at the time they committed their crimes, and as far as I know there were none of them who were over 33. In disposition they were very excitable. As soon as an idea took hold of them they thought of nothing else. Chance brought them into contact with anarchism which immediately made a conquest of them. Brought up in another environment they would have become, for example, religious devotees; in fact Caserio, Salvador, Vaillant, Cyvoct, and Henry were such before becoming anarchists.[569]
Extreme individualism is also a characteristic of theirs.[570] They abhor discipline, from which it follows that they nourish a fierce hatred of militarism. Even a mild form of discipline, such as that of a party of which one voluntarily becomes a member, is insupportable to them. Some of them have been socialists, but have soon left the party. Among these was Henry, who says in his defense: “For an instant I was attracted by socialism, but I did not delay in separating myself from this party. I had too much love for liberty, too much respect for individual initiative, too much repugnance to [[652]]incorporation, to take a number in the enlisted army of the fourth estate.”[571]
Another characteristic of nearly all active anarchists, and one intimately connected with the preceding, is great vanity. Lucheni, for instance, in speaking of his crime said, “I wanted to kill a person of note, because that would get into print.” Vaillant had himself photographed before making his attack, distributed his portraits right and left, and when arrested asked whether the journals had printed his picture, etc.
These traits of character, observed in the case of these individuals, are not rare; vain and excitable individualists are fairly numerous, yet almost none become active anarchists. We must therefore seek the explanation elsewhere, and ask ourselves the question, in what environment have they lived? When the president of the tribunal before which Lucheni appeared, asked him what was the motive that led him to commit his act, he replied, “It was poverty.” This is applicable to almost all the active anarchists. See, for example, the life of Vaillant. An illegitimate child without any education, he had to earn his living at the age of 12; having escaped from his employer, with whom he was living, he implored his mother to take him in. Rebuffed he had himself arrested by the police, but when he was once more brought back to his parents they refused anew to receive him. He tried to make his own way, but failed in all that he undertook. It was when embittered by all the miseries he had experienced that he became acquainted with socialism, but finding this too theoretical he ranked himself on the side of the anarchists, and the last link in this chain of misery was his well-known crime.[572]
There are authors who claim that poverty is not to be considered as one of the principal causes of anarchy, and in support of their assertion cite the case of Henry and some others, who while not living in easy circumstances, yet did not know the blackest poverty. Those who reason thus have a false notion of the motives that impel anarchists. It is not only the poverty that they have themselves experienced that moves them, but also, and chiefly, the poverty of others. Those who remain insensible to the sufferings of their neighbors never become anarchists; for not being able to draw any personal profit from anarchism, they consider it madness. Placed in unfavorable conditions such persons become ordinary criminals, or commit suicide. They never sacrifice themselves for an ideal. [[653]]
Thus we come to another psychological trait of the anarchists, namely that they are born with pronounced altruistic tendencies.[573] It is their altruism which separates them from the ordinary great criminal, whose social instincts are very weak.[574]
It seems paradoxical to say that persons who commit such acts are of an altruistic nature, but the paradox is only apparent. When two persons, an egoist and an altruist, see a child being maltreated, the former goes on his way saying that he would only get himself into trouble if he interfered; the latter, on the other hand, delivers the child from his tormentor, to whom he may give a good thrashing in addition. Here the violent person is the altruist, the other the egoist. Every comparison is imperfect, and this is the case with the one before us, but there is some analogy between the act cited and those of the anarchists. The crimes which they commit are egoistic towards certain persons, but altruistic with reference to others. As a consequence of their own poverty and of the irritation they feel when they see that of their fellows, they have been seized with a hatred of society and wish to avenge themselves. These sentiments are not tempered by much intellectual development. This is a very important factor in the development of active anarchism. Almost all these persons are either very ignorant or have only an elementary education, some know a little more, and persons of thorough education are not found at all among them. Further, most of them lack pronounced intellectual aptitudes, but are rather especially impulsive.[575]
These individuals, excitable, vain, with little intellectual capacity, and ignorant in addition, but oppressed by their own poverty and that of others, and filled with a hatred of society, come into contact with anarchism. It is unnecessary to give an exposition of this doctrine;[576] the active anarchists in their ignorance get no clear idea of [[654]]any theory whatever, and certainly not of anything as vague and confused as anarchism. They have heard it said that it looks to the formation of a society of altruists where there will be no more poverty, and this appeals to their altruistic instincts; at the same time anarchism gives a preponderating part to the individual, and this draws their vanity. Thus their hate increases, and at the same time attaches itself to certain individuals, whom anarchism holds responsible for existing conditions. Further, the absurd opinion has been instilled into them that it is possible for society to be reorganized at a single stroke, and that to attain this end it will be necessary to use violence.
Is it astonishing that such individuals come to attempt homicide? No; to be sure all persons of this kind do not go so far; for that it would be necessary that other conditions should be complied with. It is plain that persons with a great aversion to violence would run little risk of attempting an assassination; with others it is courage that is lacking; others still attach too high a price to life and liberty to be willing to risk them; etc. We must note this last point especially. Generally active anarchists are persons who care nothing for a life in which they have nothing further to lose. Their conduct in court and their indifference in the face of death are proof of this; knowing beforehand that they will almost certainly not go unpunished their act is often an indirect suicide.
If we ask what the active anarchists wish to attain by their crimes the answer is principally that they wish to avenge upon society the misery experienced by others and by themselves,[577] they wish to terrorize the ruling classes, in order to force upon them social reforms; they wish to set an example to the working classes and finally, they wish to satisfy their vanity, by making themselves talked of. Once committed, the crime is often the commencement of a vicious circle, since society avenges itself upon the author, who, in turn, is avenged by his friends; imitation thus leading to new crimes.
As in the case of all other crimes, I find for anarchism only social causes, and in the last analysis, only economic causes. To be sure, the individuals who commit these crimes are already predisposed in that direction, but this is true of other crimes also. Only the predisposition in these latter is simple, while that which leads to anarchistic crimes is much more complex. However, this predisposition alone explains nothing. I would ask those who think that only individual factors play any part, whether fanatical persons with [[655]]all the characteristics of the anarchists of our time have not been found in all ages and countries. Everyone, I think, will answer in the affirmative. Well then, anarchistic crimes have occurred only during a certain period and in certain countries. No one can deny that there are as many persons predisposed to anarchistic crimes in a country like Germany, as there are in Italy, for example. Yet anarchistic crimes do not occur in Germany, for the good reason that the material conditions of the proletariat there are so much better than in Italy, and the degree of intellectual development in the working people is so much higher; the German working-man derides the “naïveté” of the anarchists, and detests their futile crimes. It is in the environment alone then that we find the causes of active anarchism, the poverty and ignorance in which the lower classes live. [[656]]
CHAPTER VI.
PATHOLOGICAL CRIMES.
So far we have been examining crime in its relation to the economic and social environment. We have not been able to discover the existence of individual factors; the celebrated formula, “crime = individual factor + social factor,” has been shown to be incorrect if we are seeking for the causes of crime instead of asking why a certain individual has become a criminal. The conclusion obtained by sociology is the same as that arrived at in anthropology by authors like Manouvrier, Baer, and Näcke.
However, when one is trying to determine the cause of crime by sociology, certain cases are at times met with that cannot be explained in this way. For example, one person will steal useless objects which he is perfectly well able to buy; another will assault or kill without provocation, etc. These cases, it is true, are the exception, but they do exist and must not be neglected.[578] We have here, then, real individual factors, factors which are found in certain individuals only. Other crimes, forming the great majority, are committed from motives which form the basis of all human acts, but are stronger with some few than they are with the general body of mankind. It is these individuals who run more danger than most of committing a crime when they live in a certain environment. The great mass of criminals differ only quantitatively from persons who never get into the courts; the criminals we are about to consider on the other hand differ qualitatively also.
One thing more before we ask ourselves what this individual factor is. As many authors have remarked, it very often happens that, even in the cases we are about to treat, there is a social factor.[579] [[657]]The proof of this is that individuals thus disposed to crime, but belonging to the well-to-do classes, seldom get to the point of committing them; because their education being better, the tendency is sooner noticed, they are better watched, and thus their committing a crime is often avoided. Born-criminals, in the sense of those who become criminals whatever the circumstances may be (the only meaning that can properly be given to the word “born” here), are doubtless very rare.[580]
What, then, is the nature of this individual factor? It is especially the Italian school that has busied itself with this problem, and in doing so has rendered a service to science, although it has given an undue importance to this individual factor, attempting to discover it in all crimes. The first hypothesis given by Professor Lombroso was that of atavism, according to which the criminal was an individual in whom reappeared the characteristics of his remote ancestors, the desire to steal, kill, etc. It will not be far from the truth if we assert that almost no reputable scientist now accepts this hypothesis as correct. It has been attacked both from the side of sociology and from that of anthropology. Sociologists have proved that the facts contradict Professor Lombroso’s thesis, for primitive peoples are neither thieves nor murderers, and our ancestors, consequently, may be regarded as cleared of the same charge.[581]
Anthropologists also are strongly opposed to this hypothesis. In his article, “De geboren misdadiger” (the born-criminal) Professor Jelgersma says that most of the anomalies observed in certain criminals have no atavistic character, such as unsymmetrical eyes and ears, abnormal growth of hair, etc.[582] Dr. A. Baer makes the same remark in his “Der Verbrecher in anthropologischer Beziehung”, and goes on as follows: “The number of such abnormalities, which betray a disordered and an apparently genuine atavistic condition, is … so small and so accidental, that no force can be recognized in them that [[658]]might serve for the explanation of criminality, or establish a causal connection with the criminal nature of an individual. Out of this mixture of stigmata of the most various origin and importance, to attempt to find the sole basis in their atavistic character is to do more than permissible violence to the facts.[583]
After this beginning the Italian school put forth another explanation, to which it attached the more importance as the hypothesis of atavism fell into discredit: the criminal is either an epileptic or morally insane. Although the correctness of this hypothesis has not been proved any more than the other,[584] the Italian school here found itself in a field recognized by criminal-anthropologists as its true one. At present one has even the right to say that the opinion in this regard is almost unanimous.[585] The origin of the tendencies of part of the criminals is to be found in the pathological nature of the individuals themselves.[586] These are disordered or degenerate, not, as some authors would have us believe, individuals differing more or less from the average, but persons who suffer from mental diseases, or whose nervous system is affected.[587]
Among those disordered and degenerate, some individuals[588] have tendencies not found in others (such as the desire to kill for the sake of killing), or their moral sentiments are excessively weak. It is to be noticed that we have met with degeneracy above, as it is to be named among the causes of alcoholism and prostitution also. In treating of economic crimes we saw that degenerates also run more danger than others of succumbing in the struggle for existence, and hence become criminals more easily. Thus we meet degeneracy both as a direct and as an indirect cause of crime. [[659]]
We might leave the matter here, for we have come to a field other than that of sociology. However, one more question presents itself. To what extent are the economic system and its consequences the cause of these maladies? It is plain that this important question belongs in a work on sociology. We shall accordingly attempt to answer it briefly with the aid of competent authorities.
First of all, we note that heredity plays a great part in these maladies. The authors who have taken up the subject agree. It has been remarked that:
First, the inheritance of defects is not inevitable; degenerate parents may have sound children, though the chances are not very great.
Second, the disease of the parents is not always transmitted as such to the child, but the child may be predisposed to this same disease or one analogous. Dr. Féré expresses this as follows: “The diseases of the nervous system … make up a single family, indissolubly united by the laws of heredity … everyone (of those who have these diseases), if he is still fertile, can reproduce them all.”[589]
In speaking of heredity we come to the first relation between the diseases in question and the social environment, since, in our present society, human reproduction is intimately bound up with the economic life. A person who is diseased but rich is often in a position to marry and procreate, while he would have had a smaller chance if sexual selection alone had been effective. On the other hand many well and strong individuals are prevented at present from establishing a family, since they lack the means to support it.
A second harmful kind of selection in our present society is found in the effect of militarism, which takes the strongest individuals, decimates them in time of war, or returns them to society weakened and diseased, while the weak have the greater chance to procreate.
In the third place, the ignorance of the harmful effects for humanity of the reproduction of degenerates is one of the principal reasons why degeneracy is so frequently present. This ignorance is great in the well-to-do classes, and naturally greater still among the poor. It is often repeated, and with truth, that man takes great care to improve his live stock by selection but takes none whatever in the matter of his own race; the weak and the diseased continue to reproduce themselves to the detriment of all society. The lack of all feeling of responsibility, natural to our intensely individualistic society, also [[660]]contributes its share toward bringing to birth so many unhappy creatures for whom it would have been better if they had never existed.
If we ask how it happens that one individual or another is degenerate, we must answer that very often this degeneracy is due to heredity, either in part or altogether. But if we enquire into the causes of degeneracy in general heredity ceases to be a cause. As Professor Dallemagne says: “Heredity creates nothing; from heredity to heredity we must still go back to the cause.”[590]
What are at present the principal characteristics of the relation between degeneracy and the present economic system with its consequences? Some authors in treating of the etiology of degeneracy express themselves only in general terms, and point out no other cause than “unfavorable circumstances.” Professor Jelgersma, for example, says: “The simple psychoses, melancholia, mania, etc. are caused by unfavorable circumstances. The cause of the psychoses of degeneracy is deeper; the unfavorable circumstances have exercised their influence from generation to generation, and thus an individual is born who is abnormal from birth.”[591]
These unfavorable circumstances must be more precisely defined, therefore. We shall divide them into four great groups.[592]
First. The material condition of the poor classes. “To be well,” says Dr. Toulouse, “one must be sufficiently fed, must clothe himself according to the season, be clean, not work beyond one’s strength, and be more or less exempt from care.”[593] This is a simple truth of which all the world is convinced when it is a question of themselves or of their families, but which the physicians forget only too often when they are speaking of the social causes of diseases.[594]
In the first place the poor classes are badly and insufficiently fed, and as a consequence grow weak, and the children born to them are inferior physically and mentally. The insufficient nourishment of the mother during her pregnancy, and the insufficient nourishment of [[661]]the child during the first years of his life, are especially fatal to him. Then those who are badly fed are predisposed to tuberculosis, scrofula, and rickets, which, in their turn, may be the causes of degeneracy.[595] Rickety women often have a contraction of the pelvis, which hinders child-birth, and may cause a lesion to the infant’s brain. Note, for example, the opinion of Dr. Näcke, who says: “The social misery, bad hygiene and food … often enough beget a miserable generation and must already have injured the germ. The same causes, however, on the other hand easily produce feeble women with qualitatively and quantitatively insufficient milk, and most of all with a narrow pelvis, through which births take place with difficulty and to the detriment of the brain of the child. If now the above named factors come in later to affect the child, the derangement of nutrition will be further increased, and it is no wonder if all kinds of rickety and scrofulous symptoms appear in the body, and all kinds of children’s ailments injure both body and mind.”[596]
In the second place, unsanitary dwellings and insufficient clothing are the cause of all sorts of diseases, especially tuberculosis, which in their turn may lead to degeneracy.[597] The density of population in the great cities exercises its influence in the same direction.
In the third place, the long duration and intensity of the work forced upon the proletariat also contribute to degeneracy. For each individual there is a fixed measure of labor that he cannot pass without experiencing harmful consequences in body and mind. Dr. Lewy describes them as follows: “The consequences of immoderately long hours of labor are, a certain overexcitement of the nervous system, which later gives place to a permanent debility, with which may be associated a dull headache as well as an inability to think clearly. If the overwork continues for a longer time, soon all the systems of the body are affected, the heart and larger arteries as well are injured in structure and function, disturbances of the regular circulation appear, manifested partly in swellings in various parts of the body, especially in the feet, and partly through hemorrhages. The brain ceases to function regularly, and so-called brain-symptoms appear, such as vertigo, ringing in the ears, deafness, defective vision, paralysis, and apoplexy. In the same way the liver, kidneys, and the digestive tract may be drawn into the general weakening process. The muscles become weak and slack, the body disposed to epidemic [[662]]diseases, but especially prepared to vocational diseases, to which persons in a run-down condition most easily fall victim. If, then, the end of the worker is not brought about prematurely by some intercurrent disease like typhus, under the immoderate strain he uses up his existing forces faster than he is in a position to replace them, and wastes away with tuberculosis of the lungs, so much the quicker, of course, the weaker he is constitutionally, and the younger he was when he had to submit to excessive labor.”[598]
The harmful consequences of long working hours make themselves felt especially in the trades which are already dangerous to health, like those where there is a great deal of dust produced, or those which use poisons like lead, mercury, etc.[599] Monotony of work joined with long hours is also a cause of physical and intellectual deterioration. Professor Vogt says: “The less variety work presents, the more fatiguing is it, since it is only the same part of the muscles that are continually called upon, while the rest of the muscular system, in accordance with a well-known physiological law, degenerates from misuse and wastes away. To a still higher degree the uniformity of work has a deteriorating effect upon the mental powers; these become weakened much more quickly in the case of long continued fatigue than the muscles, while the unexercised mental faculties at the same time become stunted.”[600]
The present economic system has also led to the work of women and children, and consequently to an important cause of the degeneration of the race. The number of women forced to take part in trades for which they are ill-fitted by nature is very great. The fear of being discharged, and the impossibility of doing without their wages make women with child continue to work up to the last moment of their pregnancy, and recommence shortly after childbirth, leading to very harmful results both for them and for their children.[601] Then child labor prevents the normal development of the children and ages them prematurely.[602]
Further, the cares and restlessness consequent upon the uncertainty of life may be causes of the weakening of the nervous system and the origin of a neurosis.
Finally, when an individual of this class falls sick his restoration to [[663]]health may be hindered by the lack of care and medical assistance and the necessity of recommencing work too soon.[603]
Second. The condition of the well-to-do classes. Most of the causes producing degeneracy in the poor classes do not appear among the well-to-do. With the latter there can be no question of insufficient food or clothing, or of bad housing. Yet in the well-to-do classes the idle, from their manner of living and this lack of regular exercise, are led to excesses of all kinds, which may make them too, in another way, subject to degeneracy.[604]
In the active part of the bourgeoisie, among the manufacturers, merchants, etc., the case is different. They are constantly absorbed in the question of how to increase their wealth, or, if they are unfortunate, they live in fear of losing the position gained. They are in a state of agitation, of permanent overexcitement. So there are numbers in the bourgeois class who overtax their minds, with the resulting chance of neurasthenia, even where the individual is not predisposed to it. All this applies also to the liberal professions, though in a smaller degree; there also the great competition has harmful consequences for the nerves. In “La famille névropathique” Dr. Féré thus describes the consequences of overdriving: “… excessive cerebral labor, intellectual and, still more, moral overwork, the continual preoccupations of the struggle for existence are conditions eminently fit to bring on functional troubles in the nervous system. Neurasthenia, like hysteria, may be considered as a chronic fatigue. The fatigue, to be sure, gives place to a number of troubles peculiar to neurasthenia. And these troubles, even if only temporary, cannot fail to have the most harmful effect upon children conceived under these conditions.”[605]
The opinion of the celebrated alienist Maudsley is also very interesting; he says: “Perhaps one, and certainly not the least, of the ill effects which spring from some of the conditions of our present civilization, is seen in the general dread and disdain of poverty, in the eager passion to become rich. The practical gospel of the age, testified [[664]]everywhere by faith and works, is that of money-getting; men are estimated mainly by the amount of their wealth, take social rank accordingly, and consequently bend all their energies to acquire that which gains them esteem and influence. The result is that in the higher departments of trade and commerce speculations of all sorts are eagerly entered on, and that many people are kept in a continued state of excitement and anxiety by the fluctuations of the money market. In the lower branches of trade there is the same eager desire for petty gains; and the continued absorption of the mind in these small acquisitions generates a littleness of mind and meanness of spirit, where it does not lead to actual dishonesty, which are nowhere displayed in a more pitiable form than by certain petty tradesmen. The occupation which a man is entirely engaged in does not fail to modify his character, and the reaction upon the individual’s nature of a life which is being spent with the sole aim of becoming rich, is most baneful. It is not that the fluctuations of excitement unhinge the merchant’s mind and lead to maniacal outbreaks, although that does sometimes happen; it is not that failure in the paroxysm of some crisis prostrates his energies and makes him melancholic, although that also is occasionally witnessed; but it is that exclusiveness of his life-aim and occupation too often saps the moral or altruistic element in his nature, makes him become egoistic, formal, and unsympathetic, and in his person deteriorates the nature of humanity. What is the consequence? If one conviction has been fixed in my mind more distinctly than another by observation of instances, it is that it is extremely unlikely such a man will beget healthy children; on the contrary, it is extremely likely that the deterioration of nature which he has acquired will be transmitted as an evil heritage to his children. In several instances in which the father has toiled upwards from poverty to vast wealth, with the aim and hope of founding a family, I have witnessed the results in a degeneracy, mental and physical, of his offspring, which has sometimes gone as far as extinction of the family in the third or fourth generation. When the evil is not so extreme as madness or ruinous vice, the savour of a mother’s influence having been present, it may still be manifest in an instinctive cunning and duplicity, and an extreme selfishness of nature—a nature not having the capacity of a true moral conception or altruistic feeling. Whatever opinion other more experienced observers may hold, I cannot but think, after what I have seen, that the extreme passion for getting rich, absorbing the whole energies of life, does predispose to mental degeneration in the offspring—either to moral defect, or to [[665]]moral and intellectual deficiency, or to outbreaks of positive insanity under the conditions of life.”[606]
We could cite a number of other competent authorities to prove that the present economic system exacts from those who direct production also, intellectual efforts such as the nervous system cannot endure indefinitely.[607]
Third. Syphilis. Aside from the fact that this malady is very probably the cause of general paralysis,[608] it takes its place among the important factors of degeneracy to this extent, that the children of syphilitics are often degenerates. This fact being generally recognized we shall not dwell on it. The celebrated German specialist in syphilis, Blaschko, says of it: “Syphilis leads to the birth of children who are mentally and physically stunted, and often crippled and imbecile.”[609]
This would not be the time to speak of syphilis as a cause of degeneracy, if the extension of this malady were not intimately bound up with prostitution, which is, in its turn, determined by the economic environment. Dr. Blaschko says of it: “The principal source of venereal infection of course is, and remains, sexual intercourse outside of wedlock, especially prostitution.”[610]
As a social cause of the great extension of syphilis it is well to point out the profound ignorance of the extent and the danger of venereal diseases,[611] to which less attention is paid than to others (hospitals not receiving patients affected by them, relief funds not aiding those having syphilis, etc.). Like other diseases these have the most harmful consequences for those who live under bad conditions.[612]
Fourth. Alcoholism. Alcoholism undoubtedly belongs to the very important causes of degeneracy. There are few questions upon which competent authors are as unanimous as they are upon this. There is [[666]]a wealth of material for quotation but we will limit ourselves to the words of Professor Dallemagne, who, after quoting the opinion of such authorities as Morel, Magnan, and others concludes by saying: “Alcohol is an essential factor of degeneracy. It can by itself create all the degenerate and unbalanced states, and this question appears definitely decided.”[613] Dr. Legrain gives the following figures upon the consequences of chronic alcoholism of the parents upon the children.[614] Out of 215 families of alcoholics in four generations (814 individuals) there were found: 42% of alcoholics, 60.9% of degenerates, 13.9% morally insane, 22.7% had had convulsions, 20% were hysterical or epileptic, and 19% were insane.[615] These are striking figures, and banish all doubt of the harmful influence of alcohol!
It must still further be observed, that the very frequent adulteration of alcohol leads to especially harmful consequences;[616] and that alcohol exerts an especially harmful effect upon the ill-nourished.[617]
We have come now to the end of our remarks upon the social and economic causes of degeneracy. Although they are plainly not the only ones, yet it is certain that their part in the etiology of degeneracy is very important, and even preponderating. [[667]]
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUSIONS.
What are the conclusions to be drawn from what has gone before? When we sum up the results that we have obtained it becomes plain that economic conditions occupy a much more important place in the etiology of crime than most authors have given them.
First we have seen that the present economic system and its consequences weaken the social feelings. The basis of the economic system of our day being exchange, the economic interests of men are necessarily found to be in opposition. This is a trait that capitalism has in common with other modes of production. But its principal characteristic is that the means of production are in the hands of a few, and most men are altogether deprived of them. Consequently, persons who do not possess the means of production are forced to sell their labor to those who do, and these, in consequence of their economic preponderance, force them to make the exchange for the mere necessaries of life, and to work as much as their strength permits.
This state of things especially stifles men’s social instincts; it develops, on the part of those with power, the spirit of domination, and of insensibility to the ills of others, while it awakens jealousy and servility on the part of those who depend upon them. Further the contrary interests of those who have property, and the idle and luxurious life of some of them, also contribute to the weakening of the social instincts.
The material condition, and consequently the intellectual condition, of the proletariat are also a reason why the moral plane of that class is not high. The work of children brings them into contact with persons to associate with whom is fatal to their morals. Long working hours and monotonous labor brutalize those who are forced into them; bad housing conditions contribute also to debase the moral sense, as do the uncertainty of existence, and finally absolute poverty, the frequent consequence of sickness and unemployment. Ignorance [[668]]and lack of training of any kind also contribute their quota. Most demoralizing of all is the status of the lower proletariat.
The economic position of woman contributes also to the weakening of the social instincts.
The present organization of the family has great importance as regards criminality. It charges the legitimate parents with the care of the education of the child; the community concerns itself with the matter very little. It follows that a great number of children are brought up by persons who are totally incapable of doing it properly. As regards the children of the proletariat, there can be no question of the education properly so-called, on account of the lack of means and the forced absence of one or both of the parents. The school tends to remedy this state of things, but the results do not go far enough. The harmful consequences of the present organization of the family make themselves felt especially in the case of the children of the lower proletariat, orphans, and illegitimate children. For these the community does but little, though their need of adequate help is the greatest.
Prostitution, alcoholism, and militarism, which result, in the last analysis, from the present social order, are phenomena that have demoralizing consequences.
As to the different kinds of crime, we have shown that the very important group of economic criminality finds its origin on the one side in the absolute poverty and the cupidity brought about by the present economic environment, and on the other in the moral abandonment and bad education of the children of the poorer classes. Then, professional criminals are principally recruited from the class of occasional criminals, who, finding themselves rejected everywhere after their liberation, fall lower and lower. The last group of economic crimes (fraudulent bankruptcy, etc.) is so intimately connected with our present mode of production, that it would not be possible to commit it under another.
The relation between sexual crimes and economic conditions is less direct; nevertheless these also give evidence of the decisive influence of these conditions. We have called attention to the four following points.
First, there is a direct connection between the crime of adultery and the present organization of society, which requires that the legal dissolution of a marriage should be impossible or very difficult.
Second, sexual crimes upon adults are committed especially by unmarried men; and since the number of marriages depends in its [[669]]turn upon the economic situation, the connection is clear; and those who commit these crimes are further almost exclusively illiterate, coarse, raised in an environment almost without sexual morality, and regard the sexual life from the wholly animal side.
Third, the causes of sexual crime upon children are partly the same as those of which we have been speaking, with the addition of prostitution.
Fourth, alcoholism greatly encourages sexual assaults.
As to the relation between crimes of vengeance and the present constitution of society, we have noted that it produces conflicts without number; statistics have shown that those who commit them are almost without exception poor and uncivilized, and that alcoholism is among the most important causes of these crimes.
Infanticide is caused in part by poverty, and in part by the opprobrium incurred by the unmarried mother (an opprobrium resulting from the social utility of marriage).
Political criminality comes solely from the economic system and its consequences.
Finally, economic and social conditions are also important factors in the etiology of degeneracy, which is in its turn a cause of crime.
Upon the basis of what has gone before, we have a right to say that the part played by economic conditions in criminality is preponderant, even decisive.
This conclusion is of the highest importance for the prevention of crime. If it were principally the consequence of innate human qualities (atavism, for example), the pessimistic conclusion that crime is a phenomenon inseparably bound up with the social life would be well founded. But the facts show that it is rather the optimistic conclusion that we must draw, that where crime is the consequence of economic and social conditions, we can combat it by changing those conditions.
However important crime may be as a social phenomenon, however terrible may be the injuries and the evil that it brings upon humanity, the development of society will not depend upon the question as to what are the conditions which could restrain crime or make it disappear, if possible; the evolution of society will proceed independently of this question.
What is the direction that society will take under these continual modifications? This is not the place to treat fully of this subject. In my opinion the facts indicate quite clearly what the direction will [[670]]be. The productivity of labor has increased to an unheard of degree, and will assuredly increase in the future. The concentration of the means of production into the hands of a few progresses continually; in many branches it has reached such a degree that the fundamental principle of the present economic system, competition, is excluded, and has been replaced by monopoly. On the other hand the working class is becoming more and more organized, and the opinion is very generally held among working-men that the causes of material and intellectual poverty can be eliminated only by having the means of production held in common.
Supposing that this were actually realized, what would be the consequences as regards criminality? Let us take up this question for a moment. Although we can give only personal opinions as to the details of such a society, the general outlines can be traced with certainty.
The chief difference between a society based upon the community of the means of production and our own is that material poverty would be no longer known. Thus one great part of economic criminality (as also one part of infanticide) would be rendered impossible, and one of the greatest demoralizing forces of our present society would be eliminated. And then, in this way those social phenomena so productive of crime, prostitution and alcoholism, would lose one of their principal factors. Child labor and overdriving would no longer take place, and bad housing, the source of much physical and moral evil, would no longer exist.
With material poverty there would disappear also that intellectual poverty which weighs so heavily upon the proletariat; culture would no longer be the privilege of some, but a possession common to all. The consequences of this upon criminality would be very important, for we have seen that even in our present society with its numerous conflicts, the members of the propertied classes, who have often but a veneer of civilization, are almost never guilty of crimes of vengeance. There is the more reason to admit that in a society where interests were not opposed, and where civilization was universal, these crimes would be no longer present, especially since alcoholism also proceeds in large part from the intellectual poverty of the poorer classes. And what is true of crimes of vengeance, is equally true of sexual crimes in so far as they have the same etiology.
A large part of the economic criminality (and also prostitution to a certain extent) has its origin in the cupidity excited by the present economic environment. In a society based upon the community of [[671]]the means of production, great contrasts of fortune would, like commercial capital, be lacking, and thus cupidity would find no food. These crimes will not totally disappear so long as there has not been a redistribution of property according to the maxim, “to each according to his needs”, something that will probably be realized, but not in the immediate future.
The changes in the position of woman which are taking place in our present society, will lead, under this future mode of production, to her economic independence, and consequently to her social independence as well. It is accordingly probable that the criminality of woman will increase in comparison with that of man during the transition period. But the final result will be the disappearance of the harmful effects of the economic and social preponderance of man.
As to the education of children under these new conditions it is difficult to be definite. However, it is certain that the community will concern itself seriously with their welfare. It will see to it that the children whose parents cannot or will not be responsible for them, are well cared for. By acting in this way it will remove one of the most important causes of crime. There is no doubt that the community will exercise also a strict control over the education of children; it cannot be affirmed, however, that the time will come when the children of a number of parents will be brought up together by capable persons; this will depend principally upon the intensity that the social sentiments may attain.
As soon as the interests of all are no longer opposed to each other, as they are in our present society, there will no longer be a question either of politics (“a fortiori” of political crimes) or of militarism.
Such a society will not only remove the causes which now make men egoistic, but will awaken, on the contrary, a strong feeling of altruism. We have seen that this was already the case with the primitive peoples, where their economic interests were not in opposition. In a larger measure this will be realized under a mode of production in common, the interests of all being the same.
In such a society there can be no question of crime properly so called. The eminent criminologist, Manouvrier, in treating of the prevention of crime expresses himself thus: “The maxim to apply is, act so that every man shall always have more interest in being useful to his fellows than in harming them.” It is precisely in a society where the community of the means of production has been realized that this maxim will obtain its complete application. There will be crimes committed by pathological individuals, but this will come rather [[672]]within the sphere of the physician than that of the judge. And then we may even reach a state where these cases will decrease in large measure, since the social causes of degeneracy will disappear, and procreation by degenerates be checked through the increased knowledge of the laws of heredity and the increasing sense of moral responsibility.
“It is society that prepares the crime”, says the true adage of Quetelet. For all those who have reached this conclusion, and are not insensible to the sufferings of humanity, this statement is sad, but contains a ground of hope. It is sad, because society punishes severely those who commit the crime which she has herself prepared. It contains a ground of hope, since it promises to humanity the possibility of some day delivering itself from one of its most terrible scourges. [[673]]
[1] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. upon the whole subject of this chapter: J. Makarewicz, “Einführung in die Philosophie des Strafrechts.”] [↑]
[2] [The author disregards the legal distinction between the words crime and délit as being “without interest in a sociological work.” The latter word will appear in this translation as “misdemeanor” or “offense” according to the context.—Transl.] [↑]
[3] See upon this subject: Post, “Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit und die Entstehen der Ehe”, p. 156; Steinmetz, “Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe”, I, pp. 365 ff.; Makarewicz, “L’évolution de la peine”, p. 137 (“Archives d’Anthropologie Criminelle”, XIII). Upon the vengeance of blood see especially Kohler, “Shakespeare vor dem Forum der Jurisprudenz.”
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. also H. Berkusky, “Die Blutrache” (“Zeitschr. f. Socialwissenschaft”, XII).] [↑]
[4] The so-called offenses of omission are so few and unimportant that they may be left out of account. [↑]
[5] Albrecht, “Actes du Ier congrès d’anthr. crim.”, pp. 110 ff.; Battaglia, [[379]]“La dinamica del delitto”, pp. 201, 202; “Genesi e funzione delle leggi penali”, pp. 211, 212; Manouvrier, “Genèse normale du crime”, pp. 451, 452 (see also Part One of the present work, on Manouvrier); Näcke, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, p. 96. [↑]
[6] A. H. Post, “Bausteine für eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft”, I, p. 224. [↑]
[7] Steinmetz, “L’ethnologie et l’anthropologie criminelle” (“Compte rendu du Ve Cong. d’anthr. crim.”, p. 105). [↑]
[8] It is unnecessary to treat of the origin of punishment. For this subject [[381]]the works of Steinmetz and Makarewicz already cited may be consulted, together with Westermarck’s “Der Ursprung der Strafe” (“Zeitschrift für Socialwissenschaft”, 1900). [↑]
[9] [Note to the American Edition: Recent works of importance are: P. Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid”; L. T. Hobhouse, “Morals in Evolution”; K. Kautsky, “Ethik und Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung”; E. Westermarck, “Ursprung und Entwicklung der Moralbegriffe.”] [↑]
[10] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. Ch. Vallon and G. Genil-Perrin, “Crime et altruisme” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.” XXVIII).] [↑]
[11] See, among others, Spencer, “Principles of Sociology”, I, p. 79, where he says “Sociality, strong in the civilized man, is less strong in the savage man.” [↑]
[12] Chap. iv, pp. 97–99. See also Kautsky, “Die sozialen Triebe in der Tierwelt” (“Neue Zeit”, 1883); Letourneau, “L’évolution de la morale”, pp. 59–64; and Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid among Animals” (“Nineteenth Century”, 1890). [↑]
[13] “Eskimo Life”, p. 101. [↑]
[17] Op. cit., II, pp. 342, 343. [↑]
[18] “Illustrations of the Manners, Customs, and Conditions of the North American Indians”, pp. 9, 10. [↑]
[19] “Ancient Society”, pp. 85, 86. [↑]
[20] “Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines.” For the facts with regard to the North American Indians east of the Rocky Mountains, see Waitz, op. cit., III, pp. 160 ff. [↑]
[21] “The Malay Archipelago”, II, p. 283; see also Waitz, op. cit., III; Spencer, “Descriptive Sociology”, No. 6 (“American Races”), pp. 31, 32. [↑]
[23] “L’ethnologie et l’anthropologie criminelle”, pp. 100, 101. [↑]
[24] “Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la famille et de la propriété”, p. 56. See also Kautsky, “Die sozialen Triebe in der Menschenwelt” (“Neue Zeit”, 1884); and Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid among Savages” (“Nineteenth Century”, 1891), and “Mutual Aid among the Barbarians” (ibid., 1892). [↑]
[25] See Morgan, “Ancient Society”, p. 505.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon the origin of slavery cf. H. J. Nieboer: “Slavery as an Industrial System.”] [↑]
[26] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. Kautsky, op. cit., pp. 99, 100.] [↑]
[27] See Maine, op. cit., pp. 227, 228. [↑]
[29] See Kautsky, “Die sozialen Triebe in der Menschenwelt”, and also “Die Indianerfrage” (“Neue Zeit”, 1885) by the same author. [↑]
[30] See Steinmetz, “Classification des types sociaux et catalogue des peuples” (“Année sociologique”, III). [↑]
[31] Upon the dualism of ethics see: Kulischer, “Der Dualismus der Ethik bei den primitiven Völkern” (“Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie”, 1885); Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid among Savages”, pp. 558, 559; Kovalewsky, “Les origines du devoir”, pp. 85 ff. (“Revue internationale de sociologie”, II). [↑]
[32] See Sutherland, op. cit., I, x, for example, and compare Letourneau, “L’évolution de la morale”, p. 55. [↑]
[33] In the discussion which follows I have made large use of Kautsky’s “Die sozialen Triebe in der Tierwelt.” [↑]
[34] See Galton, “Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development”, pp. 68–82. [↑]
[35] See Darwin, “Descent of Man”, p. 102; Sutherland, op. cit., I, x; Ammon, “Der Ursprung der sozialen Triebe” (“Zeitschr. f. Socialwissenschaft” IV); H. Schultz, “Altersklassen und Männerbünde”, I, 2. [↑]
[36] See the quotation from Darwin earlier in this section, in which he speaks of cases of self-sacrifice among animals. [↑]
[37] I make great use here of Kautsky’s “Die sozialen Triebe in der Menschenwelt.” [↑]
[38] See Darwin, “Descent of Man”, p. 105.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon the social origin of man see Müller-Lyer, “Die Familie”, pp. 12 ff.] [↑]
[39] “Die sozialen Triebe in der Tierwelt”, p. 27. [↑]
[40] See Darwin, “Descent of Man”, pp. 95, 96, 106. [↑]
[41] See Maine, “Village Communities”, p. 68. [↑]
[42] Dargun, “Egoismus und Altruismus in der Nationalökonomie”, pp. 100, 101. [↑]
[43] See Dargun, op. cit., p. 34. [↑]
[44] See Letourneau, “L’évolution de la propriété”, pp. 72–75. [↑]
[45] See Kropotkin, “Mutual Aid among Savages”, pp. 552, 553; and Sutherland, op. cit., I, vi. [↑]
[46] See Kropotkin, op. cit., pp. 553, 554. [↑]
[48] Compare Morgan, “Ancient Society”, p. 527. [↑]
[49] See Dargun, “Egoismus und Altruismus in der Nationalökonomie”, pp. 36, 37; Jhering, “Der Zweck im Recht”, I, p. 117. [↑]
[50] Lassalle, “Die Feste, die Presse und der Frankfurter Abgeordnetentag”, II, p. 646; Schäffle, “Bau und Leben des sozialen Körpers”, I, pp. 461–466, and IV, pp. 68–70; Mandl, “Die Wiener Presskorruption” (“Neue Zeit”, 1884); Stern, “Einfluss der sozialen Zustände auf alle Zweige des Kulturlebens”, pp. 33–37. [↑]
[51] P. Moreau (of Tours), “L’homicide commis par les enfants”, p. 80; Cuénoud, “La criminalité à Genève au XIXe siècle”, pp. 93–96; Aubry, “La contagion du meurtre”, pp. 84–106; “De l’influence contagieuse de la publicité des faits criminels” (“Archives d’anthropologie criminelle”, VIII); Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 106, 107 and 282, 283; Lombroso, “Crime, its Causes and Remedies”, pp. 54, 55.
[Note to the American Edition: Besides the influence of the sensational press, and harmful literature, we must now mention the cinematograph.
From the literature upon the whole subject we select the following: S. Türkel, “Einfluss der Lektüre auf die Delikte phantastischer jugendlicher Psychopathen” (“Archiv f. Krim. anthr. u. Krim.” XLII); S. Sighele, “Littérature et criminalité”, chap. v; M. Homburger, “Der Einfluss der Schundlitteratur auf jugendliche Verbrecher und Selbstmörder” (“Monatschr. f. Krim. Psych. und Straf.”, VI); F. Fenton, “The Influence of Newspaper Presentations upon the Growth of Crime and Other Anti-social Activity”; A. Hellwig, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Schundlitteratur, Schundfilms, und Verbrechen” (“Archiv f. Krim. anthr. u. Krim.”, LI); Meyer, “Schundlitteratur und Schundfilm” (“Arch. f. Krim. anthr. u. Krim.”, LIII).] [↑]
[53] “Fürsorgeerziehung” (Woche V, No. 51). [↑]
[54] From “Crimineele Statistiek” for the years given, and “Uitkomsten der achtste tienjaarlijksche volkstelling” and “Uitkomsten der beroepstelling van 1899.” [↑]
[55] This number is below the reality; they have classed among persons without trade those whose trade was unknown. [↑]
[56] [Note to the American Edition: For North America cf. Fehlinger, “Erwerbsarbeit und Kriminalität von Kindern u. Frauen in den Vereinigten Staaten.”] [↑]
[57] See “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1898”, I, pp. 52 ff., and “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895”, pp. xlix, l. [↑]
[58] [Note to the American Edition: For Germany the “Kriminalstatistik” of 1891, 1901, and 1902 contain data upon this point; see II, p. 32. For Austria, cf. Herz, “Verbrechen und Verbrechertum in Oesterreich”, pp. 121 ff.] [↑]
[59] “Die berufliche und soziale Gliederung des Deutschen Volkes nach der Berufszählung vom 14 Juni, 1895” (“Stat. des Deutschen Reichs. Neue Folge”, Band 111). [↑]
[60] Op. cit., pp. 143 and 144. [↑]
[61] “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1896. Erläuterungen”, I, pp. 22, 23. [↑]
[62] [Note to the American Edition: Juvenile criminality in Germany increased [[410]]up to 1906, when a fairly regular decrease began. The law upon the “Fürsorgeerziehung” dates from the beginning of the century.] [↑]
[63] Calculated from the work cited, I, pp. 18–21. [↑]
[64] “Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich”, 1896, p. 5. [↑]
[65] Morrison, “Juvenile Offenders”, p. 5. [↑]
[66] [Note to the American Edition: According to recent statistics juvenile delinquency in England has decreased rather than increased.] [↑]
[67] “Judicial Statistics, England and Wales, Part I, Criminal Statistics, 1899”, p. 64. [↑]
[68] The “Summary Jurisdiction Act” gives the English judges the right not to convict, even though the proof may be sufficient, when they deem the offense not grave enough. 20% of those so discharged are added to the figures to allow for this. [↑]
[70] P. L., “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899.” [↑]
[71] [Note to the American Edition: After the period cited juvenile crime in Austria has increased further. Cf. Herz, op. cit., pp. 107 ff. See also Hoegel, “Die Grenzen der Kriminalstatistik”, pp. 414 ff.] [↑]
[73] Calculated from “Administration de la Justice criminelle et civile de la Belgique, période de 1881–1885. Résumé statistique”, p. 81.
[Note to the American Edition: In Belgium no criminal statistics appeared [[414]]from 1886 to 1897. For the period after 1898 see Jacquart, “La criminalité belge.” Here there appears rather a decrease than an increase of juvenile delinquency for this period.] [↑]
[74] Figured from p. cix, Table No. 3 of the “Rapport sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881 à 1900.” (Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle pendant l’année 1900.) [↑]
[75] Figured from op. cit., p. cxvi, Table No. 8. [↑]
[76] See Grosmolard, “Criminalité juvénile” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, XVIII), and Albanel, “Le crime dans la famille”, p. 194. [↑]
[77] [Note to the American Edition: Upon France cf. especially Dr. G. Jacquetty, “Étude statistique de la criminalité juvénile en France.” According to this study the crimes of minors under 16 years of age have remained stationary as regards crimes against persons, and have decreased as regards crimes against property; misdemeanors, however, have increased. The crimes committed by minors between 16 and 20 have remained the same in comparison with the criminality of adults; on the other hand there has been a constant increase of misdemeanors. The increase of crimes and misdemeanors of violence committed at this age has been considerable. See also: G. L. Duprat, “La criminalité dans l’adolescence.”] [↑]
[78] According to the “Compte Général de l’administration de la justice criminelle pendant l’année 1900”, p. 32, Table XVI. [↑]
[79] According to op. cit., p. 54, Table XXIX. [↑]
[80] “Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1899”, p. cxvii. [↑]
[81] “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895”, p. xli. In the period from 1896–1900 juvenile criminality increased further in a striking manner. [↑]
[83] I have not been able to get data for the United States. The American criminologist, A. Drähms, says that the criminality of the young is increasing in the United States (“The Criminal”, p. 279), and W. D. Morrison makes a similar statement (“Juvenile Offenders”, p. 17). [↑]
[84] From “De Gerechtelijke Statistiek van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden” for the years 1896 to 1899, and from “Bijdragen tot de Statistiek van Nederland, Nieuwe volgreeks XVII, XXVII. Crimineele statistiek over de jaren 1900 en 1901.” [↑]
[85] Taken from “Crimineele Statistiek over het jaar 1901.” In the criminal statistics of the Netherlands the system was changed in 1901. Before this year convictions were counted, and from that year on, individuals convicted. [↑]
[86] See also Ducpetiaux, “De la condition physique et morale des jeunes ouvriers”, Bk. I, ch. 2; Starke, “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen”, pp. 210, 211; Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 144 ff., 177–185; “Entartete Mütter” and “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, pp. 443, 444, 458–475; Agahd, “Die Erwerbsthätigkeit schulpflichtiger Kinder im Deutschen Reiche” (“Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik”, XII); Struntz, “Die erwerbsmässige Kinderarbeit und die Schule” (“Neue Zeit”, 1898–1899, I); Dix, “Die Jugendlichen in der Sozial- und Kriminalpolitik”; Albanel, “Le crime dans la famille”, pp. 41–43; Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, pp. 119–123; Joly, “L’enfance coupable”, pp. 24, 25, 126.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. the following recent works: Baernreither, [[420]]op. cit., passim; P. Pollitz, “Die Psychologie des Verbrechers”, pp. 112 ff.; Duprat, op. cit., pp. 125 ff.; M. Homburger, “Ueber den Zusammenhang zwischen den Zahlen der in den Fabriken beschäftigten Personen unter 18 Jahren und der Zahl der Verbrechen solcher Personen”; H. W. Gruhle, “Die Ursachen der jugendlichen Verwahrlosung und Kriminalität”, pp. 104 ff.] [↑]
[87] See also Engels, “The Condition of the Working Class in England,” pp. 118, 119. [↑]
[88] See: Brace, “The Dangerous Classes of New York”, pp. 51 ff.; O. S., “Die Verbrecherwelt von Berlin”, pp. 120 ff. (“Zeitschr. f. d. gesammte Strafrechtswissenschaft”, V); Földes, “Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik”, p. 548 (ibid., XI); Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, pp. 58 ff.; Philippovich, “Wiener Wohnungsverhältnisse”, p. 264 (“Archiv für soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik”, VI); Dix, “Sozial-Moral”, pp. 15–18; Ferriani, “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, pp. 444 ff.; Liszt, “Das Verbrechen als sozial-pathologische Erscheinung”, p. 22; Th. Holmes, “Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts”, pp. 70 ff.; Albanel, op. cit., pp. 11 ff.; Aschaffenburg, op. cit., p. 115.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Baernreither, op. cit., passim.] [↑]
[92] See Laspeyres, pp. 86–91. [↑]
[93] Laspeyres, op. cit., pp. 19 and 21. [↑]
[94] See Engels, “Condition of the Working Class in England”, pp. 76 ff. [↑]
[95] “Condition of the Working Class in England”, p. 116. [↑]
[96] For the different opinions see Dr. L. DelBaere, “De invloed van opvoeding en onderwijs op de criminaliteit”, pp. 23 ff., and Földes, “Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik”, pp. 552–559 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.” XI). [↑]
[97] The figures for prisoners are from Drähms, “The Criminal”, p. 74; those in the last column from “The Statesman’s Year-Book”, 1902, p. 1203. [↑]
[98] From “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899”, p. xlviii. [↑]
[99] Taken from the “Judicial Statistics of England and Wales”, Part I, Criminal Statistics, 1894–1900. The last two columns are taken from “The Statesman’s Year-Book”, 1892, p. 39. [↑]
[100] Figured from the table F. A II of the “Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern”, 1899. The number of illiterates in the total population 16 and over, was about 24%. [↑]
[101] Taken from Jacquart, op. cit., p. 104. [↑]
[102] “Statesman’s Year Book”, 1910, p. 31. [↑]
[103] The last two columns are taken from “l’Annuaire Statistique de la France,” xvi ff.; the others from the “Statistique pénitentiaire,” 1882–1898. [↑]
[104] From 1886 to 1891 women and men are reported together under this heading. [↑]
[105] After Table XXIV of the “Report of the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the Year 1910.” [↑]
[106] “Rapport sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881 à 1900.” [↑]
[107] “Judicial Statistics, Ireland”, 1905, I, “Criminal Statistics,” p. 24. [↑]
[108] The last two columns are taken from the “Annuario Statistico Italiano”, 1900, p. 214; the others from the “Statistica giudiziaria penale”, 1881 to 1889. [↑]
[109] Men playing a larger part in crime than women, I have thought it well to give the figures for illiterate men also. [↑]
[110] Figured from Table XXVIII of the “Statistica giudiziaria penale”, 1889.] [↑]
[111] From the “Year-Book of the New York State Reformatory”, for the years in question. In “The Dangerous Classes of New York” (p. 32), Brace mentions that in 1870 about 31% of the adult criminals in the State of New York were illiterate, while of the adult non-criminals of the population only 6.08% were illiterate. [↑]
[112] Taken from the “Jaarcijfers voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Rijk in Europa”, 1901, p. 47. [↑]
[113] de Roos, op. cit., p. 108. [↑]
[114] Figured from Table II of the “Crimineele Statistiek”, 1900. [↑]
[115] Evert, “Zur Statistik rückfälliger Verbrecher in Preussen” (“Zeitschr. des Kön. Preuss. Stat. Bureaus”, XXXIX), p. 197; the last figure from “Stat. Jahrb. f. d. Deutsche Reich”, 1896, 1897, and 1898. [↑]
[116] “Die Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896”, p. 38 (“Schweizerische Statistik”, Pt. 125). [↑]
[118] [Note to the American Edition: Upon the Balkan states see Wadler, op. cit., pp. 176 ff.] [↑]
[119] Taken from “Statistica giudiziaria penale”, 1887, 1888, 1889. [↑]
[120] Figured from Table XXVIII of the “Statistica giudiziaria penale”, 1889. [↑]
[121] From “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899”, p. xlviii. [↑]
[122] Figured from Table F. a. II in “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899.” [↑]
[123] [“Fortune” here has not exactly the connotation of our English word, but as “money” and “property” would be equally inexact it seems better to keep the author’s term. Transl.] [↑]
[124] [Note to the American Edition: Upon Austria cf. Herz, op. cit., pp. 8 ff.] [↑]
[125] Figured from the table on p. 199 of Evert’s “Zur Statistik rückfälliger Verbrecher in Preussen.” [↑]
[126] From “Die Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896”, p. 37. [↑]
[127] Concerning Hungary Prof. Földes says (without giving the year) that 92% of the crimes are committed by persons without fortune, while these represent only 85% of the population in general (“Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik”, Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw., XI, p. 545).
[Note to the American Edition: Upon the Balkan States cf. Wadler, op. cit., pp. 164 ff.] [↑]
[128] Taken from Prinzing, “Soziale Faktoren der Kriminalität” (Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw. XXII). The figures for criminality are the average figures for the years 1894–1896. The figures for the occupations are those of the census of occupations of June 14, 1895. [↑]
[129] Servants only. ↑ [a] [b] [c] [d]
[130] Taken from “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1896” (Erläuterungen) II, pp. 38, 39. [↑]
[131] This category includes the unskilled workmen, as the author of this table says himself, this heading is not very exact, since it includes those who without following a fixed occupation call themselves working-men.
[Note to the American Edition: The “Kriminalstatistik 1908” gives the statistics of the criminality of the different occupations, figured from the census of occupations of 1907.] [↑]
[133] Figured from the “Judicial Statistics, England and Wales, Pt. I Criminal Statistics”, 1894–1900.
[Note to the American Edition: The English Criminal Statistics for 1905 contain a table upon the occupations of prisoners convicted during the years 1896–1905.] [↑]
[134] From the “Rapport au Président de la république française sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881 à 1900”, p. xxvi. [↑]
[135] From the “Statistique pénitentiaire”, 1890–1895. [↑]
[136] Furnishing trade only. ↑ [a] [b]
[137] Vagrants and prostitutes. ↑ [a] [b]
[138] “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895”, p. lxi. As the calculations are based upon the census of 1881 the accuracy of the table is not absolute. [↑]
[139] Op. cit., p. lxxxii. [↑]
[140] Op. cit., pp. lxxxiii–lxxxiv. [↑]
[141] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. the recent works upon the relation between occupation and criminality: for Germany: Aschaffenburg, op. cit., pp. 56 ff.; H. Lindenau, “Beruf und Verbrechen”; Peterselie, op. cit., pp. 106 ff.; Wassermann, “Beruf, Konfession, und Verbrechen”; Galle, op. cit., pp. 93 ff.; Stöwesand, op. cit., pp. 99 ff.; for Austria: Hoegel, op. cit., pp. 449 ff.; and pp. 134 ff.; for the Balkan States: Wadler, op. cit., pp. 137 ff.; for the Netherlands: de Roos, op. cit., pp. 132 ff.; Verrijn Stuart, op. cit. II, pp. 244 ff.; for France: G. Bertrin, “De la criminalité en France dans les congrégations, le clergé et les principales professions.”] [↑]
[142] “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899”, p. lxviii. [↑]
[143] Prinzing, “Der Einfluss der Ehe auf die Kriminalität des Mannes”, p. 41; and “Die Erhöhung der Kriminalität des Weibes durch die Ehe” (“Zeitschrift f. Sozialwissenschaft”, II), p. 437. [↑]
[144] “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895”, p. lii. [↑]
[145] “Rapport au Président de la République française sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881–1900”, p. xxiii. [↑]
[146] Figured from “Uitkomsten der achtste tienjaarlijksche volkstelling”, and the “Gerechtelijke Statistiek over 1899.” [↑]
[147] “Die Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896”, p. 21. [↑]
[148] Prinzing, “Soziale Faktoren der Kriminalität”, pp. 556–557. [↑]
[149] “Der Einfluss der Ehe auf die Kriminalität des Mannes”, p. 42. [↑]
[150] Op. cit., p. 117. The figures for criminality are the average figures for the years 1882–1893. They all give the number to 100,000 persons of each category. [↑]
[159] Prinzing, “Soziale Faktoren der Kriminalität”, p. 559. [↑]
[160] “Die Erhöhung der Kriminalität des Weibes durch die Ehe”, p. 437. [↑]
[161] This table and those which follow all belong to the period from 1882 to 1893, and are figured for 100,000 of each category. They are taken from the work cited, pp. 438–444. [↑]
[162] [“Rebellion” has a wider significance in French than in English, any violence to public officials being so designated. The word is retained, however, for brevity.—Transl.] [↑]
[163] Cf. F. Prinzing, “Ueber frühzeitige Heiraten, deren Vorzüge und Nachteile.” See also Durkheim, “Le suicide”, pp. 186 ff. [↑]
[165] Note to the American Edition: Cf. the following recent works upon the relation between marriage and criminality: for Germany: Aschaffenburg, op. cit., pp. 139 ff.; Pollitz, op. cit., pp. 34 ff.; for Austria: Hoegel, op. cit., pp. 16 ff.; Herz, op. cit., pp. 127 ff.; for the Balkan States: Wadler, op. cit., pp. 128 ff.; for Belgium: Jacquart, op. cit., pp. 80 ff.; for the Netherlands: de Roos, op. cit., pp. 122 ff. See further N. Muller, “Biografisch-aetiologisch onderzoek over occidivie, etc.” [↑]
[166] “Kriminalstatistik f. d. Jahr 1896”, Erläuterungen, II, p. 33. [↑]
[167] [Note to the American Edition: The “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr [[465]]1903” contains very important data bearing upon the period 1882–1902, with regard to feminine criminality in Germany.] [↑]
[168] “Judicial Statistics, England and Wales, Pt. I, Criminal Statistics, 1899”, p. 55, with separate calculations made for 1900. [↑]
[169] “The Statesman’s Yearbook, 1902”, p. 14. [↑]
[170] “Judicial Statistics, England and Wales, Criminal Statistics, 1894”, p. 19. [↑]
[171] “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899”, p. xlix. [↑]
[172] “Rapport au président de la république française sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881–1900”, pp. xix, cxvi. [↑]
[173] Figured from “Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle pendant l’année 1900”, pp. 30–31. [↑]
[174] Op. cit., pp. 54–62, Tab. XXIX. [↑]
[175] For the years 1884–1889 taken from the “Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1889”, and for the years following from the “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–95.” [↑]
[176] The fact that a new penal code went into effect in 1890 makes a noticeable change in the total figures. [↑]
[177] Op. cit., p. xxxvii. [↑]
[178] “Statesman’s Year Book”, 1910, p. 948. [↑]
[179] Taken from “de Gerechtelijke Statistiek van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden”, 1896–1899, and “de Crimineele Statistiek”, 1900. For more detailed information upon the Netherlands see Loosjes, “Bijdrage tot de studie van de criminaliteit der vrouw”, pp. 8–30. [↑]
[180] Figured from “Crimineele statistiek over het jaar 1901.” [↑]
[181] “Criminal Statistics, 1899”, p. 27. See in the same place the reason for thinking that the figures quoted for the number of women acquitted are too small. Morrison says that in England one woman in four is acquitted, and one man in six. (“Juvenile Offenders”, p. 46.) [↑]
[182] “Rapport”, etc., p. xxxiv. [↑]
[184] See Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, II, p. 83; Földes, op. cit., pp. 630, 631; and Morrison, op. cit., p. 46. [↑]
[185] “Criminal Statistics of England and Wales, 1899”, p. 54. [↑]
[186] Loosjes, op. cit., p. 50. [↑]
[187] Figured from Tables 23 and 24 of the “Rapport au président de la république française”, etc.
[Note to the American Edition: Wadler tells us that in Servia the percentage of feminine criminality is between 3.71 (1893) and 6.25 (1903); in Greece, about 2 (1899–1902); in Bulgaria, about 3.2 (1899–1906); in Bosnia and Herzegovina, between 5.07 (1899) and 6.69 (1902) (op. cit., pp. 94, 102–104). In Rumania, Minovici tells us, the percentage is 2.42 (1874–1890).] [↑]
[188] “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1898”, II, p. 73. [↑]
[189] “Juvenile Offenders”, p. 47. [↑]
[190] “Die Straffälligkeit des Weibes”, p. 253 (Archiv f. Krim. Anthr. u. Kriminalstatistik, V). [↑]
[191] Galicia, Western and Eastern separately. [↑]
[192] Tyrol and Vorarlberg separately. [↑]
[193] From “Kriminalstatistik”, 1888, 1894, 1896, 1898, and 1900. [↑]
[194] “Die Ergebnisse, etc.”, p. xlviii. [↑]
[195] [Note to the American Edition: Wadler points out that in the Balkan States the percentage of feminine criminality is rapidly increasing.] [↑]
[196] See Loosjes, op. cit., pp. 11, 12. [↑]
[197] See Loosjes, op. cit., p. 12, where he demonstrates that the decrease in the percentage of female criminality is in great measure due to the diminution of mendicity.
[Note to the American Edition: French and German statistics bearing [[477]]upon a long period show that the economic criminality of woman tends to decrease, and that against persons to increase. The last fact corresponds, therefore, with the thesis that the social situation of woman explains her criminality. The first fact is explained perhaps by the decrease of poverty resulting from the greater participation of woman in the economic life.] [↑]
[198] For opinions of other authors see Loosjes, op. cit., pp. 75–108.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon feminine criminality in general see further the following recent works: for Germany: Aschaffenburg, op. cit., pp. 135 ff.; Wulffen, op. cit., I, pp. 402 ff., and II, pp. 258 ff.; O. Mönkemöller, “Korrektionsanstalt und Landarmenhaus”; Galle, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.; Stöwesand, op. cit., pp. 23 ff.; Sauer, op. cit., pp. 57 ff. For Austria: Herr, “Die Kriminalität des Weibes nach den Ergebnissen der neueren österreichischen Statistik” (“Archiv f. Krim. anthr. u. Krim.”, XVIII), and op. cit., pp. 78 ff.; Hoegel, op. cit., pp. 410 ff. For the Balkan States: Wadler, op. cit., pp. 93 ff. For Belgium: Jacquart, op. cit., pp. 67 ff. For France: C. Granier, “La femme criminelle”; de Lanessan, op. cit., pp. 145 ff.; H. Lacaze, “De la criminalité féminine en France”; H. Leale, “De la criminalité des sexes” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, XXV). For the Netherlands: de Roos, op. cit., pp. 76 ff.; Verrijn Stuart, op. cit., pp. 190 ff. For Rumania: Minovici, op. cit. Upon female criminality in relation to special occupations, see: R. de Rijcken, “La servante criminelle”.] [↑]
[199] Liszt, “Die gesellschaftlichen Ursachen des Verbrechens”. (See discussion of this work in Pt. I of the present work.) [↑]
[201] “Nos jeunes détenus”, pp. 24, 25. [↑]
[202] See what is said in criticism of Professor Ferri in Pt. I of this work. [↑]
[203] “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, p. 34. See the whole section “L’hypocrisie dans l’éducation” (pp. 29–49), where the author criticises contemporary education severely. [↑]
[204] See Corre, “Crime et Suicide”, pp. 327, 328, and Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 284–295, 372, 373. [↑]
[205] There are other reasons for this, of course, besides better education: the absence of poverty, pleasures within easy reach, etc. [↑]
[206] Taken from Morrison, “Juvenile Offenders”, p. 160. [↑]
[207] Morrison, op. cit., p. 159. ↑ [a] [b]
[208] Figured from “L’annuaire statistique de la France”, V–IX. [↑]
[209] Figured from the “Statistique pénitentiaire,” 1890–1895. [↑]
[210] Raux (“Nos jeunes détenus”) and Grosmolard (“Criminalité juvénile”, p. 199) come to the same conclusion. [↑]
[211] “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 76 and 440. [↑]
[212] Plasz, “Fürsorgeerziehung” (Woche V, No. 51). According to the statistics upon the “Fürsorgeerziehung” there were between 1901 and 1906 among the parents of the children on an average: 7.1% without income, 71.5% with an income under 900 marks, 14.1% with an income between 900 and 3000 marks, 0.1% between 3000 and 6000 marks, and 7.2% with income unknown. See F. Frank, “Das Fürsorgeerziehungsgesetz in Preussen” (“Neue Zeit”, XXVII, p. 460). [↑]
[213] L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 279–280. [↑]
[214] Op. cit., p. 320.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. W. Feld, “Die Kinder der in Fabriken arbeitenden Frauen und ihre Verpflegung.” [↑]
[215] Braun, op. cit., p. 278. [↑]
[216] See Ducpetiaux, “De la condition physique et morale des jeunes ouvriers”, pp. 199 ff., and Corre, “Crime et Suicide”, pp. 330–332. [↑]
[218] In the following list I do not give the statistics for Germany as a whole, as I have been able to procure them for certain states, only. For Germany see: Näcke, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, pp. 161, 162; von Liszt, “Das Verbrechen als sozial-pathologische Erscheinung”, pp. 22, 23; W. Rein, “Jugendliches Verbrecherthum” (“Zeitschr. f. Socialwissenschaft”, III); H. Wetzker, “Die Zunahme der Verbrechen”; Aschaffenburg, op. cit., pp. 107–116; see also the section on Hirsch in Pt. I of this work.
[Note to the American Edition: Besides the works of Neumann, Spann, Pollitz, and Rühle, already cited, the following recent publications must be named: Mönkemöller, “Zur Kriminalität des Kindesalters” (“Archiv f. Krim. Anthrop. u. Kriminalstatistik”, XL); H. W. Gruhle, “Die Ursachen der jugendlichen Verwahrlosung und Kriminalität”; A. Hamburger, “Lebensschicksale geisteskranker Strafgefangener”.] [↑]
[219] “Statistisches Uebersicht der Verhältnisse der Oesterreichischen strafanstalten und der Gerichtsgefängnisse”, 1883 and 1884, Table IV and IVa. [↑]
[220] “Die Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern”, 1896 and 1899. [↑]
[221] Mayr, “Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre”, II, p. 197. [↑]
[222] Mayr, op. cit., p. 282. [Note to the American Edition: Upon Austria, cf. Baernreither, op. cit.] [↑]
[223] J. S., “Zur Verwahrlosung der Kinder in der kapitalistischen Gesellschaft” (“Neue Zeit”, 1893–94, II). [↑]
[224] Mayr, “Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre”, II, p. 197. [↑]
[225] Morrison, “Juvenile Offenders”, pp. 122–147. [↑]
[226] Tönnies, “Jugendliche Kriminalität und Verwahrlosung in Gross-Britannien”, p. 904 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.”, XIII). [↑]
[227] Morrison, op. cit., pp. 148–151. [↑]
[228] W. H. Douglas, “The Criminal; Some Social and Economic Aspects”, p. 106 (“Proceedings of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow”, vol. XXXIII, 1901–1902). [↑]
[229] Lenz, “Die Zwangserziehung in England”, p. 38. [↑]
[230] With regard to England see also: L. Gordon Rylands, “Crime, its Causes and Remedy”, pp. 18–19, 37–42. [↑]
[231] Figured from the “Statistique pénitentiaire”, 1890–1895. [↑]
[232] Mayr, op. cit., p. 197. [↑]
[233] Mayr, op. cit., p. 282. [↑]
[234] A. von Oettingen says that in 1864 there were in France, out of 8,006 young prisoners, 60% who were illegitimate children or orphans, and 38.5% who were descended from criminals, vagrants, and prostitutes (“Moralstatistik”, p. 335). [↑]
[238] Joly, “L’enfance coupable”, p. 37. See the whole of chap. III. [↑]
[239] “Le crime dans la famille”, pp. 27, 38. [↑]
[240] Motet, “De l’éducation correctionnelle”, p. 186 (“Actes du IIe Congrès d’anthropologie criminelle”). [↑]
[241] Raux, op. cit., p. 181. [↑]
[242] Raux, op. cit., p. 211. See also the following authors with regard to France: Joly, “La France criminelle”, Ch. VI; Corre, “Crime et Suicide”, pp. 485–490; Tomel and Rollet, “Les enfants en prison”; and Aubry, “La Contagion du meurtre”, pp. 17–51.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: Duprat and de Lanessan, op. cit.; E. Laurent, “La criminalité infantile”; L. Manouvrier, “Quelques cas de criminalité juvénile et commençante” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.” XXVII); E. Martin, “Études sur l’enfance coupable” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.” XXVIII).] [↑]
[243] Lenz, op. cit., p. 70. [↑]
[244] From Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, II, p. 107, and the “Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1889”, p. CXV. [↑]
[245] “Annuario statistico italiano 1900”, p. 95. [↑]
[246] Mayr, op. cit., p. 282. [↑]
[249] “I caratteri dei delinquenti”, pp. 237 and 250. For Italy see also: Carrara, “Les petits criminels de Cagliari” (“Compte rendu du Ve Congrès d’anthropologie criminelle”). [↑]
[250] Figured from “Gerechtelijke Statistiek van het Koningrijk der Nederlanden”, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899, and “Crimineele Statistiek”, 1900 and 1901.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further the work of de Roos already cited, pp. 117 ff. Dr. J. P. F. A. Noorduijn, “De Observatie, na de invoering der Kinderwetten, etc.” (“Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht”, XXIII), and J. Feith, “Misdadige Kinderen”.] [↑]
[251] Mayr, op. cit., p. 197. [↑]
[252] Mayr, op. cit., p. 282. [↑]
[254] See Drähms, “The Criminal”, Ch. XI. [↑]
[255] “Beretning om Rigets Strafarbeidsanstalter for 1897–1898, 1898–1899”, and for 1899–1900 from Weinberg, “Der werdende Verbrecher”, p. 16. (“Neue Zeit”, 1902–1903, II). [↑]
[256] Mayr, op. cit., p. 197. [↑]
[257] Mayr, op. cit., p. 282. [↑]
[258] Aschaffenburg, op. cit., p. 105. [↑]
[259] Mayr, op. cit., pp. 197 and 282. [↑]
[260] Based on Evert, “Zur Statistik rückfälliger Verbrecher in Preussen.” [↑]
[261] “Die Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896”, p. 34. [↑]
[262] Mayr, op. cit., p. 282. [↑]
[263] “Die Ergebnisse etc.”, pp. 35, 37, 38. [↑]
[264] Weinberg, op. cit., p. 19. [↑]
[265] Mayr, op. cit., p. 283. The other data are taken from Sichart, “Ueber individuelle Faktoren des Verbrechens.” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” X.) [↑]
[268] Richelot, “La Prostitution en Angleterre”, p. 571. [↑]
[269] Mayr, “Statistik der gerichtlichen Polizei im Königreiche Bayern und in einigen anderen Ländern”, Table CXVIII. [↑]
[270] Parent-Duchatelet, “De la prostitution dans la ville de Paris”, II, p. 612.
[Note to the American Edition: The “Criminal Statistics, Ireland” (1905) even gives a percentage as high as 38.5, of prostitutes among female prisoners (p. 25).] [↑]
[271] G. S., “Die weibliche Lohnarbeit und ihr Einfluss auf die Sittlichkeit und Kriminalität”, p. 751 (“Neue Zeit”, 1899–1900, II). [↑]
[272] After “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–95.” [↑]
[274] See further: Parent-Duchatelet, op. cit., pp. 139–142; Faucher, “Études sur l’Angleterre”, I, pp. 77, 78; C. L. Brace, “The Dangerous Classes in New York”, pp. 116, 117; “Einiges über die Prostitution in Gegenwart und Zukunft”, p. 519 (“Neue Zeit”, 1891–92, I); Commenge, “La prostitution clandestine à Paris”, pp. 29–131; Blaschko, “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, pp. 27, 28. [↑]
[275] Upon “souteneurs” and the part they play in crime see: Parent-Duchatelet, op. cit., I, Chap. II, § 12; Frégier, “Les classes dangereuses”, I, pp. 168–170; Ladame, “De la prostitution dans ses rapports avec l’alcoolisme, le crime, et la folie”, p. 16; Sichart, “Ueber individuelle Faktoren des Verbrechens”, p. 44; Baumgarten, op. cit., pp. 17–19; Stursberg, “Die Prostitution in Deutschland und ihre Bekämpfung”, pp. 76–82.
[Note to the American Edition: See further Hermann, op. cit., pp. 68 ff.; Brusse, op. cit.; and H. Ostwald, “Das Zuhältertum in Berlin”.] [↑]
[276] P. 138. See also: Engels, “Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats”, p. 63; Stursberg, op. cit., pp. 28, 29; Faure, “Souvenirs de la Roquette”, p. 360; Baumgarten, op. cit., p. 20; Blaschko, op. cit., pp. 28, 29.
Upon the relation between prostitution and criminality in general see: Moreau-Christophe, “Du problème de la misère”, III, pp. 167–170; Richelot, op. cit., pp. 610–615; Avé-Lallemant, “Das Deutsche Gaunerthum”, II, pp. 28, 29, and 336, III, pp. 157 and 165; Oettingen, “Moralstatistik”, pp. 224–232; Ladame, op. cit., pp. 15 ff.; Lombroso and Ferrero, “La femme criminelle et la prostituée”, pp. 535–538.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further the recent studies: A. H. Hübner, “Ueber Prostituirte und ihre strafrechtliche Behandlung” (“Monatschr. f. krim. Psych. und Strafrechtsreform”, III); O. Mönkemöller, “Die Kriminalität der Korrigendin” (“Monatschr.” etc. V) and “Korrektionsanstalt und Landarmenhaus”, ch. III.] [↑]
[277] See among others: Krauss, “Die Psychologie des Verbrechens”, pp. 68, 69; Grotjahn, “Der Alkoholismus”, p. 87. [↑]
[278] “L’alcoolisme dans ses rapports avec la criminalité”, pp. 411, 413, 415 (“Bulletin de l’académie royale de médecine de Belgique”, 1896). [↑]
[279] “La prophylaxie et le traitement du criminel récidiviste”, p.64 (“Compte rendu Ve congrès d’anthropologie criminelle”). [↑]
[280] Löffler, “Alkohol und Verbrechen”, p. 511 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XXIII). [↑]
[281] Dalhoff, “Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité”, pp. 40, 41. (“Actes du Congrès pénitentiaire internat. de Bruxelles”, IV.) [↑]
[282] For the years 1858–1862 taken from Mayr, “Statistik der gerichtlichen Polizei im Königreiche Bayern und in einigen anderen Ländern”, Tab. CXVIII; and for the other years from “Criminal Statistics”, 1894–1897. [↑]
[283] In these tables the term “drinker” is used for one who drinks to excess. [↑]
[284] Upon England see further: L. Gordon Rylands, “Crime, its Causes and Remedy”, pp. 17, 20–22; J. Baker, “Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité”, and W. C. Sullivan, id. (“Actes du Cong. pén. internat. de Brux.” 1900, IV).
[Note to the American Edition: The “Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1908” contains data upon criminality and alcoholism.] [↑]
[286] “Actes”, p. 106. See also upon France: Laurent, “Les habitués des prisons de Paris”, pp. 297 ff.; Corre, “Crime et suicide”, pp. 182 ff., and Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, p. 144.
[Note to the American Edition: See also the “Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle pendant l’année 1907”, pp. xx ff.] [↑]
[287] “Der Alcoholismus”, p. 348. [↑]
[289] “Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des grossstädtischen Bettel- und Vagabondentums” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.” XXI). [↑]
[290] “I caratteri dei delinquenti”, p. 296. [↑]
[291] [Note to the American Edition: “The criminal statistics of the Netherlands for 1904” contain data upon the subject in question. Cf. further de Roos, op. cit., pp. 175 ff., and “Parallelismen tusschen alcoholisme en criminaliteit” (“Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht”, XXIII); Verrijn Stuart, op. cit., pp. 204 ff.; A. Ariëns, “Criminaliteit en drankmisbruik.”] [↑]
[294] Evert, “Zur Statistik rückfälliger Verbrecher in Preussen”, p. 198. [↑]
[295] Wieselgren, “L’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité”, p. 164 (“Actes du Congr. pénit. de Bruxelles”), cf. Kinberg, “Alcool et criminalité” (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.” XXVIII). [↑]
[296] Schaffroth, “L’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité”, p. 128 (“Actes du Cong. pén. intern. de Bruxelles”). [↑]
[297] “Die Ergebnisse der Schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896”, p. 36. [↑]
[298] “Ueber individuelle Faktoren des Verbrechens”, p. 42. [↑]
[299] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. besides the works of de Roos, Verrijn Stuart, Ariëns, and Kinberg, already cited, the following of recent date: H. Hoppe, “Alkohol und Kriminalität”; A. Pistolese, “Alcoolismo e delinquenza”; Hoegel, op. cit., pp. 397 ff.; K. W. F. Boas, “Alkohol und Verbrechen nach neueren Statistiken”; Aull, “Alkohol und Verbrechen”; A. Ley et R. Charpentier, “Alcoolisme et criminalité”; G. B. Gruber, “Der Alkoholismus.” All these authors recognize, though not all in the same degree, that the influence of alcoholism upon crime is great; Pistolese alone denies it almost wholly.] [↑]
[300] The question must be looked at from the other side also, and it must be admitted that military service can have a favorable effect upon totally lawless individuals, who thus learn order and discipline; this, however, does not prevent the disadvantages from remaining. [↑]
[301] Quoted by Oettingen in his “Moralstatistik”, p. 481.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: upon Germany: H. Dietz, “Die Militärstrafrechtspflege im Lichte der Kriminalstatistik”; for France: A. Corre, “Aperçu général de la criminalité militaire en France”; for Italy: L. Ferrero di Cavallerleone and C. Placido, “Essais de criminologie militaire.”] [↑]
[302] See also Oettingen, op. cit., p. 687; Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, [[518]]II, pp. 572–589; Corre, “Crime et suicide”, p. 337; Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, p. 250; Wagner, “Die Sittlichkeit auf dem Lande”, pp. 77–81; Lombroso, “Crime, its Causes and Remedies”, pp. 201–203; Steinmetz, “Der Krieg als sociologisches Problem”, p. 37; Bleibtreu, op. cit., p. 16; Hamon, “Psychologie du Militaire professionnel”, Chs. V–VIII. [↑]
[303] See also: Corre, “Essai sur la criminalité”, p. 78 (“Journal des Economistes”, 1868); Colajanni, op. cit. II, pp. 572–589; Aubry, “La contagion [[519]]du meurtre”, pp. 247–249; Prof. Fr. v. Liszt, “Das Verbrechen als sozial-pathologische Erscheinung”, p. 17.
[Note to the American Edition: See further upon the demoralizing consequences of war: Steinmetz, “Die Philosophie des Krieges”, ch. III, 5, and my criticism of this book under the title “An apology for war” (“Nieuwe Tijd”, XIII, pp. 488 ff.). Think of the horrible cruelties committed in the recent wars in the Balkans (see the report of the Commission of the Carnegie Foundation); no one can any longer deny the demoralizing consequences of war!] [It may be of interest to the reader to know that the author wrote the foregoing in the spring of 1914.—Transl.] [↑]
[304] Aubry, “La contagion du meurtre”, p. 70; see also Ch. III, and Aschaffenburg, op. cit., p. 229. [↑]
[305] “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1895”, I, p. 31. [↑]
[306] “Kriminalstat. f. d. Jahr 1900”, I, pp. 18–19. [↑]
[307] “Kriminalstat. f. d. Jahr 1895”, I, p. 25. [↑]
[308] Drähms, “The Criminal”, p. 228, and “Criminal Statistics”, 1894–1900, Table XXXV. [↑]
[309] After “Criminal Statistics”, 1894–1900, Table IX. [↑]
[310] “Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege in den im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899”, p. li. [↑]
[311] The figures for 1850–1880 are taken from Bournet, “De la criminalité en France et en Italie”, p. 31, for the Assizes, and from Joly, “La France criminelle”, p. 166, for the others; the figures for 1881–1900 are from the “Rapport sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881 à 1900”, p. lxii. [↑]
[312] “Rapport etc.”, pp. lxiv and lxv. [↑]
[313] After Bournet “De la criminalité en France et en Italie”, p. 32, and “Statistica giudiziaria penale”, 1881–1889. The criminal statistics for 1890–95 contain all those convicted including those brought before the justices of the peace, which makes them not comparable with those given above. The average figure for 1891–95 was 25.27%, and for 1896–1900, 30.19% (“Notizie complementari etc.”, 1896–1900). [↑]
[314] After the “Jaarcijfers voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden”, 1901, p. 121.
[Note to the American Edition: The general percentage of recidivism in the Netherlands had risen to 44.5% in 1908.] [↑]
[315] On short imprisonments for minor offenses see von Liszt, “Kriminalpolitische Aufgaben”, V, “Die kurzzeitige Freiheitsstrafe” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.” IX). [↑]
[316] See Gautier, “Le monde des prisons” (“Archives d’anthropologie criminelle”, III) p. 563; Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, II, pp. 671–679; Laurent, “Les habitués des prisons de Paris”, pp. 592–596; Havelock Ellis, “Verbrecher und Verbrechen”, pp. 266–276; Moreau, “Le monde des prisons”, pp. 280–282; Aubry, “La contagion du meurtre”, Ch. II; Lombroso, “Les palimpsestes des prisons”, pp. 379–381. [↑]
[319] I will mention the following: Prins, “Criminalité et répression”, Ch. V; Ferri, “La sociologie criminelle”, pp. 546–554, and “Eine Verirrung des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts” (“Neue Zeit”, 1898–1899, II); Sacker, op. cit., pp. 70–74; Roos, “De strafmiddelen in de nieuwere strafrechtswetenschap”, Ch. VIII; Leuss, op. cit., pp. 176–193.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: G. Gradnauer, “Das [[528]]Elend des Strafvollzugs”, and A. Aletrino, “Is celstraf nog langer geoorloofd en gewenscht?”] [↑]
[320] See the Reports already cited, and Winter, “The New York State Reformatory in Elmira.” [↑]
[321] As was pointed out in Part I, Tarde is the author who has drawn attention to the rôle of imitation in the etiology of crime; but see also: Sighele, “Le crime à deux”, “La foule criminelle”, and “La psychologie des sectes”; Aubry, “La contagion du meurtre”; Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 203–211. [↑]
[323] See Engels, “The Condition of the Working Class in England”, pp. 120 ff. [↑]
[324] “Criminal statistics”, 1894 and 1898, pp. 24 and 31.
[Note to the American Edition: In the “Crim. Stat. England and Wales, 1905” there is a special study of crime in some of the great cities (pp. 62 ff.).] [↑]
[325] Prinzing, “Soziale Faktoren der Kriminalität”, pp. 565, 566. [↑]
[326] “Rapport sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881 à 1900”, p. xxix. [↑]
[327] “Rapport etc.”, p. xxx. [↑]
[328] “Crimineele statistiek over het jaar 1901”, pp. xvii and xviii. [↑]
[329] See also A. Mayer, “Die Verbrechen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhältnissen im Kanton Zürich.”
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: for Germany: J. Galle, “Die Kriminalität in Stadt und Land in ihrer Beziehung zur Berufsverteilung”; for the Balkan States: Wadler, op. cit., pp. 155 ff.; for Belgium: Jacquart, op. cit., pp. 86 ff.; for the Netherlands: de Roos, op. cit., pp. 222 ff., and Verrijn Stuart, op. cit., p. 239.] [↑]
[330] See, among others, de Vries, “Eenheid in Veranderlijkheid”, pp. 3–6. [↑]
[331] [Note to the American Edition: In present day sociology it is almost universally accepted that there is only a quantitative difference between criminals and other men, and that the “homo criminalis” does not exist. An interesting contribution to this question is given by Dr. Finkelnburg in his “Die Bestraften in Deutschland”. His statistical calculations bring him to the conclusion that in Germany there is one person out of every 12 (over 20 years of age) convicted!] [↑]
[332] I speak neither of all the crimes nor of all the motives of those of which I do treat. For a complete enumeration of the motives of crimes, see Starke, “Des éléments essentiels qui doivent figurer dans la statistique criminelle et des moyens de les rendre comparables”, pp. 77, 78 (“Bulletin de l’institut international de statistique”, 1889), and von Liszt, “Die psychologischen Grundlagen der Kriminalpolitik”, pp. 490–494 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.” XVI). [↑]
[333] After the “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1900”, II, pp. 7–13. [↑]
[334] After the “Rapport sur l’administration etc.”, Tables 1, 2, and 7. [↑]
[335] After “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895”, pp. x and xi. [↑]
[336] After the “Gerechtelijke Statistiek”, 1897–1899, and the “Crimineele Statistiek”, 1900–1901. [↑]
[337] “Rapport sur l’administration etc.”, p. xxxvii. [↑]
[338] Ferri, “Atlante antropologico-statistico dell’omicidio”, p. 328, for 1880, [[544]]and for 1881, from “Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1881”, pp. xc and xci. [↑]
[339] [There seems no better way to designate a classification that does not exist in English than by taking over this French term.—Transl.] [↑]
[341] “Ueber individuelle Faktoren des Verbrechens”, pp. 40, 41. On the relation between vagrancy and mendicity, and criminality see also: Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, I, pp. 478, 479 (quoted in Part I of this work); Kurella, “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, pp. 206, 207; Sacker, “Der Rückfall”, pp. 56, 57; Fornasari de Verce, “La criminalità e le vicende economiche d’Italia”, p. 19; A. Meyer, “Die Verbrechen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhältnissen im Kanton Zürich”, p. 59; Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 144 ff.; Bérard, “Le vagabondage en France”, pp. 609, 610 (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.” XIII); Florian and Cavaglieri, “I Vagabondi”, II, pp. 181–197; Löwenstimm, “Das Bettelgewerbe”, pp. 124–128 (“Kriminalistische Studien”); Rivière, “Mendiants et vagabonds”, pp. 227, 228. [↑]
[342] “Neue Zeit”, 1893–1894, II, p. 443. [↑]
[343] Ostwald, “Das Leben der Wanderarmen”, p. 313 (“Archiv f. Kriminalanthr. u. Kriminalstat.” XIII). [↑]
[344] “Neue Zeit”, 1893–1894, II, p. 58. [↑]
[345] Ostwald, op. cit., p. 313. [↑]
[346] Florian and Cavaglieri, op. cit., II, pp. xl and xli. [↑]
[347] See the works of Fornasari di Verce, Tugan-Baranowsky, and G. Mayr, cited in Part I.
[Note to the American Edition: In his “Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre”, III, p. 653, G. V. Mayr gives statistics of vagrancy and mendicity for Germany (1877–1888), in which there appears a formidable increase during the years 1877–1880 (the end of the economic crisis), and a decrease after 1880. For Austria cf. Herz, op. cit., pp. 49 ff.] [↑]
[348] [Note to the American Edition: Upon Bavaria, cf. F. Knoblauch, “Bettel und Landstreicherei im Königreiche Bayern”, 1893–99.] [↑]
[349] For France see also Bérard, op. cit., pp. 607, 608. [↑]
[350] Ostwald, op. cit., p. 313. Cf. upon the periods 1866–1870 and 1877–1884, H. Bennecke, “Bemerkungen zur Kriminalstatistik des Grossherzogtums Hessen”, pp. 369 ff. [↑]
[351] Cf. K. Böhmert, “Die Sächsische Kriminalstatistik mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Jahre 1882–1887.” [↑]
[352] See Bérard, op. cit., pp. 605, 606. [↑]
[353] Flynt, op. cit., p. 170. [↑]
[354] “Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des grossstädtischen Bettel- und Vagabondentums” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XXI). [↑]
[355] See Ostwald, op. cit., pp. 306, 307. [↑]
[356] After “Criminal Statistics”, 1894–1900, Table XIII. In studying these figures it must not be lost sight of that in general a workman is soon worn out and after that is no longer hired. [↑]
[357] After “de Gerechtelijke Statistiek”, 1896–1899 and “de Crimineele Statistiek”, 1901. [↑]
[360] “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, p. 208. [↑]
[361] Florian and Cavaglieri, op. cit., II, p. 22. See also the whole of Sec. 5, IV, Chap. 2, of the same authors.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon this subject cf. K. Wilmanns, “Zur Psychopathologie des Landstreichers”, and Stelzner, op. cit., pp. 92 ff.] [↑]
[362] See Dugdale, “The Jukes”, pp. 47 and 49; and Flynt, op. cit., p. 6. [↑]
[363] See Florian and Cavaglieri, op. cit., II, pp. 34, 35, 177, 178. [↑]
[364] See Tomel and Rollet, “Les enfants en prison”, pp. 55–76; Puibaraud, “Les malfaiteurs de profession”, pp. 217–230; Albanel, “Le crime dans la famille”, p. 88; Löwenstimm, op. cit., pp. 89–99; Joly, “L’enfance coupable”, pp. 60 ff. [↑]
[365] Op. cit., pp. 31, 32. [↑]
[366] Florian and Cavaglieri, op. cit., II, p. 52. See also: Frégier, “Les classes dangereuses de la population dans les grandes villes”, I, pp. 199, 200; Tomel and Rollet, op. cit., pp. 28–45; and Albanel, op. cit., p. 78. [↑]
[368] Flynt, op. cit., p. 49; Th. Holmes, “Pictures and Problems of London Police Courts”, p. 64; and others. [↑]
[369] Upon vagrancy and mendicity of children see further: J. Délie, “Le vagabondage des mineurs”; Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 144–155; and Flynt, op. cit., pp. 28–60.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon pathological children see P. Schroeder, “Das Fortlaufen der Kinder” (“Monatschr. f. Krim. Psychologie u. Strafr. reform”, VIII); and E. Stier, “Wandertrieb und pathologisches Fortlaufen bei Kindern.”] [↑]
[370] See Florian and Cavaglieri, op. cit., II, pp. 11–14. [↑]
[371] See, for example, Löwenstimm, op. cit., pp. 17 and 92. [↑]
[372] See Bérard, op. cit., p. 605. [↑]
[373] See Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 177 ff., and “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, pp. 460 ff. [↑]
[374] Op. cit., pp. 97, 103, 110, 182, and 244. [↑]
[376] Op. cit., I, pp. 111, 112. [↑]
[377] Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 151–154. Tomel and Rollet, op. cit., pp. 24–27.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Haury, “La paresse pathologique” (“Archives d’anthrop. crim.” XXVIII).] [↑]
[378] “Die Vagabondage und ihre Behandlung”, p. 715 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XI). [↑]
[379] [Note to the American Edition: Of the recent literature upon vagrancy and mendicity we would call attention to the following: K. Wilmanns, “Das Landstreichertum, seine Bekämpfung und Abhilfe”; A. Aletrino, “Handleiding bij de studie der crimineele anthropologie”, II, ch. VI; Rotering, “Das Landstreichertum der Gegenwart”; Riebeth, “Ueber den geistigen und körperlichen Zustand der Korrigenden”; de Roos, op. cit., pp. 151 ff.; A. Marie and R. Meunier, “Les vagabonds”; Pollitz, op. cit., pp. 95 ff.; A. Pagnier, “Le vagabond”; Kauffmann, op. cit., pp. 97 ff.; H. T. de Graaf, “Karakter en behandeling van veroordeelden wegens landlooperij en bedelarij.”] [↑]
[380] Marx, “Kapital”, I, ch. XXLV, pp. 699 ff. [↑]
[381] Upon the impossibility of innate moral concepts see Näcke, “Die neueren Erscheinungen auf kriminal-anthropologischen Gebiete und ihre Bedeutung”, p. 342 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XIV). [↑]
[382] “Der Ursprung der Idee des Gerechten und Ungerechten”, pp. 470, 471. (“Neue Zeit”, 1898–1899, II.) [↑]
[383] “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1894”, II, p. 53. [↑]
[384] The figures in the line a are the absolute figures (annual averages), those in the line b the relative numbers, i.e. what the daily average for that month would be if the daily average for the year were 100. [↑]
[385] “Marche de la criminalité en France, 1825–1880” (“Revue scientifique”, 1881), to be found also in Levasseur’s “La population française”, II, p. 458. [↑]
[386] Taken from the “Kriminalstatistik”, 1895, 1907, 1908 and 1911, and from the “Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich.” [↑]
[387] The figures from 1906 on are comparable with those preceding, only with reserve. [↑]
[388] The figures from 1907 on are not comparable with those preceding. [↑]
[389] For details see my study already cited, “Verbrechen und Sozialismus.” ↑ [a] [b]
[390] [Note to the American Edition: The English criminal statistics for 1905 show an interesting diagram upon the connection between the trend of economic crime and that of business from 1885 to 1905 (Int. p. 24).] [↑]
[391] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. Jacquart, op. cit. pp. 109 ff.] [↑]
[392] [Note to the American Edition: For the period 1896–1908 I have shown in my study “Crime et Socialisme” the striking parallel between economic crime and the business situation.] [↑]
[393] There are still to be mentioned as authors who have treated the dynamics of criminality: J. Sacker, “Der Rückfall” (pp. 39, 40); Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung” (pp. 89 ff.); and H. Leuss, “Aus dem Zuchthause” (pp. 228 ff.).
[Note to the American Edition: See further: for Austria: Hoegel, op. cit., pp. 369 ff., Herz, op. cit., pp. 40 ff.; for Saxony: Böhmert, op. cit., [[570]]and Wulffen, op. cit., I pp. 390 ff.; for Servia: Wadler, op. cit., p. 73 ff. Cf. also in general: V. Mancini, “Le varie specie di furto nella storia e nella sociologia”, III 3, Ch. IV.] [↑]
[394] Cf. further: Aschaffenburg, op. cit., pp. 98 ff.; Eggert, “Not und Verbrechen”; Wulffen, op. cit., I, pp. 395 ff.; v. Rohden in “Zeitschr. f. Sozialwissenschaft”, VII, pp. 522 ff., and IX, pp. 229 ff. [↑]
[395] Cf. the recent study of Prinzing, “Die soziale Lage der Witwe in Deutschland” (“Zeitschr. f. Sozialwissenschaft”, III). [↑]
[396] In general, criminals are distinguished as occasional, habitual, and professional. Habitual criminals, however, are also occasional criminals, for they do not seek the occasion for their crimes like criminals by profession, but profit by it whenever it presents itself. They are the bond of union between the first and third kind of criminals, and in my opinion, it is unnecessary to treat of them separately. [↑]
[397] See the passage from Mably, Pt. I, p. 14; also Lassalle, “Offenes Antwort-Schreiben” (“Reden und Schriften”, II, pp. 426–427). [↑]
[398] Cf. Földes, “Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik”, p. 548. [↑]
[399] Cf. Ryckère, “La servante criminelle”, ch. III. [↑]
[400] As to the literature upon theft in stores, etc., see especially Lacassagne, “Les vols à l’étalage et dans les grands magasins” (“Compte rendu du IVe Congrès d’anthr. crim.”) and Dubuisson, “Les voleuses des grands magasins” (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.”, XVI.); also Lombroso and Ferrero, “La femme criminelle et la prostituée”, pp. 481, 482; Albanel, op. cit., pp. 91–95. [↑]
[401] An interesting proof of the truth of this assertion may be found in an article by Dr. P. v. Gizycki, entitled “Wie urteilen Schulkinder über Funddiebstahl?” (“Zeitschrift für Kinderforschung”, VIII). One day this author gave young girls (between 11 and 15 years of age) in a school of the poor in Berlin, the following composition: “You are going to the Christmas fair without money, for your parents are poor. Your father is out of work. You find a pocket book containing a five-mark piece. What do you do with it?” The children had not been prepared for the subject and had received no indication of how they ought to treat it. Only five per cent. of the girls said that they would return the money, because they would pity the person who lost it, and who might also be poor. All the others among those who also wished to return the money (53%) had other motives. Those who, on the contrary, wished to retain the money, wanted, without exception, to use it to give their parents things they needed. Who will still dare to say that the children who wanted to keep the money (most of them believing in good faith that they had a right to it) in order to give it to others, had feelings less social than most of the rich who, without blushing, see the misery of the poor? [↑]
[402] Upon the bad surroundings of the childhood of thieves see further: Raux, “Nos jeunes détenus”, p. 42, and Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 264 ff. [↑]
[404] “Das Verbrechen, etc.”, p. 123. [↑]
[406] Cf. Ferriani, “Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher”, p. 39, and Sighele, “Psychologie des sectes”, pp. 141, 142. [↑]
[407] Ferriani, op. cit. See also Zerboglio, “Les inconvénients de l’honnêteté” (“L’ère nouvelle”, 1894). [↑]
[408] “Aus dem Zuchthause”, p. 122. [↑]
[409] “Kriminalstatistik f. d. Jahr 1896”, I, p. 14. [↑]
[410] “Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895”, p. viii. [↑]
[411] Tönnies, “Das Verbrechen als soziale Erscheinung”, p. 334 (“Arch. f. Soz. Gesetzgeb. u. Stat.”, VIII). [↑]
[412] Tarde, “Les délits impoursuivis”, p. 207 (“Essais et mélanges sociologiques”). [↑]
[413] “Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1894”, p. lxxxii. See also the detailed statistics cited by Ferriani, op. cit., pp. 112–118. [↑]
[414] “Les malfaiteurs de profession”, 5. 139. [↑]
[415] “Les transformations de l’impunité”, p. 167 (published by Professor Lacassagne in “Vacher l’éventreur et les crimes sadiques”). [↑]
[416] “Betrachtungen über ein Sammeln der verbrecherischen Motive”, p. 278 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, XVII). See also Földes, op. cit., pp. 516–519. [↑]
[417] In a work upon the etiology of crime it is unnecessary to set forth in detail the numerous ruses that professional criminals make use of to dupe the public and the police. We merely note here a few important works dealing with this subject: Frégier, “Les classes dangereuses de la population dans les grandes villes”, I, Part II, Chap. VII; Avé-Lallemant, “Das deutsche Gaunerthum”, III, pp. 118–340; O. S., “Die Verbrecherwelt von Berlin”, III (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, V); Puibaraud, “Les malfaiteurs de profession.”
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Herz, op. cit., Ch. IVa, and E. Wulffen, “Gauner- und Verbrechertypen.”] [↑]
[418] Cf. the following passage from “Tramping with Tramps”, by Josiah Flynt: “One more regret which nearly all criminals of the class I am considering have experienced at one time or another in their lives, is that circumstances have led them into a criminal career. Their remorse may be only for a moment, and an exaggerated indifference often follows it; but while it lasts it is genuine and sincere. I have never known a criminal well who has not confessed to me something of this sort; and he has often capped [[580]]it with a further confidence—his sorrow that it was now too late to try anything else” (pp. 25–26). [↑]
[419] Op. cit., pp. 131, 132. As regards the education of children in thieving, see also: Faucher, “Études sur l’Angleterre”, I, pp. 89 ff.; Tomel and Rollet, “Les enfants en prison”, pp. 195–197. [↑]
[420] Although there are some works upon this subject, criminal sociology would derive great profit from the publication of a great number of biographies of criminals, and especially of great criminals.
[Note to the American Edition: Dr. N. Muller in his work already referred to, “Biografisch-aetiologisch onderzoek etc.”, has made a noteworthy beginning in this field, by giving biographies of 24 great criminals. The “Verbrechertypen” edited by Gruhle and Wetzel, promises much.] [↑]
[421] See, among others, G. Moreau, “Souvenirs de la petite et de la grande Roquette”, I. p. 27, and “Le monde des prisons”, pp. 11, 16; L. Gordon Rylands, “Crime, its Causes and Remedy”, pp. 18 ff. [↑]
[422] Op. cit., pp. 21, 22. [↑]
[424] Op. cit., pp. 23, 24. To the same effect see O. S., op. cit., pp. 136, 137. [↑]
[425] Op. cit., pp. 5, 6; see also pp. 11–12. To the same effect: Starke, “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen”, p. 221; Havelock Ellis, “Verbrecher und Verbrechen”, pp. 24, 25; and Leuss, “Aus dem Zuchthause”, p. 125. [↑]
[426] [Note to the American Edition: Muller mentions further as a result of his researches that criminals by profession show in general an adventurous and unstable character. Cf. Kauffmann, op. cit., pp. 160 ff.] [↑]
[427] “Actes du IIe Congrès d’Anthr. Crim.”, p. 163. [↑]
[428] IV., pp. 386–388. See also Zerboglio, “Les inconvénients de l’honnêteté”, pp. 385 ff. [↑]
[429] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. further (besides the works of Muller and Kauffmann): Wulffen, II, pp. 284 ff.; Pollitz, op. cit., pp. 124 ff.; also Brusse’s brochure, already cited, “Het rosse”, etc.] [↑]
[430] Cf. A. H. Post, “Bausteine für eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft”, I, p. 293, and “Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz”, II, pp. 421 ff. [↑]
[431] In his “Grundriss, etc.”, II, p. 213, Dr. Post names different peoples who do not consider theft as blamable but as praiseworthy. It is very probable that this relates to theft committed to the detriment of another group, and not to the prejudice of the members of the thief’s own group. It is plain that it is only the latter kind of theft that we treat of in a work upon crime. Cf. Kovalewsky, “Les origines du devoir”, pp. 88, 89 (“Revue internationale de sociologie”, II). [↑]
[432] To the same effect see Kovalewsky, op. cit., pp. 88, 89, note. [↑]
[433] “Bausteine etc.”, I, pp. 286, 287. See by the same author, “Grundriss etc.”, II, p. 429, and “Der Ursprung des Rechts”, pp. 114, 115. Cf. Steinmetz, “Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe”, II, p. 252. [↑]
[434] Cf. the quotation from Morgan on p. 386 of this work. [↑]
[435] See Dargun, “Ursprung und Entwicklungsgeschichte des Eigenthums”, pp. 81–83. [↑]
[436] Cf. Post, “Bausteine etc.”, I, p. 288 ff.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: Westermarck, “Ursprung und Entwicklung der Moralbegriffe”, II, ch. 24.] [↑]
[437] Cf. v. Liszt, “Das gewerbmässige Verbrechen”, pp. 126, 127 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.” XXI). [↑]
[438] “Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1889”, pp. cliv–clv.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. further upon Austria: Herz, op. cit., pp. 39 ff.; upon the Balkan states: Wadler, op. cit., pp. 46 and 54.] [↑]
[439] “Della statistica dell’omicidio negli stati Uniti d’America” (“Bulletin de l’Institut intern. de statistique”, X), pp. 40 ff. [↑]
[440] Cf. Niceforo, “Les transformations du crime et la civilisation moderne”, pp. 642 ff. (“Scuola Positiva”, XI). [↑]
[441] “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1894”, II, p. 53. [↑]
[442] H. Berg, “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland seit 1882”, pp. 10, 18.
[Note to the American Edition: After 1898, also, the influence of the economic situation made itself felt in these crimes.] [↑]
[443] P. 47. See plate, pp. 40, 41. [↑]
[444] [Note to the American Edition: Wadler has shown the connection of these two phenomena for Servia (op. cit., p. 83).] [↑]
[445] Taken from Sighele, “Le crime à deux”, pp. 122–125. [↑]
[446] Taken from “Archiv für Kriminal-Anthropologie und Kriminalstatistik”, XI, pp. 307 ff. [↑]
[447] Baer, “Ueber jugendliche Mörder und Todtschläger” (“Archiv f. Krim.-Anthr. und Krim.”, XI). [↑]
[448] Op. cit., pp. 166, 167. [↑]
[449] “Les enfants en prison”, p. 215. [↑]
[450] Cf. Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 279 ff. [↑]
[451] Taken from Moreau, “Souvenirs de la petite et de la grande Roquette”, II, ch. VIII. See also Joly, “Le crime”, pp. 97 ff. [↑]
[452] Cf. Manouvrier, “Les crânes des suppliciés” (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.”, I), where he shows that the conformation of the skulls of assassins is simply of a coarser type than others. [↑]
[454] “Tramping with Tramps”, p. 24. Cf. Moreau, “Le monde des prisons”, p. 621, and Kauffmann, op. cit., pp. 163, 164 and 203–206. [↑]
[455] Cf. Post, “Der Ursprung des Rechts”, p. 116, “Bausteine etc.”, I, pp. 300–302, and “Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz”, II, p. 444. [↑]
[457] For Germany see also H. Berg, “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland seit 1882”, p. 18. [↑]
[459] Where capitalism is beginning to develop, adulteration, etc., is the order of the day (e.g. in Japan in our day. See “Zeitschr. f. Socialwissenschaft”, N. F. IV, p. 503); later a certain honesty, based upon interest, especially in the wholesale business, becomes the rule. (Cf. Engels, “Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England”, Preface pp. vii–viii.) [↑]
[460] See Zerboglio, “Les inconvénients de l’honnêteté” (“L’ère nouvelle”, 1894); also Ferriani, “Glückliche und schlaue Verbrecher”, IV. [↑]
[461] Laschi, op. cit., pp. 72, 73. [↑]
[462] Laschi, op. cit., p. 106. [↑]
[463] Laschi, op. cit., pp. 97 ff. [↑]
[464] Pp. xx and xxi.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. B. Kritschewsky, “Die Korruption in der französischen Demokratie” (“Neue Zeit”, XXVIII2), pp. 12 ff.] [↑]
[465] See Laschi, op. cit., p. 107.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon the way in which great fortunes have been amassed, see F. Kummer, “Die Geschichte der grossen amerikanischen Vermögen” (“Neue Zeit”, XXX2).] [↑]
[466] For descriptions of cases see Zola, “L’argent”, and Wulffen, op. cit., II, p. 334. [↑]
[467] Laschi, op. cit., p. 180. [↑]
[469] P. 128 (in the original, p. 131). [↑]
[470] Cf. Post, “Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz”, II, p. 359; Letourneau, “L’évolution du mariage et de la famille”, p. 257; Lafargue, “Der Ehebruch in Gegenwart und Vergangenheit” (“Neue Zeit”, VII); and Ferrero, “Le crime d’adultère—son passé, son avenir” (“Archives d’anthrop. crim.”, IX). [↑]
[471] “Les criminels dans l’art et la littérature”, p. 141. Cf. also Letourneau, “Évolution du mariage”, pp. 282, 283. [↑]
[473] Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, p. 13. Cf. A. v. Oettingen, “Moralstatistik”, pp. 221, 222; Prof. Tardieu, “Étude médico-légale sur les attentats aux mœurs”, pp. 22, 23; Dr. P. Bernard, “Des viols et attentats à la pudeur sur adultes”, p. 562 (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.” II); also the German criminal statistics. [↑]
[474] “Das Verbrechen in seiner Abhängigkeit von dem jährlichen Temperaturwechsel” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, II). [↑]
[475] See G. v. Mayr, “Gesetzmässigkeit im Gesellschaftsleben”, pp. 239 ff., and “Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre”, II, pp. 170, 171. [↑]
[476] “Contribution à l’étude statistique de la criminalité en France”, p. 60. Dr. A. Bournet, in “De la criminalité en France et en Italie”, p. 68, and Ferri, op. cit., p. 39, and Bernard, op. cit., p. 566, come to the same conclusion. [↑]
[477] Socquet, op. cit., pp. 61 and 69. See also Ferri, op. cit., p. 43. [↑]
[478] Socquet, op. cit., p. 60. [↑]
[479] Cf. Bournet, op. cit., p. 68, and Bernard, op. cit., p. 567. [↑]
[480] The first two columns are taken from Bernard, op. cit., p. 569; the last is figured from the “Annuaire statistique de la France”, VII, p. 526.
[Note to the American Edition: The same thing is shown by the criminal statistics of the Netherlands. Cf. de Roos, op. cit., p. 114, and my own study already cited, “Misdaad en Socialisme”, pp. 34–35.] [↑]
[481] “Die Sittlichkeitsverbrechen in Deutschland in kriminalstatistischer Beleuchtung”, p. 266. Cf. Wittenberg and Wagner, “Die geschlechtlich sittlichen Verhältnisse der evangelischen Landbewohner im Deutschen Reiche”, and Wagner, “Die Sittlichkeit auf dem Lande.” See also Ferriani, “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 96 ff., and L. Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 385, 386.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Herz, op. cit., p. 35; Bonger, op. cit., pp. 33, 34; Baernreither, op. cit. passim; and Geill, “Kriminal-anthropologische Untersuchungen dänischer Sittlichkeitsverbrecher”, p. 358.] [↑]
[482] See among others Grotjahn, “Der Alkoholismus”, pp. 53 and 86. [↑]
[483] “Actes du congrès pénitentiaire international de Bruxelles.” [↑]
[484] Loeffler, “Alkohol und Verbrechen”, pp. 518–521 (“Zeitschrift f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XXIII). [↑]
[485] P. 113. See also Bournet, op. cit., p. 69. [↑]
[486] “Crimineele Statistiek voor het jaar 1901”, p. xxvii. [↑]
[487] “Actes etc.”, p. 167.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon the influence of alcohol upon sexual crimes see further Geill, op. cit., p. 362; Aschaffenburg, “Zur Psychologie der Sittlichkeitsverbrechen”, p. 408; Bonhoeffer, “Sittlichkeitsdelikt und Körperverletzung”, p. 469.] [↑]
[488] “Die Ergebnisse der schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896.” [↑]
[489] See “Der Ursprung des Rechts”, p. 112; “Die Grundlagen des Rechts etc.”, p. 377; and “Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz”, II, p. 382. [↑]
[490] See among others Garraud and Bernard, “Des attentats à la pudeur et des viols sur les enfants”, pp. 404–405 (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.”, I). [↑]
[491] See Lafargue, p. 293; Garraud and Bernard, op. cit., pp. 408–409. [↑]
[492] Cf. “Reports on the law relating to the protection of young girls”, 1882, p. 37; Dr. Ladame, “De la prostitution dans ses rapports avec l’alcoolisme, le crime, et la folie”, pp. 24–26; and Amschl, “Aberglauben als Heilmittel”, pp. 397, 398 (“Archiv f. Krim.-Anthr. und Kriminalstatistik”, XV). [↑]
[493] Cf. Tardieu, op. cit., pp. 21, 22; Levasseur, “La population française”, II, p. 448; Starke, op. cit., pp. 172, 173. [↑]
[494] Socquet, op. cit., pp. 60 and 68. [↑]
[495] In his “Die Frau und der Sozialismus”, Bebel gives almost the same proportion for Germany without indicating the source from which he takes his figures. As he remarks the percentage of the rich and well-to-do would be larger if those interested did not often succeed in hushing the matter up. We need only recall the revelations made by the “Pall Mall Gazette” (see “Les scandales de Londres”). [↑]
[496] Garraud and Bernard, op. cit., p. 432. [↑]
[497] Socquet, op. cit., pp. 60 and 69. [↑]
[498] Cf. Bournet, op. cit., pp. 66–68; Socquet, op. cit., p. 73; Garraud and Bernard, op. cit., p. 435. [↑]
[499] The author makes the mistake of omitting here the words “of children.” Statistics show that it is especially the country, where the sexual life is characterized rather by grossness than by perversion, that produces these crimes. Dr. Després has been led to this error through studying the geography of rape upon children and upon adults at the same time—by which method they are seen to be most numerous in the cities where prostitution exists exclusively. An examination of the two crimes separately gives different results. [↑]
[501] Op. cit., p. 24. Cf. Tarde, “Penal Philosophy”, p. 355, and Leuss, op. cit., p. 106. [↑]
[503] Cf. Bérard des Glajeux, “Les passions criminelles”, pp. 121, 122.
[Note to the American Edition: Additional works that have appeared recently are: R. Quanter, “Die Sittlichkeitsverbrechen”; F. Leppmann, “Die Sittlichkeitsverbrecher” (very interesting!); de Roos, “De sexueele criminaliteit”; L. Wachholz, “Zur Lehre von den sexuellen Delikten”; E. Wulffen, “Der Sexualverbrecher”; L. Ferrante Capetti, “Reati e psicopatie sessuali”; J. Werthauer, “Sittlichkeits-Delikte der Gross-Stadt”; Kauffmann, op. cit., pp. 133 ff.; M. R. Senf, “Geschlechtstrieb und Verbrechen.”] [↑]
[504] For a complete enumeration of the motives of crime see: Liszt, “Die psychologischen Grundlagen der Kriminalpolitik”, pp. 490–494 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.”, XVI) and Starke, “Des éléments essentiels qui doivent figurer dans la statistique criminelle et des moyens de les rendre comparables”, pp. 77, 78 (“Bulletin de l’inst. intern. de statistique”, 1889).
[Note to the American Edition: See further the recent studies upon superstition and crime: Löwenstimm, “Aberglaube und Verbrechen”, “Aberglaube und Gesetz”; Wulffen, “Psychologie des Verbrechens”, II, pp. 219–229; Helling, “Verbrechen und Aberglaube”.] [↑]
[505] Upon the psychology of vengeance see Steinmetz, “Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe”, I, pp. 99 ff. [↑]
[506] Upon the instinct of vengeance see: A. H. Post, “Bausteine für eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft”, I, pp. 140 ff.; Colajanni, “Sociologia criminale”, II, p. 64; Letourneau, “L’évolution juridique”, pp. 7 ff.; Lafargue, “Der Ursprung der Idee des Gerechten und Ungerechten”, p. 421 (“Neue Zeit”, 1898–1899, II). [↑]
[507] Cf. Prinzing, “Soziale Faktoren der Kriminalität”, p. 558, and Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, p. 135.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. especially: Müller-Lyer, “Phasen der Liebe”, pp. 47 ff.] [↑]
[508] See Ferriani, “L’amore in tribunali”, and L. Holtz, “Les crimes passionels”, upon crimes of this class. [↑]
[511] See Letourneau, “L’évolution du mariage et de la famille”, p. 275. [↑]
[512] See Steinmetz, op. cit., II, p. 303, and Sutherland, op. cit., I, chap. VIII. [↑]
[513] It is plain that this influences also those relationships that are not sanctioned by law. [↑]
[514] There is almost no mention of sexual jealousy where men and women both occupy an independent position. Cf. Morgan, “Ancient Society”, p. 431. [↑]
[515] Cf. Holtz, op. cit., pp. 52–54. [↑]
[516] Cf. Holtz, op. cit., pp. 147–149. [↑]
[517] “Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1894”, II, p. 52. [↑]
[518] In his “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland”, H. Berg shows that crimes against persons in Germany were not influenced by economic occurrences during the years 1882–1898 (pp. 31 ff.).
[Note to the American Edition: I have proved the same for 1898–1908. (See my study, “Verbrechen und Socialismus”, p. 808.)] [↑]
[519] [Note to the American Edition: The same is true in the Netherlands. In Austria, Herz has shown a certain relation between the phenomena in question after 1863, but not in recent years.] [↑]
[520] The figures for homicide, etc., are taken from Ferri, “Atlante antropologico-statistico dell’omicidio”, pp. 246–248. The figures for illiteracy in Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, and Holland are taken from the official statistics, the others from the “Statesman’s Year Book, 1902.” [↑]
[521] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: Wadler, op. cit., pp. 176 ff., upon the Balkan States, where the crimes in question are very frequent, and the degree of civilization is very low. (In Servia, for example, in 1900 there was a percentage of illiteracy of about 79!)] [↑]
[522] From Colajanni, “L’homicide en Italie”, p. 49 (“Revue Socialiste”, 1901). [↑]
[523] The first column is taken from “Kriminalstatistik f. d. Jahr 1898”, II, pp. 27–30; the second from “Statistisches Jahrbuch f. d. Deutsche Reich, 1894”, p. 151; the last is figured from “Statistik der Reichstagswahlen von 1898”, p. 3.
[Note to the American Edition: In my study already quoted, “Verbrechen und Socialismus”, I have given figures for 1903–1907, which show in general the same results.] [↑]
[524] I have chosen the crime of serious assault, because it is committed especially out of revenge, and because the figures for homicide are too small in Germany to answer for this table. [↑]
[525] Later I will explain why these figures are added. [↑]
[526] From Boies, “Science of Penology”, Appendix B. [↑]
[527] From Ferri, “Atlante dell’omicidio”, pp. 250, 251; the figures for illiteracy are from “Annuario statistico italiano, 1900”, pp. 177, 178. [↑]
[528] To my regret I have been unable to procure the figures for 1880–1883; the differences between the provinces were, however, probably the same as for 1896. [↑]
[529] The first column is from “De crimineele statistiek van 1901”, the second from “Jaarcijfers voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 1901”, p. 47.
[Note to the American Edition: In my study, “Misdaad en socialisme”, I have given the figures for a longer period (1901–1905), which confirm in general the results given above (p. 35).] [↑]
[530] Cf. Moreau (of Tours), “L’homicide commis par les enfants”, pp. 53 and 77; Ferriani, “Entartete Mütter”, pp. 73 and 167, and “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, pp. 134 ff. [↑]
[531] Cf. E. Key, “Das Jahrhundert des Kindes”, p. 149. [↑]
[532] Steinmetz, “Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe”, I, pp. 299 ff. [↑]
[533] Cf. Colajanni, op. cit., p. 39. [↑]
[534] For Italy, in addition to the official statistics already cited, see Colajanni, “L’homicide en Italie”, pp. 43, 44, 51–52. I have not been able to procure figures for the movement of these crimes in other countries.
[Note to the American Edition: Herz mentions, for Austria (1862–1899) a decrease of crimes in their most serious form and an increase in the less serious. For Scotland and Ireland the criminal statistics show a remarkable decrease; in England this decrease has been very considerable in recent years, and for all forms of these crimes. In Belgium there is a decrease for the more serious forms, the others remaining stationary. In the Netherlands there has been a decrease in recent years. In the United States the crimes in question seem to be increasing (cf. J. W. Garner, “Homicide in American Cities” (“Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology”, III, p. 675).] [↑]
[535] Cf. Starke, “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen”, p. 236, and Berg, “Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland seit 1882”, pp. 34 ff. [↑]
[536] Cf. Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, p. 152. [↑]
[537] [Note to the American Edition: Later it has been shown that the last remark is perfectly correct. In recent years (about the beginning of [[639]]the century), the consumption of alcohol has decreased, and also the crimes in question: cf. my study “Verbrechen und Sozialismus”, pp. 807 ff.] [↑]
[538] “Der Alkoholismus”, p. 57. Cf. O. Lang, “Alkoholgenuss und Verbrechen”, pp. 50, 51. [↑]
[539] See A. Baer, “Der Alcoholismus”, pp. 30 ff.; Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 52 ff.; Aschaffenburg, “Alkoholgenuss und Verbrechen”, pp. 73–77 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.”, XX. This is also to be found in “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, pp. 69–72). [↑]
[540] “Sociologie criminelle”, p. 222.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. for Germany Bonger, op. cit., pp. 807 ff.; for Austria: Herz, op. cit., pp. 57 ff.; for Belgium: Jacquart, op. cit., pp. 98 ff.; and for the Netherlands: Bonger, op. cit., p. 27.] [↑]
[541] The first two columns have been taken from Löffler, “Alkohol und Verbrechen”, pp. 533, 534; the third from Lang, op. cit., p. 43; and the two others from Aschaffenburg, op. cit., pp. 86 and 88.
[Note to the American Edition: See also: E. Kürz, “Zur Prophylaxe der Roheitsdelikte”, and C. Hotter, “Alkohol und Verbrechen in Niederbayern.”] [↑]
[542] P. 92. See also Merens, “Over het onderzoek naar den invloed der dronkenschap op de criminaliteit”, pp. 170–200. [↑]
[543] See the criticism of these methods in Merens, op. cit., pp. 128 ff. [↑]
[544] Löffler, op. cit., pp. 518–521. [↑]
[545] Aschaffenburg, op. cit., p. 85. [↑]
[546] Masoin, “L’alcoolisme dans ses rapports avec la criminalité”, pp. 410–414 (“Bulletin de l’académie royale de médecine de Belgique”, 1896).
[Note to the American Edition: For Austria see Herz, op. cit., pp. 31 ff., and for the Netherlands: Bonger, op. cit., p. 35.] [↑]
[547] “Actes etc.”, p. 113.
[Note to the American Edition: For France see also M. Yvernès, “L’alcoolisme et la criminalité” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, XXVII).] [↑]
[548] “Actes etc.”, p. 58. [↑]
[549] Merens, op. cit., p. 126. [↑]
[550] Merens, op. cit., p. 107. [↑]
[551] “Crimineele Statistiek, 1901”, pp. xxvi–xxvii. [↑]
[552] Wieselgren, “Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité” (“Actes du Congrès pénitent. de Bruxelles”). [↑]
[554] [Note to the American Edition: In his “Anthropologie der nichtbesitzenden Klassen”, Niceforo defends the thesis that the crimes in question are caused by the physiological poverty of the poor classes, in its turn a consequence of environment (pp. 369 ff.).] [↑]
[555] Cf. Steinmetz, op. cit., I, Pt. III. [↑]
[556] T. W. Teifen, “Das soziale Elend und die besitzenden Klassen in Oesterreich”, p. 171. [↑]
[557] Socquet, “Contribution à l’étude statistique de la criminalité en France, 1876–1880”, p. 41. [↑]
[559] Cf. Dr. Audiffrent, “Quelques considérations sur l’infanticide”, p. 5 (“Archives d’anthrop. crim.”, XVII). [↑]
[560] Cf. Starke, “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen”, p. 156; Loosjes, “Bijdrage tot de studie van de criminaliteit der vrouw”, pp. 164, 165; Lombroso, “La femme criminelle et la prostituée”, p. 494; Joly, “Le crime”, pp. 263, 264. [↑]
[561] In his “L’évolution de la morale”, Letourneau points out that in countries where public opinion is very indulgent to female frailty, infanticide is almost unknown (p. 73). [↑]
[562] Cf. Brissot de Warville, “Théorie des lois criminelles”, I, p. 95. Of a literature that has long been copious may be named, especially, the interesting work of Pestalozzi, “Ueber Gesetzgebung und Kindermord.” [↑]
[563] Cf. Sutherland, “Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct”, I, pp. 113 ff. [↑]
[564] [Note to the American Edition: Of the recent literature upon infanticide I would call attention to: W. Gleispach, “Ueber Kindesmord”; A. Amschl, “Das Verbrechen des Kindesmordes nach oesterreichischem Recht”; G. van Dijck, “Eenige beschouwingen over het misdrijf van kindermoord”; W. Kürbitz-Sonnenschein, “Der Geisteszustand der Kindermörderinnen.”] [↑]
[565] It seems to me that Lombroso and Laschi extend the conception of political crime too much in making it any revolt against the authorities, as they do in their work, “Der politische Verbrecher und die Revolutionen”. Very often these troubles are only more or less serious fights with the police and have no political character at all. Opinions may differ as to the value of Professor Lombroso’s works, but I cannot imagine how any one can admire his work upon political crime. It is full of mistakes and superficial observations. [↑]
[566] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. Vallon and Genil-Perrin, “Crime et altruisme” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.”, XXVIII).] [↑]
[567] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. upon political crimes in Russia: E. Tarnowsky, “Les crimes politiques en Russie” (“Archives d’anthr. crim.” XII), and A. Wadler, “Die politische Verbrechen in Russland” (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafrw.” XXIX).] [↑]
[568] See Dubois, “Le péril anarchiste”, pp. 25 ff.; Aubry, “La contagion du meurtre”, pp. 256 ff.; and Enthoven, “Het anarchisme van de daad”, ch. II. [↑]
[569] Cf. Lombroso, “Les anarchistes”, p. 116. [↑]
[570] Cf. Hamon, “Psychologie de l’anarchiste-socialiste”, ch. IV. [↑]
[571] Lombroso, “Les anarchistes”, pp. 143, 144. [↑]
[572] Cf. Seuffert, “Anarchismus und Strafrecht”, pp. 12 ff. [↑]
[573] Cf. Hamon, op. cit., ch. V, and Lombroso, “Les anarchistes”, pp. 131 ff. [↑]
[574] Some authors claim that active anarchists are ordinary criminals. But see Hamon, op. cit., p. 15. [↑]
[575] With regard to Caserio see Lacassagne, “L’assassinat du président Carnot”, pp. 535 and 539, and the unsigned article, “Caserio en prison”, both in “Arch. d’anthr. crim.”, LX and XVI respectively.
[Note to the American Edition: Upon Lucheni see further Forel, “Verbrechen und konstitutionelle Seelenabnormitäten” and Ladame and Régis, “Le régicide Lucheni.” The books of H. Varennes, “De Ravachol à Caserio”, and of Hesse, “Les criminels peints par eux-mêmes” III, “L’apostolat”, contain interesting information upon the active anarchists.] [↑]
[576] An exposition of the anarchistic theories has been given by Dr. Eltzbacher, “Der Anarchismus”, and a very just critique of this subject is that of Plechanow, “Anarchismus und Sozialismus.”
[Note to the American Edition: Upon Anarchism in general see further: H. Zoccoli, “Die anarchie.”] [↑]
[577] Tarde, “Les crimes de haine” (“Arch. d’anthr. crim.”, IX, reproduced also in “Essais et mélanges sociologiques”). [↑]
[578] It is impossible to fix the percentage of these cases, the judges in general not being enough in touch with modern ideas etc. [↑]
[579] See Benedikt, “Biologie und Kriminalstatistik”, p. 489 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.”, VII); Näcke, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, [[657]]p. 175; “Die neueren Erscheinungen auf kriminal-anthropologischen Gebiete und ihre Bedeutung”, p. 340 (“Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strw.”, XIV).
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Th. Ziehen, “Die Erkennung der psychopathischen Konstitutionen und die öffentliche Fürsorge für psychopathisch veranlagte Kinder”, and Stier, op. cit., p. 99.] [↑]
[580] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. R. Gaupp, “Ueber den heutigen Stand der Lehre vom ‘geborenen’ Verbrecher”, and J. Longard, “Ueber ‘Moral insanity.’” De Lanessan truly says that although these individual causes are found in equal proportions in the two sexes, women are much less criminal than men (“La lutte contre le crime”, p. 146).] [↑]
[581] See above, pp. 439 ff. Also Patijn, “Atavisme en Misdaad” (“Tijdschrift v. Strafr.”, V). [↑]
[582] P. 106, “Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht”, VI. [↑]
[583] P. 339. In further refutation from the anthropological standpoint see Ch. Féré, “Dégénérescence et criminalité”, ch. V; Manouvrier, “L’atavisme et le crime” (“L’ère nouvelle”, 1894); Dallemagne, “Les théories de la criminalité”, ch. I; and Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, pp. 170, 171. [↑]
[584] Upon the criminal as morally insane see: Baer, op. cit., pp. 380 ff.; Näcke, op. cit., p. 341; and Dallemagne, op. cit., ch. III.
Upon the criminal as epileptic see: Baer, op. cit., pp. 384 ff.; Dallemagne, op. cit., ch. III; and Aschaffenburg, op. cit., p. 172. [↑]
[585] Cf. Lacassagne and E. Martin, “Des résultats positifs et indiscutables que l’anthropologie criminelle peut fournir à l’élaboration ou l’application des lois” (Compte rendu du Ve Congrès d’anthrop. crim.). [↑]
[586] Kurella is one of the rare authors who denies this (see “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, pp. 258 ff.). [↑]
[587] Upon page 107 of the article cited Professor Jelgersma shows that certain really atavistic stigmata found in some criminals are very well explained by degeneracy. [↑]
[588] [Note to the American Edition: Cf. further: K. Birnbaum, “Die psychopathischen Verbrecher”, and Stelzner, op. cit.] [↑]
[589] “La famille névropathique”, p. 10. [↑]
[590] “Dégénérés et déséquilibrés”, p. 168. [↑]
[591] Op. cit., p. 102. See also Kende, “Die Entartung des Menschengeschlechts”, p. 34. [↑]
[592] [Note to the American Edition: Upon the relation between disease and society see the fundamental work “Krankheit und soziale Lage” (edited by M. Mosse and Tugendreich with collaboration of several authorities).
It should also be mentioned here that the eugenists (e.g. Schallmayer in the book just cited, pp. 841 ff.) deny that the causes mentioned under first and second have any significance in heredity.] [↑]
[593] “Les causes de la folie”, p. 34. [↑]
[594] Stinca, “Le milieu social comme facteur pathologique”, p. 148 (“L’ère nouvelle”, 1894). [↑]
[595] See Féré, “La famille névropathique”, pp. 133 ff. [↑]
[596] “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, p. 155. [↑]
[597] Cf. Maudsley, “The Physiology and Pathology of Mind”, pp. 232, 233. [↑]
[598] Quoted by Lux, “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, pp. 71, 72. [↑]
[599] Cf. Zadek, “Die Achtstundentag eine gesundheitliche Forderung”, pp. 12 ff. [↑]
[600] Quoted by Lux, p. 173. See also Toulouse, op. cit., p. 68. [↑]
[601] See Braun, “Die Frauenfrage”, pp. 312 ff. [↑]
[602] Cf. Näcke, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, p. 196. [↑]
[603] Upon the relation of the condition of the poorer classes to degeneracy, cf. Zerboglio, “La fin de la névrose” (“Devenir Social”, I) and “Les bases économiques de la santé” (“Devenir Social”, III); “Die Not des Vierten Standes” (anonymous); Fornasari di Verce, “La criminalità e le vicende economiche in Italia”, pp. 5–10; Dallemagne, “Dégénérés et déséquilibrés”, p. 142; and Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, p. 172.
[Note to the American Edition: Cf. Niceforo, op. cit., pp. 474 ff.] [↑]
[604] Cf. Toulouse, op. cit., p. 86, and Zerboglio, “La fin de la névrose”, p. 630. [↑]
[606] Op. cit., pp. 233–235. [↑]
[607] Cf. Battaglia, “La dinamica del delitto”, p. 412; Näcke, op. cit., p. 156; Zerboglio, “La fin de la névrose”, p. 629. Toulouse, op. cit., p. 85; Kraepelin, “Psychiatrie”, I, pp. 88, 89; Hellpach, “Soziale Ursachen und Wirkungen der Nervosität” (“Politisch-anthropologische Revue”, i). [↑]
[608] Cf. Toulouse, op. cit., pp. 224 ff. [↑]
[609] “Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert”, p. 33; see also by the same author, “Hygiene der Prostitution und venerischen Krankheiten”, pp. 7 ff. Cf. also Kende, op. cit., p. 90, and Dr. M. Alsberg, “Erbliche Entartung bedingt durch soziale Einflüsse”, p. 20. [↑]
[610] “Hygiene der Prostitution etc.” p. 35.
Above we have seen that prostitution increases and diminishes with the fluctuations of economic conditions. Dr. Schoenlank proves in his “Die Syphilis und die Sozialzustände” (“Neue Zeit”, 1887) that syphilis also increases and diminishes in these periods, an added proof of the intimate connection of syphilis and prostitution. [↑]
[611] Cf. Hellpach, “Der Kampf gegen die Geschlechtskrankheiten”, p. 197 (“Sozialistische Monatshefte”, VII). [↑]
[612] Blaschko, “Die Prostitution etc.”, p. 32. [↑]
[613] “Dégénérés et déséquilibrés”, p. 167. [↑]
[614] Some authorities are of the opinion that children conceived during a state of intoxication run the danger of being degenerates; others, however, doubt this. See Grotjahn, “Der Alkoholismus”, p. 165. [↑]
[615] “Conséquences sociales de l’alcoolisme des ascendants au point de vue de la dégénérescence, de la morale et de la criminalité”, pp. 160–165 (“Compte Rendu IVe Congr. d’anthr. crim.”). For other figures see also: de Vaucleroy, “Influence de l’hérédité alcoolique sur la folie et la criminalité” (“Actes du IIIme Congr. d’anthr. crim.”); Grotjahn, op. cit., pp. 166 ff.; Verhaeghe, “De l’alcoolisation”, pp. 112 ff. [↑]
[616] See Toulouse, op. cit., pp. 163–167; and Grotjahn, op. cit., p. 220. [↑]
[617] See Toulouse, op. cit., p. 178. [↑]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF WORKS CITED
Acton, W. Prostitution, Considered in its Moral, Social and Sanitary Aspects. London, 1870.
Adams-Lehmann, H. B. Das Weib und der Stier. Neue Zeit, 1900–1901, II.
Administration de la justice criminelle et civile de la Belgique 1881–1885. Bruxelles, 1888.
Agahd, K. Die Erwerbsthätigkeit schulpflichtiger Kinder im Deutschen Reich. Archiv f. soz. Gesetzgeb. u. Statistik, XII.
Aguinaliedo, J. M. L., and de Quiros, C. B. Verbrechertum und Prostitution in Madrid. Berlin, 1909.
Albanel, L. Le crime dans la famille. Paris, 1900.
Albrecht, P. La criminalité de l’homme au point de vue de l’anatomie comparée. Actes du Ier Congrès d’anthropologie crim. Turin, 1886–1887.
Aletrino, A. Twee opstellen over crimineele anthropologie. Amsterdam, 1899.
—— Over ontoerekenbaarheid. Amsterdam, 1899.
—— La situation sociale de l’uraniste. Compte rendu du V Congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
—— Over eenige oorzaken des prostitutie. Amsterdam, 1901.
—— Handleiding bij de studie der crimineele anthropologie. Amsterdam, I, II, 1903, 1904.
—— Is celstraf nog langer geoorloofd en gewenscht? Amsterdam, 1906.
Alimena, B. Naturalismo critico e diritto penale. Rivista di disciplina carceraria, 1891.
Alsberg, M. Erbliche Entartung bedingt durch soziale Einflüsse. Cassel und Leipzig, 1903.
Alterthum, P. Das Problem der Arbeitslosigkeit. Berlin, 1911.
Ammon, O. Ursprung der sozialen Triebe. Zeitschr. f. Soc. wissensch., IV.
Amschl, A. Aberglauben als Heilmittel. Archiv f. Krim. Anthr. u. Kriminalistik, XV.
—— Das Verbrechen des Kindesmordes nach österreichischem Recht. Archiv f. Krim. anthr. u. Krim., XXX.
Annuaire statistique de la France, V, VII, IX, XVI, XX. Paris, 1882 sqq.
Annual Report (1912–1913) of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. London, 1913. [[674]]
Annuario statistico italiano, 1900. Roma, 1900.
Arbeidersleven in Nederland. (Anonymous.) Amsterdam, 1908.
Arendt, H. Menschen die den Pfad verloren. Stuttgart, 1907.
—— Kleine Weisse Sklaven. Berlin-Charlottenburg, 1911.
Ariëns, A. Criminaliteit en drankmisbruik. Leiden, 1905.
Aschaffenburg, G. Alkoholgenuss u. Verbrechen. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XX.
—— Zur Psychologie d. Sittlichkeitsverbrecher. Monatschr. f. Krim. Psych. u. Strafr. ref., II.
—— Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung. Heidelberg, 1906.
Aschrott. Critique on “Verbrechen u. Verbrecher in Preussen” of Starke. Jahrbücher f. Gesetzgebung etc., 1884.
Aubry, P. De l’homicide commis par la femme. Archives d’anthropologie crim., VI.
—— La contagion du meurtre. Paris, 1894.
—— De l’influence contagieuse de la publicité des faits criminels. Archives d’anthr. crim., VIII.
—— et Corre, A. Documents de criminologie rétrospective. Paris, 1895.
Audiffrent. Quelques considérations sur l’infanticide. Arch. d’anthr. crim. XVIII.
Auer, F. Soziales Strafrecht. München, 1903.
Augagneur, V. Les vraies causes et les vrais remèdes de l’alcoolisme. Mouvement socialiste, 1900.
—— La prostitution des filles mineures. Arch. d’anthr. crim., II.
Aull. Alkohol und Verbrechen. Halle a/S, 1908.
Avé-Lallemant, F. C. B. Das deutsche Gaunerthum, II, III. Leipzig, 1858.
Baer, A. Der Alcoholismus. Berlin, 1878.
—— Der Verbrecher in anthropologischer Beziehung. Leipzig, 1893.
—— Der Selbstmord im kindlichen Lebensalter. Leipzig, 1901.
—— Ueber jugendliche Mörder und Todtschläger. Archiv. f. Krim. etc., XI.
Baere, L. del. De invloed van opvoeding en onderwijs op de criminaliteit. Amsterdam, 1891.
Baernreither, J. M. Die Ursachen, Erscheinungsformen und die Ausbreitung der Verwahrlosung von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Oesterreich. Wien, 1906.
Baets, M. de. L’école d’anthropologie criminelle. Gand, 1893.
—— Les influences de la misère sur la criminalité. Gand, 1895.
Baker, J. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes du congrès pénitentiaire intern. de Bruxelles 1900 IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Battaglia, B. La dinamica del delitto. Napoli, 1886.
Baumgarten, A. Die Beziehungen der Prostitution zum Verbrechen. Archiv f. Krim. Anthr. etc., XI.
Bebel, A. Die Frau und der Sozialismus. Stuttgart, 1899. “Woman in the Past, Present, and Future” (translation of above by Walther, New York, 1886). [[675]]
Beccaria, C. Des délits et des peines. Tr. Ad. Hélie. Paris, 1870.
Bechterew, W. v. Das Verbrechertum im Lichte der objektiven Psychologie. Wiesbaden, 1914.
Beer, M. Geschichte des Sozialismus in England. Stuttgart, 1913.
Belfort Bax, E. Ethics of Socialism. London.
Benedikt, M. Biologie u. Kriminalistik. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., VII.
—— Die Vagabondage u. ihre Behandlung. Zeitschr. f. d. g. etc., XI.
Bennecke, H. Bemerkungen zur Kriminalstatistik des Grossherzogtums Hessen, besonders zur Statistik des Bettels u. Landstreicherei. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., X.
Bentham, J. Traités de législation civile et pénale. Paris, 1802.
Berard, A. Les hommes et les théories de l’anarchie. Archives d’anthr. crim., VII.
—— Le Vagabondage en France. Archives d’anthr. crim., XIII.
Bérard des Glajeux, M. Les passions criminelles. Paris, 1893.
Beretning om Rigets Strafarbeitsanstalter, 1897–1898, 1898–1899. Kristiania, 1900, 1901.
Berg, H. Getreidepreise und Kriminalität in Deutschland seit 1882. Berlin, 1902.
Berkusky, H. Die Blutrache. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., XII.
Bernard. De la criminalité en France depuis 1826, etc. Journal des Economistes, 1856.
Bernard, P. Des viols et attentats à la pudeur sur adultes. Arch. d’anthr. crim. II.
—— et R. Garraud. Des attentats à la pudeur et des viols sur les enfants. Archives etc., I.
Bertrand, E. Essai sur la moralité comparative des diverses classes de la population et principalement des classes ouvrières. Journal de la soc. de stat. de Paris, 1871–1872.
Bertrin, G. De la criminalité en France dans les congrégations, le clergé et les principales professions. Paris.
Berufliche und soziale Gliederung des Deutschen Volkes nach der Berufszählung vom 14 Juni 1895. Stat. d. Deutschen Reiches N. F., III. Berlin, 1899.
Binny, J., and Mayhew. The Criminal Prisons of London. London, 1862.
Birnbaum, K. Die psychopathischen Verbrecher. Berlin, 1914.
Blanc, L. Organisation du travail. Bruxelles, 1845.
Blaschko, A. Die moderne Prostitution. Neue Zeit, 1891–92, II.
—— Hygiene der Prostitution und venerischen Krankheiten. Jena, 1900.
—— Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1902.
—— Prostitution. (Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften VI.) Jena, 1910.
Blatchford, R. Merrie England. London, 1895.
—— Dismal England. London, 1901.
—— Not Guilty. London, 1906.
Blau, B. Kriminalistische Untersuchung der Kreise Marienwerder und Thorn. Berlin, 1903.
Bleibtreu, C. Der Militarismus im XIX Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1901. [[676]]
Bloch, J. Das Sexualleben unserer Zeit. Berlin, 1907.
—— Die Prostitution, I, 1912.
Boas, K. W. F. Alkohol und Verbrechen nach neueren Statistiken. Archiv. f. Krim. etc., XXIX.
Böhmert, K. Die sächsische Kriminalstatistik mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Jahre 1882–1887. Zeitschr. d. K. sächs. Stat. Bureaus, XXXV.
Boies, H. M. The Science of Penology. New York and London, 1901.
Bonger, W. A. Eene apologie van den oorlog. Nieuwe Tijd, XIII.
—— Misdaad en socialisme. Nieuwe Tijd, XVI.
—— Verbrechen und Sozialismus. Neue Zeit, XXX2.
—— Over de maatschappelijke factoren van de misdaad en hunne beteekenis in vergelijking met de individueele oorzaken. Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht, XXIII.
—— Geloof en misdaad. Leiden, 1913.
Bonhoeffer, K. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des grossstädtischen Bettel- und Vagabondentums. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XXI.
—— Zur Kenntnis des grossstädtischen Bettel- und Vagabondentums. Zweiter Beitrag: Prostituirte. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XXIII.
—— Sittlichkeitsdelikt u. Körperverletzung. Monatschr. f. Krim. psych. etc., II.
Booth, Ch. Life and Labour of the People in London. London, 1892.
—— Pauperism. London, 1892.
Bosco, A. Gli omicidi in alcuni stati d’ Europa. Bulletin de l’inst. intern. de stat., IV.
—— Della statistica dell’ omicidio negli stati uniti d’ America. Bulletin etc., X.
Bournet, A. De la criminalité en France et en Italie. Paris, 1884.
Brace, Ch. L. The Dangerous Classes of New York. New York, 1872.
Braun, A. Berliner Wohnungsverhältnisse. Berlin, 1893.
Braun, L. Die Frauenfrage. Leipzig, 1901.
Brissot de Warville, J. P. Théorie des loix criminelles. Utrecht, 1781.
—— Recherches philosophiques sur la propriété et le vol. (Bibliothèque phil. du législateur, du politique, du jurisconsulte, VI.) Berlin, 1782.
Bromme, M. W. Th. Lebensgeschichte eines modernen Fabrikarbeiters. Jena u. Leipzig, 1905.
Brusse, M. J. Boefje. Rotterdam, 1903.
—— Onder de menschen. N. Rotterd. Courant, 1903–1904.
—— Het rosse leven en sterven van de Zandstraat. Rotterdam, 1912.
Bücher, K. Die Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft. Tübingen, 1904.
Cabet, E. Voyage en Icarie. Paris, 1842.
Calwer, R. Die erbliche Belastung der Prostituirten. Neue Zeit, 1893–1894, II.
Carlier, F. Les deux prostitutions. Paris, 1887.
Carnevale, E. Una terza scuola di diritto penale. Rivista di disciplina carceraria, 1891.
Carrara, M. Les petits criminels de Cagliari. Compte rendu du V Congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Caserio en prison. (Anonymous.) Archives etc., XVI. [[677]]
Catlin, G. Illustrations of the Manners, Customs and Condition of the North American Indians. London, 1851.
Cavaglieri, G., and Florian, E. I vagabondi I, II. Torino, 1897, 1900.
Chaillon des Barres. L’influence du bien-être matériel sur la moralité d’un peuple. Journ. d. Econ., 1846.
Charpentier, R., and Ley, A. Alcoolisme et criminalité. Bruxelles, 1910.
Cheinisse, L. Die Rassenpathologie und der Alkoholismus bei den Juden. Zeitschr. f. Demogr. u. Statistik der Juden, VI.
Chiozza-Money, L. G. Riches and Poverty. London, 1911.
Clay, J. On the Effects of Good or Bad Times on Committals to Prison. Journal of the Stat. Soc. of London, 1854, 1857.
Colajanni, N. La delinquenza della Sicilia e le sue cause. Palermo, 1885.
—— Oscillations thermométriques et délits contre les personnes. Arch. d’anthr. crim., I.
—— L’alcoolismo. Catania, 1887.
—— La sociologia criminale. Catania, 1887.
—— L’homicide en Italie. Revue Socialiste, 1901.
—— Le socialisme et sa propagande en rapport avec la criminalité. Compte Rendu V Congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
—— Il socialismo. Palermo-Milano, 2e ed.
—— Socialismo e criminalità. Roma-Napoli, 1904.
Collard, W. L. A. [De handel in blanke slavinnen]. Amsterdam, 1900.
Commenge, O. La prostitution clandestine à Paris. Paris, 1897.
Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle en France, 1900, 1907. Paris, 1902, 1909.
Considérant, V. Théorie du droit de propriété et du droit au travail. Paris, 1848.
Corne, A. Essai sur la criminalité. Journ. d. Econ., 1868.
Corre, A. Crime et suicide. Paris, 1891.
—— Aperçu général de la criminalité militaire en France. Archives d’anthr. crim., VI.
—— et Aubry, P. Documents de criminologie rétrospective. Paris, 1895.
Coutagne, H. De l’influence des professions sur la criminalité. Actes du II Congr. d’anthr. crim. Paris.
—— De l’influence des professions sur la criminalité. Actes du III Congr. d’anthr. crim. Bruxelles, 1893.
Criminality Promoted by Distress. (Anonymous.) Economist, 1856.
Crimineele statistiek 1899, 1900, 1901, 1904, 1905, 1910. ’s Gravenhage, 1900 sqq.
Cuénoud, J. La criminalité à Genève au XIX siècle. Genève, 1891.
Cunow, H. Die Verwandtschafts-organisationen der Australneger. Stuttgart, 1874.
—— Die ökonomischen Grundlagen der Mutterherrschaft. Neue Zeit, 1897–98, I.
—— Arbeitstheilung und Frauenrecht. Neue Zeit, 1900–1901, I.
—— Zur Urgeschichte der Ehe und Familie. Ergänzungsheft. Neue Zeit, 1912–1913.
Dalhoff, N. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. [[678]]Actes du congr. pénit. intern. de Bruxelles, 1900, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Dallemagne. Dégénérés et déséquilibrés. Bruxelles et Paris, 1895.
—— Théorie de la criminalité. Paris.
Damme. Die Kriminalität und ihre Zusammenhänge in der Provinz Schleswig-Holstein. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XII.
Dargun, L. v. Ursprung und Entwicklungs-Geschichte des Eigenthums. Zeitschr. f. vergl. Rechtswissensch., V.
—— Egoismus und Altruismus in der Nationalökonomie. Leipzig, 1885.
—— Mutterrecht und Vaterrecht. Leipzig, 1892.
Darwin, Ch. The Descent of Man. Chicago and New York. Rand, McNally & Co.
Denis, H. L’influence de la crise économique sur la criminalité et le penchant au crime de Quetelet. Bull. de la Soc. d’Anthr. de Bruxelles, 1885–1886.
—— La criminalité et la crise économique. Actes du III Congr. d’anthr. crim. Bruxelles, 1893.
—— Le socialisme et les causes économiques et sociales du crime. Compte rendu V Congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
—— Les index numbers (nombres indices) des phénomènes moraux. Académie royale de Belgique. II serie, Tome IV, 1911.
Després, A. La prostitution en France. Paris, 1883.
Dietz H., Die Militärstrafrechtspflege im Lichte der Kriminalstatistik. Oldenburg, i/Gr. 1908.
Dix, A. Sozial-Moral. Leipzig, 1898.
—— Alkoholismus und Arbeiterschaft. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., N. F., II.
Dochow, F. Die Kriminalität im Amtsbezirk Heidelberg. Berlin, 1906.
Doehn, B. Der Anarchismus und seine Bekämpfung. Zeitschrift f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XX.
Dostojewsky, F. M. Memoiren aus einem Totenhaus. Translated by Moses. Leipzig.
Douglas, W. M. The Criminal: Some Social and Economic Aspects. Proceedings of the Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow, XXXIII. Glasgow, 1902.
Drähms, A. The Criminal. New York, 1900.
Drill, D. Des principes fondamentaux de l’école d’anthr. criminelles. Actes III Congr. d’anthr. crim. Bruxelles, 1893.
—— Les fondements et le but de la responsabilité pénale. Comptes rendus IV Congr. d’anthr. crim. Genève, 1896.
Dubois, F. Le péril anarchiste. Paris, 1894.
Dubuisson, P. Les voleuses des grands magasins. Archives etc., XVI.
Du Camp, M. Les plaies sociales. La prostitution à Paris. Journ. d. Econom., 1870.
Ducpetiaux, Ed. De la condition physique et morale des jeunes ouvriers I. Bruxelles, 1843.
—— Mémoire sur le paupérisme dans les Flandres. Bruxelles, 1850.
Dugdale, R. L. The Jukes. New York and London, 1884.
Duprat, G. L. La criminalité dans l’adolescence. Paris, 1909. [[679]]
Durkheim, E. Le suicide. Paris, 1897.
Dijck, G. van. Eenige beschouwingen over het misdrijf van Kindermoord. Groningen, 1908.
Eggert. Not und Verbrechen. Jahresbericht der Rheinisch. Westf. Gefängnis-Gesellschaft 1903/4. Düsseldorf.
Einiges über die Prostitution in Gegenwart und Zukunft. (Anonymous.) Neue Zeit, 1891–1892, I.
Elliot, J. H. The Increase of Material Prosperity and of Moral Agents Compared with the State of Crime and Pauperism. Journ. of the Stat. Society of London, 1868.
Ellis, H. The Criminal. London, 1907.
—— Verbrecher und Verbrechen. Transl. Kurella. Leipzig, 1895.
—— Geschlecht und Gesellschaft II. Transl. Kurella. Würzburg, 1911.
Eltsbacher, P. Der Anarchismus. Berlin, 1900.
Embden, D. van. Darwinisme en demokratie. ’s Gravenhage, 1901.
Enfantin, B. P. Œuvres. Paris, 1868.
Engels, F. Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in England. Stuttgart, 1892.
—— The Condition of the Working Class in England. Transl. Wischnewetzky. London, 1892.
—— Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalökonomie. (Gesammelte Schriften v. K. Marx u. F. Engels, 1841–1850, I. Stuttgart, 1902.)
—— Sur la conception matérialiste de l’histoire. Devenir social, III.
—— Der Ursprung der Familie, des Privateigenthums und des Staats. Stuttgart, 1898.
—— und K. Marx. Die heilige Familie. (Gesammelte Schriften etc., II. Stuttgart, 1902.)
Englands industrielle Reservearmee. (Anonymous.) Neue Zeit, 1884.
Enquête betreffende werking en uitbreiding der wet van 19 September 1874 en naar den toestand van fabrieken en werkplaatsen. ’s Gravenhage, 1887.
Enquête gehouden door de staatscommissie benoemd volgens de wet van 19 Januari 1890. ’s Gravenhage, 1890–1894.
Enthoren, F. Studie over het anarchisme van de daad. Amsterdam, 1901.
Ergebnisse der schweizerischen Kriminalstatistik während der Jahre 1892–1896. Bern, 1900.
Ergebnisse der Strafrechtspflege der im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreichen und Ländern im Jahre 1899 Œsterreichische Statistik. Wien, 1903.
Ettinger, S. Das Verbrecherproblem. Bern, 1909.
Everest, R. On the Influence of Social Degradation in Producing Pauperism and Crime, etc. Journal of the Stat. Soc. of London, 1855.
Evert, G. Zur Statistik rückfälliger Verbrecher in Preussen. Zeitschr. d. k. preussischen stat. Bureaus, XXXIX. 1899.
Faucher, L. Mémoire sur le caractère et sur le mouvement de la criminalité en Angleterre. Journ. des Econ., 1850.
—— Études sur l’Angleterre I. Paris, 1856. [[680]]
Faure, Abbé. Souvenir de la Roquette. Paris.
Fehlinger, H. Erwerbsarbeit und Kriminalität von Kindern u. Frauen in den Ver. Staaten. Archiv f. Krim. Anthr. etc., XLIX.
Feith, J. Misdadige Kinderen. Amsterdam, 1911.
Fekete, J. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes du congr. pénit. intern. de Bruxelles. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Feld, W. Die Kinder der in Fabriken arbeitenden Frauen und ihre Verpflegung. Dresden, 1906.
Fenton, F. The Influence of Newspaper Presentations upon the Growth of Crime and other Anti-social Activity. Chicago, 1911.
Féré, Ch. Dégénérescence et criminalité. Paris, 1888.
—— La famille névropathique. Paris, 1894.
Ferrante Capetti, L. Reati e psicopatie sessuali. Torino, 1910.
Ferrero, G. Le crime d’adultère. Archives etc., IX.
—— et C. Lombroso. La femme criminelle et la prostituée. Transl. Meille. Paris, 1896.
Ferrero di Cavallerleone, L., et C. Placido. Essais de criminologie militaire. Compt. rendus du VI Congr. d’anthr. crim. Turin, 1908.
Ferri, E. Studi sulla criminalità in Francia 1826–1878. Annali di Statistica, 1881.
—— Socialismo e criminalità. Torino, 1883.
—— Variations thermométriques et criminalité. Archives d’anthr. crim., I.
—— La sociologie criminelle. Paris, 1893. Amer. ed. transl. Kelly and Lisle, Boston, 1916 (Modern Criminal Science Series).
—— L’omicidio. Torino, 1895.
—— Atlante antropologico-statistico dell’ omicidio. Torino, 1895.
—— La théorie sociologique de M. Tarde. Devenir social, 1895.
—— Kriminelle Anthropologie u. Sozialismus. Neue Zeit, 1895–1896, II.
—— Le crime comme phénomène social. Annales de l’institut intern. de sociologie, 1896.
—— Eine Verirrung des XIX Jahrhunderts. Neue Zeit, 1898–99, II.
—— Les criminels dans l’art et la littérature. Transl. Laurent. Paris.
Ferriani, L. La infanticida. Milano, 1886.
—— L’amore in tribunale Bologna. 1889.
—— Minderjährige Verbrecher. Autorisirte Ausgabe. Berlin, 1896.
—— Entartete Mütter. Autor. Ausgabe. Berlin, 1897.
—— Schlaue und glückliche Verbrecher. Aut. Ausg. Berlin, 1899.
Fiaux, L. La prostitution en Russie. Progrès médicale. 1893.
Finkelnburg, K. Die Bestraften in Deutschland. Berlin, 1912.
Fischer, E. Laienbemerkungen zur Reform des Strafrechts. Sozialistische Monatshefte X1.
—— K. Denkwürdigkeiten und Erinnerungen eines Arbeiters. Jena u. Leipzig, 1903–1904.
Fletcher, J. Moral and Educational Statistics of England and Wales. Journ. of the Stat. Society of London, 1847, 1849.
Florian, E., and G. Cavaglieri. I vagabondi I, II. Torino, 1897, 1900.
Flynt, J. Tramping with Tramps. New York, 1899.
Foldes, B. Einige Ergebnisse der neueren Kriminalstatistik. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XI. [[681]]
Forel, A. Die sexuelle Frage. München, 1913.
—— Verbrechen und konstitutionelle Seelenabnormitäten. München, 1907.
Fornasari di Verce, E. La criminalità e le vicende economiche d’ Italia 1873–1890. Torino, 1894.
Fourier, Ch. Œuvres complètes I et III. Paris, 1841.
Francken, C. J. Wijnaendts. De evolutie van het huwelijk. Leiden, 1894.
Frank, F. Das Fürsorgeerziehungsgesetz in Preussen. Neue Zeit, XXVII1.
Frankenstein, K. Die Lage der Arbeiterinnen in den deutschen Grossstädten. Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung etc., XII2.
Frassati, A. Die neue positive Schule in Russland. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr., X.
Frauenstädt, P. Kriminalistische Heimatkunde. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., VI.
Frégier, H. A. Les classes dangereuses de la population dans les grandes villes I. Paris, 1840.
Fröhlich, R. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage über den Alkoholgenuss der Schulkinder in Niederösterreich. VIII Intern. Congress g. d. Alkoholismus. Wien, 1901.
Fuld, L. Der Einfluss der Lebensmittelpreise auf die Bewegung der strafbaren Handlungen. Mainz, 1881.
Gaedeken, P. Contribution statistique à la réaction de l’organisme sous l’influence physico-chimique des agents météorologiques. Archives etc., XXIV.
Galle, J. Untersuchungen über die Kriminalität in der Provinz Schlesien. Gerichtssaal, LXXI und LXXII.
—— Die Kriminalität in Stadt und Land in ihrer Beziehung zur Berufsverteilung. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XXX.
Galton, F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. London, 1883.
—— Hereditary Genius. London, 1892.
Garner, J. W. Homicide in American Cities. Journal of Crim. Law and Criminology, III.
Garnier, P. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes du congr. pénitentiaire à Bruxelles, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
—— La criminalité juvénile. Compte rendu V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Garofalo, R. La criminologie. Paris, 1890. Amer. ed. transl. Millar, Boston, 1914 (Modern Criminal Science Series).
—— La superstition socialiste. Transl. A. Dietrich. Paris, 1895.
—— L’influence des prédispositions et du milieu dans la criminalité. Bericht über den VII Intern. Kongr. für Krim. Anthr. Heidelberg, 1912.
Garraud, R., et P. Bernard. Des attentats à la pudeur et des viols sur les enfants. Archives etc., I.
Gaupp, R. Ueber den heutigen Stand der Lehre vom “geborenen” Verbrecher. Monatschr. etc., I.
Gautier, A. Le procès Lucheni. Schweizerische Zeitschr. f. Strafrecht, XI. [[682]]
Gautier, E. Le monde des prisons. Archives etc., III.
Geill. Kriminal-anthropologische Untersuchungen dänischer Sittlichkeitsverbrecher. Archiv. f. Krim. Anthr. etc., XX.
Genil-Perrin, G., et Ch. Vallon. Crime et altruisme. Archives etc., XXVIII.
Gerechtelijke Statistiek van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden 1887–1899. ’s Gravenhage, 1888–1901.
Girguet, M. Mémoires. Paris, 1840.
Gizycki, P. v. Wie urteilen Schulkinder über Funddiebstahl? Zeitschr. f. Kinderforschung, VIII.
Gleispach, W. Ueber Kindesmord. Archiv etc., XXVII.
Godwin, W. Inquiry Concerning Political Justice. London, 1796.
Goes, F. v. d. Socialisme en feminisme. Tweemaandelijksch Tijdschrift, VI.
Göhre, P. Drie maanden fabrieksarbeider. Transl. H. Mercier. Amsterdam.
Gouzer, J. Psychologie de l’anarchiste. Archives etc., IX.
Graaf, H. T. de. Karakter en behandeling van veroordeelden wegens landlooperij en bedelarij. Groningen, 1914.
Grabe, E. v. Prostitution, Kriminalität und Psychopathie. Archiv etc., XLVIII.
Gradnauer, G. Das Elend des Strafvollzugs. Berlin, 1905.
Granier, C. La femme criminelle. Paris, 1906.
Grosmolard, M. Criminalité juvénile. Archives etc. XVIII.
Grosse, E. Die Formen der Familie und die Formen der Wirtschaft. Freiburg i/B u. Leipzig, 1896.
Grotjahn, A. Der Alkoholismus. Leipzig, 1898.
Gruber, G. B. Der Alkoholismus. Leipzig, 1911.
Gruhle, H. W. Ursachen der jugendlichen Verwahrlosung und Kriminalität. Berlin, 1912.
Guerry, A. M. Essai sur la statistique morale de la France. Paris, 1833.
Gumplowicz, L. Das Verbrechen als soziale Erscheinung. (Soziologische Essays. Innsbrück, 1899.)
—— Grundriss der Soziologie. Wien, 1905.
Guyot, J. La prostitution. Paris, 1882.
Gystrow, E. (Pseudonym of W. Hellpach.) Sozialpathologische Probleme der Gegenwart. Soz. Monatshefte V1.
—— Liebe u. Liebesleben im XIX Jahrhundert. Berlin, 1902.
Hamel, G. A. van. De tegenwoordige beweging op het gebied van het strafrecht. (Verspreide opstellen, I. Leiden, 1912.)
—— L’anarchisme et le combat contre l’anarchisme au point de vue de l’anthropologie criminelle. Actes du IV Congr. d’anthr. crim. Genève, 1896.
—— J. A. van. Strafrechtspolitiek van voor honderd jaar. (Gids, 1909, II.)
Hamon, A. De la définition du crime. Archives etc., VIII.
—— Psychologie de l’anarchiste-socialiste. Paris, 1895.
—— Psychologie du militaire professionnel. Paris, 1904. [[683]]
Hatzig, K. Der Mädchenhandel. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XX.
Haury. La paresse pathologique. Archives etc., XXVIII.
Haussonville, d’. Le combat contre le vice, II “La criminalité.” Revue des deux mondes, 1887.
Heim, H. Die jüngsten und die ältesten Verbrecher. Berlin, 1897.
Helie, J. Le vagabondage des mineurs. Mayenne, 1899.
Hellpach, W. Soziale Ursachen und Wirkungen der Nervosität. Politisch. Anthrop. Revue, I.
—— Der Kampf gegen die Geschlechtskrankheiten. Soz. Monatshefte, VII.
—— See also: Gystrow.
Hellwig, A. Verbrechen und Aberglaube. Leipzig, 1908.
—— Die Beziehungen zwischen Schundlitteratur, Schundfilms u. Verbrechen. Archiv etc., LIII.
Helvetius, C. A. De l’homme. (Œuvres. Paris, 1795.)
Henderson, Ch. Richmond. Introduction to the Study of the Dependent, Defective and Delinquent Classes. Boston, 1909.
Herkner, H. Die Arbeiterfrage. Berlin, 1905.
Hermann, T. Die Prostitution und ihr Anhang. Leipzig, 1905.
Herz, H. Die Kriminalität des Weibes nach den Ergebnissen der neueren oesterreichischen Statistik. Archiv etc., XVIII.
—— Verbrechen und Verbrechertum in Oesterreich. Tübingen, 1908.
Hesse, R. Les criminels peints par eux-mêmes. Paris, 1912.
Hessen, R. Die Prostitution in Deutschland. München, 1910.
Hirsch, P. Verbrechen und Prostitution. Berlin, 1897.
Hirschberg. Soziale Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in Berlin. Berlin, 1897.
Hirschfeld, M. Ursachen und Wesen des Uranismus. Jahrbuch f. sexuelle Zwischenstufen V.
—— Die historische Entwicklung des Alkoholmissbrauchs. VIII Intern. Congr. g. d. Alkoholismus.
—— Die Homosexualität des Mannes und des Weibes. Berlin, 1914.
Hobhouse, L. T. Morals in Evolution. London, 1908.
Hoegel, H. Die Straffälligkeit der Jugendlichen. Archiv etc., X.
—— Die Straffälligkeit der Weibes. Archiv etc., V.
—— Die Grenzen der Kriminalstatistik. Statistische Monatschrift. XXXIII.
—— Kriminalstatistik und Kriminalaetiologie. Monatschrift etc., VIII.
Holbach. Système social. Londres, 1773.
Holmes, Th. Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts. London, 1902.
Holtz, L. Les crimes passionels. Paris, 1904.
Holzendorff, Fr. v. Die Psychologie des Mordes. (Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge, X.)
Homburger, M. Der Einfluss der Schundlitteratur auf jugendliche Verbrecher und Selbstmörder. Monatschr. etc., VI.
—— Ueber den Zusammenhang zwischen den Zahlen der in den Fabriken beschäftigten Personen unter 18 Jahren und der Zahl der Verbrechen solcher Personen. Monatschrift etc., VII.
—— Lebensschicksale geisteskranker Strafgefangene. Berlin, 1912.
Hoofdstuk, Een vergeten. (Anonymous.) Amsterdam, 1898. [[684]]
Hoppe, A. Alkohol und Kriminalität. Wiesbaden, 1906.
Hotter, C. Alkohol und Verbrechen in Niederbayern. Monatschrift etc., VIII.
Hübner, A. H. Ueber Prostituirte und ihre strafrechtliche Behandlung. Monatschr. etc., III.
Hügel, Fe. S. Zur Geschichte, Statistik, und Regelung der Prostitution. Wien, 1865.
Hugo, C. Kind und Gesellschaft. Neue Zeit, 1894–95, I.
Hulzen, G. v. Van de zelfkant der samenleving. Gids, 1903.
Hunter, R. Das Elend der neuen Welt. Transl. Südekum. Berlin, 1908.
Illing, J. Die Zahlen der Kriminalität in Preussen, 1854–1884. Zeitschr. d. k. preussischen stat. Bureaus, 1885.
Jaarcijfers voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Rijk in Europa 1901. ’s Gravenhage, 1902.
Jacquart, C. La criminalité belge 1868–1909. Louvain, 1912.
Jacquetty, G. Étude statistique de la criminalité juvénile en France. Lyon-Paris, 1912.
Jaeger, J. Zunahme der Verbrechen und Abhilfe. Leipzig, 1898.
Jeannel, J. De la prostitution dans les grandes villes au XIXe siècle et de l’extinction des maladies vénériennes. Paris, 1874.
Jelgersma, G. De geboren misdadiger. Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht, 1891.
Jellinek, C. Kellnerinnenelend. Archiv f. Socialw. und Socialpolitik, XXIV.
Jhering, R. v. Der Zweck im Recht, I. Leipzig, 1884.
Joly, H. Le crime. Paris, 1888.
—— La France criminelle, 1889.
—— L’enfance coupable. Paris, 1904.
—— La Belgique criminelle. Paris, 1907.
Jörger, J. La famille “Zéro.” Archives etc., XXIII.
Judicial Statistics, England and Wales. Part I, Criminal Statistics, 1894–1900, 1905. London, 1896–1902, 1907.
Judicial Statistics, Ireland. Part I, Criminal Statistics. Dublin, 1906.
Jugendgeschichte einer Arbeiterin. (Anonymous.) München, 1907.
Kampffmeyer, P. Geschichte der modernen Gesellschaftsklassen in Deutschland. Berlin, 1896.
—— Das Wohnungselend der Grossstädte und seine Beziehungen zur Verbreitung der Geschlechtskrankheiten und zur Prostitution. Verhandlungen d. 1en Kongresses d. deutschen Gesellsch. z. Bekämpfung der Geschlechtskrankheiten. Leipzig, 1903.
—— Die Wohnungsmissstände im Prostitution- und im Schlafgängerwesen und ihre gesetzliche Reform. Zeitschr. z. Bekämpfung d. Geschlechtskrankheiten III.
—— Die Prostitution als soziale Klassenerscheinung und ihre sozialpolitische Bekämpfung. Berlin, 1905.
Kan, J. v. Les causes sociales de la criminalité. Compte rendu V Congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam. 1901. [[685]]
Kan, J. v. Les causes économiques de la criminalité. Paris-Lyon, 1903.
Kauffmann, M. Psychologie des Verbrechens. Berlin, 1912.
Kautsky, K. Die sozialen Triebe in der Tierwelt. Neue Zeit, 1883.
—— Die sozialen Triebe in der Menschenwelt. Neue Zeit, 1884.
—— Die Indianerfrage. Neue Zeit, 1885.
—— Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Zeit, 1885.
—— Thomas More und seine Utopie. Stuttgart, 1888.
—— Der Alcoholismus und seine Bekämpfung. Neue Zeit, 1890–1891, I.
—— Das Erfurter Programm. Stuttgart, 1892.
—— Eine Naturgeschichte des politischen Verbrechers. Neue Zeit, 1892–93, II.
—— Lombroso und seine Vertheidiger. Neue Zeit, 1893–94, II.
—— Die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und der psychologische Antrieb. Neue Zeit, 1895–96, II.
—— Karl Marx, oekonomische Lehren. Stuttgart, 1898.
—— Geschichte des Socialismus in Einzeldarstellungen, Ersten Band, Zweiter Theil. Stuttgart, 1895.
—— Sozialreform und soziale Revolution. Berlin, 1902.
—— Ethik und materialistische Geschichtsauffassung. Stuttgart, 1906.
Kelleo-Kranz, C. de. Formes primitives de la famille. Revue internationale de sociologie, VIII.
Kempf, R. Das Leben der jungen Fabrikmädchen in München. Leipzig, 1911.
Kende, M. Die Entartung des Menschengeschlechts.
Key, E. Das Jahrhundert des Kindes. Auth. transl. Berlin, 1902.
Kinberg, O. Alcool et criminalité. Archives etc., XXVIII.
Knoblauch, F. Bettel und Landstreicherei im Königreiche Bayern 1893–1899. München, 1910.
Kohler, J. Shakespeare vor dem Forum der Jurisprudenz. Würzburg, 1883.
Kolb, G. F. Handbuch der vergleichenden Statistik. Leipzig, 1860.
Korn, A. Strafrechtsreform oder Sittenpolizei. Jahrbuch f. Gesetzgebung etc., XXI3.
Korner. Critic on “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen 1854–1878” of Starke. Jahrbücher f. Nat. oek. u. Stat., N. F., XIII.
Kovalevsky, M. Tableau des origines et de l’évolution de la famille et de la propriété. Stockholm, 1890.
—— Les origines du devoir. Revue intern. de sociologie, II.
—— P. La psychologie criminelle. Paris, 1903.
Krafft-Ebing, R. v. Psychopathia sexualis. Stuttgart, 1898.
Kräpelin, E. Psychiatrie I.
Krauss, A. Die Psychologie des Verbrechens. Tübingen, 1884.
Krauss, F. A. K. Der Kampf gegen die Verbrechensursachen. Paderborn, 1905.
Kriminalstatistik für das Jahr 1888, 1894–1896, 1898–1900, 1908, 1911. Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, N. F., 1888, etc.
Kritschewsky, B. Die Korruption in der französischen Demokratie. Neue Zeit, XXVIII2. [[686]]
Kropotkin, P. Paroles d’un révolté. Paris.
—— Mutual Aid among Animals. Nineteenth Century, 1890.
—— Mutual Aid among Savages. Nineteenth Century, 1891.
—— Mutual Aid among the Barbarians. Nineteenth Century, 1892.
—— Mutual Aid. London, 1908.
Kühn, J. Die Prostitution im XIX Jahrhundert. Leipzig, 1871.
Kulischer. Der Dualismus der Ethik bei den primitiven Völkern. Zeitschr. f. Ethnologie, 1885.
Kummer, F. Die Geschichte des grossen amerikanischen Vermögen. Neue Zeit, XXX2.
Kürbitz-Sonnenschein, W. Der Geisteszustand der Kindermörderinnen. Archiv f. Krim. Anthr. etc., LII.
Kurella, H. Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers. Stuttgart, 1893.
—— Zurechnungsfähigkeit, Kriminalanthropologie. Halle a/S 1903.
—— Anthropologie und Strafrecht. Würzburg, 1912.
Kürz, E. Zur Prophylaxe der Roheitsdelikte. Monatschr. etc., II.
Lacassagne, A. Marche de la criminalité en France 1825–1880. Revue Scientifique, 1881.
—— Les vols à l’étalage et dans les grands magasins. Actes IVe congr. d’anthr. crim. Genève, 1896.
—— L’assassinat du président Carnot. Archives etc., IX.
—— et E. Martin. Des résultats positifs et indiscutables que l’anthropologie criminelle peut fournir à l’élaboration ou l’application des lois. Compte rendu Ve Congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Lacaze, H. De la criminalité féminine en France. Lyon, 1910.
Ladame, P. De la prostitution dans ses rapports avec l’alcoolisme, le crime, et la folie. Neuchâtel, 1884.
—— et E. Régis. Le régicide Lucheni. Archives etc., XXII.
Lafargue, P. Der wirtschaftliche Materialismus. Höttingen-Zürich, 1886.
—— Der Ehebruch in Gegenwart und Vergangenheit. Neue Zeit, 1889.
—— Die Kriminalität in Frankreich 1840–1886. Neue Zeit, 1890.
—— Der Ursprung der Idee des Gerechten und Ungerechten. Neue Zeit, 1898–99, II.
Lanessan, J. L. de. La lutte contre le crime. Paris, 1910.
Lang, O. Alkoholgenuss und Verbrechen. Basel, 1895.
Laschi, R. Le crime financier. Lyon-Paris, 1901.
—— und C. Lombroso. Der politische Verbrecher und die Revolutionen. Auth. transl. Kurella. Hamburg, 1892.
Laspeyres, E. Der Einfluss der Wohnung auf die Sittlichkeit. Berlin, 1869.
Lassalle, F. Die Feste, die Presse und der Frankfurter Abgeordnetentag. Reden und Schriften, II. Berlin, 1893.
—— Offenes Antwort-Schreiben. Reden etc., II.
Laurent, E. Les habitués des prisons de Paris. Paris, 1890.
—— La criminalité infantile. Paris, 1908.
—— Le criminel. Paris, 1908.
Leale, H. De la criminalité des sexes. Archives etc., XXV.
Lecour, C. J. La prostitution à Paris et à Londres. Paris, 1870.
Legrain. Conséquences sociales de l’alcoolisme des ascendants au point [[687]]de vue de la dégénérescence, de la morale et de la criminalité. Actes IV Congr. d’anthr. crim. Genève, 1896.
Lenz, A. Die Zwangserziehung in England. Stuttgart, 1894.
Lepel, V. v. Prostitution beim Theater. Zürich.
Leppmann, F. Die Sittlichkeitsverbrecher. Vierteljahrschrift f. gerichtl. Medizin etc., XXIX, XXX.
Letourneau, Ch. L’évolution de la morale. Paris, 1887.
—— L’évolution du mariage et de la famille. Paris, 1888.
—— L’évolution de la propriété. Paris, 1889.
—— L’évolution juridique. Paris. 1891.
Leuss, H. Aus dem Zuchthause. Berlin, 1903.
Levasseur, E. La population française II. Paris, 1891.
Ley, A., et R. Charpentier. Alcoolisme et criminalité. Bruxelles, 1910.
Lindenau, H. Beruf und Verbrechen. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XXIV.
Lindenberg, G. Die Ergebnisse der deutschen Kriminalstatistik 1882–1892. Jahrb. f. Nat. oek. etc., III. Folge, VIII.
Linguet, S. N. H. Théorie des loix civiles. Londres, 1767.
Lippert, H. Die Prostitution in Hamburg. Hamburg, 1848.
Liszt, F. v. Die sozialpolitische Auffassung des Verbrechens. Sozialpolitisches Centralblatt, 1892.
—— Die gesellschaftlichen Ursachen des Verbrechens. Sozialpolitisches Centralblatt, 1872.
—— Das Verbrechen als Social-pathologische Erscheinung. Dresden, 1899.
—— Das gewerbmässige Verbrechen. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XXI.
—— Die gesellschaftlichen Faktoren der Kriminalität. Zeitschr. etc., XXIII.
—— Die psychologischen Grundlagen der Kriminalpolitik. Zeitschr. etc., XVI.
—— Kriminal-politische Ausgaben. Zeitschr. etc., IX, X, XII.
Logan, W. The Great Social Evil. London, 1871.
Lombroso, C. Der Verbrecher. Transl. Fränkel. Hamburg, 1894.
—— Les palimpsestes des prisons. Lyon-Paris, 1894.
—— Le crime, causes et remèdes. Paris, 1899.
—— Crime, Its Causes and Remedies. Transl. Horton. Boston, 1910.
—— et G. Ferrero. La femme criminelle et la prostituée. Transl. L. Meille. Paris, 1896.
—— und R. Laschi. Der politische Verbrecher und die Revolutionen. Autorisirte Uebersetzung von H. Kurella. Hamburg, 1892.
Longard, J. Ueber “moral insanity.” Monatschr. etc., II.
Loosjes, C. Bijdrage tot de studie van de criminaliteit der vrouw. Haarlem, 1894.
Löwe, Ph. Die Prostitution aller Zeiten und Völker mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Berlin. Berlin, 1852.
Löwenstimm, A. Aberglaube und Strafrecht. Berlin, 1897.
—— Fanatismus und Verbrechen. Berlin, 1901.
—— Aberglaube und Verbrechen. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., VI.
—— Aberglaube und Gesetz. Archiv etc., XXV.
Lux, H. Die Prostitution. Berlin, 1892. [[688]]
Lux, H. Socialpolitisches Handbuch. Berlin, 1892.
—— Die Sittlichkeitsverbrechen in Deutschland in kriminalstatistischer Beleuchtung. Archiv für sociale Gesetzgeb. u. Stat. V.
Mably. De la législation ou principes des loix. Paris, 1792.
Mackirdy, A., and W. N. Willis. The White Slave Market. London.
Magnan. De l’enfance des criminels dans ses rapports avec la prédisposition naturelle au crime. Actes du II Congr. d’anthr. crim. Paris.
Maine, H. S. Village Communities in the East and West. London, 1876.
Makarewicz, J. L’évolution de la peine. Archives etc., XIII.
—— Einführung in die Philosophie des Strafrechts. Stuttgart, 1906.
Malarce, M. A. de. Moralité comparée des diverses parties de la France d’après la criminalité. Journal de la Société de statistique de Paris, 1860.
Malgat, J. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes du congr. pénitent. intern. de Bruxelles, 1900, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Mandl, H. Die Wiener Presskorruption. Neue Zeit, 1884.
Manes, C. Capitalismo e criminalità. Roma, 1912.
Manouvrier, L. Les crânes des suppliciés. Archives etc., I.
—— Les aptitudes et les actes. L’ère nouvelle, 1893.
—— La genèse normale du crime. Bulletin de la Société d’anthropologie de Paris, 1893.
—— L’atavisme et le crime. L’ère nouvelle, 1894.
—— Existe-t-il des caractères anatomiques propres aux criminels? Les criminels présentent-ils en moyenne certains caractères anatomiques particuliers? Comment doit-on interpréter ces caractères? Actes II Congr. d’anthr. crim. Paris.
—— Quelques cas de criminalité juvénile et commençante. Archives etc., XXVII.
Manzini, V. Le varie specie di furto nella storia e nella sociologia III. Torino, 1913.
Marambat, V. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes Congr. pénitent. intern. de Bruxelles, 1900, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Marat, J. P. Plan de la législation criminelle. Paris, 1790.
Marie, A., et R. Meunier. Les vagabonds. Paris, 1908.
Marro, A. I caratteri dei delinquenti. Torino, 1887.
Martin, E. Études sur l’enfance coupable. Archives etc., XXVIII.
—— et A. Lacassagne. Des résultats positifs et indiscutables que l’anthropologie criminelle peut fournir à l’élaboration ou l’application des lois. Compte rendu V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Martineau, L. La prostitution clandestine. Paris, 1885.
Marx, K. Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie. Stuttgart, 1897.
—— Das Kapital I. Hamburg, 1900.
—— und F. Engels. Die heilige Familie. (Gesammelte Schriften etc., II. Stuttgart, 1902.)
Masoin, M. L’alcoolisme dans ses rapports avec la criminalité. Bull. de l’ac. royale de médecine de Belgique, 1896. Bruxelles, 1896.
Maudsley, H. The Physiology and Pathology of Mind. London, 1868. [[689]]
Maxwell, J. Le crime et la société. Paris, 1912.
Mayhew, A., and J. Binny. The Criminal Prisons of London. London, 1862.
Mayr, G. v. Statistik der gerichtlichen Polizei im Königreiche Bayern. München, 1867.
—— Die Gesetzmässigkeit im Gesellschaftsleben. München, 1877.
—— Statistik und Gesellschaftslehre II, III, Freiburg i/B, 1897. Tübingen, 1910.
—— Forschungsgebiet und Forschungsziele der Kriminalstatistik. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XXXII.
—— Kriminalstatistik und Kriminalaetiologie. Monatschr. etc., VIII.
—— Nochmals Kriminalstatistik und Kriminalaetiologie. Monatschr. etc., IX.
Mercier, E. L’influence du bien-être matériel sur la criminalité. Paris, 1854.
Merens, A. H. J. Over het onderzoek naar den invloed der dronkenschap op de criminaliteit. Haarlem, 1902.
Mesdag, S. V. Iets over landloopers en bedelaars. Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht, XV.
Meslier, J. Le testament de. Amsterdam, 1864.
Meunier, R., et A. Marie. Les vagabonds. Paris, 1908.
Meyer. Schundlitteratur und Schundfilms. Archiv etc., LIII.
—— A. Die Verbrechen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhältnissen in Kanton Zürich. Jena, 1895.
Minovici, M. Remarques sur la criminalité en Roumanie. Comptes rend. VI congr. d’anthr. crim. Turin, 1908.
Mischler. Hauptergebnisse in moralischer Hinricht. Handbuch d. Gefängniswesens II. Hamburg, 1888.
Misdadige jeugd in het havenbedrijf. (Anonymous.) Rotterdam, 1904.
Mittelstaedt. Critic on Starke. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., IV.
Moll, A. Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften. Leipzig, 1912.
Mönkemöller, O. Korrektionsanstalt und Landarmenhaus. Leipzig, 1908.
—— Zur Kriminalität des Kindesalters. Archiv etc., XL.
—— Die Kriminalität der Korrigendin. Monatschr. etc., V.
Moquette, J. J. R. Onderzoekingen over volksvoeding in de gemeente Utrecht. Utrecht, 1907.
Moreau, G. Le monde des prisons. Paris, 1887.
—— Souvenirs de la petite et de la grande Roquette. Paris.
Moreau (de Tours), P. L’homicide commis par les enfants. Paris, 1882.
Moreau-Christophe, L. M. Du problème de la misère, III. Paris, 1851.
—— Le monde des coquins. Paris, 1863.
Morel, J. La prophylaxie et le traitement du criminel récidiviste. Compte rend. V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Morelly. Code de la nature. 1755.
Morgan, L. H. Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines. Washington, 1881.
—— Ancient Society, N. Y. 1878. Transl. Eichhoff. Die Urgesellschaft. Stuttgart, 1891. [[690]]
Morrison, W. D. Crime and Its Causes. London, 1891.
—— Juvenile Offenders. London, 1896.
—— The Interpretation of Criminal Statistics. Journal of the Stat. Soc. of London, 1897.
More, Th. Utopia. Transl. Ralph Robynson. Cambridge (Eng.), 1891.
Mosse, M., und G. Tugendreich. Krankheit und soziale Lage. München, 1912–1913.
Motet, M. De l’éducation correctionnelle. Actes II congr. d’anthr. crim. Paris.
Muller, N. Biografisch-aetiologisch onderzoek over recidive bij misdrijven tegen den eigendom. Utrecht, 1908.
Müller, Fr. W. De prostitutie. Zutphen, 1870.
Müller, H. Untersuchungen über die Bewegung der Criminalität in ihrem Zusammenhang mit den wirtschaftlichen Verhältnissen. Halle a. S., 1899.
Müller-Lyer, F. Formen der Ehe. München, 1911.
—— Die Familie. München, 1912.
—— Phasen der Liebe. München, 1913.
Näcke, P. Verbrechen u. Wahnsinn beim Weibe. Wien u. Leipzig, 1894.
—— Die neueren Erscheinungen auf kriminal-anthropologischen Gebiete und ihre Bedeutung. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Strafr. w., XIV.
—— Emile Zola. In memoriam. Seine Beziehungen zur Kriminal-anthropologie und Soziologie. Archiv, etc., XI.
—— Ein Besuch bei den Homosexuellen in Berlin. Archiv etc., XV.
—— Critic on “Criminalité et conditions économiques” of Bonger. Archiv, etc., XXI.
—— Die Ueberbleibsel der Lombrosischen kriminalanthropologischen Theorien. Archiv etc., L.
Nansen, F. Eskimoleben. Leipzig und Berlin, 1903.
—— Eskimo Life. Transl. Archer. London, 1894.
Neher, A. Die geheime und öffentliche Prostitution in Stuttgart, Karlsruhe und München. Paderborn, 1912.
Neumann, H. Die jugendlichen Berliner unehelicher Herkunft. Jahrb. f. Nat. oek. u. Stat. III. Folge, VIII.
Niceforo, A. Criminalità e condizioni economiche in Sicilia. Rivista di scient. di diritto 1897.
—— Les transformations du crime et la civilisation moderne. Scuola positiva, XI.
—— Anthropologie der nichtbesitzenden Klassen. Transl. Michels. Leipzig und Amsterdam, 1910.
Nieboer, H. J. Slavery as an Industrial System. The Hague, 1910.
Nieuwenhuis, F. Domela. Zur Frage der Prostitution. Neue Zeit, 1884.
Noorduyn, J. P. F. A. De observatie, na de invoering der Kinderwetten, in het Rijksopvoedingsgesticht te Alkmaar. Tijdschrift v. Strafrecht, XXIII.
Nordau, M. Die conventionnellen Lügen der Kulturmenschheit.
Not des vierten Standes, Die. (Anonymous.) Leipzig, 1894.
Notizie complementari alle statistiche giudiziarie penali degli anni 1890–1895, 1896–1900. Roma, 1899, 1909. [[691]]
Odin, A. Genèse des grands hommes. Paris, 1895.
Oettingen, A. v. Moralstatistik. Erlangen, 1882.
Onderzoek naar den fabrieksarbeid van gehuwde vrouwen in Nederland. ’s Gravenhage, 1911.
Onderzoekingen naar de toestanden in de Nederlandsche huisindustrie. ’s Gravenhage, 1911–1912.
Onmatig lange arbeidstijd en misbruik van sterken drank. (Anonymous.) Utrecht, 1895.
Oppenheimer, F. Der Staat. Frankfurt a. M., 1907.
Orchanski. Les criminels russes. Actes II congr. d’anthr. crim. Paris.
O. S. Die Verbrecherwelt von Berlin. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., IV, V.
Ostwald, H. Das Leben der Wanderarmen. Archiv etc., XIII.
—— Das Zuhältertum in Berlin. (Grossstadt-Dokumente.) Berlin-Leipzig.
Owen, R. The Book of the New Moral World. London, 1849.
—— A New View on Society; or Essays on the Principle of the Formation of the Human Character. Life of Robert Owen. Appendix B. London, 1857.
—— Reports of the Proceedings at the several Public Meetings held in Dublin.
Pagnier, A. Le vagabond. Paris, 1910.
Pappritz, A. Die wirtschaftlichen Ursachen der Prostitution. Berlin, 1903.
—— Die Welt, von der man nicht spricht. Leipzig, 1907.
Parent-Duchatelet. De la prostitution dans la ville de Paris. Paris, 1857.
Pashitnow, K. A. Die Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in Russland. Stuttgart, 1907.
Patijn, J. G. Misdaad en atavisme. Tijdschr. v. Strafr., 1891.
Pecqueur, C. Des améliorations matérielles. Paris, 1841.
Pelman, C. Psychische Grenzzustände. Bonn, 1912.
Pestalozzi, H. Ueber Gesetzgebung und Kindermord. (Sämmtliche Schriften VII, VIII.) Stuttgart und Tübingen, 1821.
Peter, H. Zur Lage der Kellnerinnen im Grossherzogtum Baden. Archiv f. Socialw. u. Socialpol., XXIV.
Peterselie, E. Untersuchungen über die Kriminalität in den Provinz Sachsen. Beilageheft zur Band LXIV Gerichtssaal. Stuttgart, 1904.
Pfeiffer. Das Wohnungselend der grossen Städte und seine Beziehungen zur Prostitution und den Geschlechtskrankheiten. Verhandlungen d. 1en Kongr. d. deutschen Gesellsch. z. Bekämpfung d. Geschlechtskrankheiten. Leipzig, 1903.
Philippovich, E. v. Wiener Wohnungsverhältnisse. Archiv f. soz. Gesetzgeb. u. Stat., VII.
Pike, L. O. History of Crime in England. London, 1873/1876.
Pinsero, N. Miseria e delitto. Scuola Positiva, 1898.
Pistolese, A. Alcoolismo e delinquenza. Torino, 1907.
Placido, C., et L. Ferrero di Cavallerleone. Essais de criminologie militaire. Compte rendu VI congr. d’anthr. crim. Turin, 1908.
Plasz, L. Fürsorgeerziehung. Woche No. 51, V. [[692]]
Platon. La république ou l’état. Paris, 1873.
Plechanow, G. Anarchismus und Sozialismus. Berlin, 1894.
—— Beiträge zur Geschichte des Materialismus. Stuttgart, 1896.
Plötz, A. Die Tüchtigkeit unsrer Rasse und der Schutz der Schwachen. Berlin, 1895.
Pollitz, P. Psychologie der Verbrechers. Leipzig, 1909.
Porter, G. R. The Influence of Education shown by Facts Recorded in the Criminal Tables for 1845 and 1846. Journal of the Stat. Soc. of London, 1847.
Post, A. H. Die Geschlechtsgenossenschaft der Urzeit und die Entstehung der Ehe. Oldenburg, 1875.
—— Der Ursprung des Rechts. Oldenburg, 1876.
—— Bausteine für eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft. Oldenburg, 1880.
—— Grundriss der ethnologischen Jurisprudenz. Oldenburg und Leipzig, 1895.
—— Die Grundlagen des Rechts.
Prins, A. Criminalité et répression. Bruxelles, 1886.
Prinzing, Fr. Soziale Faktoren der Kriminalität. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XXII.
—— Der Einfluss der Ehe auf die Kriminalität des Mannes. Zeitschr. f. Socialwissensch., II.
—— Die Erhöhung der Kriminalität des Weibes durch die Ehe. Zeitschr. f. Socialw., II.
—— Die soziale Lage der Witwe in Deutschland. Zeitschr. f. Socialw., III.
—— Ueber frühzeitige Heiraten, deren Vorzüge und Nachteile. Jahrb. f. Nat. oek. u. Stat. III. Folge, XV.
Proal, L. Le crime et la peine. Paris, 1892.
Process gegen den Anarchisten Hermann Stellmacher. (Anonymous.) Berlin, Wien, Leipzig.
Prostitution in Berlin und ihre Opfer. (Anonymous.) 1846.
Proudhon, J. P. De la justice dans la révolution et dans l’église. Paris, 1858.
Puilaraud, L. Les malfaiteurs de profession. Paris.
Quack, H. P. G. De socialisten. II and suppl. volume. Amsterdam, 1899, 1904.
Quanter, R. Die Sittlichkeitsverbrechen. Berlin, 1911.
Quetelet, A. Physique sociale. St.-Pétersbourg, 1869.
Quiros, C. B. de, und J. M. L. Aguinaliedo. Verbrechertum und Prostitution in Madrid. Berlin, 1909.
Rae, J. Der Achtstunden-Tag. Weimar, 1897.
Rapport der commissie belast met het onderzoek naar den toestand der kinderen in fabrieken arbeidende. ’s Gravenhage, 1872.
Rapport sur l’administration de la justice criminelle de 1881 à 1900. (Compte général de l’administration de la justice criminelle pendant l’année 1900.) [[693]]
Raux, M. Nos jeunes détenus. Lyon-Paris, 1890.
—— Les actes, l’attitude et la correspondance de Caserio en prison. Archives etc., XVIII.
—— Étude psychologique sur Ravachol. Archives etc., XVIII.
Régis, E. Les régicides. Lyon-Paris, 1890.
—— Le régicide Caserio. Archives etc., X.
—— et P. Ladame. Le régicide Lucheni. Archives etc., XXII.
Rehbein, Fr. Das Leben eines Landarbeiters. Jena, 1911.
Reich, E. Criminalität und Altruismus. Arnsberg, 1900.
Rein, W. Jugendliches Verbrecherthum. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., III.
Report of the Departmental Committee on the Employment of Children. Act 1903. London, 1909.
Report on the Judicial Statistics of Scotland for the year 1908, 1910. Edinburgh, 1909, London, 1911.
Reports from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the law for the Protection of Young Girls. Sessions, 1881 and 1882.
Rettich. Die Würtembergische Kriminalität. Würtembergische Jahrbücher f. Stat. u. Landeskunde, 1894.
Reuss, H. Noth und Verbrechen. Preussische Jahrbücher, 1901.
Richard, G. Les crises sociales et la criminalité. Année sociologique, III.
Richelot, G. La prostitution en Angleterre. (Tome II, “De la prostitution dans la ville de Paris” de A. J. B. Parent-Duchatelet.) Paris, 1857.
Riebeth. Ueber den geistigen und körperlichen Zustand der Korrigendin. Monatschrift etc., V.
Rivière, L. Mendiants et vagabonds. Paris, 1902.
Roest v. Limburg, Th. M. In den strijd tegen de ontucht. Rotterdam, 1910.
Rohden, G. v. Von den sozialen Motiven des Verbrechens. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., VII.
—— Der Kampf gegen die Verbrechensursachen. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., IX.
Röhrmann, C. Der Sittliche Zustand von Berlin. Leipzig.
Roland-Holst, v. d. Schalk, H. Kapitaal en arbeid in Nederland. Amsterdam, 1902.
—— Arbeiders en alkohol. Nieuwe Tijd., VII.
Rollet, H., et G. Tomel. Les enfants en prison. Paris, 1892.
Roos, J. R. B. de. De strafmiddelen in de nieuwere strafrechtswetenschap. Amsterdam, 1900.
—— Inleiding tot de beoefening der crimineele aetiologie. Haarlem, 1908.
—— Quelques recherches sur les causes de l’augmentation des vols pendant l’hiver et des coups et blessures pendant l’été. Compte rendu VI congr. d’anthr. crim. Turin, 1908.
—— De sexueele criminaliteit. ’s Gravenhage, 1909.
—— Parallelismen tusschen alkoholisme en criminaliteit. Tijdschr. v. Strafrecht, XXIII.
Rosenfeld, E. Die dritte Schule. Mitteilungen der intern. krim. Vereinigung, IV.
Rossi, V. Influence de la température et de l’alimentation sur la criminalité en Italie, 1875–1883. Actes I congr. d’anthr. crim. Turin, 1886–1887. [[694]]
Rossi, V. Il fattore economico nei moti rivoluzionari. Archivio di psichiatria, scienze penali ed antropologia criminale, IX.
Rotering. Das Landstreichertum der Gegenwart. Monatschr. etc., III.
Rousseau, J. J. Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes. Amsterdam, 1762.
Rowntree, B. B. Poverty. London, 1903.
Royen, J. A. van. Wetgeving en armoede beschouwd in betrekking tot het misdrijf. Zwolle, 1846.
Rühle, O. Das proletarische Kind. München, 1911.
Russell, W. Abstract of the Statistics of Crime in England and Wales from 1839 to 1843. Journ. of the Stat. Soc. of London, 1847.
Ryckère, R. de. La servante criminelle. Paris, 1908.
Rylands, L. Gordon. Crime, Its Causes and Remedy. London, 1889.
Sacker, J. Der Rückfall. Berlin, 1892.
Sauer, A. Frauenkriminalität im Amtsbezirk Mannheim. Breslau, 1912.
Scandales de Londres, publiés par la Pall Mall Gazette. Paris, 1885.
Schäffle, A. C. Fr. Bau und Lebendes socialen Körpers I, IV. Tübingen, 1875, 1878.
Schaffroth, G. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes congr. pénit. intern. de Bruxelles, 1900, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Schallmayer, W. Soziale Massnahmen zur Besserung des Fortpflanzungsauslese. (Krankheit und soziale Lage. München, 1910.)
Scheel, H. v. Kriminalstatistik. (Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, VI. Jena, 1910.)
Schippel, M. Das moderne Elend und die moderne Ueberbevölkerung. Stuttgart, 1888.
Schlesinger-Eckstein, Th. Die Frau im XIX Jahrhundert. Berlin.
Schnapper-Arndt, G. Sozialstatistik. Leipzig, 1908.
Schneider, C. K. Die Prostituirte und die Gesellschaft. Leipzig, 1908.
Schönfeldt, G. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Pauperismus und der Prostitution in Hamburg. Zeitschr. f. Social- und Wistschaftsgeschichte, 1897.
—— Die heutige Arbeiterfamilie und die öffentliche Erziehung vorschulpflichtiger Kinder. Neue Zeit, 1898–99, I.
Schönlank, B. Zur Lage der in der Wäschefabrikation und der Konfektionsbranche Deutschlands beschäftigten Arbeiterinnen. Neue Zeit, 1885.
—— Die Syphilis und die Socialzustände. Neue Zeit, 1887.
—— Zur Psychologie des Kleinbürgerthums. Neue Zeit, 1890.
—— Zur Statistik der Prostitution in Berlin. Archiv f. soz. Gesetzgeb. u. Stat., VII.
Schröder, P. Das Fortlaufen der Kinder. Monatschrift etc., VIII.
Schurtz, H. Altersklassen und Männerbünde. Berlin, 1902.
Seuf, M. R. Geschlechtstrieb und Verbrechen. Archiv etc., XLVIII.
Seuffert, H. Anarchismus und Strafrecht. Berlin, 1899.
S. G. Die weibliche Lohnarbeit und ihr Einfluss auf die Sittlichkeit und Kriminalität. Neue Zeit, 1899–1900, II. [[695]]
Sichart, G. Ueber individuelle Faktoren der Verbrechens. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. Str. w., X.
Sighele, S. La foule criminelle. Paris, 1892.
—— Le crime à deux. Lyon-Paris, 1893.
—— Psychologie des sectes. Paris, 1898.
—— Littérature et criminalité. Paris, 1908.
Smidt, H. J. Geschiedenis van het wetboek van strafrecht II. Haarlem, 1881.
S(midt), J. Zur Verwahrlosung der Kinder in der Kapitalistischen Gesellschaft. Neue Zeit, 1893–94, II.
—— Aus den Ergebnissen der sächsischen Armenstatistik. Neue Zeit, 1894–95, II.
—— Einfluss der Krisen und der Steigerung der Lebensmittelpreise auf das Gesellschaftsleben. München, 1894.
Social Evil in Chicago. (Report of the vice commission.) Chicago, 1912.
Socquet, J. Contribution à l’étude statistique de la criminalité en France de 1826 à 1880. Paris, 1884.
Spann, O. Untersuchungen über die uneheliche Bevölkerung in Frankfurt a/M. Dresden, 1912.
—— Die unehelichen Mündel des Vormundschaftsgerichtes in Frankfurt a/M. Dresden, 1909.
—— Die geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse im Dienstboten- und Arbeiterinnenstande. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., VII.
Spencer, H. Principles of Sociology. London-Edinburgh, 1877.
—— Descriptive Sociology. No. 6. American Races. London-Edinburgh, 1878.
—— Psychology. London-Edinburgh, 1881.
Starcke, C. N. Die primitive Familie. Leipzig, 1888.
Starke, W. Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen 1854–1878. Berlin, 1884.
—— Des éléments essentiels qui doivent figurer dans la statistique criminelle et des moyens de les rendre comparables. Bulletin de l’instit. intern. de statistique, 1889.
Statesman’s Year Book for the years 1902, 1910. London, 1902, 1910.
Statistica giudiziaria penale per l’anno 1881, 1889, 1894. Roma, 1884, 1891, 1896.
Statistik der Reichstagswahlen von 1898. Ergänzungsheft zu den Vierteljahrsheften z. Stat. d. Deutschen Reichs, 1898, II.
Statistique pénitentiaire (de la France), 1882–1898. Melun, 1882–1901.
Statistische Uebersicht der Verhältnisse der Oesterreichischen Strafanstalten und der Gerichtsgefängnisse 1883, 1884. Wien, 1886, 1888.
Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich, V, X, XV, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XXII, XXIV. Berlin, 1884 sqq.
Steinmetz, S. R. De “Fosterage.” Tijdschrift v. L. Kon. Ned. aardrijkskundig Genootschap, 1893.
—— Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe I, II. Leiden-Leipzig, 1894.
—— Das Verhältniss zwischen Eltern und Kindern bei den Naturvölkern. Zeitschr. f. Socialw., I. [[696]]
Steinmetz, S. R. Der Krieg als sociologisches Problem. Amsterdam, 1899.
—— Die neueren Forschungen zur Geschichte der menschlichen Familie. Zeitschr. f. Socialw., II.
—— De ziekten der maatschappij. Vragen des Tijds., 1900.
—— Classification des types sociaux et catalogue des peuples. Année sociologique, III.
—— L’ethnologie et l’anthropologie criminelle. Compte rendu V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
—— Die Philosophie des Krieges. Leipzig, 1907.
Stelzner, H. F. Die psychopathischen Konstitutionen und ihre sociologische Bedeutung. Berlin, 1911.
Stern, J. Einfluss der sozialen Zustände auf alle Zweige des Kulturlebens. Stuttgart, 1891.
—— Thesen über den Sozialismus. Stuttgart, 1911.
Stevens, J. Les prisons cellulaires en Belgique. Bruxelles, 1878.
Stier, E. Wandertrieb und pathologisches Fortlaufen bei Kindern. Jena, 1913.
Stinea. Le milieu social comme facteur pathologique. L’ère nouvelle, 1894.
Stirner, M. (Kaspar Schmidt.) Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. Leipzig.
Stöwesand, W. Die Kriminalität in der Provinz Posen und ihre Ursachen. Beilageheft zu Band LXXVII Gerichtssaal. Stuttgart, 1910.
Struntz, K. Die erwerbsmässige Kinderarbeit und die Schule. Neue Zeit, 1898–1899, I.
Stursberg, H. Die Zunahme der Vergehen und Verbrechen und ihre Ursachen. Düsseldorf, 1878.
—— Die Prostitution in Deutschland und ihre Bekämpfung. Düsseldorf, 1887.
Sullivan, W. C. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes du congr. pénitent. intern. de Bruxelles, 1900, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Sutherland, A. The Origin and Growth of Moral Instinct. London, 1898.
—— Résultats de la déportation en Australie. Compte rendu V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Tarde, G. La criminalité comparée. Paris, 1890.
—— La philosophie pénale. Paris, 1890. Amer. ed. transl. Howell, Boston, 1913 (Modern Criminal Science Series).
—— Misère et criminalité. Revue philosophique, 1890, I.
—— Les crimes de haine. Essais et mélanges sociologiques. Lyon-Paris, 1895.
—— Les délits impoursuivis. Essais etc. Lyon-Paris, 1895.
—— Les transformations de l’impunité. (Lacassagne, Vacher l’éventreur et les crimes sadiques.) Lyon–Paris, 1899.
—— La criminalité et les phénomènes économiques. Compte rendu V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Tardieu, A. Étude médico-légale sur les attentats aux mœurs. Paris, 1878. [[697]]
Tarnowsky. Prostitution und Abolitionismus. Hamburg und Leipzig, 1890.
—— E. La delinquenza e la vita sociale in Russia. Rivista italiana di sociologia, 1898.
—— Le mouvement de la criminalité en Russie. Archives d’anthr. etc., XIII.
—— Répartition géographique de la criminalité en Russie. Archives etc., XVI.
—— Les crimes politiques en Russie. Archives etc., XXII.
Taxil, L. La corruption fin-de-siècle. Paris.
Teifen, T. W. Das sociale Elend und die besitzenden Klassen in Oesterreich. Wien, 1894.
Tex, C. J. A. den. De causis criminum. Amsterdam, 1847.
—— G. M. den. Verkorting van den arbeidsdag. Amsterdam, 1894.
Thompson, W. An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth. London, 1850.
Thomsen, A. Betrachtungen über ein Sammeln der verbrecherischen Motive. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XVII.
Thót, L. v. Die positive Strafrechtsschule in einigen europäischen Ländern. Monatschr. etc., VIII.
Tomel, G., et H. Rollet. Les enfants en prison. Paris, 1892.
Tónnies, F. Jugendliche Kriminalität und Verwahrlosung in Grossbritannien. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XIII.
—— Das Verbrechen als soziale Erscheinung. Archiv f. soz. Gesetzgeb. u. Stat., VIII.
Topinard, P. L’anthropologie criminelle. Revue d’anthropologie, 1887, II.
Toulouse, E. Les causes de la folie.
Tugan-Baranowsky, M. Die sozialen Wirkungen der Handelskrisen in England. Archiv f. soz. Gesetzgeb. etc., XV.
—— Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte der Handelskrisen in England. Jena, 1901.
Tugendreich, G., und M. Mosse. Krankheit und soziale Lage. München, 1912–1913.
Turati, F. Il delitto e la questione sociale. Milano, 1883.
Túrkel, S. Einfluss der Lektüre auf die Delikte phantastischer jugendlicher Psychopathen. Archiv f. Krim. anthr. etc., XLII.
Uitkomsten der 7e en 8e tienjaarlijksche volkstelling. ’s Gravenhage, 1891 en 1901.
—— der beroepstelling in het koninkrijk der Nederlanden gehouden op 31 December 1899. ’s Gravenhage, 1901.
—— der Woningstatistiek voor het koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Volkstelling 30 December 1899. ’s Gravenhage, 1903.
Vaccaro, M. A. Genesi e funzione delle leggi penali. Roma, 1889.
Valentini, H. v. Das Verbrecherthum im preussischen Staat. Leipzig, 1869.
Vallon, Ch., et G. Genil-Perrin. Crime et altruisme. Archives etc., XXVIII. [[698]]
Vandervelde, E. Het alcoholisme en de arbeidsvoorwaarden in België. Nieuwe Tijd., IV.
—— Die oekonomischen Faktoren des Alkoholismus. Neue Zeit, 1901–1902, I.
—— Le socialisme et l’alcool. (Essais socialistes.) Paris, 1906.
Vaucleray. Influence de l’hérédité alcoolique sur la folie et la criminalité. Actes III congr. d’anthr. crim. Bruxelles, 1893.
Varennes, H. De Ravachol à Caserio. Paris.
Verhaeghe, D. Le parti socialiste et la lutte contre l’alcool. Mouvement socialiste. 1900.
—— De l’alcoolisation. Paris, 1900.
Verrijn Stuart, C. A. Inleiding tot de beoefening der Statistiek II. Haarlem, 1913.
Verslagen over de verrichtingen aangaan de het armbestuur over 1898 en 1899. Bijlage E. Handelingen 2e Kamer des Staten-Generaal 1899–1900, 1900–1901.
Vierkandt, A. Das Problem der Familien- und Stammesorganisation der Naturvölker. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., XI.
Vries, H. de. Eenheid in veranderlijkheid. Haarlem, 1898.
Wachholz, L. Zur Lehre von den sexuellen Delikten. Vierteljahrschrift f. Gerichtl. Medizin etc., XXXVIII.
Wadler, A. Die Verbrechensbewegung im östlichen Europa I. Die Kriminalität der Balkanländer. München, 1908.
—— Die politische Verbrecher in Russland. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XXIX.
—— Erkenntnistheorie und Kriminalstatistik. Zeitschr. f. d. ges. etc., XXXI.
Wagener, H. Der Mädchenhandel. Berlin-Lihterfelde, 1911.
Wagner, C. Die Sittlichkeit aus den Lande. Leipzig, 1896.
—— und H. Wittenberg. Die geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse der evangelischen Landbewohner im Deutschen Reiche. Leipzig, 1897.
Waitz, Th. Anthropologie der Naturvölker III. Leipzig, 1862.
Wallace, A. R. The Malayo Archipelago. London, 1869.
—— Menschliche Auslese. Zukunft, 1894.
Walsh, R. H. A Deduction from the Statistics of Crime for the Last Ten Years. Journ. Stat. Soc. of London, 1857.
Wappäus, J. E. Allgemeine Bevölkerungsstatistik II. Leipzig, 1861.
Wassermann, R. Beruf, Konfession und Verbrechen. München, 1907.
—— Begriff und Grenzen der Kriminalstatistik. Leipzig, 1909.
—— G. v. Mayr als Kriminalstatistiker und Kriminalsoziologe und die moderne Methodenlehre. Monatschrift etc., VII.
Weber, M. Ehefrau und Mutter in der Rechtsentwicklung. Tübingen, 1907.
Weidemann, W. Die Ursachen der Kriminalität im Herzogtum Sachsen-Meiningen. Berlin, 1903.
Weinberg, S. Der werdende Verbrecher. Neue Zeit, 1902–1903, II.
Weiss, B. Ueber einige wirtschaftliche und moralische Wirkungen hoher Getreidepreise. Jahrb. f. Nat. oek. u. Stat., 1881. [[699]]
Weitling, W. Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit. 1842.
—— Die Menschheit wie sie ist und wie sie sein sollte. München, 1895.
—— Das Evangelium eines armen Sünders. München, 1896.
Wellenbergh, P. Contribution à l’étude de la question de l’influence de la vieillesse sur la criminalité. Compte rendu V congr. d’anthr. crim. Amsterdam, 1901.
Werthauer, J. Sittlichkeits-Delikte der Gross-Stadt. Berlin.
Westermarck, E. The History of Human Marriage. London, 1891.
—— Der Ursprung der Strafe. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., III.
—— Ursprung und Entwicklung der Moral begriffe. Transl. Katscher. Leipzig, 1907/1909.
Westgarth, W. Statistics of Crime in Australia. Journ. Stat. Soc. of London, 1864.
Wetzker, H. Die Zunahme der Verbrechen. Sozialist. Monatsch., 1902, II.
Wieselgren, S. Rapport sur l’influence de l’alcoolisme sur la criminalité. Actes du congr. pénitent. intern. de Bruxelles, 1900, IV. Bruxelles et Berne, 1901.
Willis, W. N. The White Slaves of London. London, 1912.
—— and A. Mackirdy. The White Slave Market. London.
Wilmanns, K. Zur Psychopathologie des Landstreichers. Leipzig, 1906.
—— Das Landstreichertum. Monatschr. etc. I.
Winkler, C. Iets over crimineele anthropologie. Geneeskundige Bladen, 1895.
Winter, A. The New York State Reformatory in Elmira. London, 1871.
Wittenberg, H., und C. Wagner. Die geschlechtlich-sittlichen Verhältnisse der evangelischen Landbewohner im Deutschen Reiche. Leipzig, 1897.
Wolf, J. Das Verhältnis von Eltern und Kindern bei dem Landvolk in Deutschland. Zeitschr. f. Soc. w., I.
Woltmann, L. Die Darwinsche Theorie und der Socialismus. Düsseldorf, 1899.
Wright, Carrol D. The Relation of Economic Conditions to the Causes of Crime. Philadelphia, 1900.
Wulffen, E. Psychologie des Verbrechers. Grosslichterfelde-Ost, 1908.
—— Gauner- und Verbrechertypen. Berlin-Grosslichterfelde, 1910.
—— Der Sexualverbrecher. Berlin-Grosslichterfelde, 1910.
Wurm, E. Die Alkoholfrage. Protokoll über die Verhandlungen des Parteitags der Soz. dem. Partei Deutschlands zu Essen. Berlin, 1907.
Würzburger, E. Ueber die Vergleichbarkeit kriminalstatistischer Daten. Jahrb. f. Nat. oek. u. Stat., 1887.
Yearbook of New York State Reformatory, 1881–1886, 1888–1897. Albany-Elmira.
Yvernès, M. L’alcoolisme et la criminalité. Archives etc., XXVII.
Zadek, I. Der Achtstundentag eine gesundheitliche Forderung. Berlin, 1904. [[700]]
Zerboglio, A. Les inconvénients de l’honnêteté. L’ère nouvelle, 1894.
—— L’alcoolisme: causes et remèdes. Devenir social, I.
—— La fin de la névrose. Devenir social, I.
—— La lutte de classe dans la législation pénale. Devenir social, II.
—— Les bases économiques de la santé. Devenir social, III.
Zetkin, C. Geistiges Proletariat, Frauenfrage und Sozialismus. Berlin, 1902.
—— Die Arbeiterinnen- und Frauenfrage der Gegenwart. Berlin.
Zetkin, O. Die barfüssige Bande. Neue Zeit, 1885.
Ziehen, Th. Die Erkennung der psychopathischen Konstitutionen und die öffentliche Fürsorge für psychopathisch veranlagte Kinder. Berlin, 1912.
Žižek, F. Soziologie und Statistik. München und Leipzig, 1912.
Zoccoli, H. Die Anarchie. Transl. Nacht. Leipzig–Amsterdam, 1909.
Zola, E. Au bonheur des dames. Paris.
—— L’argent. Paris. [[701]]