Criticism.
The authors treated of in this chapter, and many others whom I have had to put under other headings as belonging to some special school, all have this point in common, that they try to find the causes of crime by means of statistics. The first question that arises is this: do criminal statistics give a real and complete picture of criminality? The answer is categorically, No. To give only a few reasons, there are a great many crimes, naturally insignificant, which remain unknown even to the person injured; there are others of which justice never takes cognizance, because the injured party has filed no complaint, either because he has pardoned the offender, or fears the trouble of a criminal trial, etc.
In general, not all the cases known to justice are included in the criminal statistics but only those in which sentence is pronounced. An exception is found in Mayr’s book (§ VI of this chapter), in which all the crimes known to justice appear. In the first place the public officer dismisses many cases because of their insignificance (Germany is an exception—there the officer must prosecute); and in the second place there are a number of crimes whose authors remain unknown. Finally, only a part of those arraigned are convicted. Criminal statistics, therefore, cover only a part of the crime that exists.[53]
The enemies of statistics have drawn from the preceding fact the conclusion that criminal statistics are useless for the study of the etiology of crime. This is an absolutely false conclusion, as false as [[85]]it would be to claim that doctors cannot find the cause of a disease, because besides the thousands of cases known to them, there are at least as many that remain unknown. The only question that arises is the following: is the number known sufficient? is there a sufficiently large body of facts in hand for inductive studies? As far as criminality is concerned the answer can be perfectly positive. The number of offenses that do not appear in the criminal statistics is certainly large; they are, however, chiefly insignificant misdemeanors, such as insults, trifling assaults, petty thefts, etc. These would have little value in determining the etiology of crime, even if the statistics included them all. Serious crimes, on the other hand, in the majority of cases, without any doubt appear in the statistics. The great reason why criminal statistics suffice for etiological investigations is that the ratio of known crime to unknown remains relatively constant. The proofs of this are to be found in the criminal and judicial statistics themselves. The ratio between cases dismissed and those prosecuted, between convictions and acquittals, etc., etc., remains practically the same from one year to another. Further, every statistician of any experience is convinced that the law of averages rules more absolutely than any despot.
Finally it must be noted that the fact that there are a number of offenses which do not appear in the criminal statistics, does not mean that there are many criminals of whom the same can be said. It is the Italian school in particular that has maintained the proposition that in the struggle between the criminal and society it is the criminal that has the upper hand. This is a mistake; the criminal generally loses, and in the great majority of cases very quickly. Certainly the criminals are not punished for each crime, but the cases in which they remain unpunished are very rare. In the world of criminals itself there is no other opinion on this point.[54]
Although the value of statistics in studying the etiology of crime is certain, it must not be thought that they tell us everything.[55] I pass over here numerous things which most statistics still lack, for example, a classification by motive rather than according to the technical distinctions of the penal laws,[56]—and will simply call attention to the [[86]]difficulty of making international comparisons. The difference merely in the penal laws makes the comparison very difficult, and in many cases even impossible. Further, the dissimilarity of procedure, the differences in the organization of the police, etc., increase this difficulty.[57] In general, we can say that international comparisons give results where the nature of the crime (as homicide, for example) minimizes the difference between the codes, and where the figures show considerable differences. We can truly say that for the etiology of crime statics are much less important than dynamics. When we apply the dynamic method to a fairly long period, we have also to allow for the changes that have taken place in the penal codes and in the police organization, etc.
The statistical method certainly contains many sources of error. It goes without saying that this is not a reason for not using it at all, but simply for being careful. We must guard against conclusions too hastily drawn. If statistics show less criminality among the Jews—as is generally the case—it is not safe to say, therefore, that the innate morality of the Jew is greater than that of other men. If crime increases during a certain period together with irreligion, we have no right to conclude that there is a causal connection between the two. The connection between the movement of the price of grain and that of crimes against property has been proved many times, as we have seen; if this parallelism of the two curves no longer occurs, we cannot say on that account that economic conditions no longer play a part in the etiology of these crimes; we have seen that in manufacturing countries the industrial situation in general dominates the course of economic criminality. Similar examples could easily be multiplied.
The statistical method is one of the most effective for discovering the etiology of crime, and my readers will see that I use it much of the time. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that this method, however important, is only one among several. It is chiefly valuable in finding the direct causes of crime; as to indirect causes it gives us much less information. I would call attention to the following example: several authors have proved that there is an inverse connection between economic conditions and crimes against persons, i.e. [[87]]that these crimes increase in times of prosperity (this does not apply to recent times, however). The conclusion has often been drawn from these facts that an improvement in the lot of the working-class would lead, as a law of nature, to an increase in crimes of violence. This is a typical example of the insufficiency of the statistical method alone. When we seek for the cause of this phenomenon in another way, in the structure of society, we discover that it is to be found in the low moral and intellectual condition of the working-classes. There can be no law of nature at the root of the matter, else the well-to-do classes would be the violent criminals “par excellence.” It goes without saying that just the contrary is the case.
To sum up, I conclude that statistics furnish a powerful means of discovering the causes of crime, provided they are used critically and carefully. The statistical method is not the only one; to be a good criminologist, it is necessary to be a statistician, but it is necessary to be a sociologist also.