Italy, 1873–1890.
For this country the statistics on this question (see p. 144) have been compiled by Dr. Fornasari di Verce. This author has shown that with the exception of fraudulent bankruptcy (an astonishing and inexplicable fact), commercial crimes are strongly influenced by economic happenings.
Prussia, 1854–1878.
Dr. Starke has proved that the curve of these crimes is parallel with that of economic events (p. 65).
These statistics, to be sure, are not numerous, since the number of crimes committed by the bourgeoisie is small, and the other economic crimes, like theft, for example, are much more important, and hence draw the attention of statisticians more.[457]
We come now to the second category; bourgeois economic crimes from cupidity (as is always the case, the line of demarcation between this group and the preceding one is not distinctly traced, there being many gradations between the two). They are committed, not, as in the first category, by those whose business is declining, but by those whose affairs are more or less flourishing. The only motive, then, is cupidity; what they get by honest business is not enough for them, they wish to become richer. After what has been already said about cupidity it is unnecessary to go into detail here. It has been shown that it is only under certain special circumstances that this desire for wealth arises, and that it is unknown under others. It will be necessary only to point out the fact that although cupidity is a strong motive with all classes of our present society, it is especially so among the bourgeoisie, as a consequence of their position in the economic [[603]]life. This, then, is the first and most important cause of these crimes, a cause which is not individual, but entirely of a social nature.
In the second place, the opportunity to commit these offenses undetected is enormous (I refer especially to the adulteration of food). In general the consumer cannot judge whether the merchandise is pure or not, and in most cases there is no inspection by experts, or else it is worthless, since the experts are named by the producers themselves.
In the third place, we have to ask ourselves, in what way does the environment in which these persons live exercise an influence upon their social sentiments? We have already called attention to this point some pages above, and can be brief therefore. This environment tends to weaken the social sentiments which might act as a check upon very egoistic acts.
Considered from the point of view of the consumer the adulteration of food products is a grave crime, for it injures the health and may even endanger the life. But what moral impropriety will be seen in it by a producer who derives great profits from the exploitation of children, or who, by a corner in grain, causes a great increase in the price of bread? Is there, sociologically speaking, a difference between these two groups of acts? Certainly not; the one is as harmful as the other, nay, the last two probably more harmful than the first.
This kind of crime must be the despair of those who seek for some biological anomaly of the criminal as the primary cause of crime, for here the anomaly forms almost the rule. Dr. Puibaraud, in his “Malfaiteurs de profession”, rightly says: “The adulteration of food is carried on under our eyes, at our very doors, and we are so used to it that we say nothing. They put fuchsine in our wine, margarine in our butter, chicory in our coffee, tallow in our chocolate, and we swallow it all in perfect good humor. What is the use of protesting? So things are, and ‘business could not be carried on’ if they gave us really pure food. So we swallow it all without gagging or moving a muscle. Provided we are not poisoned—too quickly—we profess ourselves satisfied.”[458]