Criminality and economic conditions

by Willem Adriaan Bonger

“The influences that act upon the child outside of the curriculum have the more chance to be effective, since the curriculum is carried out in the less agreeable manner.”[22] [[105]]

In consequence of what has been said, I believe that the conclusion of Professor Ferri that there are anthropological factors of crime, is too hasty. But there are still other objections to be urged to it.

Let us suppose that two persons who live, and have lived, in the same circumstances are in a position to commit a very advantageous crime, and their morality does not prevent. At the moment when the time comes to act, one commits the crime and the other does not—he lacks the courage. Courage, then, is a factor of crime, and the lack of it a factor of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. In another case, he who commits a crime is stupid, and does not consider the risk, and he who does not commit it is a crafty man. Stupidity, then, is a factor of crime, and craft of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. The reverse is also true, probably more true still. Thousands of great criminals so far from being stupid have had something of the genius in them.

The famous individual factors are only ordinary human qualities, like courage, strength, needs, intelligence, etc. etc.,[23] which men possess in differing degrees, and which in like circumstances lead the one rather than the other to commit a crime. These qualities in themselves, however, have nothing to do with crime. Professor Manouvrier expresses my thought on this subject in the following: “There are, however, certain individuals more moved to crime than others, in circumstances otherwise equal. Certainly, as man is more given to crime than woman, as a robust and bold man is more given to crimes of violence than one who is miserable and timid, etc., yet each type of character finds some kind of crime practicable, if only arson. The athlete will be more inclined to strike, the smooth talker to play the confidence man, but we do not for that reason indict muscular strength, nor ready speech, nor boldness, nor agility, nor address. No more do we indict violence or trickery, qualities defined from the vicious use made of qualities valuable for honest purposes.”[24]

The reasoning of Professor Ferri, that there is in every crime, besides others, an anthropological factor, is only the statement of the fact, known long before the rise of modern criminology, that the predisposition to crime is not the same with all men. This predisposition, as we have seen, considered by itself, has nothing to do with crime as such. So much the more is the conclusion of Professor Ferri and the Italian school in general absolutely false, when they deduce from the undeniable fact that the predisposition is not the [[106]]same for all, the notion that this predisposition is by nature pathological.

Thus we have finally come to two other groups of anthropological factors: the organic constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of the skull, brain, etc. and the psychical constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of intelligence and feeling.[25] This is the special territory of the Italian school: the criminal is a being apart—“genus homo criminalis”—with special stigmata peculiar to him; there is a criminal type, anatomically recognizable; most criminals are born-criminals, etc. The explanation of this special character is to be found in atavism, an hypothesis later replaced by that of epilepsy; finally it has been claimed that the character of the criminal is in general of a pathological nature.

In our purely sociological work, though it combats in an indirect way the hypothesis of the Italian school, we do not have to concern ourselves with the conflict between the different anthropological schools, with regard to the origin of crime. We demonstrate merely, what no one who judges fairly will attempt to deny, that the hypothesis of the Italian school is erroneous. The anthropological authorities like Manouvrier, Baer, Näcke, and others, have broken this doctrine down.[26] There are no stigmata belonging to criminals only, nor is there any criminal type; the atavistic hypothesis is one of the profoundest errors.

Although the doctrine of Lombroso and his school is in general abandoned by anthropologists, it still persists in the acceptance of one fact, to which it is its immortal merit to have called attention, namely that there are a number of criminals (though a very limited number) who show a truly pathological nature, and whose criminal character can only be explained by this pathological nature. For example, when someone in an epileptic condition commits a murder, without any motive; or the case in which a well-to-do individual steals continually useless articles, of little value, etc., etc. Even in most of these instances, which are a small minority in the colossal mass of criminality, the social environment plays its part; but it must be recognized without reserve that here we have to do with true individual factors, peculiar to certain individuals. The hypothesis of the [[107]]Italian school is, then, accurate for the exception, but false as a rule.—

PHYSICAL FACTORS.

It is evident that the nature of the soil, the climate, the physical environment in a word, must have an important influence upon the mode of production, and consequently upon society.[27]