First, education often consists simply in the administration of a sound beating to the child, a fact which habituates him to the idea that violence is an ordinary act, especially as he sees the members of the family often strike one another;
Second, the men ordinarily carry a knife, and do not hesitate to threaten with it, or even to use it in case of a dispute. It is evident that the influence of this upon character is great at the impressionable age of childhood. The tendency toward violence, combated among children of the well-to-do classes, is, on the contrary, often strengthened among the children of the poor. If later chance places [[597]]in their way an opportunity to profit by violence they recoil from it less than others.[450]
The authors of violent economic crimes spring nearly always from the lower classes of the population; the exceptions are few in number. We will take up one of these exceptions which has attained considerable notoriety, an evident proof of the rarity of these cases.
In 1878 an old woman was murdered in Paris and all her papers of value were stolen. It was proved that Barré, a business agent, and Lebiez, a medical student, both of whom had passed their youth in a favorable environment, were the guilty persons. This is one of those very rare cases where objection can be made to the environment hypothesis with a semblance of truth, but a closer examination shows that environment nevertheless played its part in this frightful tragedy. The two criminals, sprung from fairly well-to-do provincial families, having gone to Paris, had been living in straitened circumstances. At the time of their deciding to commit the crime their pecuniary condition was very bad. In the second place, both had constant recourse to prostitutes; and in the third place both were ardent speculators. Because of his business Barré was in contact with those who gambled at the bourse, and seeing men enrich themselves without work he entered feverishly into speculation. He lost, drew his father into a new deal, and was still unfortunate. In order to go on and retrieve his losses he used money entrusted to him (his first crime), but still lost. Going from one malversation to another he finally, in order to extricate himself, had recourse to the crime narrated above. His accomplice was found in nearly the same situation.[451]
The effect of environment is to be discerned, then, as easily in this case as in those that have been referred to before. Limiting ourselves to the principal influence alone, we see that if these individuals had not been in contact with the world of speculation, their cupidity would not have been excited to such a point that they were induced to commit crime. Here the rôle played by chance in such cases clearly appears; if they had been fortunate in their speculations they would never have become criminals.
As with all crimes, the question presents itself as to how far individual factors were active, in other words, do the individuals who are guilty of such crimes differ from other men? Certainly, and that to a considerable extent. But in granting this we do not, however, recognize [[598]]a qualitative difference between them and other men such as would make them biologically abnormal. The motives which have induced these persons to commit crime, are present, though only in small measure, in everyone. Those who commit these crimes have by nature very intense material needs; in the curve A D (see p. 534) they occupy the places near D. As regards their social sentiments they are ranged near the other end of the curve, and their repugnance to violence is very small. Further, they have the necessary courage and strength.[452] If we consider how little chance there is of finding all this united in one individual, it will become clear that few individuals are predisposed to these crimes, and when they are committed the criminal is found in a special environment. In my opinion there can be no question of individual factors, then; it is the environment that decides here. There will be persons always and everywhere who run more danger than others of committing such a crime; but it is the environment which will decide whether they will commit it or not.
Professional criminals. The great majority of violent economic crimes are committed by professional criminals. When an individual has fallen, from whatever reason, into the world of professional crime, sooner or later comes the time when he must use violence if he wishes to attain his end. Joly has very well said in his social study, “Le crime”: “The man who has formed the habit of breaking into houses and bursting open safes, is forcibly drawn sooner or later to rid himself of witnesses who surprise him at this work, or of a victim who might perhaps recognize him.”[453] It cannot be asserted of these individuals any more than of others, that they are born with a special tendency toward assassination, a tendency to be explained by atavism, or something approaching it. They have been living in an environment in which such acts are considered as a necessary evil inherent in their trade. Driven by the tendency to imitate, they do as others do. Certainly there are those of them who do not commit these crimes, but that proves nothing, for it may be that chance has favored them and they have never been under the necessity of using violence, or they have less courage and force than the average man, or, it may be, have an exceptional innate aversion to violence.
As Professor Manouvrier remarks, the case would be entirely different if such criminals killed without plausible motives, if they committed murder without anything but the act in view. The facts [[599]]show that this is not so. Note the opinion of Flynt. “The taking of life is … [a] deed that he [the professional criminal] regrets more than he has been given credit for. One thinks of the criminal as the man who has no respect for life, as one who takes it without any twitchings of conscience; but this is not the general rule. The business criminal never takes a life, if he can help it.”[454]
We need not treat here of the causes which have led to the designating of these acts as crimes; they are the same as those given above in connection with economic crimes without violence. The harm done by these crimes is naturally greater than in the case of crimes without violence, since they put life as well as property in danger. It is interesting to note here, once more, the dualism of ethics; many primitive peoples consider these acts as crimes when they are committed within the same group, but very honorable when once the act passes beyond the limits of the group.[455] Further, with modern peoples this difference still persists; colonial wars often resemble a colossal robbery.