“There are, then, evidently innocent poor people; and there are others so much the more pardonable as the consequences have been aggravated by the fault of others. Is it then in the intermediate region that we must seek for the influences that lead to evil? It may be. This region is not unknown to us. Let us seek here, without taking sides in any way, and examine the facts as well as we can.”[4]
In opposition to the continual increase of criminality the author shows that the national wealth has increased, although—and this should not be forgotten—real property, with the exception of small [[200]]holdings, has decreased; the condition of the rural workers, on the contrary, has improved.
In the second place Joly calls attention to the condition of working-men in the cities. According to him the question of whether it has grown worse must be answered in the negative, for the emigration from the country to the city always keeps up. Notwithstanding their higher wages men are no better off there, since they spend upon amusements their additional earnings. If criminality increases among them it is not, then, in involuntary poverty that the cause is to be found.
At the same time with the increase of wages the price of food must be noted. In most of the departments of France these prices have risen in the same proportion as wages. Consequently the working-man has not become better off. He has new needs, but when he has met these he has not enough left for the primary necessities. It is not economic factors, but moral factors, that come into play here.
The proportional increase of wages and the price of food, of which mention has been made above, in the different departments of France, is not met with in the departments of Morbihan, Vendée, Bouches-du-Rhône, and Hérault. In the first two, prices have risen much more than wages, while the contrary appears in the last two. As regards criminality, the first two take their place among those that show the lowest figures, the last two among those that show the highest. Joly draws from this the conclusion that social life is too complicated for us to be able to learn the morality of persons merely from the rise or fall of wages. In any case it is certain, according to him, that the increase of criminality that has been shown is not due to poverty, and that consequently we have not the right to say that poverty in general is one of the primary causes of crime.
However, it must not be lost sight of that in speaking of the increase of wealth and the rise in wages, we are speaking only of average figures, and that there are many individuals whose wages remain below this average. “Now, where do we see the greatest differences, and where are they most felt? Exactly in wealthy epochs and in wealthy surroundings. So it is in the poor departments that crimes against property develop the least. There are two reasons for this, psychological and social. What any man feels the most is not being or having absolutely; it is being or having more or less than those who surround him. What must drive men to crime chiefly, then, is the comparison of wealth with poverty.”[5] [[201]]
Joly thinks he can produce further data upon the connection between crime and poverty by checking up the kind of articles that are most frequently stolen. Out of 1000 cases of theft (assizes, 1830–1860) there were 395 cases of theft of money, next came thefts of personal property, then clothing, etc., then successively, different kinds of merchandise, jewelry and table-ware, food, grain, etc., and living domestic animals. This information does not teach us much about the relationship in question. For the articles stolen can be sold, which prevents our discovering the motives of the crime.
The analysis of the value of the objects stolen also gives us little information. During a period of 25 years the cases of theft of 10 to 50 francs were the most numerous (about 30%), next those of 100 to 1000 francs, then those of less than 10 francs. Ten years later the most numerous were those of 100 to 1000 francs (33%).
However, on the strength of the statements of an old police officer, Joly thinks he can draw the conclusion that poverty enters only to a small extent into the etiology of crime. Nevertheless the established fact that a rise in the price of grain is associated with an increase of criminality, contradicts this. But according to Joly the contradiction is only apparent. “Famines are exceptional; theft is constant and while famines are always decreasing, theft is always increasing. Suppose that in ordinary years people did not steal or stole very little; the difficult moments would find them more patient, more resolute to have recourse to legal and permissible means; we should not see them so prompt to extricate themselves from their difficulties by simply taking the property of others. But what resistance can we count on from those who have long had the habit of stealing from fancy, cupidity, or a desire to gormandize? What resistance can be hoped for, especially when the habit has begun in youth? Now, we have seen that a third of the thefts are committed by minor children.”[6]
The weakness of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality is, according to Joly, further proved by the fact that times of prosperity are not accompanied by a decrease in the number but by a change in the kind of crime committed (as Prins and Garofalo have shown). Cheap wine makes most crimes against persons increase. But the low price of grain has the same effect, since the working-man, when his condition has improved even a little, spends his additional earnings in all kinds of amusements, which, in their turn, may be the source of crime. This is proved, for example, by the fact that in Marseilles suicides are most numerous on Sunday and Monday, and [[202]]fewest on Friday and Saturday, a fact explained by the pay-days of the working people. This is also applicable to crimes against persons.