Criminality and economic conditions

by Willem Adriaan Bonger

D. Fraudulent Bankruptcy, Adulteration of Food, and Analogous Crimes.

We reach now the last group of economic crimes, those which are committed wholly, or in great part, by the bourgeoisie. The motives of these crimes are not all the same; here too it is necessary to make distinctions. The categories into which we must distribute the motives leading to these crimes are analogous to those which lead to theft etc., poverty and cupidity. And as in the case of theft it is necessary to add a third category, that of the great criminals, who can be compared with criminals by profession.

The first category may be compared with that of theft committed from poverty; those who fall into this class are persons who, for one reason or another, have seen their business decline, and not knowing any other way to escape from their difficulties, hope to retrieve their losses and save themselves by committing a misdeed. I take from Moreau’s “Le Monde des Prisons” a typical case. After having described how a certain R. had succeeded in setting himself up in business and had been successful, the author speaks as follows. [[600]]“Unhappily the panic caught him among the first. His business became worse and worse. In a few months he lost several thousand francs. Two of his traveling salesmen ran off with their goods. Orders ceased coming in. It was failure, dishonor. He fought, but was wrecked.…”[456] Finally, in order to escape ruin he committed a breach of trust; he was discovered and convicted.

We cannot say that it is absolute poverty that drives these persons to commit a crime, for generally they have enough left to keep them from dying of hunger. And if not, they are generally members of families who are in a position to keep them from the worst poverty. Further they can try to provide for their wants by paid labor. Nevertheless these cases are somewhat analogous to those of absolute poverty. Picture to yourself the state of mind of one who has led a more or less comfortable life, who has been independent, and enjoyed the esteem granted to a man who is well-to-do, and who sees that the time is approaching when all this will come to an end, and that there remains nothing for him to do but accept some minor poorly paid employment, and lead henceforth an existence that cannot satisfy him in any way. Imagine also that chance throws in his way an opportunity to commit a crime with good hope of success. It must be granted that we find here very powerful determinants to crime.

This cause of crimes of this class is of an entirely social nature. Under another mode of production, for example, under that of village communities, the idea of committing such crimes could not arise. For this reason we cannot say that social causes have often nothing to do with the matter, but that it is the man’s own fault if his business goes to pieces. This is certainly true at times; but it is the present organization of society which makes it possible for a man to be in charge of an enterprise which he is not fitted to conduct, while another who is fitted for it cannot find employment for his talents. It is only in a society where complete anarchy reigns in the economic life, that it is possible for a man to think he is capable of directing a business merely because he happens to have capital.

Let us now examine the other side of the question. What are the forces capable of preventing these projects from being realized? First let us ask, what is the environment in which many of these individuals who are guilty of such crimes are brought up? Certainly they have learned that one must be honest, that it is wrong to pick pockets, etc., and they will not fail in this regard. But they have learned also that the principal end in life is to grow rich, to succeed. [[601]]Too often this is contrary to the principle of probity. “Be honest, be honest, if possible, but … make money!” This is the principal rule imprinted upon the minds of the children in certain bourgeois environments. It is an honesty of a special kind that is inculcated, not a moral honesty, but an honesty for the sake of one’s own interests. “Honesty is the best policy” says the quasi-moral precept. Those whose probity has this for a basis have only a weak check to prevent them from becoming criminal, when the thought of the wrong act arises within them. They remain honest so long as it is to their advantage, but woe to society when this is no longer the case.

But further, the environment in which these persons have lived after their youth has not contributed to reinforce the social sentiments, and consequently those that are working in an anti-criminal direction. “Every man for himself” is the principle of success in such an environment. It is evident that the social sentiments must be strongly opposed in their development if the maxim just given is that which dominates. To act morally implies sacrificing one’s own advantage for the sake of the general good. He who is compelled always to have his own interests at heart can give very little thought to the interests of others.

As in the case of all crimes, it is necessary with regard to these also to put the question, are the individuals who are guilty of them, as regards their innate qualities, like those who have lived and still live under the same conditions? And as is the case with all crimes, the answer here must be in the negative. Those who are guilty of these crimes are, in general, those who are below the average in the strength of their moral qualities. They are rather weak than bad; they are conscious of the harm that they do to others and are ashamed of it, but they are too weak to resist the pressure of circumstances. As always it is the environment that is the cause of the crimes’ taking place; it is the individual differences which explain in part who is the one to commit them. Adapting the well-known sentence of Quetelet we may say, “it is society that prepares the crimes, it is the men of inferior moral caliber who execute them.” If the environment were entirely different the men of inferior moral caliber would not be guilty of crime.

It may be observed, perhaps, that if it is true that a special predisposition on the part of the individual is unnecessary for the explanation of these crimes, they ought to be more numerous than they are. This is true enough, but it does not refute the opinion which has been expressed. For, first, as is the case with all the others, these crimes [[602]]are more numerous than the criminal statistics show; second, there are reasons why some men do not commit crime, although all circumstances lead to it, and their moral condition does not prevent. For example, there are those who, as a consequence of the struggle for existence, have lost all energy and all courage, and give up the fight, even the fight with dishonest weapons; others, prudent by nature, take into consideration the fact that, bad as their situation may be, it would be worse if the crime were discovered, etc.

Statistics prove that it is really the decline of business that is the cause of a great number of bourgeois crimes. In the first part of this work I have given some which show this correlation, namely: