—The study of Carroll D. Wright contains some very true observations upon the relation between crime and economic conditions (for example, upon the difference between the slave and the free laborer, whose liberty consists chiefly in this, that he can die of hunger if he cannot find work or is no longer able to work). But in general the work gives the impression of vagueness and hesitation proper to the school of economists and sociologists to which the writer belongs. They condemn certain manifestations of capitalism, but [[198]]wish to maintain the “causa causarum”, the system itself. This is not the place to speak of this more fully and I will confine myself to pointing out some historical errors of the author.
In the first place, a classification of economic systems into only three is incomplete. It is very surprising that this error should have been made by an American. For the North American Indians neither lived under the feudal system nor under that of free labor, and for the most part never knew slavery; the author has forgotten to mention the primitive-communistic mode of production.
In the second place, it is incorrect to call all those who lived under the feudal system “poor.”
In the third place it was not to the feudal system that the famous executions under Henry VIII belong, but rather to incipient capitalism which, by dispossessing a great number of peasants, made them poor. (Compare More, “Utopia”, and Marx, “Capital.”)—
Among the partisans of the bio-sociological doctrine, I think that certain other authors should also be classed, for example: L. Gordon Rylands, “Crime, Its Causes and Remedy”; Dallemagne (see p. 224 of the “Actes du IIIme Congrès d’Anthrop. Crimin.”); Drill (see “Des principes fondamentaux de l’école d’anthropologie criminelle” and “Les fondements et le but de la responsabilité pénale”); Kovalewsky, “La psychologie criminelle”; Orchanski, “Les criminels russes.” With regard to Russian criminologists see Frassati, “Die neue positive Schule des Strafrechts in Russland.”
The Dutch criminologists must be reckoned as among the bio-sociologists.
G. A. v. Hamel, “De tegenwoordige beweging op het gebied van het strafrecht”, and “L’anarchisme et le combat contre l’anarchisme au point de vue de l’anthropologie criminelle”; G. Jelgersma, “De geboren misdadiger”; A. Aletrino, “Twee opstellen over crimineele anthropologie”, and “Handleiding bij de studie der crimineele anthropologie”; S. R. Steinmetz, “De ziekten der maatschappij.” Dr. C. Winkler inclines, as it seems to me, rather toward the opinion of the Italian criminologists. See: “Iets over crimineele anthropologie.”
[Note to the American Edition: Of the recent literature there should be mentioned: in Germany, especially Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, and Wulffen, “Psychologie des Verbrechens.” In Holland the authors already named, van Kan, and de Roos are to be classed among the bio-sociologists. For Russia there should be added von Bechterew, “Das Verbrechertum im Lichte der objektiven Psychologie.” In America it seems to me more reliance is placed upon the Italian theory than in Europe; see, for example, Henderson, “Introduction into the Study of the Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes.” Upon the recent development of criminology in Holland, England, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Greece, and Servia see the study already cited of von Thót, “Die positive Strafrechtsschule in einigen europäischen Ländern.”] [[199]]