“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account [[89]]of the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the 100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater influence of heredity, climate, and race.”[3]

The circumstance that the thefts of food represent hardly 1% of the total cases of theft (according to Guerry), that in London bread occupies only the 43d place among 43 categories of articles stolen, and that Joly has shown that the cases of theft of money are much more numerous than those of meal, domestic animals, etc.—all of this leads the author to the conclusion that the proportion of crimes caused by lack of food and real misery is not so great as has been supposed.

—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr. G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr. Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first, that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime.[4]—

In the second part of the chapter Professor Lombroso tries to show that the effect of hunger upon revolts is not very great. He cites a number of cases where there were no revolts although prices were high and work scarce. Thus, for example, in Strasburg from 1451 to 1500 and from 1601 to 1625, the price of beef rose 134% and that of pork 92%, and during many years wages fell 10%; and yet there was no insurrection.

—I must vigorously protest against any such argument, which, in my opinion, has no value. I will leave out of consideration the last example, which proves but little, since during these periods the price of bread may have been very low, neutralizing the effect of low wages [[90]](it is quite problematical whether the poorer classes of the population were great consumers of beef and pork!). But it is inaccurate to conclude from the fact “that prices were high and there was no insurrection” an absence of influence of the economic conditions. There may have been a number of factors working in the opposite direction, which prevented the manifestation of the economic factor. To cite but one example, it may be that during those times an excessively severe penal law was in force, threatening the least attempt at insurrection with cruel death.—

We shall next sum up Chapter IX, “Influence of Economic Conditions—Wealth.” After saying that it is difficult to estimate the wealth of a country at all accurately, the author produces the following data in the first section of the chapter. He divides the provinces of Italy into three groups according to the total wealth (estimated from taxes on consumption, direct taxes, and taxes on business), and compares the figures thus gained with some of the principal kinds of crimes, reaching the following results:

Wealth, 1885–86.Wealth, 1890–93 (Bodio).
Maximum.Mean.Minimum.Maximum.Mean.Minimum.
Fraud 70.6 66.0 43.0 55.13 39.45 37.39
Sexual crimes 15.6 13.4 19.4 16.15 15.28 21.49
Thefts 206.0 143.0 148.0 361.28 329.51 419.05[5]
Homicides 11.3 17.0 23.0 8.34 13.39 15.40

Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth is least; and this last is always true of homicides.”[6]

“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of wealth.”[7]

Another way of estimating the wealth of a country is by means of the inheritance tax. For different Italian provinces the following results are thus obtained: [[91]]