H. Kurella.
This author gives some pages of his “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers” to the subject we have in hand. What he says may be summed up as follows.
The attempts to draw parallels between the fluctuations of the price of grain and those of the figures for criminality, according to the author, prove nothing, inasmuch as it is impossible to compare them with the statistics of wages and of forced unemployment. In fact any one who tries to show in this way the correlation between criminality and economic conditions, begs the question, that poverty is the principal cause of crime. Further, the hypothesis that the regularity with which human acts occur is fixed by the condition of the society in which they take place, is little by little giving [[137]]way. From personal examinations, and from the information given by Ferri and von Oettingen (this proves that the literature of our subject is little known to the author) Dr. Kurella thinks he can draw the conclusion that insufficient food, caused by scarcity or low wages, does not cause the commission of crimes. Malnutrition may perhaps influence criminality indirectly; that is it may cause degeneration after some successive generations, which in its turn predisposes to crime.
A priori it is incontestable that we cannot picture to ourselves a society, if established by the socialists,[44] in which cupidity, hatred, and the instinct of the oppressor, the principal motives of crime, will have been annihilated or deprived of their influence because of social institutions. Nevertheless it is of importance that Morrison, Garofalo, and Ferri[45] have, according to the author, shown that poverty is not a factor of crime. At the International Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Brussels, the attempt was made to defend the contrary, but, according to Dr. Kurella, without success. (According to him it can only be in case of being suddenly thrown out of work that a person hitherto honest commits a crime from indigence.)
The necessity of the moment being consequently only rarely a cause of criminality, not only do the present social anomalies produce an increase of degeneracy, as has been said above, but also there are a number of persons who live in badly built and unsanitary dwellings, so that the family life is injured, and the development of feelings of honesty, modesty, etc., is interfered with. And it is also the social anomalies that strongly influence alcoholism, which is one of the important factors of crime.
The author draws the following conclusion: “As little as a change of environmental conditions can change an individual of one kind immediately into an individual of another kind, as little as we ever, under however modified circumstances, see a chimpanzee change himself into a gorilla, so little do social factors change a normally endowed man into a criminal. In isolated cases it may appear as if passion or opportunity had caused a crime; social forces do indeed have their effect upon the individual, but they do not essentially change his fundamental attributes—which include his character; [[138]]the slight modifications through environment that individuals experience, must constantly recur, heap themselves up in the course of generations, until a socially significant change of type has arisen. Accordingly it is the permanent social distresses, the chronic evils of society which influence criminality, because by unnoticeable influences they go on for generations gnawing at the inmost kernel of man; misery and intellectual and moral neglect must be as long continued as in the Papal States, in the Kingdom of Naples, in Ireland, and among the Poles, drained by the territorial nobility for centuries, before an entire people becomes inoculated with the ‘penchant for crime.’ ”[46]
—I will refrain from making any criticism. One does not argue with a man who gives convincing proofs that even the meaning of criminal sociology is unknown to him. Assertions, for example, that the character of man is invariable, that the distance between the honest man and the dishonest man is as great as that between the chimpanzee and the gorilla, are only absurdities. What author will deny at this time that the differences between men are, in the last analysis, only quantitative?
In general, Dr. Kurella still shares the opinions of the Italian school (cf., for example, “Anthropologie und Strafrecht”, which appeared in 1912); nevertheless he should have recognized, when he wrote “die Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, that he was not familiar with the social factors of crime. He has written the following remarkable words, which do him honor. “I do not hesitate to confess that deeper socio-political studies, which became possible to me only after the publication of that work [“Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”] show me today the social factors of crime more plainly and sharply, than I was able to recognize them ten years ago” (Vorrede, “Zurechnungsfähigkeit, Kriminalanthropologie”).—