Criminality and economic conditions

by Willem Adriaan Bonger

—This quotation is one of the best samples of Morrison’s logic and knowledge of facts! Italy is poor; Ireland is poor; the former has many crimes, the latter few. Hence, economic conditions are not an important factor. To say nothing of the care necessary in comparing two countries where the penal law, police, courts, etc. are very different, there is an error of logic in the quotation. For poverty may be in one of these countries a determinant that leads to a certain phenomenon, while in another country it does not lead to it, because neutralized by a counter-determinant. And then, the knowledge of facts that Morrison gives evidence of here, is not great. It is not at all true that in Italy every one is poor. On the contrary, there is plenty of wealth in that country, while Ireland, on the other hand, is drained by landlords who live elsewhere.[6]—

The chapter that interests us next is that entitled “Destitution and Crime.” “A ‘destitute person’ is a person who is without house or home, who has no work, who is able and willing to work but can get none, and has nothing but starvation staring him in the face.”[7]

According to Morrison there are two kinds of crime of which a destitute person may be guilty, namely theft and mendicity. Two questions must be answered, then, first, what percentage is there of these crimes? second, how far can one attribute theft and mendicity to destitution?

During the years 1887–1888 the number of cases tried in England [[183]]and Wales was 726,698, of which 8% were crimes against property and 7% offenses against the “Vagrancy Acts.” Consequently 15% of all the crimes might have been committed because of destitution. From investigations made by himself, half the thieves had work and were earning something at the time they committed their crimes.

Now we still have to explain the other half of the cases of theft. Those who committed these thefts were without work, then; but there were among them habitual criminals, and these could probably have found work, but did not want to work. Therefore they were not “destitute persons.” This leaves still 25% of the thieves. Among these destitution is now truly the direct cause. However lack of work is not the sole cause, but the fact that children of proletarians are left to themselves when their parents are sick or dead, enters in. And then many aged working-men become criminals because they are too old to work and no one supports them. Drunkards also at times come to commit crimes because of poverty, since they find it difficult to work. The estimate is, then, as follows:

Proportion of criminals earning at the time of arrest	4%
Proportion,, of,, criminals,, habitual thieves	2%
Proportion,, of,, criminals,, adults without shelter and old men	1%
Proportion,, of,, drunkards, vagrants	1%
Proportion,, of,, crimes against property compared with total number of crimes	8%

Then come the infractions of the “Vagrancy Acts.” The offenses that are punished under these laws are chiefly prostitution, presence in public places with criminal intentions, presence in a particular house with criminal intentions, and carrying burglars’ implements. Prostitution aside, destitution ought not to be considered as the cause of these infractions, according to the author, because the guilty persons are those who ordinarily will not work and would not change their lot for anyone else’s. The class of vagrants is no more unhappy than any other; it has even its own philosophy. (—Who could be unhappy, then? This statement of the case gives one a great desire to ask the author how it happens that no people of means have adopted this enviable career.—) The same reasoning applies to most of the mendicants (45% of those who break the vagrancy laws), they do not want to work. Another fraction is made up of those who cannot find work; their number is difficult to determine; according to Morrison’s opinion it is not very high (he estimates it at 2% for mendicants). It is especially aged persons who belong to this class. There are two principal reasons for this. [[184]]

First, the increasing use of machines, which throw workmen out of employment, while increasing the possibility of utilizing the labor of women and children.

—However true this observation, it is nevertheless very incomplete. It is not the machine that is the cause, but the system of free labor, which throws everyone on his own resources when he can work no longer, whether this is from lack of work or from the disability of the worker.—

A second cause of vagrancy and mendicity is to be found in the Trades Unions. For these Unions have been able to obtain a uniform wage, and aged workmen must, in accordance with their rules, earn as much as the young ones although not able to do as much work. The employers, not being able to afford to give them the whole amount, discharge them.