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: