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.