CHAPTER I.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. [483]

A. DEFINITION OF CRIME. [484]

Crime belongs to the category of punishable acts. However, as the term is applicable to only a part of such acts, it is necessary to be more exact. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to exclude successively all the groups of acts which are punishable without being crimes.

The first exclusion is in connection with the question, “Who is it that punishes?” You cannot call that a crime against which one or several individuals take action of their own motion, and where the social group to which they belong does not move as such. In this case the word “punish” is an improper term, for the act in question is one of personal vengeance. Nor can you apply the name of crime to the act of a group of persons forming a social entity, against an analogous group. The reaction of the second group called forth by such act is not properly punishment, but “blood-” or “group-vengeance”, and is in reality nothing but a kind of war. [485]

The second exclusion concerns the nature of the punishment. Acts which bring no other punishment than moral disapprobation are not reckoned as crimes. They are not so called unless they are threatened with something more severe than this.

The provisional result is, then, as follows: A crime is an act committed within a group of persons that form a social unit, and whose author is punished by the group (or a part of it) as such, or by organs designated for this purpose, and this by a penalty whose nature is considered to be more severe than that of moral disapprobation. This definition, however, considers only the formal side of the conception of crime; it says nothing as to its essence. It is proper, then, to consider next the material side.

Crime is an act. [486] The question which presents itself first of all is this: Is crime considered from a biological point of view an abnormal act? The answer to this, which is of the highest importance for the etiology of crime, must be negative. From a biological point of view almost all crimes must be ranked as normal acts. The process which takes place in the brain of the gendarme when he kills a poacher who resists arrest is identical with that which takes place in the brain of the poacher killing the gendarme who pursues him. It is only the social environment which classes the second act rather than the first as a crime. From the biological point of view homicide is not an abnormal act. Sociology and history prove that men have always killed when they thought it necessary. No one would maintain, for example, that those who take part in a war are biologically abnormal.

The same observation may be applied to assaults. No anthropologist would maintain that a policeman clubbing a mob of strikers was performing a biologically abnormal act, or that the strikers were abnormal because they did not choose to let themselves be maltreated without defending themselves. It is only the social circumstances which class this defense as a crime, and cause the action of the policeman to be considered otherwise.

The same thing is true with regard to theft. For centuries it was considered the right of the soldiers to pillage the country of the conquered (and in colonial wars it is still done at times). Soldiers are not, however, from this fact considered to be biologically abnormal individuals. And yet there is no biological difference between these acts and those of the ordinary thief; for anthropology does not ask whether one steals on a large scale or on a small. [487]

Continuing our researches into the essence of crime, it is obvious that it is an immoral act, and one of a serious character. Why do we find any act immoral? This question cannot be answered by asking of each individual separately, Why do you think such and such an act immoral? Moral disapprobation is primarily a question of feeling; ordinarily we take no account of why any given act is approved or disapproved by us. Sociology alone can solve the problem by taking the acts considered as immoral in relation with the social organization in which they take place. And in treating the matter thus we observe that the acts called immoral are those which are harmful to the interests of a group of persons united by the same interests. Since the social structure is changing continually, the ideas of what is immoral (and consequently of what is or is not criminal) change with these modifications. [488]

Considered in this way from the material side, a crime is an anti-social act, an act which is harmful in a considerable degree to the interests of a certain group of persons. This definition is not yet complete, however, for many acts of this nature are not crimes.

The best thing to do in order to find what is lacking in this definition is to examine a concrete case. A short time ago there was added to the Dutch penal code a new article threatening with a penal term of some years the railroad employe who went out on a strike. The proposal of this law, presented after a partial strike of the railroad employes, aroused great indignation on the part of organized labor, while the bourgeoisie in general regarded a strike as an immoral act which would henceforth be followed by a severe penalty. Notwithstanding the violent opposition on the part of the deputies of the labor party the plan was accepted.

It is clear that what must be added to our definition (already contained implicitly in the formal definition) is that the act must be prejudicial to the interests of those who have the power at their command. If, in the case cited above, the deputies of the proletariat had had the majority the Dutch penal code would contain no penalties against railroad employes on a strike. Power then is the necessary condition for those who wish to class a certain act as a crime.

It follows that in every society which is divided into a ruling class and a class ruled penal law has been principally constituted according to the will of the former. We must at once add that the present legal prescriptions are not always directed against the class of those ruled, but that most of them are directed against acts that are prejudicial to the interests of both classes equally (for example, homicide, rape, etc.). These acts would without doubt continue to be considered criminal if the power were to pass into the hands of those who are at present the governed. However, in every existing penal code hardly any act is punished if it does not injure the interests of the dominant class as well as the other, and the law touching it protects only the interests of the class dominated. The rare exceptions are explained by the fact that the lower classes are not wholly without power.

Before closing our observations we must put the question, What is the object of punishment? It seems to me that there are elements of different nature in punishment as prescribed in our present penal codes. To begin with the object of punishment is to be found in the feelings of vengeance excited by the crime, for which satisfaction is desired. But after this punishment has three things in view:

First, To put the criminal where he can do no further harm, either permanently or for a certain period.

Second, To inspire the criminal, and other persons as well, with a fear of committing crime.

Third, To reform the criminal as far as possible.

Most criminologists do not admit that punishment is still in great part a manifestation of the desire for vengeance (although regulated). Nevertheless it is indubitable that he who desires that some one shall be punished solely because he has committed a misdeed, and without his punishment’s being of any use to the criminal or to others, wishes simply to satisfy his feelings of revenge. The most subtle theories cannot refute this fact. Those who from the height of their knowledge disdain the primitive peoples who practice the rule of “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”, are nevertheless on the same plane in this matter, as those they scorn. [489]

It is unnecessary to say that the minority that wishes to exclude all idea of vengeance from the penal code, and sees in it only a means of securing the safety of society, and, if possible, of reforming the criminal, is at present still very small, so that the ideas of this group are almost never realized in our present penalties. [490]

This is our conclusion, then, that a crime is an act committed within a group of persons forming a social unit; that it prejudices the interests of all, or of those of the group who are powerful; that, for this reason, the author of the crime is punished by the group (or a part of the group) as such or by specially ordained instruments, and this by a penalty more severe than moral disapprobation.

To find the causes of crime we must, then, first solve the question: “Why does an individual do acts injurious to the interests of those with whom he forms a social unit?”, or in other words: “Why does a man act egoistically?”

B. THE ORIGIN OF EGOISTIC ACTS IN GENERAL. [491]

What are the causes of egoistic acts? How does it happen that one man does harm to another? The answers that have been given to this primeval question may be divided into two groups. The first group attributes the cause to the man himself, the second to his environment.

The great majority of persons who treat of this question settle it in favor of innate egoism. They are of the opinion that man is egoistic by nature and that environment can produce no change in this (this is implied in the Christian doctrine of original sin). This opinion, in order to be accepted as true, needs facts to prove that egoism has always and everywhere been the same among men.

Others, among whom are most of the well-known sociologists, also consider egoism as a fundamental trait of man, but are at the same time of the opinion that little by little egoism has decreased, that altruism has developed, and that this process continues. [492] For this hypothesis to be correct it must be shown by the facts:

First. That the peoples of a much lower degree of social evolution than ours show much more egoistic traits of character. [493]

Second. That the animals from whom man has descended are inveterate egoists.

This theory is naturally of the highest importance for criminal science, and it becomes still more so from the fact that, according to Professor Lombroso, crime is a manifestation of atavism, that is, that some individuals present anew traits of character belonging to their very remote ancestors. The criminal would thus be a savage in our present society. We must therefore examine to see whether the said theory is correct.

We have only to consult one of the standard works on zoölogy to perceive that there is no basis in this science to uphold the theory. There are some animals that are complete egoists. Two harpies (South American birds of prey) for example, upon meeting will attack each other at once and will fight till one is conquered. Other animals, on the contrary, show very altruistic traits of character. The following extract from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”, is one of many proofs which might be adduced: “Animals of many kinds are social;... We will confine our attention to the higher social animals; and pass over insects, although some of these are social, and aid one another in many important ways. The most common mutual service in the higher animals is to warn one another of danger by means of the united senses of all. Every sportsman knows, as Dr. Jaeger remarks, how difficult it is to approach animals in a herd or troop. Wild horses and cattle do not, I believe, make any danger-signal; but the attitude of any one of them who first discovers an enemy, warns the others. Rabbits stamp loudly on the ground with their hind-feet as a signal; sheep and chamois do the same with their fore-feet, uttering likewise a whistle. Many birds, and some mammals, post sentinels, which in the case of seals are said generally to be the females. The leader of a troop of monkeys acts as the sentinel, and utters cries expressive both of danger and of safety. Social animals perform many little services for each other: horses nibble, and cows lick each other, on any spot which itches; monkeys search each other for external parasites; and Brehm states that after a troop of the Cercopithecus griseo-viridis has rushed through a thorny brake, each monkey stretches itself on a branch, and another monkey sitting by, ‘conscientiously’ examines its fur, and extracts every thorn or burr.

“Animals also render more important services to one another: thus wolves and some other beasts of prey hunt in packs, and aid one another in attacking their victims. Pelicans fish in concert. The Hamádryas baboons turn over stones to find insects, etc.; and when they come to a large one, as many as can stand round, turn it over together and share the booty. Social animals mutually defend each other. Bull bisons in North America, when there is danger, drive the cows and calves to the middle of the herd, whilst they defend the outside.... In Abyssinia, Brehm encountered a great troop of baboons, who were crossing a valley: some had already ascended the opposite mountain, and some were still in the valley: the latter were attacked by the dogs, but the old males immediately hurried down from the rocks, and with mouths widely opened roared so fearfully, that the dogs quickly drew back. They were again encouraged to the attack; but by this time all the baboons had reascended the heights, excepted a young one, about six months old, who, loudly calling for aid, climbed on a block of rock, and was surrounded. Now one of the largest males, a true hero, came down again from the mountain, slowly went to the young one, coaxed him, and triumphantly led him away—the dogs being too much astonished to make an attack. I cannot resist giving another scene which was witnessed by this same naturalist; an eagle seized a young Cercopithecus, which, by clinging to a branch, was not at once carried off; it cried loudly for assistance, upon which the other members of the troop, with much uproar, rushed to the rescue, surrounded the eagle, and pulled out so many feathers, that he no longer thought of his prey, but only how to escape....

“It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals.” [494]

Later I shall treat of the question why some species of animals show altruistic proclivities while others do not. At present I wish to inquire whether peoples showing a much lower degree of civilization than our own are much more egoistic.

Nansen, the celebrated explorer, in speaking of the Eskimos, among whom he sojourned for some time, says: “The Greenlander is of all God’s creatures gifted with the best disposition. Good-humor, peaceableness, and evenness of temper are the most prominent features in his character. He is eager to live on as good a footing as possible with his fellow-men and therefore refrains from offending them and much more from using coarse terms of abuse. He is very loth to contradict another even should he be saying what he knows to be false. If he does so, he takes care to word his remonstrance in the mildest possible form, and it would be very hard indeed for him to say right out that the other was lying. He is chary of telling other people truths that he thinks will be unpleasant to them; in such cases he chooses the vaguest expressions, even with reference to such indifferent things as wind and weather. His peaceableness even goes so far that when anything is stolen from him, which seldom happens, he does not as a rule reclaim it even if he knows who has taken it. The result is that there is seldom or never any quarreling among them. [495]

“The only thing that makes him [the Eskimo] really unhappy is to see others in want, and therefore he shares with them whenever he has anything to share.”

“The Greenlander is, on the whole, like a sympathetic child with respect to the needs of others; his first social law is to help his neighbor.” [496]

“One of the most prominent and attractive traits in the Eskimo’s moral character is certainly his integrity.... It is of special importance for the Eskimo that he should be able to rely with confidence upon his neighbors and his fellow-men; and it is the first condition of this mutual confidence, on which depends all united action in the battle for life, that every man should be upright in his dealings with his neighbors. The Eskimo therefore regards it as in the highest degree dishonorable to steal from his house-mates or from his fellow-villagers, and it is very seldom that anything of the sort occurs.” [497]

“The worst thing that can happen to a Greenlander is to be made ridiculous in the eyes of his fellows, and to be scoffed at by them.” [498]

With regard to the American Indians living in the region of the Columbia river, Dr. Waitz makes the following statement: “The qualities regarded as virtues by these peoples are honesty and love of truth, courage, obedience to parents and chiefs, and love of wife and child; and the Salish, whose moral ideals are here especially indicated, in general come up to these requirements very well. With them and with their cousins, the ‘Pends-d’Oreilles’ and Spokane, crimes are very rare, and a mere rebuke, administered by the chief, is of great effectiveness. Old age, too, finds among the Salish benevolent support and care, though children who have the misfortune to lose their fathers have often a sad lot, their property being frequently taken from them. Most of these peoples are upright and honest, live together in the most peaceable fashion, and have friendly intercourse with the whites.” [499]

G. Catlin, one of the authors who are best informed upon everything concerning the North American Indians, says of their character:

“I have roamed about from time to time during seven or eight years, visiting and associating with, some three or four hundred thousand of these people, under an almost infinite variety of circumstances; and from the very many and decided voluntary acts of their hospitality and kindness I feel bound to pronounce them, by nature, a kind and hospitable people. I have been welcomed generally in their country, and treated to the best that they could give me, without any charges made for my board; they have often escorted me through their enemies’ country at some hazard to their own lives, and aided me in passing mountains and rivers with my awkward baggage; and under all of these circumstances of exposure, no Indian ever betrayed me, struck me a blow, or stole from me a shilling’s worth of my property that I am aware of.

“This is saying a great deal, (and proving it too, if the reader believe me) in favour of the virtues of these people; when it is borne in mind, as it should be, that there is no law in their land to punish a man for theft—that locks and keys are not known in their country—that the commandments have never been divulged amongst them; nor can any human retribution fall upon the head of thief, save the disgrace which attaches as a stigma to his character, in the eyes of his people about him.

“And thus in these little communities, strange as it may seem, in the absence of all systems of jurisprudence, I have often beheld peace and happiness, and quiet, reigning supreme, for which even kings and emperors might envy them. I have seen rights and virtue protected, and wrongs redressed; and I have seen conjugal, filial and paternal affection in the simplicity and contentedness of nature. I have unavoidably, formed warm and enduring attachments to some of these men which I do not wish to forget—who have brought me near to their hearts, and in our final separation have embraced me in their arms, commended me and my affairs to the keeping of the great Spirit.” [500]

In treating of the question of which of the two are the happier, the civilized nations or the peoples he visited, the same author says:

“I have long looked with the eye of a critic, into the jovial faces of these sons of the forest, unfurrowed with cares—where the agonizing feeling of poverty had never stamped distress upon the brow. I have watched the bold, intrepid step—the proud, yet dignified deportment of Nature’s man, in fearless freedom, with a soul unalloyed by mercenary lusts, too great to yield to laws or power except from God. As these independent fellows are all joint-tenants of the soil, they are all rich, and none of the steepings of comparative poverty can strangle their just claims to renown. Who (I could ask) can look without admiring, into a society where peace and harmony prevail—where virtue is cherished—where rights are protected and wrongs are redressed—with no laws, but the laws of honour, which are the supreme laws of their land. Trust the boasted virtues of civilized society for awhile, with all its intellectual refinements, to such a tribunal, and then write down the degradation of the ‘lawless savage’ and our transcendent virtues.”

Lewis H. Morgan, after passing a great part of his life among the Iroquois, says with regard to them: “All the members of an Iroquois gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other’s freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity, though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was organized. A structure composed of such units would of necessity bear the impress of their character, for as the unit so the compound. It serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity universally an attribute of Indian character.” [501]

He describes the hospitality of the peoples mentioned as follows: “Among the Iroquois hospitality was an established usage. If a man entered an Indian house in any of their villages, whether a villager, or a stranger, it was the duty of the women therein to set food before him. An omission to do this would have been a discourtesy amounting to an affront. If hungry, he ate; if not hungry, courtesy required that he should taste the food and thank the giver. This would be repeated at every house he entered, and at whatever hour in the day. As a custom it was upheld by a rigorous public sentiment. The same hospitality was extended to strangers from their own and from other tribes. Upon the advent of the European race among them it was also extended to them. This characteristic of barbarous society, wherein food was the principal concern of life, is a remarkable fact. The law of hospitality, as administered by the American aborigines, tended to the final equalization of subsistence. Hunger and destitution could not exist at one end of an Indian village or in one section of an encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere in the same village or encampment. [502]

A. R. Wallace speaks as follows of the primitive population of South America and the Indian Archipelago: “I have lived with communities of savages in South America and in the East, who have no laws or law courts but the public opinion of the village freely expressed. Each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of these rights rarely or never takes place. In such a community, all are nearly equal. There are none of those wide distinctions, of education and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master and servant, which are the product of our civilization; there is none of the wide-spreading division of labor, which, while it increases wealth, produces also conflicting interests; there is not that severe competition and struggle for existence, or for wealth, which the dense population of civilized countries inevitably creates. All incitements to great crimes are thus wanting, and petty ones are repressed, partly by the influence of public opinion, but chiefly by that natural sense of justice and of his neighbor’s right, which seems to be, in some degree, inherent in every race of man.” [503]

In his work, “Village Communities in the East and West”, H. S. Maine says:

“Whenever a corner is lifted up of the veil which hides from us the primitive condition of mankind, even of such parts of it as we know to have been destined to civilisation, there are two positions, now very familiar to us, which seem to be signally falsified by all we are permitted to see—All men are brothers, and all men are equal. The scene before us is rather that which the animal world presents to the mental eye of those who have the courage to bring home to themselves the facts answering to the memorable theory of Natural Selection. Each fierce little community is perpetually at war with its neighbour, tribe with tribe, village with village. The never-ceasing attacks of the strong on the weak end in the manner expressed by the monotonous formula which so often recurs in the pages of Thucydides, ‘they put the men to the sword, the women and children they sold into slavery.’ Yet, even amid all this cruelty and carnage, we find the germs of ideas, which have spread over the world. There is still a place and a sense in which men are brothers and equals. The universal belligerency is the belligerency of one total group, tribe, or village, with another; but in the interior of the groups the regimen is one not of conflict and confusion but rather of ultra-legality. The men who composed the primitive communities believed themselves to be kinsmen in the most literal sense of the word; and surprising as it may seem, there are a multitude of indications that in one stage of thought they must have regarded themselves as equals.” [504]

Scores of pages might be filled with facts proving that the primitive peoples of all races and in all parts of the world were not only not egoistic in their relations with the people they lived among, but rather the contrary. In conclusion I wish to note the opinions of two distinguished sociologists, Steinmetz and Kovalewsky, opinions which derive significance from the great ethnological knowledge of these authors.

At the Fifth Congress of Criminal Anthropology Dr. Steinmetz, in speaking upon the explanation of crime by the hypothesis of atavism, says: “It is not at all probable that our true born-criminal resembles the normal savage. The former is characterized by his ferocious egoism, while the latter is nothing if not a devoted member of the group whose customs he respects and whose interests he defends; the savage is very tender toward the children whom the criminal abandons; the savage is only cruel toward the enemy, the criminal toward all the world.” [505]

After having cited different altruistic traits of primitive peoples Kovalewsky says: “The enumeration would wear out your patience if one were to cite all the proofs that travelers give of the care that savages and barbarians have for their mutual welfare, and the fulness of their charity. To these facts, which indicate the prolonged existence of a sort of communism, others correspond....” [506]

I am of the opinion that no one, taking the above facts into consideration, will maintain that man has always and everywhere shown the same egoistic traits, or that there has been a gradual evolution from egoism towards altruism.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that primitive peoples present under all circumstances the altruistic characteristics that I have mentioned. I have already remarked that the position of woman is in general very dependent. In general the primitive peoples are very fond of their children and give them very tender care. Nevertheless infanticide is not uncommon among those who are at a low stage of civilization. And I have already remarked that among nomadic peoples the sick and aged were often abandoned. Here are then contradictions which it is necessary to explain.

Apparently—but only apparently—an evolution from egoism towards altruism has really taken place and has not yet ceased. This appearance is the effect of the alteration in the character of the egoism under the present economic system; it has become less violent than at earlier periods. The fight is no longer carried on with fire-arms or cold steel, but with other weapons no less dangerous, and this is what is generally lost sight of. We note that in ancient times the prisoners were killed; that later they were sold into slavery; that slavery was superseded by serfdom, which in its turn gave place to free labor.

But it is not always a growing altruistic sentiment that has been the motive in these changes. The life of prisoners of war has not been spared from reasons of humanity, but because the extension of the productivity of labor made it more profitable to make a prisoner work than to kill him. And slavery was not abolished because slave-owners had become less egoistic, but because it was more profitable to make free laborers work than to make slaves do so. [507] We cannot speak of the diminution of egoism, but of the moderating of violence in the course of time. It cannot be maintained that a capitalist who tries by a lock-out to force his workmen to break with their union, in order that he may escape the danger of a decrease in his profits through a strike, and who in this way condemns them and their families to hunger, is less egoistic than the slave-owner driving his slaves to harder labor. The former does not use force—it is useless—he has a surer weapon at his command, the suffering with which he can strike his workmen; he seems less egoistic, but in reality is as egoistic as the latter. The great speculator who, by manipulating the market, forces thousands of persons to pay more for the necessaries of life, and to become his tributaries as it were, is not less egoistic than the robber-baron of the middle ages who, arms in hand, forced the traveling merchants to pay him tribute. The difference is merely that the former attains his end without using violence like the latter. Capitalism is a system of exploitation in which, in place of the exploited person’s being robbed he is compelled by poverty to use all his powers for the benefit of the exploiter. [508]

The same thing is true of colonial history. At first the aborigines of the countries explored by the Europeans were often pillaged and massacred. This system has long been abandoned, not from altruism however, but because it is more profitable to make a conquered people work than to pillage and exterminate them. When they do not submit voluntarily, force is used as heretofore.

The apparent improvement has yet another cause. Christianity preaches “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.” And since this maxim has been often preached and many Christians have it always in their mouths, men come to believe that it is really put into practice. The contrary is true. The fact that the duty of altruism is so much insisted upon is the most convincing proof that it is not generally practiced or it would not be so much spoken and preached about. There are many persons in our days who ask nothing better than to see men act altruistically, but they preach in the wilderness; their wish has not come true. Present society is moulded by egoism. The egoism is less violent, however, and more disguised.

Before speaking of the real causes of egoism and altruism it may be well to attempt to answer the question, Whence come these inexact ideas? It is not difficult, in my opinion, to explain how it comes about that many men believe that the “homo homini lupus” of Hobbes has been true always and everywhere. The adherents of this opinion have studied principally men who live under capitalism, or under civilization; their correct conclusion has been that egoism is the predominant characteristic of these men, and they have adopted the simplest explanation of the phenomenon and say that this trait is inborn.

If they had known the periods anterior to civilization, they would have noted that the “homo homini lupus” is an historical phenomenon applicable during a relatively short period, [509] and that consequently it is impossible that egoism should be innate in man. However great have been the social modifications during the period of civilization, the principal aim of men has always been, and still is, to acquire personal wealth, and men still remain divided into classes, that is into groups whose economic interests are contrary. This is why an examination of the earlier periods is of such high importance for sociology.

An erroneous interpretation of the Darwinian theory has also contributed to bring about the strange notion of the eternal character of the struggle of all against all. Darwin himself maintains nothing of the sort. In his “Origin of Species” he says in the clearest terms that the struggle between the individuals of the same species does not at all happen in every species: “There must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life.” [510]

The explanation of the second hypothesis, that of the evolution from egoism towards altruism, is more complicated. In the first place the facts adduced in support of it are not numerous, and they serve rather to illustrate a theory than to furnish the materials by which it may be justified. In the second place a part of the ethnological materials in relation to the question it has been impossible to utilize. They have been collected partly by persons convinced beforehand of the superiority of Christian morality to every other system, and who consequently disapprove of everything opposed to it, and partly by persons whose own conduct has caused the enmity manifested by the peoples with whom they have come into contact. No part of the history of civilization offers a more hideous spectacle than that of colonization. [511] In the third place it is necessary to exclude peoples that have had much contact with Europeans or other civilized peoples. In the fourth place we often lose sight of the fact that primitive peoples show great differences of development, and consequently cannot be placed in the same rank. [512] For example, if peoples despotically governed show strong egoistic tendencies, we have no right to declare that all primitive peoples are egoistic.

Finally it is of the highest importance in studying primitive peoples to make the distinction between the acts which have to do with persons of the same social group, and those which have to do with strangers. One of the principal causes of the charge of egoism made against primitive peoples is to be found in the fact that this dualism of ethics is forgotten. In the passages I have cited (those from Maine and Steinmetz, for instance) the great difference between acts committed within and without the group is brought out. We have seen that the Indians of North America, although very altruistic toward those who form the same group with them, as also toward their guests, are the most pitiless enemies of those who attack their independence or their hunting ground. Now it has been by these last acts that these peoples have been generally judged, a wholly wrong method, since the “dualism of ethics” has always existed. Great would be the astonishment if any one were to maintain that the South African war proved that the English were a nation of murderers and incendiaries. Yet this is just the sort of reasoning that is applied to primitive peoples. [513]

How does it happen that some animal species are social while others are not? It is impossible to maintain with some authors that sociability increases according to the degree of development attained by the animal. [514] Certain insects, for example, are endowed with pronounced social feelings, while the cat tribe and some kinds of birds are on the contrary unsocial. Nevertheless the latter occupy a higher place in the scale than the former. The explanation, then, must be sought elsewhere. [515]

There are divers reasons that draw a more or less considerable number of animals to one place—the fact of being born in the same locality, for example. Most animals are social when they are young, even those which are no longer so when full-grown, like the arachnids. Another cause that brings animals together is emigration towards a country because of great changes of temperature. A third cause, probably the most important, that unites animals of the same species is the abundance of the food-supply of certain countries.

However, the occasional assembling of animals does not explain why certain animals are social while others are not. Lions, for example, often meet in places where they come to drink, and yet do not become social. It is not probable that there are animals who have remained together because they have comprehended the advantages of a life in common, for this would suppose an intelligence on their part which it is difficult to attribute to them. In order that these animals should remain together they must find it agreeable, and disagreeable to be isolated.

When we study the social species of animals we notice that the life in common is in general one of their most powerful weapons in the struggle for existence, a weapon without which it would be nearly or quite impossible for them to maintain the fight. Consequently the animals for which the life in common is advantageous and which possess social instincts stronger than others, have, when brought together by any cause whatever, a greater chance to survive. [516] Per contra the animals who have to stalk their prey have more chance of surviving when life in common is disagreeable to them. It is therefore by survival that social feelings are developed in some species of animals and not in others. [517] Habit, and the tendency to imitate increase these feelings considerably.

The advantages to certain species of animals resulting from life in common are of two kinds; in the first place a better defense against their enemies, and in the second place greater ease in procuring subsistence. Wild cattle give us an example of the first case; while the wolves who in winter gather into packs for purposes of the chase, because food has become scarce, furnish us an example of the second. For other animals (like the simians) social sentiments are helpful in both ways.

It is unnecessary to amplify further upon the two ways in which life in groups is of advantage to certain species of animals. We have yet to turn our attention to the qualities developed by the group struggle for existence.

One of the principal characteristics of social animals is the pleasure they experience in living in common, so that a social animal is unhappy if he is separate from those of the group in which he lives. Further it is necessary that the animal that cannot live alone, and is happy with his group, should also feel a sympathy with that group. Pleasure or its opposite felt by any individual reacts upon the whole group. A social being will try then to favor the interests of his fellows as far as he can, and in so far as he comprehends these interests. This sympathy will not extend to the whole species but only to the group. The general interest of the group does not permit the sympathy to embrace the whole species, but on the contrary requires one group to fight the other if, for example, the latter interferes with its food-supply. And even within the limits of the group the general interest may demand that a sick or wounded individual be abandoned, when by its presence it would for example, attract beasts of prey, and thus put the existence of all in danger.

Highly developed sympathy produces the spirit of sacrifice, which impels the individual to assist his companions sometimes even at the risk of his life. [518] This quality is reinforced by the desire of gaining the praise and avoiding the blame of companions, which desire in its turn is brought about only by the life in common. For the one that lives in conjunction with others, and takes pleasure in doing so, whose interests are those of the members of the group, must be sensible of the approval or disapproval of his acts felt by others, since their feelings of pleasure or displeasure react upon himself. The lack of the power of speech among animals, however, limits the force of praise or blame among them.

We come now to the question: what are the causes of altruism among men? [519] It must be considered as certain that man has always lived in groups more or less large, and it is even very probable that he is descended from animals equally social. [520] A study of the means man has of sustaining the struggle for existence proves that they are of such a nature that he would have succumbed if he had lived in isolation. Kautsky puts it thus: “... man ... whose mightiest and most effective, almost whose only weapon, indeed, in the struggle for existence, is association. He is, to be sure, distinguished above other animals by his intelligence, but this too is to the fruit of society, for in isolation he becomes dull and stupid. All man’s other weapons in the struggle for existence are less efficient than those of the beasts. He has no weapons of attack like the beasts of prey, nor is he protected by his size like the elephant, hippopotamus and rhinoceros. He lacks the quickness of the squirrel and deer, and cannot repair his losses through superabundant fertility.” [521]

It is therefore on account of his constitution and of the struggle that he has had to sustain for his existence that man is a social being; in other words, those who showed social instincts stronger than the others ran less danger of succumbing in the contest for life, and had more chance of transmitting their leanings to their posterity. As man has greater intellectual capacities than the animals he is more capable of understanding the joys and sorrows of his fellows, and so is better able to assist the one and avoid the other. In the second place he has a developed language at his command, through which a great influence can be exercised upon conduct by blame and praise. [522]

The fact that man is born with social instincts does not, however, explain altruism sufficiently, for among animal species there is not one whose individuals have done so much harm to one another as men, who, though they are social beings, are capable of committing the most egoistic acts. How shall we explain these contradictions?

We have seen above that primitive peoples, to whom we have referred showed very altruistic traits of character. The members of a group extend mutual aid, and, in their relations with one another, are benevolent, honest, truthful, and very susceptible to the opinions of others, [523] etc.

It is impossible to explain this either by the race to which these peoples belong or by the climate in which they live, for they are of different races (for example North American Indians and the Hindoos of the delta of the Ganges) and live under different climates (as the Eskimos and the South American Indians). Besides this some of these peoples show towards strangers, qualities directly contrary to those they display toward members of their own group. Thus, as we have already remarked, the North American Indians are most cruel enemies, most pitiless toward those who are not of their group, while they are quite the reverse toward their own fellow-tribesmen. It is plain, then, that their altruistic sentiments have nothing to do with race or climate.

Consequently the cause can only be found in the social environment, which is determined in its turn by the mode of production. What follows will show that in the last instance it is the mode of production that is able to develop the social predisposition innate in man (not in the same measure for each individual, which is a question that I shall return to) or prevent this disposition from being developed, or may even destroy it entirely. Upon examining the modes of production in force among the peoples cited we see that they are characterized by the following traits, very different from those of the present system.

The first of these characteristic traits is this: production takes place among these peoples for personal consumption and not for exchange as with us. It has often been claimed that the primitive peoples lived in a state of communism. Taken in the sense of a communism in production this assertion is true only in part; except for hunts undertaken in common, production was not carried on in common but was individual. The weapons and utensils of the hunt were private property, while the hunting-ground was held in common. Just so as soon as architectural technique made some progress the houses often became common property. At its inception agriculture was not practiced in common. It was only when it had attained a certain development that this was sometimes the case. [524] But if we take communism in the sense of consumption in common, then the assertion becomes much more exact. I do not mean to say that consumption always took place in common (though several primitive peoples took their food in common), but when from whatever cause some members of the group had failed to produce, the other members who had been more fortunate provided for them. The productivity of labor was still small; there was not generally any surplus of labor. Even if there had been there could not have been any possibility of exchange, since the division of labor was very slight, and consequently each one was capable of making for himself what others would have been able to offer in exchange.

The second characteristic of the modes of production of the peoples in question is bound up with the first, namely that there was neither wealth nor poverty. If there was privation (through scarcity of game, for example), all suffered; if there was abundance, all profited by it. [525]

The third fact to be noted is that the subordination of man to nature was very great, so great that we, who have so largely subjugated the forces of nature, can have no idea of it. If primitive men were very weak in their contest with nature even when joined together in a single group, individually they were absolutely unable to maintain the struggle, and were thus forced to unite.

If we consider the characteristics of the primitive modes of production it becomes clear, it seems to me, why the primitive peoples were not more egoistic. They had neither rich nor poor; their economic interests were either parallel or equal (the latter in the case of production in common); the economic life, therefore, did not arouse egoistic ideas—they were not led into temptation. Where the economic system does not produce egoistic ideas it accustoms men to being unegoistic, and if their interests do happen occasionally to conflict, the matter is looked at altruistically and not egoistically. And since the economic life is the “conditio sine qua non” of life in general, and thus occupies the important place in human existence, it stamps the whole life with its non-egoistic character. Since the struggle for existence must be sustained in common against nature, if it is to be efficacious it binds human interests so closely together that they are inseparable; the interest of one is the same as that of his comrade.

We shall now understand why primitive men feel themselves to be first of all the members of a unit; why they not only abstain from acts harmful to their companions, but come to their aid whenever they can; why they are honest, benevolent, and truthful towards the members of their group, and why public opinion has so great an influence among them—characteristics which the quotations that I have already made have established. The cause of these facts is to be found in the mode of production, which brought about a uniformity of interest in the persons united in a single group, obliged them to aid one another in the difficult and uninterrupted struggle for existence, and made men free and equal, since there was neither poverty nor riches, and consequently no possibility of oppression.

It is only in such an environment that the social instincts innate in man can be developed, and the more the mode of production binds men’s interests together the greater will this development be. It is a truth as old as the world that one respects the interests of others and does not deceive them, only when these others do not make life more difficult, but aid in supporting it. If not, social instincts will be suppressed and the contrary instincts formed. The development of the social feelings is based upon reciprocity. When this is lacking these feelings lie dormant, but when reciprocity exists they grow stronger by constantly reacting from one to the other. [526]

There is still another reason which helped strengthen the solidarity among the members of the same group. The primitive peoples, who practiced agriculture little or not at all, needed an immense territory to provide for their needs. Lands whose population would seem small to the Europeans of our day, had in reality as dense a population as the mode of production would permit. From this there sprang continual wars between groups disputing the possession of a certain territory. The necessity of defending as a body the territory acquired, or of conquering it anew, resulted in drawing always tighter the bonds uniting the members of the same group.

The same mode of production which drew the members of a group into an altruistic solidarity, forced these same persons into a position of excessive egoism toward those who did not belong to their group and opposed them in obtaining what they needed. The same act, killing an enemy for example, is the most egoistic act possible from the point of view of the enemy but a very altruistic act from the point of view of the slayer, since he has increased the security of his group. The development of the social feelings is, then, only determined by the form of the struggle for existence.

How then shall we explain certain egoistic acts directed against members of the same group? How, for example, can the infanticide so common among primitive peoples be explained? In seeking for a solution we shall see that this egoistic act does not result from innate insensibility toward children (the contrary is true, as we have seen above), but from the fact that the limited control over nature makes a great increase in the population impossible. The children were killed immediately after birth; no one dreamed of ridding himself of a child of greater age. Further, the nomadic life prevented the carrying along of a great number of children. [527]

It is for the same reason that the sick and the aged were sometimes abandoned by the primitive peoples. They were driven to this because these feeble persons were unable to make long journeys, and because their economic means did not allow them to support those who could no longer work. Here again there could be no question of innate insensibility. [528] In these cases then, there was an opposition of interests; the act that was egoistic toward the individual was altruistic toward the group. If different action had been taken in such cases all would have succumbed. Thus these acts have fallen into desuetude as the productivity of labor has developed.

The continual development of the productivity of labor has modified the structure of society greatly. As soon as productivity has increased to such an extent that the producer can regularly produce more than he needs, and the division of labor puts him in a position to exchange the surplus for things that he could not produce himself, at this moment there arises in man the notion of no longer giving to his comrades what they need, but of keeping for himself the surplus of what his labor produces, and exchanging it. Then it is that the mode of production begins to run counter to the social instincts of man instead of favoring it as heretofore.

In his work already quoted Nansen has described the influence exercised by exchange upon the character of the Eskimos studied by him. (The fact that this commerce has been developed by the coming of the Europeans makes no difference. Among primitive peoples exchange must have developed in the same way, only more slowly.) He says: “How baneful to them has been the introduction of money! Formerly they had no means of saving up work or accumulating riches; for the products of their labor did not last indefinitely, and therefore they gave away their superfluity. But then they learned the use of money; so that now, when they have more than they need for the moment, the temptation to sell the overplus to Europeans, instead of giving it to their needy neighbors, is often too great for them; for with the money they thus acquire they can supply themselves with the much coveted European commodities. Thus we Christians help more and more to destroy instead of to develop their old self-sacrificing love of their neighbors. And money does still more to undermine the Greenland community. Their ideas of inheritance were formerly very vague, for, as before mentioned, the clothes and weapons of a dead man were consigned with him to the grave. Now, on the other hand, the introduction of money has enabled the survivors to sell the effects of the deceased, and they are no longer ashamed to accept as an inheritance what they can obtain in this way. This may seem an advantage; but, here, too, their old habit of mind is upset. Greed and covetousness—vices which they formerly abhorred above everything—have taken possession of them. Their minds are warped and enthralled by money.” [529] Thus are born avarice and rapacity, which, opposed in the beginning by altruistic sentiments developed earlier, become stronger from one generation to another. [530]

However, this is only one side of the question. Through the development of exchange not only does man become egoistic towards those who for any reason are unable to provide for their needs, but exchange itself is an entirely egoistic act for the two parties who enter into it. Each tries to get as much profit for himself as possible, and consequently to make the other lose. The existence of economic laws which in many, and even in most cases prevent the two parties from injuring each other, does not change the fact at all. Commerce weakens the social instincts of man; the loss of one becomes the gain of another. When two persons are trading there springs up a tendency on the part of each to overvalue his own property and to disparage that of the other; commerce is one of the important causes of lying. In addition to this tendency another arises, that of giving goods of quality inferior to that agreed upon; the constant attention to one’s own interests produces and develops fraud.

The more production for one’s own use decreases, and the greater becomes the production for exchange, the more do habit and tradition produce in men the characteristics mentioned. As soon as exchange has developed to a certain point commerce begins to be a special trade. The merchant is much more exposed to the conditions named than those who trade only occasionally. Not only does he pass a great part of his life in exchanging but he is by profession egoistic in two directions; toward the producer from whom he buys, and toward the consumer to whom he sells. [531]

When it reaches a certain height the continually increasing productivity of labor brings a further important modification in the social structure, namely slavery. For this springs up when production is so advanced that man can regularly produce more than he actually needs for himself, and when it is possible for him to exchange the overplus for things which he can use but cannot make. Prisoners of war are no longer killed as formerly, but are obliged to work for the profit of the conquerors. In this way is formed a considerable opposition of interest between two classes of individuals who together form a social unit: on the one hand those who, deprived of one of the most important factors of human happiness, liberty, are obliged to exhaust themselves for the benefit of others, and have only the strict necessaries of life; and on the other hand those who profit by the enslavement and excessive labor of the first.

Slavery (with the other forms of forced service, serfdom and wage-labor) is one of the most important factors that undermine the social instincts in man. Slavery, runs the saying, demoralizes the master as well as the slave. It arouses in the master the notion that the slave is not a thinking and feeling man like himself, but an instrument destined exclusively to be useful to him. In the slave himself it kills the feeling of independence; lacking the arms which the free man has at his disposal, the slave has recourse to dissimulation to defend himself against his master.

The overplus which one person can obtain by his own labor must always remain limited. Without the rise of slavery the great wealth of a single individual would not have been possible. To the difference between master and slave is now added that between rich and poor, and the envy and hatred of the poor for the rich, and the pride of the rich and their desire to dominate over the poor. Since the division of society into rich and poor the aristocracy has been formed, which does not owe its origin to the excellence of its members, as one might imagine from this inaccurate name, but to their wealth.

The period of civilization during which the social modification mentioned above has taken place is generally lauded to the skies, as compared with preceding epochs. In certain relations this is justifiable. Technique has made immense progress and especially during the last phase of civilization, capitalism; the power of man over nature has advanced greatly; the productivity of labor has been so increased that one class of men, exempted by this from permanent care for their daily bread, are able to devote themselves to the arts and sciences. All this is indisputable. But the development of the arts and sciences and of technique has only an indirect importance for the etiology of crime. The question first of all to be asked is this: What influence has this modification in the economic and social structure had upon the character of man? And the answer to this question can only be the following: this modification has engendered cupidity and ambition, has made man less sensitive to the happiness and misery of his fellows, and has decreased the influence exercised upon men’s acts by the opinions of others. In short, it has developed egoism at the expense of altruism.

C. EGOISTIC TENDENCIES RESULTING FROM THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM AND FROM ITS CONSEQUENCES.

The etiology of crime includes the three following problems:

First. Whence does the criminal thought in man arise?

Second. What forces are there in man which can prevent the execution of this criminal thought, and what is their origin?

Third. What is the occasion for the commission of criminal acts? (As the occasion may be one of the causes of the criminal thought, problems one and three at times form but one.)

For the moment we are still occupied with general considerations with regard to crime; it is clear then that the first and third questions will be examined only when we are treating of crimes according to the groups into which they must be divided because of the great differences which their nature presents.

It is otherwise with the second question. As we have seen in the preceding pages, it is certain that man is born with social instincts, which, when influenced by a favorable environment can exert a force great enough to prevent egoistic thoughts from leading to egoistic acts. And since crime constitutes a part of the egoistic acts, it is of importance, for the etiology of crime in general, to inquire whether the present method of production and its social consequences are an obstacle to the development of the social instincts, and in what measure. We shall try in the following pages to show the influence of the economic system and of these consequences upon the social instincts of man.

After what we have just said it is almost superfluous to remark that the egoistic tendency does not by itself make a man criminal. For this something else is necessary. It is possible for the environment to create a great egoist, but this does not imply that the egoist will necessarily become criminal. For example, a man who is enriched by the exploitation of children may nevertheless remain all his life an honest man from the legal point of view. He does not think of stealing, because he has a surer and more lucrative means of getting wealth, although he lacks the moral sense which would prevent him from committing a crime if the thought of it occurred to him. We shall show that, as a consequence of the present environment, man has become very egoistic and hence more capable of crime, than if the environment had developed the germs of altruism.

a. The present economic system is based upon exchange. As we saw at the end of the preceding section such a mode of production cannot fail to have an egoistic character. A society based upon exchange isolates the individuals by weakening the bond that unites them. When it is a question of exchange the two parties interested think only of their own advantage even to the detriment of the other party. In the second place the possibility of exchange arouses in a man the thought of the possibility of converting the surplus of his labor into things which increase his well-being in place of giving the benefit of it to those who are deprived of the necessaries of life. Hence the possibility of exchange gives birth to cupidity.

The exchange called simple circulation of commodities is practiced by all men as consumers, and by the workers besides as vendors of their labor power. However, the influence of this simple circulation of commodities is weak compared with that exercised by capitalistic exchange. It is only the exchange of the surplus of labor, by the producer, for other commodities, and hence is for him a secondary matter. As a result he does not exchange with a view to profit, (though he tries to make as advantageous a trade as possible) but to get things which he cannot produce himself.

Capitalistic exchange, on the other hand, has another aim—that of making a profit. A merchant, for example, does not buy goods for his own use, but to sell them to advantage. He will, then, always try, on the one hand, to buy the best commodities as cheaply as possible, by depreciating them as much as he can; on the other hand, to make the purchaser pay as high a price as possible, by exaggerating the value of his wares. By the nature of the mode of production itself the merchant is therefore forced to make war upon two sides, must maintain his own interests against the interests of those with whom he does business. If he does not injure too greatly the interests of those from whom he buys, and those to whom he sells, it is for the simple reason that these would otherwise do business with those of his competitors who do not find their interest in fleecing their customers. Wherever competition is eliminated for whatever cause the tactics of the merchant are shown in their true light; he thinks only of his own advantage even to the detriment of those with whom he does business. “No commerce without trickery” is a proverbial expression (among consumers), and with the ancients Mercury, the god of commerce, was also the god of thieves. This is true, that the merchant and the thief are alike in taking account exclusively of their own interest to the detriment of those with whom they have to do.

The fact that in our present society production does not take place generally to provide for the needs of men, but for many other reasons, has important effects upon the character of those who possess the means of production. Production is carried on for profit exclusively; if greater profits can be made by stopping production it will be stopped—this is the point of view of the capitalists. The consumers, on the other hand, see in production the means of creating what man has need of. The world likes to be deceived, and does not care to recognize the fact that the producer has only his own profit in view. The latter encourages this notion and poses as a disinterested person. If he reduces the price of his wares, he claims to do it in the interest of the public, and takes care not to admit that it is for the purpose of increasing his own profits. This is the falsity that belongs inevitably to capitalism.

In general this characteristic of capitalism has no importance for the morality of the consumer, who is merely duped, but it is far otherwise with the press, which is almost entirely in the power of the capitalists. The press, which ought to be a guide for the masses, and is so in some few cases, in the main is in the hands of capitalists who use it only as a means of making money. In place of being edited by men who, by their ability and firmness, are capable of enlightening the public, newspapers are carried on by persons who see in their calling only a livelihood, and consider only the proprietor of the sheet. In great part the press is the opposite of what it ought to be; it represents the interests of those who pay for advertisements or for articles; it increases the ignorance and the prejudices of the crowd; in a word, it poisons public opinion. [532]

Besides this general influence upon the public the press has further a special place in the etiology of crime, from the fact that most newspapers, in order to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the public, relate all great crimes in extenso, give portraits of the victims, etc., and are often one of the causes of new crimes, by arousing the imitative instinct to be found in man. [533]

As we have seen above the merchant capitalist makes war in two directions; his interests are against those of the man who sells to him, and of the man who buys from him. This is also true of the industrial capitalist. He buys raw materials and sells what he produces. But to arrive at his product he must buy labor, and this purchase is “sui generis.”

Deprived as he is of the means of production the working-man sells his labor only in order not to die of hunger. The capitalist takes advantage of this necessitous condition of the worker and exploits him. We have already indicated that capitalism has this trait in common with the earlier methods of production. Little by little one class of men has become accustomed to think that the others are destined to amass wealth for them and to be subservient to them in every way. Slavery, like the wage system, demoralizes the servant as well as the master. With the master it develops cupidity and the imperious character which sees in a fellow man only a being fit to satisfy his desires. It is true that the capitalist has not the power over the proletarian that the master has over his slave; he has neither the right of service nor the power of life and death, yet it is none the less true that he has another weapon against the proletarian, a weapon whose effect is no less terrible, namely enforced idleness. The fact that the supply of manual labor always greatly exceeds the demand puts this weapon into the hands of every capitalist. It is not only the capitalists who carry on any business that are subjected to this influence, but also all who are salaried in their service.

Capitalism exercises in still a third manner an egoistic influence upon the capitalistic “entrepreneur.” Each branch has more producers than are necessary. The interests of the capitalists are, then, opposed not only to those of the men from whom they buy or to whom they sell, but also to those of their fellow producers. It is indeed claimed that competition has the effect simply of making the product better and cheaper, but this is looking at the question from only one point of view. The fact which alone affects criminality is that competition forces the participants, under penalty of succumbing, to be as egoistic as possible. Even the producers who have the means of applying all the technical improvements to perfect their product and make it cheaper, are obliged to have recourse to gross deceits in advertising, etc., in order to injure their competitors. Rejoicing at the evil which befalls another, envy at his good fortune, these forms of egoism are the inevitable consequence of competition.

Following the same classification that we employed in the preceding chapter we come now to that part of the bourgeoisie which, without having any occupation, consumes what has been made by others. Not to feel obliged to contribute to the material well-being of humanity in proportion to one’s ability must necessarily have a demoralizing influence. A parasite, one who lives without working, does not feel bound by any moral tie to his fellows, but regards them simply as things, instruments meant to serve and amuse him. Their example is a source of demoralization for those about them, and excites the envy of those who see this easy life without the power of enjoying it themselves, and awakes in them the desire to exchange their painful existence for this “dolce far niente.”

The egoistic tendencies work less strongly in the third group of the bourgeoisie, those who practice the liberal professions. However, the products of the arts and sciences having become commodities, the egoistic influence of exchange here too is not to be neglected. Then competition arising from overproduction is a great cause of demoralization, for where there is competition men become egoistic. So in the domain of the liberal professions competition often forces those who do not find a field of activity in accordance with their ideas, to work that is contrary to those ideas. Thus it is quite right to speak of a prostitution of the intellect.

Before concluding these observations upon the bourgeoisie there is still something to be said about politics. As we have seen above the state owes its origin to the formation of opposition of interests in society; the first task of the state being, therefore, the maintenance of a certain amount of order. This requires above all the holding of the great mass in subjection. As long as this mass is weak the dominant class has no need to resort to trickery; but as soon as the oppressed class can oppose the domination of the others, as soon as brutal power no longer gives the desired result, the dominant class changes its tactics. It attempts to create the impression that the concessions it has been forced to make are acts of charity; and presuming upon the ignorance of the oppressed, it pretends that their condition is not so bad, etc. Many of those engaged in politics play this part without being conscious of their duplicity. However, the contest between the classes exercises its baleful influence upon them also, for they involuntarily distort the facts, whereas the evolution of society has reached such a point that a new social order is necessary.

The power in the State sometimes passes from one party of the ruling class to another. All profit by the temporary opportunity not only for the realization of their political program, but also to procure advantages for their partisans. This struggle for power is carried on partly by means prejudicial to the character of those interested, while the end aimed at by some parties can be frankly avowed. It is for the same reason that international politics is such a source of lying and hypocrisy, the states not being able to avow their real intention—the weakening of their neighbors.

The proletariat. To be thorough we begin by making mention of one of the consequences of the economic position of the proletariat, of which we have already treated briefly, namely the dependence in which persons of this class find themselves in consequence of their lacking the means of production, a state which has a prejudicial influence upon character. The oppressed resort to means which they would otherwise scorn. As we have seen above, the basis of the social feelings is reciprocity. As soon as this is trodden under foot by the ruling class the social sentiments of the oppressed become weak towards them.

We come now (following the order adopted in the first chapter of Part II) first to the consequences of the labor of the young. The paid labor of the young has a bad influence in several ways. First, it forces them, while they are still very young, to think only of their own interests; then, brought into contact with persons who are rough and indifferent to their well-being, they follow these only too quickly, because of their imitative tendencies, in their bad habits, grossness of speech, etc. Finally, the paid labor of the young makes them more or less independent at an age where they have the greatest need of guidance. Even if the statistical proof of the influence of the labor of children and young people upon criminality were totally wanting, no one could deny that influence. Child labor is entirely a capitalistic phenomenon, being found especially in the great manufacturing countries like England and Germany. And then one of the most salient facts of criminality is the amount of juvenile crime, which is so enormous that England, followed by other countries, has established a special system to combat this form of criminality. Certainly this increase of juvenile crime is chiefly due to the influence of bad domestic conditions (wage-labor of married women, etc.), but the labor of the young people themselves also plays its part.

Although figures upon the relation in question are not totally lacking, they are, as far as I know, quite rare. In the first part of this work I have given the figures furnished by P. Hirsch, to which I refer the reader. [534] The director of the “Erziehungsheim am Urban” at Zehlendorf near Berlin, mentions that 80% of his pupils had formerly practiced a trade. [535]

The following figures are given for the Netherlands: [536]

========+=================+=============+======================+======================== | Total Sentenced | Practicing | Percentage Sentenced | Percentage of Children Years. | 10 to 16 | a Trade. | who | in General 10 to 16 | Years Old. | [537] | Practiced a Trade. | who Practiced a Trade. --------+-----------------+-------------+----------------------+------------------------ 1899 | 791 | 363 | 45.8 | 18.5 1900 | 671 | 347 | 51.7 | -- 1901 | 674 | 344 | 51.0 | -- 1902 | 712 | 331 | 46.4 | -- 1903 | 671 | 344 | 51.2 | -- 1904 | 702 | 347 | 49.4 | -- ========+=================+=============+======================+========================

These figures are very significant. Among the young delinquents there are two or three times as many persons following a trade as among non-delinquents.

I do not know of any other statistics giving information upon this point directly. [538]

As to statics (the geography of crime) we encounter great difficulties of a technical nature. The statistics in which we can compare juvenile delinquency with the local extent of child labor are rare, often taking no account of the figures for the non-criminal population. [539] On this point the statistics of Germany, Italy, and Austria are the best. [540]

Since the work of young people has increased enormously, and in general is still increasing, we may expect an increase in juvenile crime also, unless there are other determining factors, such as special laws, which work in the opposite direction.

In order to give an example of the extent of child labor we take from one of the best sets of statistics of occupations the following figures.

In the census of occupations in the German Empire in 1895 it was shown that whereas in 1882 16.46% of the population under 20 had some occupation (other than that of domestic servant), in 1895 there were 17.97% so employed, an increase of 9.1%. [541] The absolute figures are the following. In 1882 the number of persons below the age of 20 at work was 3,333,791; in 1895 it was 4,161,600, an increase of 827,809.

In 1895 the number of persons at work below the age of 20 was divided among the different ages as follows: [542]

Below 12 having paid occupation 32,687 From 12 to 14 ,, ,, ,, 148,766 ,, 14 ,, 16 ,, ,, ,, 1,131,723 ,, 16 ,, 18 ,, ,, ,, 1,397,161 ,, 18 ,, 20 ,, ,, ,, 1,451,263

If the paid labor of young people has really an influence, then, upon juvenile criminality, statistics must necessarily show an increase in this criminality, unless other factors exercise an influence in the other direction.

The following figures have a bearing on this subject: [543]

Germany, 1882–1896.

=======================+========================================================================================= | Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the Offenses. | Population of the Same Age, in the Years: +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- |1882.|1883.|1884.|1885.|1886.|1887.|1888.|1889.|1890.|1891.|1892.|1893.|1894.|1895.|1896. -----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Crimes in general | 568 | 549 | 578 | 560 | 565 | 576 | 563 | 614 | 663 | 672 | 729 | 686 | 716 | 702 | 702 Theft and embezzlement | 370 | 353 | 358 | 335 | 337 | 337 | 334 | 369 | 391 | 392 | 430 | 376 | 393 | 380 | 373 Assaults | 63 | 65 | 78 | 81 | 84 | 86 | 82 | 88 | 99 | 101 | 108 | 118 | 121 | 126 | 130 Malicious mischief | 31 | 27 | 31 | 33 | 30 | 34 | 32 | 34 | 40 | 38 | 40 | 41 | 45 | 41 | 46 Fraud | 20 | 20 | 21 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 22 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 31 | 26 | 28 | 28 | 26 Insults | 10 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 16 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 19 Rape, etc. | 12 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 15 | 15 Domiciliary trespass | 7 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 14 | 14 | 14 Forgery | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 Rebellion | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 8 Arson | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 Crimes against life | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 Counterfeiting | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 =======================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====

Consequently, in Germany there is a great and constant increase in juvenile criminality, both as to crime in general and also in each crime separately. [544]

The following table gives a comparison between the criminality of the young and that of adults. [545]

Germany, 1882–1896. ========================+======================================================================================================= | Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the Offenses. | Hundred, Convicted in the Years: +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------- |1882.|1883.|1884.|1885.|1886.|1887.|1888.|1889.|1890.|1891.|1892.|1893.|1894.|1895.|1896.|1882 to 1896. ------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------- Arson | 24 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 26 | 27 | 29 | 32 | 30 | 37 | 31 | 37 | 29 | 28 | 35 | 28 Offenses against morals | 23 | 19 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 21 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 21 Theft and embezzlement | 17 | 16 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 19 Malicious mischief | 14 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 16 | 17 | 15 | 16 | 15 Forgery | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 12 | 11 | 12 | 11 Fraud | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 9 Counterfeiting | 6 | 6 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 12 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 6 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 9 Crimes in general | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 Assaults | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 Crimes against life | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 5 Domiciliary trespass | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 Rebellion | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.6 Insults | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1.4 ========================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=============

If we remember that in 1890 persons from 12 to 18 years of age formed 12.75% of the population, [546] the study of this table will show how large a part the young play in certain crimes, and in crime in general. Still it must not be forgotten that criminal statistics include only a part of the crimes really committed, and that this affects particularly the figures for juvenile crime, since the persons injured make complaint against the young less readily, on account of pity. [547]

According to the figures given below (which, it is true, only cover a short period) juvenile delinquency in England has remained almost stationary. [548] Here we must remember: first, the great number of acquittals; second, that the criminality of the young is nowhere better combated than in England with its system of Industrial and Reformatory Schools; third, that industrialism has been prevalent in England longer than elsewhere, and that the increase of criminality during the period designated cannot be as great as in other less industrial countries.

England, 1893–1899. [549]

======================================+========+========+========+========+========+========+======== Convicted under 21 Years of Age. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. --------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Convicted | 42,926 | 43,950 | 38,994 | 38,637 | 39,821 | 43,538 | 39,111 Sent to the Industrial schools | 3,180 | 3,703 | 3,311 | 4,658 | 4,289 | 4,635 | 4,981 Correction made for those discharged | | | | | | | under the S. J. A.[550] | 4,255 | 4,543 | 5,125 | 5,955 | 6,640 | 7,114 | 7,547 --------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- Total | 50,361 | 52,196 | 47,430 | 49,260 | 50,750 | 55,287 | 51,639 --------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+-------- To the 100,000 | 169.39 | 173.63 | 156.05 | 160.26 | 163.33 | 175.98 | 162.57 ======================================+========+========+========+========+========+========+========

Finally, the following table shows of what crimes the young are guilty in England: [551]

England, 1893–1899.

===================================+====================================================================== | Number of Persons under 21 to the 100 Convictions. -----------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------- Years | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. | 1893 to 1899. -----------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------------- Simple theft | 45.51 | 47.31 | 44.73 | 44.54 | 44.14 | 45.27 | 43.19 | 44.95 Theft by domestics | 41.07 | 43.17 | 40.26 | 43.12 | 42.60 | 42.71 | 40.70 | 41.80 House-breaking | 41.27 | 40.65 | 36.83 | 36.67 | 38.83 | 38.30 | 39.86 | 38.91 Theft upon the person | 32.93 | 29.73 | 27.53 | 28.77 | 28.95 | 26.85 | 27.68 | 28.93 Malicious mischief | 21.51 | 25.95 | 22.89 | 19.98 | 27.22 | 29.29 | 26.82 | 24.80 Extortion | 26.61 | 28.99 | 25.35 | 27.22 | 16.42 | 23.26 | 21.60 | 23.92 Crimes against morals | 25.44 | 23.73 | 23.57 | 23.07 | 23.22 | 22.23 | 21.96 | 23.32 Crimes committed with violence | 20.48 | 22.33 | 22.76 | 25.82 | 24.69 | 23.82 | 22.77 | 23.23 Forgery | 14.01 | 15.56 | 18.62 | 14.34 | 10.63 | 16.74 | 14.64 | 14.93 Obtaining money by false pretenses | 14.12 | 13.98 | 14.75 | 13.80 | 14.04 | 11.56 | 12.02 | 13.46 Counterfeiting | 24.39 | 10.10 | 11.53 | 11.76 | 9.19 | 20.17 | 7.61 | 13.53 Assaults | 14.74 | 14.20 | 13.22 | 12.93 | 12.39 | 13.44 | 11.57 | 13.21 ===================================+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+=======+===============

If we take into consideration the fact that generally about 23% of the population are between the ages of 10 and 21, this table shows that persons at this age have a large part in certain of the crimes.

Austria, 1881–1899 (Crimes). [552]

=======+============================================== | Number of Young Persons Convicted. +----------+-----------+----------+------------ Years. | 11 to 14 | 14 to 20. | Total. | To the 1000 | Years. | | | Convicted. -------+----------+-----------+----------+------------ 1881 | 460 | 5405 | 5865 | 17.5 1882 | 525 | 5258 | 5783 | 18.0 1883 | 525 | 5256 | 5781 | 19.0 1884 | 579 | 5538 | 6117 | 19.9 1885 | 566 | 5249 | 5815 | 18.8 1886 | 546 | 5287 | 5833 | 19.6 1887 | 625 | 5358 | 5983 | 20.8 1888 | 593 | 5241 | 5834 | 20.8 1889 | 614 | 5617 | 6231 | 21.8 1890 | 578 | 6001 | 6579 | 22.6 1891 | 650 | 5779 | 6429 | 22.2 1892 | 803 | 6238 | 7041 | 22.8 1893 | 842 | 5959 | 6801 | 23.2 1894 | 826 | 6378 | 7204 | 23.9 1895 | 766 | 5976 | 6742 | 23.5 1896 | 818 | 5945 | 6763 | 23.5 1897 | 812 | 6473 | 7285 | 24.5 1898 | 1026 | 7569 | 8595 | 24.9 1899 | 1015 | 6665 | 7680 | 22.8 =======+==========+===========+==========+============

Consequently there is here, too, both in absolute numbers and in proportion to adult crime, an increase in juvenile criminality (about 23% in 18 years). Estimates of the number of non-criminal minors are wanting to give us a complete picture. It must not be forgotten that Austrian law ranks simple theft, fraud, assault, and the like as “contraventions”, and that these do not figure in these statistics. The total figures for young criminals are consequently much higher. [553]

The following table shows of what crimes the young are guilty:

Austria, 1882–1899. [554]

==================+======================================================= | Convicted from 1882 to 1899. +-----------+------------------------------------------- Crimes. | | Persons from 14 to 20 Years of Age. | Total. +-------------------+----------------------- | | Absolute Numbers. | To the 1000 Convicted. ------------------+-----------+-------------------+----------------------- Rape etc. | 17,187 | 5,534 | 32.2 Aggravated theft | 208,686 | 67,106 | 25.0 Extortion | 2,257 | 547 | 24.2 Counterfeiting | 642 | 113 | 17.6 Infanticide | 1,734 | 302 | 17.4 Assassination | 4,209 | 611 | 14.5 Serious assaults | 85,055 | 12,202 | 14.3 Defamation | 3,139 | 410 | 13.0 Homicide | 2,478 | 312 | 12.6 Fraud | 51,487 | 5,651 | 10.9 Leze-majesty | 5,369 | 380 | 7.0 ==================+===========+===================+=======================

Belgium, 1861–1885. [555]

=======+============+=============+=============+=============+====================== Years. | Persons | Under 16. | 16 to 21. | Under 21. | Percentage of Accused | Accused. | | | | Persons under 21. -------+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+---------------------- 1861 | 24,673 | 1,043 | 2,429 | 3,472 | 14.1 1862 | 25,357 | 1,224 | 2,355 | 2,579 | 14.1 1863 | 24,133 | 1,206 | 2,456 | 3,662 | 15.1 1864 | 24,185 | 1,245 | 2,307 | 3,552 | 14.6 1865 | 24,236 | 1,115 | 2,483 | 3,598 | 14.8 1866 | 24,608 | 1,141 | 2,396 | 3,537 | 14.3 1867 | 25,041 | 1,220 | 2,750 | 3,970 | 15.8 1868 | 27,469 | 1,500 | 3,064 | 4,565 | 16.6 1869 | 27,883 | 1,107 | 2,923 | 4,030 | 14.9 1870 | 26,507 | 1,298 | 3,075 | 4,373 | 16.4 1871 | 28,819 | 1,550 | 3,344 | 4,894 | 16.9 1872 | 28,047 | 1,336 | 3,255 | 4,597 | 16.3 1873 | 29,569 | 1,448 | 3,451 | 4,899 | 16.5 1874 | 31,653 | 1,261 | 3,408 | 4,669 | 14.7 1875 | 30,867 | 1,371 | 3,767 | 5,138 | 16.6 1876 | 33,366 | 1,445 | 4,363 | 5,808 | 17.4 1877 | 37,964 | 2,183 | 5,096 | 7,279 | 19.1 1878 | 37,348 | 1,994 | 5,245 | 7,239 | 19.3 1879 | 36,614 | 1,873 | 5,074 | 6,947 | 18.9 1880 | 41,653 | 2,546 | 5,680 | 8,226 | 19.7 1881 | 44,361 | 2,634 | 6,271 | 8,905 | 20.0 1882 | 45,895 | 2,695 | 6,487 | 9,182 | 20.0 1883 | 45,325 | 2,681 | 6,942 | 9,623 | 21.2 1884 | 45,665 | 3,325 | 7,063 | 9,388 | 20.5 1885 | 46,479 | 2,398 | 7,279 | 9,677 | 20.8 =======+============+=============+=============+=============+======================

In Belgium, therefore, a great increase in the criminality of the young has taken place.

For France we take the following figures showing the trend of criminality from 1881 to 1900: [556]

France, 1881–1900.

Court of Assizes. Accused.

==========+=================+=================+=================+================== | 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896-1900. Age. +----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------- | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Number. | | Number. | | Number. | | Number. | ----------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------- Under 16 | 32 | 0.7 | 31 | 0.7 | 31 | 0.7 | 26 | 0.7 16 to 21 | 750 | 17.1 | 618 | 14.5 | 631 | 15.6 | 574 | 16.8 +----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------- Under 21 | 782 | 17.8 | 649 | 15.2 | 662 | 16.3 | 600 | 17.5 ==========+==========+======+==========+======+==========+======+==========+=======

When we take into consideration the fact that the population of France has increased a little during the period in question, this table shows a slight diminution in juvenile criminality. Nevertheless, this diminution is smaller than that of criminality in general.

France, 1881–1900. [557]

Correctional Tribunals. Accused of Misdemeanors.

==========+=================+=================+=================+================== | 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896-1900. Age. +----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------- | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Number. | | Number. | | Number. | | Number. | ----------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------- Under 16 | 5,846 | 3.0 | 6,980 | 3.4 | 6,903 | 3.2 | 5,776 | 2.9 16 to 21 | 28,688 | 15.1 | 27,309 | 13.6 | 31,119 | 14.8 | 30,415 | 15.7 ----------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+------- Under 21 | 34,534 | 18.1 | 34,289 | 17.0 | 38,022 | 18.0 | 36,261 | 18.6 ==========+==========+======+==========+======+==========+======+==========+=======

Here, then, we have once more a slight diminution in juvenile criminality, but less great than that of criminality in general.

We should deceive ourselves if we saw in these figures the conclusive proof that criminality on the part of the young was decreasing. We must not overlook the fact that these figures do not include those delinquents whose prosecution was not pushed, whether because they were thought not to have understood the nature of their acts, or because the offense was considered as too light. It is well known that judges incline more and more to the opinion that it is better not to convict youthful delinquents, but to send them to a house of correction, or to place them under the care of a guardian. [558] What the figures given above show is that the increase of juvenile criminality has not been as great in France as it has been in Germany. (I have not the figures for child labor in France, but probably the increase is not as great as it has been in Germany, which is more of an industrial country. The difference, then, in the juvenile crime of the two countries would be explained, at least in part.) [559]

Finally, the following figures will show of what crimes and misdemeanors the young delinquents are guilty:

France, 1900. [560]

=======================================+==========+===========+=========== Crimes. | Total | Number | Percentage | Accused. | under 21. | under 21. ---------------------------------------+----------+-----------+----------- Aggravated theft | 1300 | 367 | 28.2 Rape and indecent assault upon adults | 65 | 18 | 27.6 Counterfeiting | 120 | 27 | 22.5 Infanticide | 95 | 21 | 22.1 Assaults | 203 | 33 | 16.2 Homicide | 620 | 100 | 16.1 Arson | 157 | 19 | 12.1 Rape etc., upon children | 383 | 42 | 10.9 =======================================+==========+===========+===========

France, 1900. [561]

Correctional Tribunals. Persons Arraigned.

=======================================+============+===========+=========== Misdemeanors. | Total | Number | Percentage | Arraigned. | under 21. | under 21. ---------------------------------------+------------+-----------+----------- Thefts | 42,127 | 12,483 | 29.6 Sexual offenses | 2,939 | 643 | 21.8 Rebellion | 3,315 | 676 | 20.3 Assaults | 36,592 | 6,600 | 18.0 Vagrancy | 11,804 | 1,914 | 16.2 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 3,179 | 376 | 11.8 Mendicity | 9,057 | 778 | 8.5 =======================================+============+===========+=============

As in most countries it is theft, violence, and sexual offenses of which the young delinquents are most often guilty in France.

Italy, 1887–1889. [562]

=======+================================================================================================ | Persons Convicted Under the Age of 21. +----------------------++-----------------------++-----------------------++---------------------- Years. | Up to the Age of 14. || From 14 to 18. || From 18 to 21. || Total. +----------------------++-----------------------++-----------------------++---------------------- | A | B | D || A | C | E || A | C | E || A | C | F -------+--------+------+------++--------+------+-------++-------+-------+-------++-------+-------+------ 1887 | 4,566 | 1.48 | 1.60 || 22,361 | 7.24 | 10.55 ||36,871 | 11.93 | 24.52 ||63,798 | 20.65 | 9.85 1888 | 5,743 | 1.72 | 2.01 || 22,991 | 6.90 | 10.84 ||42,436 | 12.73 | 28.23 ||71,171 | 21.35 | 10.99 1889 | 6,426 | 1.88 | 2.25 || 24,229 | 7.08 | 11.43 ||38,697 | 11.30 | 25.24 ||69,352 | 20.26 | 10.71 =======+========+======+======++========+======+=======++=======+=======+=======++=======+=======+======

KEY TO COLUMN HEADINGS:

A = Absolute Number. B = To the 100 Persons Convicted. C = To the 100 Convicted. D = To the 1000 of the Population from 9 to 14. E = To the 1000 of the Population of this Age. F = To the 1000 of the Population under 21.

This table shows that the increase of delinquents under 18 is quite large, and that there is an increase followed by a decrease of criminality among those between the ages of 18 and 21. However, the period is too short for conclusions of much significance.

Italy, 1890–1895. [563]

======+========================================================== | Persons Convicted. +-------------++-------------++-------------++------------- Years.|From 9 to 14.|| 14 to 18. || 18 to 21. || 9 to 21. +-------+-----++-------+-----++-------+-----++-------+----- |Number.| % ||Number.| % ||Number.| % ||Number.| % ------+-------+-----++-------+-----++-------+-----++-------+----- 1890 | 2,920 | 2.23|| 12,208| 9.31|| 14,980|11.42|| 30,108|22.96 1891 | 3,605 | 2.50|| 14,287| 9.95|| 16,166|11.25|| 34,058|23.70 1892 | 3,354 | 2.25|| 13,952| 9.36|| 16,896|11.34|| 34,202|22.95 1893 | 3,008 | 2.12|| 12,998| 9.18|| 15,800|11.16|| 31,806|22.46 1894 | 3,838 | 2.54|| 13,948| 9.21|| 17,826|11.77|| 35,612|23.52 1895 | 4,026 | 2.40|| 15,468| 9.21|| 19,615|11.67|| 39,109|23.28 ======+=======+=====++=======+=====++=======+=====++=======+=====

This table shows (except for 1893) an increase in the number of young delinquents (about 30% in 6 years), a phenomenon by no means accounted for by the increase in the population.

The following figures show the crimes of which the young delinquents are especially guilty.

Italy, 1891–1895. [564]

==========================================+============================== |To 100,000 of Each Age Group. Crimes. +----------+---------+--------- | 9 to 14. |14 to 18.|18 to 21. ------------------------------------------+----------+---------+--------- Simple theft | 59.50 | 278.89 | 302.86 Minor assaults | 14.64 | 83.40 | 215.04 Aggravated theft | 30.95 | 128.96 | 157.28 Rebellion | 1.25 | 24.94 | 83.58 Serious assaults | 5.22 | 28.56 | 82.07 Threats | 1.11 | 15.10 | 47.71 Obtaining money under false pretenses etc.| 1.54 | 13.96 | 30.00 Homicide | 0.49 | 3.97 | 15.78 Rape | 1.02 | 6.36 | 9.62 Extortion, blackmail | 0.41 | 3.55 | 9.07 Offenses against chastity of minors and | | | against public decency | 0.38 | 2.93 | 5.70 Offenses against public order | 1.01 | 2.14 | 4.95 Assassination | 0.07 | 0.75 | 3.55 Infanticide | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.36 ==========================================+==========+=========+=========

We will close the series of statistics concerning juvenile criminality with some figures from the Netherlands. [565]

Netherlands, 1896–1900. [566]

======+================================================= | Convicted. Years.+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------- |Total. |Under 16.|16 to 21.|Under 21.|% under 21. ------+-------+---------+---------+---------+----------- 1896 |15,567 | 683 | 2,941 | 3,624 | 23.2 1897 |16,086 | 666 | 3,024 | 3,690 | 22.9 1898 |15,662 | 712 | 2,967 | 3,679 | 23.4 1899 |15,390 | 619 | 2,895 | 3,514 | 22.4 1900 |14,488 | 537 | 2,670 | 3,207 | 22.8 ======+=======+=========+=========+=========+===========

Netherlands, 1901–1910. [567]

======+================================ | Convicted. Years.+------+--------------+---------- |Total.|Under 16 Years|Percentage | | of Age. |Under 16. ------+------+--------------+---------- 1901 |13,917| 651 | 4.7 1902 |14,205| 683 | 4.8 1903 |13,673| 645 | 4.7 1904 |14,056| 667 | 4.7 1905 |13,310| 592 | 4.4 1906 |12,311| 589 | 4.7 1907 |12,182| 588 | 4.8 1908 |13,563| 544 | 4.1 1909 |13,361| 649 | 4.8 1910 |13,790| 800 | 5.8 ======+======+==============+==========

Juvenile criminality has not changed much, then, as compared with the criminality of adults. As I have already observed above, there is reason to suppose that the real facts are different, especially after 1905, when the new law with regard to juvenile crime was put into effect.

The following figures show what crimes are most often committed by the young delinquents.

Netherlands, 1896–1901.

====================+================================= |Average for the Period 1896–1901. +----------------------+---------- Crimes. | Number Convicted. |Percentage +----------+-----------+under 21. | Total. | Under 21. | --------------------+----------+-----------+---------- Aggravated theft | 894 | 416 | 46.4 Sexual offenses | 202 | 63 | 31.1 Theft | 1,713 | 526 | 30.7 Malicious mischief | 756 | 226 | 29.9 Assault | 3,927 | 1,030 | 26.2 Domiciliary trespass| 318 | 72 | 22.6 Rebellion | 1,056 | 216 | 20.4 ====================+==========+===========+==========

Keeping constantly in mind that in our days juvenile criminals are less often sentenced than formerly, we shall find that the foregoing statistics show:

First. That juvenile crime is increasing.

Second. That this increase is considerable in the countries like Germany, Austria, and Belgium, where there is a continuous industrial development; while in countries less developed industrially the increase is less.

Third. That England, where the capitalism is very intense, shows a great amount of juvenile crime.

The figures we have given have in general, in my opinion, gone to support the incontestable truth, that there is a relation between child labor and juvenile criminality. Although it is of smaller importance than the lack of care of the children among the proletariat, it is still one of the factors in the etiology of crime. [568]

Following the order adopted in Part II, chapter I, we come now to the influence of long hours of labor. It has rightly been said that work has a strong moral influence. But it is also true that immoderate labor has the contrary effect. It brutalizes a man, makes him incapable of elevated sentiments, kills as Key says (in “das Jahrhundert des Kindes”), the man in the beast, while moderate labor ennobles the beast in the man. [569]

The housing conditions of the proletariat have also a significance as regards criminality, and for the special group of sexual offenses their importance is very great. We shall speak of this more fully when we treat especially of these offenses, and will, for the moment, note simply their general consequences.

The disorder and squalor of the home communicate themselves to the inmates; the lack of room obliges the children to live, during a great part of the day, on the streets, with the result that they are brought into contact with all sorts of demoralizing companions. Finally, the living together of a great number of uneducated persons in one small dwelling is the cause of constant quarrels and fights. The situation of those who are merely night-lodgers is especially unfortunate, as we have already seen.

In Part I we have quoted from authors who have laid stress upon the importance of the question of housing conditions in the study of criminality (Hirsch, for example), and we have indicated the gravity of this cause in speaking of prostitution and alcoholism.

It would be possible to quote a number of authors who have taken up the effect of housing conditions upon morals. [570] However, it is naturally very difficult to express this influence in figures. As far as I know it is Dr. E. Laspeyres who (in “Der Einfluss der Wohnung auf die Sittlichkeit”) gives the most significant data upon this subject. I borrow from him the following figures: summarizing part of the results of a study of “Furnished Rooms” in 2,360 dwellings: [571]

Paris, 1849.

Table I.

================================+==========+=============================== | | Conduct of the Inmates. | +---------------+--------------- Arrondissements. | Good | Men. | Women. |Dwellings.+---------------+--------------- | % |Good.|Very Bad.|Good.|Very Bad. | | % | % | % | % --------------------------------+----------+-----+---------+-----+--------- The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | | smallest number of good | | | | | dwellings | 35 | 46 | 10 | 20.4| 19 | | | | | The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | | largest number of good | 44.5 | 50 | 2.5 | 21.7| 14 dwellings | | | | | --------------------------------+----------+-----+---------+-----+--------- The 12 arrondissements together | 39 | 48 | 6.4 | 21.0| 16.6 ================================+==========+=====+=========+=====+========= The figures cited above in |} 89 | 96 | 156 | 97 | 114 proportion to all Paris = 100 |} 114 | 104 | 39 |103 | 86 +----------+-----+---------+-----+--------- | 100 | 100 | 100 |100 | 100 ================================+==========+=====+=========+=====+=========

Table II. [572]

================================+==========+=============================== | | Conduct of the Inmates. | +---------------+--------------- Arrondissements. | Very Bad | Men. | Women. |Dwellings.+---------+-----+---------+----- | % |Very Bad.|Good.|Very Bad.|Good. | | % | % | % | % --------------------------------+----------+---------+-----+---------+----- The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | | greatest number of very bad | | | | | dwellings | 13.6 | 9 | 45 | 20.2 | 21.3 | | | | | The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | | smallest number of very bad | | | | | dwellings | 6.0 | 2.2 | 52 | 11.7 | 21.0 --------------------------------+----------+---------+-----+---------+----- The 12 arrondissements together | 11 | 6.4 | 48 | 16.6 | 21.0 ================================+==========+=========+=====+=========+===== The figures cited above in |} 124 | 141 | 94 | 122 |101 proportion to all Paris = 100 |} 55 | 34 |108 | 70 |100 +----------+---------+-----+---------+----- | 100 | 100 |100 | 100 |100 ================================+==========+=========+=====+=========+=====

Table III. [573]

=====================================+===========+=============================================== | | Conduct of the Inmates. | +----------------------+------------------------ | Good and | Men. | Women. |Rather Good+----------------------+------------+----------- Arrondissements. | Dwellings.| Good and | Bad and | Good and | Bad and | |Rather Good.|Very Bad.|Rather Good.| Very Bad. | % | % | % | % | % -------------------------------------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+----------- The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | | smallest number of good and | | | | | rather good dwellings | 75 | 70 | 30 | 50 | 50 | | | | | The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | | greatest number of good and | | | | | rather good dwellings | 86 | 81 | 19 | 58 | 42 -------------------------------------+-----------+------------+---------+------------+----------- The 12 arrondissements together | 80 | 74.5 | 25.5 | 53 | 47 =====================================+===========+============+=========+============+=========== The figures cited above in proportion| } 94 | 94 | 118 | 96 | 106 to all Paris = 100 | } 107 | 109 | 71 | 109 | 91 +-----------+------------+---------+------------+----------- | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 =====================================+===========+============+=========+============+===========

Although the division according to good and bad conduct is somewhat arbitrary, and although it is impossible to separate the effect of bad housing from other influences operative at the same time, yet these figures say plainly: there is a relationship between housing and conduct. It is evident that there is a reciprocal effect between the condition of the dwelling and the conduct of the inmates, but this fact does not diminish the influence of the dwelling. [574]

Finally, we add some figures upon the influence of furnished rooms as residence, summarizing the results of an inquiry into industries in Paris, made in 1860 and including 400,000 persons: [575]

Paris, 1860.

I. Men.

================+=====================+==================== Occupations. | In Furnished Rooms. | Conduct Doubtful | | or Bad. ----------------+---------------------+-------------------- | % | % 90 occupations | 5 | 3 90 ,, | 14 | 9 90 ,, | 28 | 12 ----------------+---------------------+------------------- 270 occupations | 20 | 9 ================+=====================+===================

Proportion to all the occupations = 100.

================+=====+===== 90 occupations | 25 | 13 90 ,, | 70 | 100 90 ,, | 140 | 133 ----------------+-----+----- 270 occupations | 100 | 100 ================+=====+=====

II. Women.

================+=====================+================== Occupations. | In Furnished Rooms. | Conduct Doubtful | | or Bad. ----------------+---------------------+------------------ | % | % 110 occupations | -- | 3 60 ,, | 4 | 6 60 ,, | 14 | 15 ----------------+---------------------+------------------ 230 occupations | 7 | 9 ================+=====================+==================

Proportion to the Average of the 230 occupations = 100.

================+=====+===== 110 occupations | 0 | 33 60 ,, | 59 | 68 60 ,, | 206 | 169 ----------------+-----+----- 230 occupations | 100 | 100 ================+=====+=====

The evil influence of living in furnished rooms comes out plainly in these figures.

As has already been said at the beginning of these observations as to the influence of the economic life upon the development of social feelings on the part of the proletariat, the egoistic side of the human character is developed by the fact that the individual is dependent, that he lives in a subordinate position, and that he feels himself poor and deprived of everything. However, in so far as the proletarian sells his labor he is guaranteed against famine, however miserable his condition, and conscious of the utility of his rôle in society, he feels himself, notwithstanding his poverty, a man who, except for his employer, is independent of all men. But if work is not to be found, or if the proletarian, sick and infirm, is not able to work, it goes without saying that the resulting unemployment is very demoralizing. The lack of steady work, the horrors of the penury into which he and his fall, and the long train of evils which result from both, kill the social feelings in a man, for, as we have seen above, these feelings depend upon reciprocity. Let one familiarize himself with the thought of the condition of the man who lives in the greatest poverty, i.e. the man who is abandoned by all, and he will understand how egoistic must be the feelings of such.

From the position in which the proletarians find themselves it follows that, towards each other, it is rather the altruistic than the egoistic feelings that develop; living less isolated than the bourgeois, they see the misfortune that strikes their neighbor, and have felt the same themselves, and above all, their economic interests are not opposed. Forced idleness—at present chronic, and acute in times of panic—modifies these conditions at times; it makes competitors of the workers, who take the bread out of each other’s mouths. [576]

The proletarian is never sure of his existence: like the sword of Damocles unemployment is constantly hanging over his head. Upon this subject Engels says:

“But far more demoralizing than his poverty in its influence upon the English working man is the insecurity of his position, the necessity of living upon wages from hand to mouth, that in short which makes a proletarian of him. The smaller peasants in Germany are usually poor, and often suffer want, but they are less at the mercy of accident, they have at least something secure. The proletarian, who has nothing but his two hands, who consumes today what he earned yesterday, who is subject to every chance, and has not the slightest guarantee for being able to earn the barest necessities of life, whom every crisis, every whim of his employer may deprive of bread, this proletarian is placed in the most revolting, inhuman position conceivable for a human being.” [577]

This uncertainty of existence is one of the reasons which explain why, in relatively prosperous times the working-man often spends his wages as soon as he receives them, for he knows that the economies possible to him are so small that he could never be saved from misery in case of unemployment.

Finally we must speak of ignorance and lack of training on the part of the proletariat, as a factor of criminality. As we know, this question of education is one of those which are most debated in criminal sociology. Certain authors have prophesied that each new school would make a prison superfluous, while on the other hand it has been claimed that ignorance and the lack of civilization have nothing to do with the etiology of crime, but that on the contrary knowledge and civilization are even factors of crime. Although these extreme opinions are hardly ever expressed nowadays, the ideas upon the point in question still differ widely. [578]

In my opinion, no really decisive arguments have ever been adduced for the opinion that the intellectual condition of men has no influence upon criminality. In general the reasoning is as follows: ignorance is decreasing; crime on the contrary increases; ignorance cannot therefore be a factor. Such a line of argument is very superficial, for ignorance is surely not the only cause of crime. Its influence may therefore be neutralized by other factors. And further, from the point of view of statistics it is not permissible to use the indirect method when the direct method is practicable. In most criminal and prison statistics the percentage of the illiterate among the criminals is given, and we have only to put beside these figures those for the illiterate among the non-criminal population to be convinced of the existence or absence of the connection in dispute.

We shall begin, then, by giving the figures that we know.

United States, 1890. [579]

=========================================+================== To 82,329 Prisoners there were | To 100 of the ------------+------------------+---------+ Population over | Absolute Number. | % | Age of 10 Years. ------------+------------------+---------+------------------ Illiterate | 19,631 | 23.83 | 13.3 ============+==================+=========+==================

Austria, 1881–1899. [580]

==========+======================================================= | To 100 Persons Convicted of Crimes. Years. +-------------------+------------------+---------------- | Unable to Read or | Able to Read and | Having a Higher | Write. | Write. | Education. ----------+-------------------+------------------+---------------- 1881-1885 | 46.2 | 53.5 | 0.2 1886-1890 | 41.0 | 58.7 | 0.3 1891-1895 | 37.5 | 62.2 | 0.2 1896 | 33.0 | 60.3 | 0.7 1897 | 34.9 | 64.4 | 0.7 1898 | 33.2 | 66.1 | 0.7 1899 | 33.0 | 66.2 | 0.8 ==========+===================+==================+================

England and Wales, 1894–1900. [581]

========+==============================================================================================================================================================================================================++============== Years. | Prisoners Found Guilty. || Percentage | || of Persons +---------------------------------------------------++---------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++ Wishing to | Unable to Read or Write. || Able to Read, or to Read Poorly || Able to Read and Write Well. || Having a Higher Education. || Marry who | || and Write. || || || were Unable +---------------------------------------------------++---------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++ to Sign | Men. | Women. || Men. | Women. || Men. | Women. || Men. | Women. || their Names. +-------------------------+-------------------------++-------------------------+-------------------------++------------------------+------------------------++------------------------+------------------------++--------------- | Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Men. | Women. --------+------------------+------+------------------+------++------------------+------+------------------+------++------------------+-----+------------------+-----++------------------+-----+------------------+-----++------+-------- 1893 | -- | -- | -- | -- || -- | -- | -- | -- || -- | -- | -- | -- || -- | -- | -- | -- || 5.0 | 5.7 1894 | 20,760 | 18.4 | 11,457 | 27.4 || 86,639 | 76.6 | 29,620 | 70.7 || 5,554 | 4.9 | 797 | 1.9 || 102 | 0.1 | 3 | 0.0 || 0.0 | -- 1895 | 18,840 | 18.2 | 11,143 | 27.8 || 80,409 | 77.9 | 28,511 | 71.2 || 3,879 | 3.8 | 386 | 1.0 || 89 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.0 || 0.0 | -- 1896 | 19,377 | 18.1 | 11,844 | 28.5 || 85,199 | 79.2 | 29,261 | 70.6 || 2,806 | 2.6 | 307 | 0.7 || 52 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.0 || 0.0 | -- 1897 | 18,588 | 17.4 | 11,783 | 27.8 || 84,777 | 79.7 | 30,290 | 71.4 || 2,980 | 2.8 | 344 | 0.8 || 68 | 0.1 | 4 | 0.0 || 0.0 | -- 1898 | 18,591 | 16.6 | 12,092 | 26.8 || 86,675 | 77.3 | 32,350 | 71.6 || 6,680 | 6.0 | 726 | 1.6 || 158 | 0.1 | 7 | 0.0 || 0.0 | -- 1899 | 17,703 | 16.3 | 11,483 | 25.3 || 84,854 | 78.4 | 35,114 | 73.0 || 5,658 | 5.2 | 740 | 1.6 || 84 | 0.1 | 6 | 0.0 || 0.0 | -- 1900 | 16,583 | 16.6 | 11,519 | 25.3 || 77,967 | 77.8 | 33,169 | 73.5 || 5,460 | 5.5 | 420 | 0.9 || 81 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.6 || 2.9 | 3.4 ========+==================+======+==================+======++==================+======+==================+======++==================+=====+==================+=====++==================+=====+==================+=====++======+========

The following table gives the figures for the different crimes:

Austria, 1899. [582]

=========================+========================================================= | To 100 Persons Convicted. Crimes. +-------------+---------------+--------------+------------ | Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read | Higher | | | and Write. | Education. -------------------------+-------------+---------------+--------------+------------ Arson | 44.2 | 2.6 | 53.2 | 0.0 Libel | 41.7 | 0.8 | 57.1 | 0.4 Assault | 40.5 | 1.4 | 58.0 | 0.1 Infanticide | 39.5 | 2.6 | 57.9 | 0.0 Homicide | 39.3 | 3.1 | 57.4 | 0.2 Robbery | 35.0 | 1.6 | 63.4 | 0.0 Theft | 32.6 | 1.2 | 65.7 | 0.5 All crimes | 31.7 | 1.3 | 66.2 | 0.8 Fraud | 30.8 | 1.3 | 66.2 | 2.7 Extortion | 27.3 | 1.5 | 70.4 | 0.8 Malicious mischief | 21.6 | 1.1 | 77.3 | 0.0 Threats | 21.0 | 1.7 | 76.9 | 0.4 Leze majesty | 19.7 | 1.6 | 76.2 | 2.5 Rape, etc. | 17.2 | 1.7 | 79.3 | 1.8 Criminal breach of trust | 6.0 | 0.2 | 86.4 | 7.4 =========================+=============+===============+==============+============

Belgium, 1899–1901.

==========+================================================================= | Persons Convicted. +-------------+--------------+--------------+------------+-------- Years. | Illiterate. | Able to Read | Able to Read | Having a | Total. | | or Write | and Write. | Higher | | | Imperfectly. | | Education. | ----------+-------------+--------------+--------------+------------+-------- 1899 | 588 | 1389 | 424 | 144 | 2545 1900 | 626 | 1444 | 521 | 176 | 2767 1901 | 619 | 1581 | 604 | 218 | 3022 1899-1901 | 1833 | 4414 | 1549 | 538 | 8334 ----------+-------------+--------------+--------------+------------+-------- % | 22.-- | 53.-- | 18.6 | 6.4 | 100.0 ==========+=============+==============+==============+============+========

According to the census of 1900, 18% of the total male population over 15 years old were completely illiterate. [583]

In 1907 1.32% of the men and 1.75% of the women out of the total population could not sign their names. [584]

France, 1882–1898. [585]

=======+============================================================================================================+================ | To the 100 Prisoners there were on Entering Prison | Number of | | Persons to the +----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+ 100, who could Years. | Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read | Able to Read, | Having a Complete | Having an | not sign their | | | and Write. | Write and | Primary Education. | Education Higher | Names when | | | | Cipher. | | than Primary. | they Married. +-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+------------+------+------------+-------+-------- | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. -------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+------------+------+------------+-------+-------- 1882 | 27.60 | 38.04 | 12.62 | 15.41 | 30.56 | 32.36 | 21.17 | 13.01 | 6.24 | 0.87 | 1.81 | 0.31 | 14.4 | 22.6 1883 | 30.08 | 36.11 | 11.91 | 16.78 | 30.48 | 30.60 | 19.00 | 15.28 | 6.60 | 0.87 | 1.93 | 0.36 | 14.2 | 22.4 1884 | 27.54 | 42.61 | 10.14 | 15.02 | 31.71 | 30.57 | 21.67 | 9.93 | 5.72 | 1.39 | 2.18 | 0.46 | 13.6 | 22.2 1885 | 28.44 | 40.25 | 10.19 | 16.15 | 30.02 | 33.53 | 23.55 | 9.17 | 5.33 | 0.69 | 2.47 | 0.21 | 12.7 | 20.2 1886 | 26.63 | 39.93 | 11.20 | 14.52 | 31.19 | 36.64 | 22.81 | 8.06 | 5.63 | 0.85 | 2.54 | --[#] | 11.6 | 18.7 1887 | 26.51 | 37.49 | 12.49 | 14.31 | 33.89 | 38.90 | 21.04 | 8.38 | 4.05 | 0.92 | 2.02 | -- | 10.7 | 17.0 1888 | 24.90 | 32.29 | 14.05 | 12.92 | 32.50 | 42.43 | 22.50 | 10.77 | 4.18 | 1.59 | 2.17 | -- | 10.6 | 16.2 1889 | 22.50 | 35.13 | 14.18 | 27.22 | 30.06 | 27.78 | 24.99 | 7.70 | 5.80 | 2.17 | 2.47 | -- | 9.8 | 15.2 1890 | 20.12 | 34.94 | 14.19 | 26.34 | 30.76 | 29.71 | 25.97 | 6.47 | 6.34 | 2.54 | 2.52 | -- | 8.8 | 13.6 1891 | 20.05 | 33.32 | 12.79 | 22.44 | 31.14 | 33.39 | 26.52 | 8.37 | 6.57 | 2.06 | 2.93 | 0.42 | 8.4 | 12.6 1892 | 20.38 | 33.80 | 13.24 | 24.89 | 28.29 | 30.60 | 28.30 | 7.34 | 6.33 | 2.64 | 3.46 | 0.73 | 8.1 | 12.1 1893 | 22.08 | 29.78 | 11.19 | 24.75 | 28.03 | 32.75 | 27.33 | 9.22 | 7.51 | 2.82 | 3.86 | 0.68 | -- | -- 1894 | 20.89 | 31.14 | 13.15 | 22.57 | 27.64 | 35.86 | 27.84 | 7.42 | 6.70 | 2.47 | 3.78 | 0.54 | 6.8 | 10.4 1895 | 20.50 | 30.43 | 13.80 | 18.82 | 26.66 | 38.39 | 30.15 | 9.80 | 6.41 | 2.32 | 2.48 | 0.24 | -- | -- 1896 | 20.91 | 28.58 | 11.97 | 17.09 | 31.00 | 38.70 | 23.78 | 12.04 | 10.40 | 3.22 | 1.94 | 0.37 | -- | -- 1897 | 21.09 | 28.57 | 10.59 | 15.67 | 27.77 | 40.48 | 30.40 | 12.10 | 8.15 | 2.48 | 2.00 | 0.69 | -- | -- 1898 | 23.70 | 31.65 | 9.11 | 8.70 | 31.05 | 46.67 | 27.77 | 8.69 | 6.81 | 3.65 | 1.56 | 0.69 | 4.5 | 7.2 =======+=======+========+=======+========+=======+========+=======+========+=======+============+======+============+=======+========

Scotland. [587]

========================+===================================== | Prisoners. |------------------+------------------ | Men. | Women. |----------+-------+----------+------- | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Numbers. | | Numbers. | ------------------------+----------+-------+----------+------- Illiterate | 3,807 | 12.0 | 2,635 | 20.5 Able to read and write | 27,849 | 87.9 | 10,245 | 79.5 With a higher education | 46 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.0 +----------+-------+----------+------- Total | 31,702 | 100.0 | 12,881 | 100.0 ========================+==========+=======+==========+=======

France, 1896–1900. [588]

============================+================== | Percentage | of Accused Crimes. | Persons | Completely | Illiterate. ----------------------------+----------------- Arson | 26 Infanticide | 21 Poisoning | 20 Rape and indecent assault | upon children | 20 Serious assaults | 16 Murder | 16 Homicide | 15 Rape, etc. upon adults | 14 All crimes | 14 Aggravated theft | 12 Parricide | 10 Assaults upon parents, etc. | 10 Fraudulent bankruptcy | 10 Highway robbery | 8 Counterfeiting | 7 Forgery, etc. | 2 Breach of trust | 2 ============================+===================

Ireland, 1905.

============================+======================================================== | Prisoners. +------------------+------------------+------------------ | Men. | Women. | Total. +----------+-------+----------+-------+----------+------- | Absolute | | Absolute | | Absolute | | Numbers. | % | Numbers. | % | Numbers. | % ----------------------------+----------+-------+----------+-------+----------+------- Illiterate | 4,321 | 22.5 | 3,264 | 32.5 | 7,585 | 25.9 Able to read, or read and | | | | | | write imperfectly | 3,804 | 19.8 | 1,983 | 19.8 | 5,787 | 19.8 Able to read and write well | 11,003 | 57.2 | 4,757 | 47.4 | 15,760 | 53.9 With a higher education | 93 | 0.5 | 32 | 0.3 | 125 | 0.4 Unknown | 2 | 0.0 | -- | -- | 2 | 0.0 +----------+-------+----------+-------+----------+------- Total | 19,223 | 100.0 | 10,036 | 100.0 | 29,259 | 100.0 ============================+==========+=======+==========+=======+==========+=======

According to the census of 1901 the percentage of illiterates was 12.2 for the men, 13.1 for the women, and 12.7 for the total population 12 years old and over. [589]

Italy, 1881–1889. [590]

======+=====================================++===============================+================ | Correctional Tribunals. || Assizes. | To 100 Married +-------------------------------------++-------------------------------+ there were the | To 100 Arraigned there were || To 100 Convicted there were | Following who Years.| || |were Illiterate. +-----------+-----+--------+----------++-----------+--------+----------+------+--------- | |Able |Able to | Having || |Able to | Having | Men | |Illiterate.| to |Read and| a Higher ||Illiterate.|Read and| a Higher | and | Men.[591] | |Read.| Write. |Education.|| | Write. |Education.|Women.| ------+-----------+-----+--------+----------++-----------+--------+----------+------+--------- 1881 | 68.38 | 1.74| 27.38 | 2.50 || 63.40 | 34.87 | 1.73 | 59.07| 48.24 1882 | 67.93 | 1.61| 27.59 | 2.87 || 59.05 | 38.11 | 2.84 | 57.43| 46.68 1883 | 66.45 | 1.82| 28.74 | 2.99 || 57.64 | 40.00 | 2.36 | 56.67| 45.79 1884 | 64.61 | 1.71| 30.10 | 3.58 || 58.99 | 38.76 | 2.25 | 55.81| 44.97 1885 | 60.93 | 1.80| 32.90 | 4.37 || 61.24 | 36.75 | 2.01 | 54.92| 44.28 1886 | 61.34 | 2.20| 33.15 | 3.31 || 59.66 | 38.25 | 2.09 | 53.31| 43.19 1887 | 59.25 | -- | 37.07 | 3.68 || 59.34 | 37.04 | 3.62 | 52.83| 42.83 1888 | 61.48 | -- | 34.51 | 4.01 || 69.14 | 31.99 | 3.87 | 52.08| 42.27 1889 | 60.98 | -- | 35.31 | 3.71 || 63.75 | 33.14 | 3.11 | 50.83| 41.21 ======+===========+=====+========+==========++===========+========+==========+======+=========

The following figures shed light upon the intellectual condition of those accused of certain important classes of crime:

Italy, 1889 (Assizes). [592]

====================================+=========================================== |To the 100 Accused of Each Crime there were Crimes. +-------------+------------+---------------- |Illiterate or|Able to Read|Having a Higher | Nearly So. | and Write. | Education. ------------------------------------+-------------+------------+---------------- Infanticide | 92.9 | 7.1 | 0.0 Perjury | 86.8 | 11.3 | 1.9 Highway robbery | 75.5 | 24.2 | 0.3 Homicide | 72.5 | 26.5 | 1.0 Serious assaults | 68.8 | 30.6 | 0.6 Rebellion, etc. | 65.9 | 34.1 | 0.0 All crimes | 63.8 | 33.1 | 3.1 Rape | 63.6 | 32.7 | 3.7 Aggravated theft | 59.7 | 38.4 | 1.9 Counterfeiting etc. | 50.9 | 46.9 | 2.2 Offenses against public decency etc.| 47.6 | 38.1 | 14.3 Sexual crimes against nature | 43.8 | 45.8 | 10.4 Forgery | 10.4 | 36.2 | 26.4 ====================================+=============+============+================

New York State, 1881–1897. [593]

======+=========================================================== | To 100 Persons Entering Elmira Reformatory. Years.+-----------+-----------------+------------------+---------- |Illiterate.|Able only to Read|Primary Education.| Higher | | and Write. | |Education. ------+-----------+-----------------+------------------+---------- 1881 | 19.0 | 59.3 | 16.5 | 5.2 1882 | 18.5 | 58.7 | 18.0 | 4.8 1883 | 19.3 | 57.5 | 18.6 | 4.6 1884 | 19.3 | 56.1 | 20.2 | 4.4 1885 | 18.3 | 55.7 | 21.9 | 4.1 1886 | 19.9 | 53.2 | 23.0 | 3.9 1888 | 19.8 | 50.1 | 26.2 | 3.9 1889 | 19.5 | 49.9 | 26.9 | 3.7 1890 | 19.1 | 50.8 | 26.9 | 3.2 1891 | 18.7 | 48.6 | 29.4 | 3.3 1892 | 19.3 | 48.8 | 28.6 | 3.3 1893 | 19.0 | 45.6 | 31.8 | 3.6 1894 | 18.8 | 43.8 | 33.8 | 3.6 1896 | 18.3 | 41.3 | 37.0 | 3.4 1897 | 18.3 | 43.3 | 35.2 | 3.2 ======+===========+=================+==================+==========

Netherlands, 1865–1900. [594]

======+=========================== | Unable to Read or Write. +--------------+------------ Years.| Convicts at | | Time of |Militia-men. |Incarceration.| % | % | ------+--------------+------------ 1865 | 38 | 18.2 1870 | 30 | 16.3 1875 | 25 | 12.3 1880 | 25 | 11.5 1885 | 22 | 10.5 1890 | 24 | 7.2 1892 | 25 | 5.4 1893 | 22 | 5.4 1894 | 20 | 5.0 1895 | 20 | 5.4 1896 | 20 | 4.7 1897 | 19 | 4.0 1898 | 19 | 3.6 1899 | 18 | 2.8 1900 | 16 | 2.3 ======+==============+============

Netherlands, 1903–1905. [595]

==============================+========================================= | Out of 100 Convicted there were +------+------+------+------+------+------ | 1903. | 1904. | 1905. +------+------+------+------+------+------ | Men. |Women.| Men. |Women.| Men. |Women. ------------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+------ Without elementary instruction| 7.57| 24.70| 6.61| 18.26| 6.36| 13.33 With elementary instruction | 91.43| 74.71| 92.20| 80.62| 92.50| 85.34 ,, secondary education | 0.74| 0.33| 0.84| 0.22| 0.80| 0.47 ,, higher education | 0.07| 0.00| 0.12| 0.00| 0.11| 0.00 Unknown | 0.15| 0.26| 0.23| 0.90| 0.23| 0.86 Total |100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00 ==============================+======+======+======+======+======+======

The following figures give an estimate with regard to some specified crimes: [596]

Netherlands, 1901.

=====================================+=============== |To 100 Convicts Crimes. | Unable | to Read or | Write. -------------------------------------+--------------- Marauding | 16.6 Vagrancy | 10.0 Simple theft | 9.9 Malicious mischief, etc. | 9.4 Aggravated theft | 9.1 All crimes | 8.6 Assaults | 7.9 Domiciliary trespass | 7.5 Receiving stolen goods | 7.4 Defamation and kindred offenses | 6.9 Offenses against public decency | 6.5 Embezzlement | 5.8 Rebellion | 5.7 Rape and other sexual crimes | 4.3 Obtaining money under false pretenses| 1.7 =====================================+===============

Prussia, 1894–1897. [597]

==========+==============================================+========== |Out of 18,049 Recidivists in Prussian Prisons.|To the 100 | |Recruits. +-----------+------------+----------+----------+---------- | Without |Very Little | Primary | Higher | Without |Education. | Education. |Education.|Education.| Primary | | | | |Education. ----------+-----------+------------+----------+----------+---------- Number | 1,491 | 8,589 | 7,782 | 187 | Percentage| 8.3 | 47.6 | 43.1 | 1.0 | 0.23 ==========+===========+============+==========+==========+==========

Switzerland, 1892–1896. [598]

==============================+===========+=========== | Men. | Women. Education +-------+---+-------+--- |Number.| % |Number.| % ------------------------------+-------+---+-------+--- Illiterate | 352 | 3| 82 | 5 Primary education | 8,665 | 87| 1,580 | 92 Secondary and higher education| 856 | 9| 45 | 2 Unknown | 109 | 1| 15 | 1 ------------------------------+-------+---+-------+--- Total | 9,982 |100| 1,722 |100 ==============================+=======+===+=======+===

The figures for those who have had a primary education are divided up as follows: [599]

==================+===========+=========== | Men. | Women. State of Education+-------+---+-------+--- |Number.| % |Number.| % ------------------+-------+---+-------+--- Good | 4,394 | 51| 764 | 48 Mediocre | 4,125 | 47| 750 | 48 Reading only | 146 | 2| 66 | 4 ------------------+-------+---+-------+--- Total | 8,665 |100| 1,580 |100 ==================+=======+===+=======+===

The redactor of the official statistics of Switzerland observes that there are no figures to determine the number of illiterates among the non-criminal population, but the statistics of recruits for the years 1891 to 1895 show that about 19% of the recruits had a higher education.

I am of the opinion that the statistics which I have quoted, [600] including, as they do, millions of criminals, are very significant: the illiterates supply, in general, a great proportion of the criminals, a proportion much greater than that of the illiterates in the general population. (In countries with a relatively small number of illiterates, like England, the Netherlands, and Prussia, for example, the difference is naturally much greater than in a country like Italy where the percentage of illiteracy is great. In Prussia for instance, there are thirty-six times as many illiterates among the recidivists as among the recruits.)

However, most of the statistics, aside from the figures for illiteracy, give others which show how many persons really educated are to be found among the criminals. And then we note that a very great majority of criminals are ignorant and untrained. In England, for example, there is among male criminals only 1 to 1,000 who knows more than how to read and write well, and among the women not even 1 to 1,000; in Austria there are a little more than 4 to 1,000; and in France a little more than 20 to 1,000 among the men, and between 4 and 5 among the women. The relation between ignorance and criminality cannot, then, be contradicted. But it is impossible to fix exactly the extent of the influence of the one upon the other, or it is difficult to separate ignorance from other factors with which it is ordinarily found, as poverty, for instance.

The ancient idea that crime is only a consequence of ignorance need not be treated of, for morality and intellect are two distinct parts of the psychic life, even though there exists a certain relation between them.

The first reason why ignorance and the lack of general culture must be ranked among the general factors of crime is this: the person who, in our present society, where the great majority of parents care very little for the education of their children, does not go to school, is deprived of the moral ideas (honesty, etc.) which are taught there, and ordinarily passes his time in idleness and vagabondage.

The second reason which makes ignorance a factor of crime, is that generally an ignorant man is, more than others, a man moved by the impulse of the moment, who allows himself to be governed by his passions, and is induced to commit acts which he would not have committed if his intellectual equipment had been different.

In the third place, it is for the following reasons that ignorance and the lack of training fall within the etiology of crime. The mind of the man whose psychic qualities, whether in the domain of the arts, or of the sciences, have been developed, has become less susceptible to evil ideas. His intellectual condition constitutes thus a bridle which can restrain evil thoughts from realizing themselves; for real art and true science strengthen the social instincts. The figures cited above furnish only a slight contribution to this question. There is no doubt that if we had figures showing how many criminals there are any part of whose life is taken up by art or science, we should find the number very small. It could not be objected that the cause of this is in the innate qualities of the criminals; certainly one man is born with greater capacity than another, but everyone is born with some capacities which, if developed, may become a source of happiness; and a happy man, says the proverb, is not wicked.

Finally ignorance is in still another way a factor in crime. Very often the author of a crime conceives and executes it in so clumsy a fashion and with so little chance of success, that we may be certain that he would not have committed it if he had not been an ignorant person, without knowledge of the forces with which he had to do.

When the Italian school is reproached with making their researches upon prisoners only, and not upon criminals and their free equals, the implication is that it is only the stupid and ignorant criminals that are in prison, while the others, the shrewd and tricky, remain at liberty. There is assuredly much truth in this assertion.

The lower proletariat. In the preceding pages I have already spoken of the influence exercised by bad material surroundings upon a man’s character; I have pointed out the moral consequences of bad housing conditions, and also that he becomes embittered and malicious through lack of the necessaries of life. All this applies to the proletariat in general, but much more strongly still to those who do not succeed, for any reason, in selling their labor, that is the lower proletariat.

If the dwellings of the working-class are bad, those of the lower proletariat are more pitiable still. There are, through sickness or lack of work, periods of dire poverty in the life of almost every worker—for the lower proletariat these periods are without intermission. Its poverty is chronic. And when the poverty makes itself felt for a long time together, the intellectual faculties become blunted to such a point that there remains of the man only the brute, struggling for existence.

Although the material and intellectual poverty of the lower proletariat is much greater than that of the proletariat, the difference between them is only quantitative. In one connection, however, there is also a qualitative difference, and a very important one, namely that the working-man is a useful being without whom society could not exist. However oppressed he may be, he is a man who has a feeling of self-respect. It is different with the member of the lower proletariat. He is not useful, but a detriment. He produces nothing, and tries to live upon what others make; he is merely tolerated. He who has lived long in poverty loses all feeling of self-respect, and lends himself to anything whatever that will suffice to prolong his existence.

In short, poverty (taken in the sense of absolute want), kills the social sentiments in man, destroys in fact all relations between men. He who is abandoned by all can no longer have any feeling for those who have left him to his fate.

b. The proportion in which the different classes are guilty of crime. After having treated of the direct consequences of the present economic system upon the different classes, I shall take up this question, which is an important one for the problem of criminality, before touching upon the indirect consequences.

As I have already observed in Part I, the opinions with regard to this proportion are very divergent. There are authors (Garofalo, for instance) who are of the opinion that the bourgeoisie commits as many crimes, in proportion to its numbers, as the proletariat. On the other hand there are those who maintain that the prisons hold only the poor. That Garofalo’s conclusion does not hold good for Italy has been proved by the statistics of Fornasari di Verce and those of Dr. Marro, quoted in Part I of this book. The figures given by Fornasari di Verce have to do with the persons sentenced by the assizes, the correctional tribunals, and the justices of the peace. They show that 56% of the convicts were indigent, that 31% had only the strict necessities of life, 10% were moderately well off, while 2% were well-to-do or rich; while among the non-criminal population about 40% were rich or more or less well-to-do, and the other 60% indigent or having only the necessaries of life. But the figures for non-possessors become much greater if we take only the number of those sentenced by the court of assizes,—the real criminals.

Italy, 1887–1889 (Assizes). [601]

========================+=========+=========+======== Condition. | 1887. | 1888. | 1889. ------------------------+---------+---------+-------- | % | % | % Indigent | 79.57 | 79.62 | 77.58 Having the necessaries | 9.39 | 10.21 | 13.31 Passably well off | 7.35 | 6.62 | 6.12 Well-to-do and rich | 3.69 | 3.55 | 2.98 +---------+---------+-------- | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 ========================+=========+=========+========

The following figures give the economic condition of persons convicted for different crimes:

Italy, 1889 (Assizes). [602]

==============================+==================================================== |To the 100 Convicted of the Crimes Given there were: Crimes. +------------+------------+------------+------------- | Indigent. | Having the | Passably | Well-to-do | |necessaries.| well off. | or rich. ------------------------------+------------+------------+------------+------------- Infanticide | 88.1 | 7.1 | 4.8 | 0.0 Theft of every kind | 81.5 | 13.4 | 3.3 | 1.7 Counterfeiting, etc. | 80.3 | 10.4 | 7.7 | 1.6 Rebellion, cruelty, etc. | 79.5 | 11.4 | 0.0 | 9.1 Homicide of every degree | 79.0 | 10.8 | 6.8 | 3.4 Serious assaults | 78.7 | 12.4 | 7.4 | 1.5 Highway robbery | 77.8 | 17.5 | 4.0 | 0.7 Rape and other sexual offenses| 77.3 | 14.8 | 5.6 | 2.3 Extortion | 74.7 | 13.1 | 7.8 | 4.4 Forgery | 47.5 | 24.7 | 11.1 | 16.7 ==============================+============+============+============+=============

Italy not being a rich country, it is evident that the headings “passably well-off” and “well-to-do or rich” have been given a liberal interpretation, otherwise they would never include almost 40% of the population. But even taking account of this fact, these figures show that the indigent, that is, the lower proletariat, and the proletariat without work, form a much higher proportion of the criminal class than of the population as a whole.

Other figures confirming these conclusions for Italy have been produced by Dr. Colajanni (see Part I of this work). Further than these, statistics concerning the financial condition of convicts are not numerous so far as I know. Here are those that are known to me:

Austria, 1881–1899. [603]

=========+=============================================== | Condition (%). Years. +-------------+--------------------+----------- |Without Money.|With a Little Money.|Well-to-do. ---------+--------------+--------------------+----------- 1881-1885| 89.1 | 10.4 | 0.3 1886-1890| 90.0 | 9.4 | 0.4 1891-1895| 89.6 | 9.9 | 0.4 1896 | 86.7 | 13.0 | 0.3 1897 | 86.0 | 13.5 | 0.5 1898 | 85.9 | 13.7 | 0.4 1899 | 86.7 | 13.0 | 0.3 =========+==============+====================+===========

The following figures give us the proportions of the different crimes:

Austria, 1899. [604]

=====================+=================================================== | There were to the 100 Convicts Guilty of the | Crimes Mentioned: Crimes. +----------+----------+--------+------+------+------ |Without Fortune.[605]|Little Fortune.| Well-to-do. +----------+----------+--------+------+------+------ | Men. | Women. | Men. |Women.| Men. |Women. ---------------------+----------+----------+--------+------+------+------ Robbery | 96.6 | 100.0 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 Theft | 92.0 | 94.7 | 7.8 | 5.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 Rape, etc. | 91.2 | 100.0 | 8.6 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 Leze majesty, etc. | 90.1 | 93.1 | 9.6 | 6.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 Threats | 90.0 | 81.5 | 9.9 | 18.5 | 0.1 | 0.0 Rebellion, etc. | 87.3 | 74.9 | 12.4 | 24.8 | 0.3 | 0.3 Crimes in general | 86.4 | 88.4 | 13.2 | 11.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 Extortion | 86.2 | 80.0 | 13.5 | 20.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 Serious assaults | 79.0 | 70.2 | 30.6 | 29.8 | 0.4 | 0.0 Fraud | 74.8 | 75.1 | 23.6 | 24.3 | 1.6 | 0.6 Murder, homicide | 73.0 | 87.2 | 26.7 | 12.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 Infanticide, abortion| 0.0 | 90.8 | 0.0 | 9.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 =====================+==========+=======-==+========+======+======+======

I have not been able to procure the figures showing the financial condition of the Austrian population. But it may be considered as certain that there are more well-to-do persons in Austria than about 3% of the population, and also that there are more persons with a little money than the percentage of criminals shown under that heading. Therefore, as in Italy, the poor there are more guilty of crime than the well-to-do (and much more so of certain crimes). It is interesting to note that well-to-do women are not guilty at all of most crimes. [606]

Prussia, 1894–1897. [607]

=============================================================================================== Among Recidivists were Found -----------------------------------------------------------------------+----------------------- With incomes of | -----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ Indigent. Less than 900 marks. | 900 to 2,000 marks. | 2,000 to 5,000 marks. | ----------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. -------+--+------------+-------+---+-------+---+-------+---+-------+---+-------+---+-------+--- Number.| %|Number.| % |Number.| % |Number.| % |Number.| % |Number.| % |Number.| % |Number.| % -------+--+-------+----+-------+---+-------+---+-------+---+-------+---+-------+---+-------+--- 13,931 |90| 2,424 |96.5| 1,424 |9.2| 66 |2.6| 46 |0.3| 2 |0.1| 74 |0.5| 18 |0.8 =======+==+=======+====+=======+===+=======+===+=======+===+=======+===+=======+===+=======+===

There were no rich persons then among the recidivists; no one with an income of more than 5,000 marks. On the other hand, those of very limited income are exceedingly numerous, especially among the women. It is a pity that the first group was not further subdivided, for “less than 900 marks” leaves the group still very large.

The following figures give a picture of the financial situation of the Swiss criminals.

Switzerland, 1892–1896. [608]

========================================= There were Prisoners: ---------------------------+-------+----- |Number.| % ---------------------------+-------+----- With fortune | 589 | 5.0 With expectations | 1,140 | 9.7 With neither | 9,569 | 81.8 Condition unknown | 406 | 3.5 +-------+----- |11,704 |100 +=======+===== Having a savings-bank book | 202 | 1.7 Without ,, ,, | 9,608 | 82.1 Unknown | 1,894 | 16.1 +-------+----- |11,704 |100 ===========================+=======+=====

All the statistics cited [609] show then that the poor supply a very great proportion of the convicts, in every case a greater proportion than they bear to the population in general, and the well-to-do form only a small part.

There are still other ways of inquiring what part the different classes take in criminality. One consists in an examination of the statistics of the intellectual development of the convicts, for the illiterate and those who have received only a primary education belong, almost without exception, to the classes without fortune. These statistics have already been given, and they confirm entirely the conclusions to be drawn from the figures for the financial condition of the convicts.

The third way of solving the problem is by a study of the statistics of the occupations of those convicted. Here, however, great difficulties present themselves. In the first place not all the criminal statistics make the distinction between the employer and the workman in such and such an occupation. And it is just this information that we need. In the second place we need beside statistics for the occupation of the criminals, others showing the occupations of the population in general, and the two classified in the same way. Even in this case the picture given by these statistics will not be exact, for there are among the employers many persons who are not really independent (workers at home, etc.), or persons who, while being employers, are, as far as their plane of living is concerned, only the equal of the proletarian, and not of the bourgeois.

Upon this question we have the following figures:

Germany, 1894–1896. [610]

======================+============================================================================================================= Groups | To 10,000 Persons Over 12 Years of Age in Each Group of Occupations there were: of +-----+---------+---------+--------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- Occupations. | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. | J. | K. | L. | M. | N. | O. | P. ----------------------+-----+---------+---------+--------+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----- I. Agriculture: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | a. Independent | 75.1| 7.1 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 0.21| 0.10| 19.1| 1.5| 2.9| 0.22| 14.1| 0.02| 2.3| 0.08| 0.03 b. Workers |142.1| 28.9 | 3.1 | 4.8 | 6.0 | 1.67| 0.18| 9.8| 3.1| 6.8| 0.31| 36.4| 0.05| 6.5| 0.36| 0.37 II. Manufacturing: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | a. Independent |129.9| 7.1 | 0.5 | 5.1 | 5.4 | 1.20| 0.17| 27.8| 3.3| 5.3| 0.32| 17.5| 0.02| 3.2| 0.09| 0.05 b. Workers |234.5| 32.7 | 5.8 | 10.2 | 10.2 | 2.98| 0.20| 19.4| 13.1| 13.3| 0.32| 57.5| 0.06| 12.0| 0.19| 0.14 III. Commerce and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | transportation:| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | a. Independent |275.5| 10.4 | 0.7 | 8.8 | 16.4 | 1.35| 0.11| 49.4| 5.9| 7.4| 0.59| 21.8| 0.04| 3.4| 0.10| 0.01 b. Workers |222.6| 35.2 | 6.7 | 22.0 | 18.3 | 2.22| 0.09| 20.8| 10.3| 8.8| 0.32| 26.3| 0.05| 6.1| 0.06| 0.05 IV. Domestics | 52.8|27.1[611]|2.02[611]|3.1[611]|4.0[611]| 0.06| 0.15| 2.4| 0.4| 0.8| 0.20| 1.4| 0.01| 0.6| 0.12| 0.31 V. Public service | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | and lib. profess.| 79.3| 5.9 | 1.2 | 4.8 | 5.6 | 1.69| 0.06| 20.0| 2.0| 2.2| 0.14| 6.6| 0.01| 1.6| 0.02| 0.00 VI. Population | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | over 12 |120.1| 19.2 | 2.5 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 1.17| 0.13| 14.7| 4.5| 5.5| 0.22| 22.3| 0.03| 4.6| 0.13| 0.09 ======================+=====+=========+=========+========+========+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====

KEY TO COLUMN HEADINGS:

A. Crimes in General. I. Violence and Threats against Public Functionaries. B. Theft. J. Domiciliary Trespass. C. Aggravated Theft. K. Perjury. D. Embezzlement. L. Serious Assaults. E. Fraud. M. Homicides. F. Rape, etc. N. Malicious Mischief. G. Incest. O. Arson. H. Insult. P. Infanticide.

Germany, 1896. [612]

======================+======================================================================================================= Groups | To 10,000 Persons Over 12 Years of Age and having Occupation there were to Each Group: of +--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-----+-----+----- Occupations. | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. | J. | K. | L. | M. | N. | O. | P. ----------------------+--------+-------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+-----+-------+-----+-----+-----+----- Agriculture | 1,208.7| 238.1| 26.2| 35.8| 1.2 | 1.1 | 54.1| 9.0| 12.1 |127.2| 84.1| 299.8| 24.6| 55.0| 2.8 |0.42 Manufacturing | 2,144.3| 304.3| 58.4| 86.6| 2.3 | 2.6 | 97.9| 19.0| 26.3 |225.3|141.8| 496.1|105.3|120.0| 3.2 |0.51 Commerce and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | transportation | 2,566.2| 276.9| 40.1|159.3| 1.2 | 6.3 |154.5| 50.5| 19.5 |353.4|126.3| 256.8| 84.8| 80.1| 4.0 |0.64 Workmen and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | day-laborers[613] |10,402.6|2,622.7|439.3|514.7|20.8 |15.3 |459.7| 88.8|107.8 |829.8|669.5|1,679.5|664.2|439.5| 9.7 |1.60 Domestics | 530.3| 305.7| 25.3| 29.4| 0.23| 0.45| 46.8| 9.2| 0.83| 24.8| 7.4| 13.4| 4.3| 10.0| 2.2 |0.08 Public service and | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | liberal professions | 798.6| 70.7| 13.1| 48.9| 0.63| 1.6 | 65.3| 18.7| 17.1|193.0| 33.2| 70.8| 19.7| 21.4| 2.1 |0.13 Professors, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | physicians, employees| 418.6| 19.2| 1.7| 9.9| 0.00| 0.71| 19.8| 6.8| 12.4|120.0| 14.3| 25.8| 8.6| 7.8| 0.99|0.14 Persons of income, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | students, persons | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | supported | 224.5| 17.3| 0.71| 4.3| 0.00| 0.65| 9.2| 1.8| 4.6 | 65.7| 14.8| 30.6| 8.3| 12.7| 0.59|0.06 ======================+========+=======+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+======+=====+=====+=======+=====+=====+=====+====

KEY TO COLUMN HEADINGS:

A. Crimes in General. I. Rape upon Children, etc. B. Theft. J. Insult. C. Aggravated Theft. K. Assaults. D. Embezzlement. L. Serious Assaults. E. Robbery. M. Violence and Threats against Public Functionaries. F. Extortion. N. Domiciliary Trespass. G. Fraud. O. Perjury. H. Forgery. P. Homicide.

These statistics, probably the best upon the subject, tell the whole story to those who know how to read the figures. They constitute a proof of the enormous influence of the social factors in the etiology of crime. It is impossible to maintain that the influence works the other way, that the moral disposition influences the choice of a profession. Dr. Prinzing rightly says in the article cited: “It is quite impossible that those engaged in the three great groups of occupations, agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce, are persons of different kinds of moral traits. On the contrary, the supposition that the moral endowment of each group is nearly the same is completely justified by the movements that are continually going on under our own eyes, through which the countryman becomes a city-dweller, and the man who has grown up in the practice of agriculture, a workman or assistant in manufacturing and commerce.” [614]

England and Wales, 1894–1900. [615]

=============+====+=========================================+======+============== | | Among the Prisoners Convicted there were: | Average. Occupations. | +------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+------ | | 1894.| 1895.| 1896.| 1897.| 1898.| 1899.| 1900.|Number.| % -------------+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+------ Domestics |{ M.| 948| 729| 832| 651| 662| 667| 604| 729| 0.7 |{ W.| 1,876| 1,530| 1,417| 1,369| 1,424| 1,986| 2,042| 1,663| 3.9 | | | | | | | | | | Workmen, |{ M.|75,539|69,944|72,725|73,264|77,321|75,220|69,168| 73,311| 68.0 housekeepers,|{ W.|11,083|10,596|10,574|12,394|14,376|14,960|14,179| 12,594| 29.2 seamstresses |{ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Factory |{ M.| 3,763| 2,420| 3,212| 2,855| 3,019| 2,590| 2,331| 2,941| 2.7 workers|{ W.| 3,755| 3,127| 2,926| 2,762| 3,086| 3,367| 3,498| 3,217| 7.5 | | | | | | | | | | Mechanicians |{ M.|20,702|18,747|19,216|19,179|20,914|20,351|19,726| 19,870| 18.4 and skilled|{ W.| 677| 646| 1,220| 1,342| 1,527| 1,348| 1,480| 1,177| 2.7 workmen|{ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Foremen, |{ M.| 80| 75| 65| 64| 60| 75| 61| 68| 0.1 inspectors|{ W.| 2| 3| 4| 5| 2| 1| 2| 2| 0.0 | | | | | | | | | | Store and |{ M.| 2,869| 2,652| 2,805| 2,506| 2,877| 2,677| 2,550| 2,705| 2.5 office clerks|{ W.| 125| 83| 77| 84| 102| 161| 237| 124| 0.3 | | | | | | | | | | Merchants |{ M.| 4,054| 4,045| 4,410| 3,984| 4,352| 4,052| 3,461| 4,056| 3.7 |{ W.| 4,127| 4,004| 4,249| 4,087| 4,820| 4,513| 4,179| 4,282| 9.9 | | | | | | | | | | Liberal |{ M.| 239| 231| 208| 223| 194| 209| 204| 215| 0.2 professions|{ W.| 24| 23| 34| 23| 33| 24| 28| 27| 0.1 | | | | | | | | | | Soldiers, |{ | 3,620| 3,338| 3,433| 3,227| 3,202| 3,082| 3,327| 3,318| 3.1 sailors and |{ | | | | | | | | | marines|{ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Prostitutes | | 5,132| 5,105| 7,411| 6,746| 6,413| 6,092| 6,715| 6,230| 14.5 | | | | | | | | | | Without |{ M.| 1,369| 746| 644| 550| 518| 391| 320| 648| 0.6 occupation|{ W.|15,067|14,910|13,494|13,606|13,361|12,888|12,745| 13,725| 31.9 -------------+----+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+-------+------ | | Total { Men |107,861|100.00 | | { Women| 43,041|100.00 =============+====+================================================+=======+======

According to the first table the workmen are implicated, in a much greater degree than the independents, in all the crimes except that of insult (which is explained by the fact that this crime is one of those which are prosecuted only after complaint laid, and that working-men decide to lay complaint much less quickly than the bourgeois). Certain crimes, indeed, are more often committed by the independent merchants than by the working-men of the same class, but here it is necessary to remember that many of the small merchants are on the same plane of living as the working-men. The liberal professions, on the contrary, show very low figures, a fact which is to be plainly noticed in the second table, where the attention is caught by the very low figures of the group of students and person with incomes. The participation in all crimes by unskilled workmen is very great, even if we allow for the figures’ being exaggerated.

I have not been able to procure statistics concerning the occupations of the whole population of England. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be worth while to mention the figures concerning the occupations of the criminals, for, considered by themselves, they show clearly that the classes without means play a very large part in crime. At least 95% of the men are in this condition, as well as at least 5% of the women (a part of the merchants must be added in both cases) while of the 31.9% without occupation it is certain that a large number are also poor.

France, 1898–1900. [616]

=======================================+============================ | Number of Persons Accused | to 100,000 of Each Group. Groups of Occupations. +---------+---------+-------- | 1898. | 1899. | 1900. ---------------------------------------+---------+---------+-------- Agriculture | 8 | 9 | 8 Manufacturing | 20 | 22 | 24 Commerce | 29 | 33 | 27 Domestic service | 16 | 16 | 13 Liberal professions and public service | 15 | 15 | 15 =======================================+=========+=========+========

Since this table makes no distinction between independents and dependents, it does not advance the matter much, and the only important observation that can be drawn from it is that agriculture and the liberal professions give the lowest figures. A clearer idea is given by the following table:

France, 1890–1895. [617]

==============================+======================================================================================= | To the 100 Prisoners in Penitentiaries and Houses of Correction. +----------------+--------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+------------- Occupations. | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. +------+---------+------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------ | Men. | Women. | Men. |Women. | Men. |Women.| Men. |Women.| Men. |Women.| Men. |Women. ------------------------------+------+---------+------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------ Property owners, persons of | | | | | | | | | | | | income | 0.58| 1.10 | 0.62| 2.21 | 0.62| 0.99| 0.66| 1.45| 0.66| 1.78| 0.65| 2.07 Liberal professions | 2.36| 1.03 | 2.92| 1.66 | 2.64| 1.42| 2.41| 1.90| 2.64| 1.62| 2.50| 1.33 Employees | 5.00| 0.55 | 5.40| 0.34 | 5.07| 0.36| 4.81| 0.30| 5.26| 0.62| 5.49| 1.33 Merchants, manufacturers | 3.77| 4.47 | 3.25| 4.80 | 3.49| 4.35| 3.39| 3.81| 3.64| 4.71| 3.19| 5.72 Alimentary professions | 3.12| 1.24 | 3.41| 0.92 | 3.53| 0.85| 3.60| 1.52| 4.31| 1.78| 4.27| 1.82 Workmen in shops and factories| 8.39| 13.14 | 8.93| 12.03 | 8.73| 12.17| 7.86| 15.16| 9.46| 16.08| 9.39| 15.34 Building and furnishing trades| 16.76| 0.21[#]| 16.09|0.28[#]| 17.11| 0.49| 17.68| 0.23| 17.51| 1.23| 17.92| 0.66 Agricultural and day laborers | 48.31| 62.45 | 48.85| 61.02 | 47.94| 63.17| 49.52| 56.44| 45.71| 56.03| 44.93| 54.15 Nomadic occupations | 3.99| 4.68 | 3.89| 4.63 | 4.19| 4.77| 3.79| 4.72| 3.77| 4.79| 3.82| 4.48 Soldiers and sailors | 2.41| -- | 2.23| -- | 2.29| -- | 1.94| -- | 1.75| -- | 1.60| -- Vagabonds and mendicants | 1.48| 4.74[#]| 0.82|4.65[#]] 0.94| 4.77| 1.03| 5.71| 1.27| 4.95| 1.52| 5.14 Individuals in the care of | | | | | | | | | | | | their families | 3.83| 6.39 | -- | 7.46 | 3.45| 5.66| 3.31| 8.76| 4.02| 6.41| 4.72| 7.96 ------------------------------+------+---------+------+-------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------ |100.00|100.00 |100.00|100.00 |100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00|100.00 ==============================+======+=========+======+=======+======+======+======+======+======+======|======|======

Although there are no statistics of the occupations of the corresponding non-criminal population, the figures are well worth noting. We discover that the unskilled laborers form a large proportion of the prisoners, in every case a larger proportion than they bear to the population in general; and that the merchants and manufacturers form a much smaller part of the prisoners than they do of the population as a whole, for they certainly constitute more than 5.45%, especially in France, a country where small industries still flourish.

Italy, 1891–1895. [620]

=======================================================+============================ | Convicts. Groups of Occupations. +---------------------------- |Annual Average to 100,000 of |Each Group of Occupations. -------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------- Agriculture | 1,009.03 Manufacturing, arts and trades | 855.78 Commerce, transport, navigation and fishing | 1,677.46 Domestic service | 410.96 Employees, liberal professions, capitalists, pensioners| 288.58 =======================================================+============================

These figures show that in Italy also the capitalists and liberal professions furnish a figure for criminality below that of the other groups. The same is true of the following table:

Italy, 1891–1895. [621]

==============================+================================================ | Convicts. |Annual Average to the 100,000 of the Population. Groups of Professions. +-----------------------+------------------------ | Proprietors or | Dependents. | Managers. | ------------------------------+-----------------------+------------------------ Agriculture | 307.43 | 1,368.99 Manufacturing, arts and trades| 678.56 | 861.57 Commerce | 1,278.11 | 1,585.03 ==============================+=======================+========================

The following table is more detailed for certain occupations:

Italy, 1891–1895. [622]

==================================================+============================ | Convicts. +---------------------------- |Annual Average to 100,000 of | Population. Occupations. +--------------+------------- |Proprietors or| Dependents. | Managers. | +--------------+------------- | Men. --------------------------------------------------+--------------+------------- Building trade | 1,654.52 | 1,895.18 {textile, mechanical, } | | Manufacturing {chemical, alimentary,} | 837.80 | 1,443.22 {arts and trades } | | Shoemaking | 1,080.95 | 2,254.63 Meat business | 3,925.95 | 3,900.61 Cafés, etc. | 1,542.12 | 914.68 Sale of food and fuel | 1,035.58 | 2,411.66 Other kinds of commerce | 1,649.80 | 1,383.12 Navigation, fishing | 259.11 | 1.769.94 --------------------------------------------------+--------------+------------- | Women. --------------------------------------------------+--------------+------------- Manufacturing {mines, building, tobacco, textile,}| 133.70 | 193.38 {alimentary, arts and trades }| | Seamstresses, dressmakers, milliners | 285.00 | 138.15 Sale of food and fuel | 460.46 | 511.49 Other kinds of commerce | 2,403.88 | 3,113.34 ==================================================+==============+=============

We have now arrived at the end of our observations upon occupations among criminals. Other statistics are available, but either it is impossible to compare them with statistics of the non-criminal population, or they are without significance for some other reason. At any rate it seems to me that those I have given are enough to show that proportionately the non-possessors are more guilty of crime than the possessors. [623]

The thesis set forth above is confirmed, then, in three different ways. The question still remains to be answered, to what must we attribute the greater criminality among the non-possessors?

As was remarked at the beginning of this section (on the egoistic tendency of the present economic system, and its consequences), there are three questions which present themselves in connection with the etiology of crime; first, what is the origin of the criminal idea? Second, what are the forces in man which prevent this idea from coming to realization? Third, the occasion for committing the crime. For the moment we shall concern ourselves with the second question only; and we shall ask ourselves the question, is the explanation that these forces are weaker with non-possessors than with others? It is very difficult, if not impossible, to give an answer to this question, for it is very complicated. In the first place it is necessary to prove that the environment of the non-possessors arouses thoughts for which that of the possessors offers no place. The circumstances in which the well-to-do live are in general of such a nature that the moral force has no need of offering combat, since the criminal thought does not exist. For example, in economic offenses one of the principal provocatives of criminal ideas is poverty, which is unknown to the bourgeoisie. It follows that nothing definite can be said about the relative force of the moral sentiments in these two groups of the population in counteracting criminal ideas. Other examples could be added, and I am of the opinion that this influence of the environment will be by itself sufficient to explain the difference in the criminality of the two groups.

It is impossible to decide with certainty whether, aside from the above-mentioned influence of the environment, the present economic system and its consequences have a harmful influence upon the social sentiments that is stronger in the case of non-possessors than it is in the case of possessors. It must be considered as certain (and the figures which I shall give farther along also show it) that the circumstances in which children and young people live among the proletariat is a cause of their being much more demoralized than the children of the bourgeoisie. The influences acting upon the adults of the two classes differ so much in nature and intensity that it is impossible to contrast their effects.

It is unnecessary to say that in what has preceded the possessing class has been contrasted with the proletariat alone, and not with the lower proletariat. It goes without saying that the environment in which the latter live makes them the class most destitute of the moral sense in the whole population.

c. Marriage. To form an idea as to whether there is a relation between crime and marriage, and in this case, as to what its nature is, we must have recourse to statistics. Almost all the criminal statistics give information upon the civil status of criminals (England is the sole exception, I believe).

We shall commence with:

Austria, 1881–1899. [624]

===================+======================================================== | Years. Status. +----------+----------+----------+-----+-----+-----+----- |1881-1885.|1886-1890.|1891-1895.|1896.|1897.|1898.|1899. -------------------+----------+----------+----------+-----+-----+-----+----- Unmarried | 56.8 | 59.9 | 60.7 | 62.2| 62.9| 61.7| 61.3 Married | 39.9 | 36.9 | 36.2 | 34.7| 34.1| 35.3| 35.3 Widowers and widows| 3.2 | 3.1 | 3.0 | 3.1| 3.0| 3.0| 3.3 ===================+==========+==========+==========+=====+=====+=====+=====

Here the unmarried are more numerous than the married. It is different, however, in a neighboring country:

Hungary, 1888. [625]

===================+================================= | To 100 Convicts. +----------------+---------------- Status. | Men. | Women. +--------+-------+--------+------- |Assizes.| Corr. |Assizes.| Corr. | |Tribun.| |Tribun. -------------------+--------+-------+--------+------- Unmarried | 42.89 | 32.99 | 33.51 | 18.03 Married | 54.66 | 62.31 | 53.08 | 69.29 Widowers and widows| 2.36 | 4.06 | 13.08 | 11.46 Divorced | 0.09 | 0.64 | 0.33 | 1.22 ===================+========+=======+========+=======

Here, then, the married persons far outnumber the unmarried. However, neither of these tables has much value, for first, nothing shows that from the total number of the unmarried those who have not yet reached marriageable age has been subtracted, and second, the corresponding figures for the non-criminal population are lacking, so that a comparison of the two is impossible.

In these respects the following figures are better:

Italy, 1891–1895. [626]

====================+==================================== |Annual Average Number (of Criminals) Status. | to 100,000 of the Population in | Each Group over 14. --------------------+------------------------------------ Unmarried | 978.47 Married | 622.27 Widowers and widows | 291.84 ====================+====================================

But as the Hungarian figures have already shown it is necessary to make a division for sexes, for first, women have a much lower figure for criminality than men, and second, the whole population is not equally divided between men and women.

The defects so far noted have been avoided in the following tables:

France, 1881–1900. [627]

====================+=============================================== |To 100,000 of the Same State of Life there were | accused at the Assizes: Status. +-----------------------+----------------------- | Men. | Women. +-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- | 1881-1885.| 1896-1900.| 1881-1885.| 1896-1900. --------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- Unmarried | 62 | 41 | 8 | 5 Married | 18 | 12 | 3 | 2 Widowers and widows | 24 | 14 | 5 | 3 ====================+===========+===========+===========+===========

Netherlands, 1899. [628]

==========================+===============================+============================= | Men. | Women. +-------------------------------+----------------------------- | To 100 Men | To 100 Male | To 100 | To 100 Status. |of Marriageable| Convicts of | Women of |Female Convicts | Age | Marriageable |Marriageable|of Marriageable | there were: |Age there were:| Age there |Age there were: | | | were: | --------------------------+---------------+---------------+------------+---------------- Unmarried | 34.8 | 59.1 | 36.2 | 36.7 Married | 58.8 | 36.7 | 52.4 | 52.6 Widowers, widows, divorced| 6.4 | 4.2 | 11.4 | 10.7 ==========================+===============+===============+============+================

Switzerland, 1892–1896. [629]

===================+===========================+=========================== | Men. | Women. +---------------+-----------+---------------+----------- Status. | To 100 of | To 100 | To 100 of | To 100 |Population Over| Prisoners |Population Over| Prisoners | 12 Yrs. Old |there were:| 12 Yrs. Old |there were: | there were: | | there were: | -------------------+---------------+-----------+---------------+----------- Unmarried | 49.3 | 64.0 | 45.7 | 48.5 Married | 44.8 | 26.6 | 41.9 | 33.0 Widowers and widows| 5.5 | 5.7 | 11.7 | 11.6 Divorced | 0.4 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 6.9 ===================+===============+===========+===============+===========

These tables show that the unmarried men (but not the women) are in general more criminal than the married. However it is necessary to be careful as to this point. All these tables fail to connect civil status with age, a fact which reduces their importance almost to nothing, first because the tendency to crime differs much with age; and secondly, because the percentage of married persons is not the same for different ages. It is, therefore, necessary to compare the married and the unmarried at the same age. The German statistics are the only ones which furnish the necessary materials, and the conclusions to be drawn from these are the only ones which give us certain information as to the relation between crime and marriage. These statistics have served as the basis for the two studies of Dr. Prinzing’s already quoted from which we take the following tables.

First the relation between marriage and crime among men. But it must first be remarked that married men are acquitted oftener than bachelors, as a consequence of which the unmarried men are made, in the tables, to seem more criminal than they are—as the following table shows:

Germany, 1886–1890. [630]

========+======================================================= |Number Acquitted out of 100 Accused of Each Category of | Age and Civil Status. Age. +------------------+----------------+------------------- | Unmarried. | Married. | Widowers and | | | Divorced. --------+------------------+----------------+------------------- 18-21 | 15.0 | 20.7 | 21-25 | 15.8 | 18.4 | 25-30 | 15.9 | 20.1 | 16.1 30-40 | 15.1 | 22.3 | 16.0 40-50 | 13.4 | 23.7 | 15.2 50-60 | 13.4 | 24.9 | 18.0 Over 60 | 14.2 | 28.1 | 22.3 ========+==================+================+===================

Germany, 1888. [631]

Crimes in General.

=======+======================================================= |Number of Convicts to 100,000 Persons of Each Category. Age. +--------------+------------+-----------------+--------- | Unmarried. | Married. | Wid. and Div. | Total. -------+--------------+------------+-----------------+--------- 18-21 | 2,994.5 | 5,413.0 | | 3,009.2 21-25 | 3,107.0 | 3,566.3 | | 3,163.8 25-30 | 2,950.9 | 2,504.7 | 4,273.7 | 2,746.7 30-40 | 2,880.9 | 1,961.2 | 3,797.2 | 2,171.5 40-50 | 2,205.7 | 1,487.8 | 2,626.3 | 1,599.8 50-60 | 1,241.9 | 1,009.8 | 1,267.8 | 1,052.5 Over 60| 494.6 | 490.1 | 342.7 | 450.5 =======+==============+============+=================+=========

It appears then from this table, first, that in general the bachelors commit more crimes than the married men; second, that the contrary is true of the period between 18 and 25; third, that the criminality of married men is very great.

The following figures have to do with some important economic crimes. [632]

Simple Theft.

=======+==========+========+==========+====== | | |Widowers, | Age. |Unmarried.|Married.|Widows and|Total. | | |Divorced. | -------+----------+--------+----------+------ 18-21 | 551.7 |1,418.3 | | 555.3 21-25 | 427.7 | 685.9 | 627.2 | 457.7 25-30 | 382.6 | 412.6 | 572.1 | 398.5 30-40 | 411.9 | 296.9 | 550.0 | 323.0 40-50 | 365.0 | 216.2 | 420.0 | 237.4 50-60 | 233.1 | 151.6 | 231.1 | 164.6 Over 60| 109.2 | 84.0 | 67.2 | 81.2 =======+==========+========+==========+======

It is, then, in the period between 18 and 30 that married persons are more often guilty of theft than the unmarried; after 30 the parts are changed, except that under the last two age-classes the widows, widowers, and divorced persons show high figures.

Embezzlements. [633]

=======+==========+========+==========+====== | | |Widowers, | Age. |Unmarried.|Married.|Widows and|Total. | | |Divorced. | -------+----------+--------+----------+------ 18-21 | 123.2 | 338.7 | | 124.4 21-25 | 131.6 | 163.6 | 295.6 | 135.5 25-30 | 139.7 | 109.8 | 291.6 | 126.1 30-40 | 161.8 | 86.1 | 279.6 | 103.4 40-50 | 128.0 | 61.1 | 168.8 | 71.3 50-60 | 66.2 | 37.7 | 71.3 | 42.7 Over 60| 28.3 | 16.6 | 13.9 | 16.7 =======+==========+========+==========+======

In this crime also there is a greater criminality among married persons between 18 and 25 than among the unmarried, and the opposite for the later periods. The situation is entirely different in the case of the crime which follows: [634]

Fraudulent Bankruptcy.

=======+==========+========+==========+====== | | |Widowers, | Age. |Unmarried.|Married.|Widows and|Total. | | |Divorced. | -------+----------+--------+----------+------ 18-21 | 0.3 | 33.9 | | 0.3 21-25 | 3.3 | 21.3 | | 4.5 25-30 | 3.9 | 14.8 | | 9.8 30-40 | 4.3 | 9.9 | 15.9 | 9.0 40-50 | 2.2 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 6.2 50-60 | 1.1 | 4.0 | 4.1 | 3.7 Over 60| 0.4 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.5 =======+==========+========+==========+======

Here we have a higher degree of criminality among the married persons of all ages.

It is unnecessary to give the figures for all the economic crimes and it will be enough simply to give the general results for the rest. Unmarried persons are guilty of the following crimes more often than married persons: aggravated theft (at all ages); robbery and extortion (except between the ages of 21 and 25); fraud and criminal breach of trust (except between the ages of 21 and 25); forgery (except between 21 and 25, and over 60); and counterfeiting. The following offenses are more often committed by married persons than by unmarried: being accessory to theft, and receiving stolen goods (except between 30 and 40); violation of secrets; usury; and procuration. It must be added that widows, widowers and divorced persons show very high figures for economic offenses.

As to sexual crimes we have the following figures: [635]

=======+====================================++==================================== | Incest. || Debauching through Abuse of | || Confidence. +----------+--------+---------+------++----------+--------+---------+------ Age. |Unmarried.|Married.| Widows | ||Unmarried.|Married.| Widows | | | | and |Total.|| | | and |Total. | | |Divorced.| || | |Divorced.| -------+----------+--------+---------+------++----------+--------+---------+------ 18-21 | 0.7 | | | 0.7 || 0.03 | | | 0.03 21-25 | 0.8 | 1.4 | | 0.9 || 0.20 | 0.4 | | 0.20 25-30 | 1.0 | 0.9 | | 1.0 || 0.30 | 0.3 | | 0.30 30-40 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 22.7 | 1.7 || 0.20 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 0.40 40-50 | 0.9 | 1.7 | 26.3 | 2.5 || 0.40 | 0.4 | 1.2 | 0.50 50-60 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 12.4 | 2.1 || 0.20 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.30 Over 60| 0.2 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.8 || | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 =======+==========+========+=========+======++==========+========+=========+======

Consequently, as regards these crimes, the married persons are more often guilty than the unmarried, but the widowers, widows and divorced persons occupy the first rank.

=======+======================================= | Rape, Etc.[636] Age. +----------+--------+------------+------ |Unmarried.|Married.|Widowers and|Total. | | | Divorced. | -------+----------+--------+------------+------ 21-25 | 26.3 | 24.1 | | 26.1 25-30 | 26.2 | 15.7 | | 21.2 30-40 | 39.7 | 12.8 | 61.4 | 18.6 40-50 | 44.5 | 9.9 | 56.2 | 14.8 50-60 | 36.8 | 8.4 | 28.3 | 12.3 60-70 | 28.3 | 6.8 | 18.7 | 11.1 Over 70| 18.7 | 5.6 | 10.3 | 8.6 =======+==========+========+============+======

Here the unmarried persons are guilty oftener than those married, and widowers and divorced persons oftenest of all. As for debauch contrary to nature it is the unmarried persons who are the most often guilty.

Here, finally, are figures for the more important remaining crimes:

=======+====================================================== | Rebellion.[637] +------------+----------+------------------+----------- Age. | | | Widowers, Widows | | Unmarried. | Married. | and Divorced. | Total. -------+------------+----------+------------------+----------- 18-21 | 130.5 | 211.7 | -- | 130.8 21-25 | 199.0 | 143.6 | -- | 192.0 25-30 | 228.2 | 113.8 | 258.0 | 174.2 30-40 | 262.6 | 83.1 | 236.2 | 119.4 40-50 | 206.6 | 55.6 | 160.4 | 73.6 50-60 | 92.0 | 34.2 | 59.6 | 40.8 Over 60| 25.2 | 14.5 | 11.2 | 14.3 =======+============+==========+==================+============

=============================================================== | Insults.[638] +------------+----------+------------------+------------ Age. | | | Widowers and | | Unmarried. | Married. | Divorced. | Total. -------+------------+----------+------------------+------------ 18-21 | 111.1 | 444.5 | -- | 112.5 21-25 | 173.3 | 279.0 | 448.0 | 186.7 25-30 | 222.9 | 270.6 | 381.4 | 249.3 30-40 | 277.4 | 316.2 | 377.3 | 312.8 40-50 | 240.7 | 311.3 | 317.3 | 307.3 50-60 | 158.1 | 237.7 | 187.5 | 229.4 Over 60| 66.4 | 122.9 | 66.6 | 103.7 =======+============+==========+==================+============

Here the married persons have the highest figures at all ages.

=======+======================================================= | Assaults.[639] Age. +------------+----------+------------------+------------ | Unmarried. | Married.| Widowers and | | | | Divorced. | Total. -------+------------+----------+------------------+------------ 18-21 | 1,084.2 | 1,778.2 | -- | 1,087.3 21-25 | 1,132.5 | 1,051.5 | 1,344.0 | 1,124.1 25-30 | 904.6 | 692.9 | 964.7 | 803.3 30-40 | 552.6 | 434.1 | 602.3 | 459.7 40-50 | 262.9 | 268.1 | 316.1 | 269.6 50-60 | 117.7 | 161.9 | 144.6 | 157.2 Over 60| 43.5 | 68.6 | 40.9 | 59.0 =======+============+==========+==================+============

The unmarried show in general higher figures than the married persons (except for the period between 18 and 21).

=======+========================================= | Murder and Homicide.[640] +-----------+---------+------------+------ Age. |Unmarried. |Married. |Widowers and|Total. | | | Divorced. | -------+-----------+---------+------------+------ 18-21 | 2.2 | | | 2.2 21-25 | 3.1 | 2.1 | | 3.0 25-30 | 3.1 | 2.0 | | 2.6 30-40 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 13.6 | 1.9 40-50 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 6.0 | 1.9 50-60 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 0.7 Over 60| 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 =======+===========+=========+============+======

Here it is the widowers, widows and divorced persons who are most involved, and then the unmarried.

For some other crimes we shall give only the results. Married persons are more often guilty of the following crimes than the unmarried; domiciliary trespass (except between 25 and 50); perjury (except between 21 and 25, and between 30 and 40) and other offenses against the obligation of taking oath; false accusation; unintentional homicide (except between 25 and 30); offenses against personal liberty (except between 30 and 50); and crimes and misdemeanors committed by public officials.

For the following crimes, on the other hand, the unmarried hold the first rank: offenses against public worship (except between 21 and 25); malicious mischief (except between 18 and 21); and arson. It is to be noted that for nearly all the above the widowers, widows and divorced persons show very high figures.

After an examination of the results found it is impossible to say that the married persons show absolutely a criminality less in degree than that of the unmarried; there is a variation for offenses as well as for ages. Only considered in general, the tendency to crime is less in the case of the married than of the unmarried.

As the following figures prove the connection between crime and marriage is quite different in the case of women. It is necessary, however, to show the following table before giving figures in support of this assertion.

Germany, 1886–1890. [641]

=======+======================================================= |Number of Acquittals to 100 Accused Persons of Each Age Age. | Group. +----------------+--------------+----------------------- | Unmarried. | Married. | Widowed and Divorced. -------+----------------+--------------+----------------------- 18-21 | 15.1 | 25.6 | 21-25 | 16.8 | 24.5 | 24.1 25-30 | 16.7 | 24.2 | 19.7 30-40 | 17.3 | 23.4 | 19.6 40-50 | 18.2 | 24.2 | 21.7 50-60 | 18.2 | 25.8 | 24.4 Over 60| 19.8 | 27.0 | 27.7 =======+================+==============+=======================

As in the case of men there are, then, a greater percentage of acquittals among the married than among the unmarried.

Germany, 1882–1893. [642]

Crimes in General.

=======+========================================================== |To 100,000 Persons of Each Age Group there were Sentenced: Age. +------------------+----------------+---------------------- | Unmarried. | Married. | Widowed and | | | Divorced. -------+------------------+----------------+---------------------- 18-21 | 415.2 | 602.5 | 21-25 | 417.5 | 469.9 | 1339.3 25-30 | 440.7 | 454.5 | 1149.2 30-40 | 446.2 | 500.0 | 1029.9 40-50 | 334.7 | 468.2 | 709.9 50-60 | 221.5 | 299.5 | 369.2 Over 60| 102.2 | 133.4 | 111.2 =======+==================+================+======================

While married women of all ages lead the unmarried in general criminality, the highest figures are shown by the widows and divorcées.

The following tables have to do with the more important crimes, beginning with those affecting property: [643]

Simple Theft.

=======+==========+========+==========+====== Age. |Unmarried.|Married.|Widows and|Total. | | |Divorcées.| -------+----------+--------+----------+------ 18-21 | 210.6 | 209.3 | |210.6 21-25 | 177.1 | 147.8 | 385.7 |169.3 25-30 | 158.5 | 132.0 | 318.5 |144.0 30-40 | 136.6 | 127.1 | 265.9 |135.1 40-50 | 92.2 | 104.0 | 175.9 |111.6 50-60 | 61.2 | 64.4 | 88.6 | 70.3 Over 60| 32.0 | 31.1 | 28.0 | 29.5 =======+==========+========+==========+======

The married women show, then, figures a little lower than those of the unmarried women, except between 40 and 60, and the widows and divorcées give the highest figures.

=======+===========================+=========================== | Embezzlement. | Receiving Stolen Goods. Age. +------+----+--------+------+------+----+--------+------ |Unmar.|Mar.|Wid. and|Total.|Unmar.|Mar.|Wid. and|Total. | | | Div. | | | | Div. | -------+------+----+--------+------+------+----+--------+------ 18-21 | 25.3 |35.2| | 25.8 | 9.2 |33.7| | 10.7 21-25 | 25.9 |23.4| 92.8 | 25.4 | 10.6 |26.3| 48.2 | 15.3 25-30 | 26.0 |20.3| 80.7 | 23.2 | 12.6 |23.9| 52.4 | 20.2 30-40 | 25.3 |21.6| 63.4 | 24.2 | 17.2 |32.6| 61.3 | 31.4 40-50 | 18.6 |18.3| 40.3 | 21.1 | 16.1 |36.4| 56.4 | 36.6 50-60 | 11.0 |10.3| 17.2 | 12.2 | 11.4 |22.6| 29.6 | 23.3 Over 60| 4.4 | 4.3| 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 8.8| 7.4 | 7.6 =======+======+====+========+======+======+====+========+======

Under the head of “embezzlement” the unmarried women show figures a little higher than those of the married women (except between 18 and 21); in the crime of receiving stolen goods the married women are more guilty than the unmarried; while in both offenses it is the widows and divorcées who lead.

Procuration.

=======+==========+========+=============+====== Age. |Unmarried.|Married.|Wid. and Div.|Total. -------+----------+--------+-------------+------ 18-21 | 0.6 | 5.2 | | 0.9 21-25 | 2.1 | 8.2 | 33.8 | 3.9 25-30 | 6.4 | 10.1 | 47.5 | 9.2 30-40 | 10.9 | 11.7 | 47.3 | 13.2 40-50 | 7.6 | 9.7 | 28.4 | 11.7 50-60 | 3.5 | 4.5 | 10.4 | 5.9 Over 60| 1.1 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 2.2 =======+==========+========+=============+======

Here also the highest figures are found with the widows and divorcées and the lowest with the unmarried women. In the following economic offenses it is the married women who are oftenest guilty: aggravated theft (except between 18 and 21 and after 60); fraudulent bankruptcy; forgery (except between 25 and 50); and violation of secrets. We must once more note that the widows and divorcées show very high figures.

As to sexual crime we have the following:

=======+======================================= | Incest. Age. +-----------+---------+----------+------ |Unmarried. |Married. |Widows and|Total. | | |Divorcées.| -------+-----------+---------+----------+------ 18-21 | 2.7 | 1.4 | | 2.6 21-25 | 2.1 | 0.6 | | 1.7 25-30 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 8.0 | 1.1 30-40 | 2.5 | 0.2 | 6.2 | 0.8 40-50 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 0.3 50-60 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 Over 60| 0.1 | 0.02 | 0.1 | 0.07 =======+===========+=========+==========+======

Here the widows and divorcées are at the head and the married women last. The other sexual crimes give figures for women too small to be of any value for our purpose.

Certain of the crimes which remain show the following figures:

=======+===================================== | Insults. Age. +----------+--------+----------+------ |Unmarried.|Married.|Widows and|Total. | | |Divorcées.| -------+----------+--------+----------+------ 18-21 | 24.3 | 88.5 | | 27.9 21-25 | 34.9 | 85.7 | 157.1 | 50.0 25-30 | 44.2 | 99.8 | 137.1 | 76.7 30-40 | 57.3 | 116.8 | 138.4 | 108.1 40-50 | 58.4 | 121.4 | 121.7 | 114.5 50-60 | 43.6 | 84.8 | 77.1 | 78.5 Over 60| 22.4 | 38.3 | 26.7 | 30.2 =======+==========+========+==========+======

The highest figures are those for widows and divorcées (except over 50), and the lowest for the unmarried.

=======+======================================= | Domiciliary Trespass. +-----------+---------+----------+------ Age. |Unmarried. |Married. |Widows and|Total. | | |Divorcées.| -------+-----------+---------+----------+------ 18-21 | 5.4 | 16.9 | | 6.0 21-25 | 6.9 | 13.3 | 28.6 | 8.9 25-30 | 8.6 | 15.2 | 28.2 | 13.0 30-40 | 11.1 | 21.2 | 32.7 | 20.1 40-50 | 10.6 | 23.9 | 27.2 | 22.8 50-60 | 6.2 | 15.3 | 15.9 | 14.4 Over 60| 3.0 | 6.0 | 4.2 | 4.7 =======+===========+=========+==========+======

The highest figures are for the widows and divorcées, the lowest for the unmarried.

=======+======================================= | Assaults. Age. +-----------+---------+----------+------ |Unmarried. |Married. |Widows and|Total. | | |Divorcées.| -------+-----------+---------+----------+------ 18-21 | 20.4 | 67.5 | | 23.0 21-25 | 24.9 | 61.1 | 96.4 | 35.7 25-30 | 29.8 | 58.7 | 88.9 | 48.3 30-40 | 29.9 | 61.0 | 70.2 | 56.4 40-50 | 21.3 | 55.3 | 46.8 | 50.4 50-60 | 13.9 | 33.9 | 25.7 | 29.5 Over 60| 7.0 | 14.2 | 8.6 | 10.4 =======+===========+=========+==========+======

Here the highest figures are those for the married women except between the ages of 21 and 40 when they fall to the widows and divorcées.

=======+===================================== | Crimes against the Life of a Child. Age. +----------+--------+----------+------ |Unmarried.|Married.|Widows and|Total. | | |Divorcées.| -------+----------+--------+----------+------ 18-21 | 5.6 | 4.3 | | 5.5 21-25 | 9.8 | 1.7 | 7.1 | 7.4 25-30 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 16.1 | 4.5 30-40 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 12.5 | 2.4 40-50 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 3.4 | 1.2 50-60 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 Over 60| 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 =======+==========+========+==========+======

In this regard the widows and divorcées show the greatest criminality, the married women the lowest.

Finally, we may add the results for some other crimes. The married women are more guilty than the unmarried in the following: rebellion [644] (except between 21 and 40); violation of factory laws; crimes against individual liberty; and malicious mischief (except between 25 and 40). In the following the unmarried women lead the married: perjury, false accusation, homicide and murder (except for the ages over 50), unintentional homicide (except after 50), and arson. It is to be noted that the widows and divorcées are at the head.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the married woman commits more crimes than the unmarried, but that this does not apply to all crimes nor to all ages.

So much for the figures themselves; now for their explanation.

It is very difficult, in examining the influence of marriage upon criminality, to separate the moral consequences from other factors. We are mistaken, for example, if we attribute to the moral influence of marriage the fact that married persons are less often guilty of the great majority of economic crimes than the unmarried. The fact that anyone marries is ordinarily an indication that he is in a material situation more or less good. The danger that he will commit an economic offense becomes, then, much less great than when he is in a less comfortable condition. The correctness of this position is clearly shown by the statistics given, according to which married men still young give a higher figure than that furnished by the bachelors. The reason is that proletarians marry while still young. The material cares of these husbands are then much greater than later on when their children have already left home, or are at least earning their own living. [645] If we examine the figures for insults we shall see that married men and women both are more guilty than the unmarried. It would be very erroneous to conclude that marriage increases the tendency to this offense. The explanation is to be found in the fact that when a single dwelling (or barrack rather) is the common habitation of several workmen’s families, living conditions easily become a permanent source of disputes. In this case it is not marriage but bad housing conditions which appear as a factor in the etiology of crime. If it were possible to separate these conditions or these material consequences of marriage from its moral consequences, the difference between the criminality of the married and the unmarried would not appear very great. Especially is this true if we keep sight of the fact that the bourgeoisie generally marry at a more advanced age than the proletariat. This brings it about that there are more of the bourgeois among the older married people than among the younger; and since, from other causes, the bourgeoisie commit fewer crimes than the proletariat, the influence of marriage seems greater here than it really is.

As for the criminality of women it must be noted that the unmarried women of the bourgeoisie represent a greater proportion of the whole number of unmarried women than the women of this class do of women in general. And since from other causes the criminality of the women of this last class is very small, marriage seems to have a less favorable effect than it really has.

As for the consequences of marriage upon morality, I believe they are the following. In the first place marriage has a tendency to increase the feeling of responsibility, especially if there are children. Then when man and wife understand one another, when they are happy in their union, no one will deny that marriage has a strong moral influence, for, according to the proverb, happy people are not wicked. The proof of this is that married men participate less than bachelors in the crimes of rebellion, assault, homicide, murder, etc., while widowers are more often guilty of them, becoming addicted to alcohol after the death of their wives, or becoming demoralized in other ways. However, it would be more accurate to speak of the moral influence of love than of marriage in the sense of legal monogamy. Happy married couples do not owe their happiness to the legal sanction. Without it their happiness would be as great. On the other hand if the couple is ill-assorted for one reason or another, then marriage has a very demoralizing influence. Legal monogamy comes into play in such cases by rendering difficult the separation of persons who do not understand each other, or of whom one or the other conducts himself badly.

The great power of a man over his wife, as a consequence of his economic preponderance, may equally be a demoralizing cause. It is certain that there will always be abuse of power on the part of a number of those whom social circumstances have clothed with a certain authority. How many women there are who now have to endure the coarseness and bad treatment of their husbands, but would not hesitate to leave them if their economic dependence and the law did not prevent. Holmes, the author of “Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts”, who for years saw all the unfortunates who came before these tribunals, says in this connection: “A good number of Englishmen seem to think they have as perfect a right to thrash or kick their wives as the American had to ‘lick his nigger.’ Yes, and some of these fellows are completely astonished when a magistrate ventures to hold a different opinion. I well remember a great hulking fellow, with a leg-of-mutton fist, being charged with assaulting a policeman. After all the evidence had been given, the magistrate inquired whether the prisoner had been previously charged. ‘Yes, your worship, he was here two months ago, charged with assaulting a female.’ As the prisoner declared this was false, and indignantly denied that he had ever assaulted a female, the gaoler brought in his book and proved the conviction. The prisoner then looked up in astonishment, and said: ‘Oh, why, it was only my own wife!’ Only their own wives; but how those wives suffer! Is there any misery equal to theirs, any slavery to compare with theirs? If so, I never heard of it. I have seen thousands of them, and their existence is our shame and degradation.” [646]

Further it goes without saying that a marriage entered into for reasons of self-interest is demoralizing.

Although the above consequences of marriage must be mentioned, that our discussion may be as complete as possible, and although they may have a certain importance for the etiology of crime, yet their influence is not very great. There are causes of criminality much more important, which may put those that have been named entirely in the shade. [647]

Before taking up the criminal consequences of the family, I am of the opinion that this is the best place to fix our attention for a moment upon the criminality of women. In treating above of the origin of marriage as it exists today, we have at the same time spoken of the social position of woman.

d. The criminality of women. In order to give an idea of its extent and nature we must begin with some statistics.

Germany, 1886–1895. [648]

=======================================+================================= |To 100,000 Persons Over 12 of the | Same Sex, There was an Average Crimes. | Number of Persons Sentenced of: +----------------+---------------- | Men. | Women. ---------------------------------------+----------------+---------------- Simple theft | 352.49 | 132.25 Aggravated theft | 57.95 | 7.19 Embezzlement | 80.97 | 18.25 Robbery and extortion | 2.44 | 0.10 Receiving stolen goods | 28.21 | 16.33 Fraud | 88.06 | 19.50 Forgery | 18.78 | 3.75 Perjury | 6.83 | 2.31 Threats | 46.36 | 2.65 Procuration | 5.21 | 7.23 Rape, etc. | 20.63 | 0.15 Insults | 204.32 | 69.52 Domiciliary trespass | 90.38 | 12.25 Malicious mischief | 80.37 | 4.85 Arson | 2.43 | 0.54 Violence and threats against officials | 77.45 | 5.90 Minor assaults | 118.30 | 12.71 Serious assaults | 256.86 | 25.99 Murder | 0.56 | 0.13 Homicide | 0.75 | 0.15 Crimes in general | 1847.03 | 380.42 =======================================+================+================

This table shows that women have a general criminality from 4 to 5 times less than that of men. The figure for women exceeds that for men in the case of one crime only, procuration; for the others it is smaller, and for some very small (e.g. assaults, assassination, etc.). The following table gives an idea still clearer and more detailed.

Germany, 1896. [649]

============================================+====================+=============== | Number of Persons | |Convicted to 100,000| Number of Crimes. | of Same Sex. |Women Convicted +---------+----------+ to Each 100 | Men. | Women. | Men Convicted. --------------------------------------------+---------+----------+--------------- Abandonment of children | 0.02 | 0.1 | 800.0 Abortion | 0.4 | 1.7 | 437.3 Procuration | 6.0 | 9.2 | 167.7 Receiving stolen goods (repeated recidivism)| 0.07 | 0.1 | 158.3 ,, ,, ,, (simple) | 26.5 | 13.1 | 53.9 Simple theft | 274.6 | 100.8 | 40.1 Perjury | 3.1 | 1.2 | 38.7 Insults | 223.7 | 76.5 | 34.2 Simple theft (repeated recidivism) | 51.7 | 14.4 | 30.5 Homicide | 0.5 | 0.1 | 22.0 Arson | 2.2 | 0.5 | 21.8 Embezzlement | 85.6 | 17.6 | 20.6 Fraud | 101.7 | 20.4 | 20.1 Crimes in general | 2177.07 | 388.9 | 17.9 Extortion | 3.0 | 0.4 | 14.3 Aggravated theft | 45.0 | 5.6 | 13.5 Domiciliary trespass | 103.8 | 12.3 | 11.8 Minor assaults | 138.3 | 15.4 | 11.1 Aggravated theft (repeated recidivism) | 14.4 | 1.2 | 9.1 Serious assaults | 448.4 | 32.8 | 7.3 Violence, etc. against officials | 88.3 | 5.6 | 6.3 Violence and threats | 60.7 | 3.6 | 5.9 Malicious mischief | 93.6 | 5.4 | 5.8 Robbery | 2.4 | 0.07 | 2.9 Crimes against morals upon children | 25.3 | 0.2 | 0.7 ============================================+=========+==========+===============

The country upon which we are about to fix our attention is:

England and Wales, 1893–1900. [650]

======+======================================================= | Number of Women to the 100 Persons Sentenced for: Years.+-----------------------------+------------------------- |Offenses tried on Indictment.|Offenses tried Summarily. ------+-----------------------------+------------------------- 1893 | 13.07 | 23.39 1894 | 12.95 | 23.50 1895 | 13.26 | 23.94 1896 | 11.75 | 23.58 1897 | 12.00 | 23.99 1898 | 11.82 | 23.66 1899 | 11.70 | 23.89 1900 | 11.51 | 24.67 ======+=============================+=========================

When we examine this table, as well as the one that follows, it must be noted that the women constitute more than half of the population (51.5% according to the census of 1901). [651]

The following table shows the relative proportion for the more important groups of offenses:

England and Wales, 1893–1894. [652]

==========================================+========================= | Number of Women to | 100 Persons Sentenced. Crimes. +-------------+----------- | 1893. | 1894. ------------------------------------------+-------------+----------- Abortion and failure to report birth | 91 | 86 Kidnapping and cruelty to children | 70 | 57 Counterfeiting, etc. | 18 | 21 Malicious mischief | 15 | 20 Crimes against property without violence | 19 | 19 Other crimes | 16 | 16 Crimes of violence against persons | 11 | 13 Robbery and extortion | 10 | 11 Forgery | 9 | 8 Domiciliary trespass, etc. | 3 | 4 Sexual crimes | 4 | 3 ==========================================+=============+===========

These statistics show, then, that in England also the criminality of women is not as great as that of men. However there is great divergence in the crimes taken separately.

Austria, 1899. [653]

============================+========================== | Of 100 Convicted of Each | Crime there were: Crimes. +------------+------------- | Men. | Women. ----------------------------+------------+------------- Abandonment of children | 7.1 | 92.8 Abortion | 10.7 | 89.2 Murder | 69.6 | 30.3 Fraud | 79.1 | 20.8 Theft | 80.4 | 19.5 Defamation | 80.9 | 19.0 Arson | 85.2 | 14.7 Crimes in general | 86.1 | 13.9 Rebellion | 89.5 | 10.4 Leze-majesty | 91.6 | 8.3 Criminal breach of trust | 93.4 | 6.5 Crime against religion | 94.8 | 5.1 Robbery | 95.1 | 4.8 Serious assaults | 95.8 | 4.1 Sexual crime | 96.7 | 3.2 Malicious mischief | 96.8 | 3.1 Homicide | 97.3 | 2.6 Blackmail | 97.4 | 2.5 ============================+============+=============

In connection with this table we must note that, according to the census of 1890, 51.6% of the population over 14 are women.

France, 1881–1900 (Persons accused). [654]

=========================+================+================+================+================ | 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896-1900. +-----------+----+-----------+----+-----------+----+-----------+---- | Average | | Average | | Average | | Average | | Annual | % | Annual | % | Annual | % | Annual | % | Number. | | Number. | | Number. | | Number. | -------------------------+-----------+----+-----------+----+-----------+----+-----------+---- Before the Assizes: | | | | | | | | Men | 3,767 | 86 | 3,589 | 85 | 3,389 | 84 | 2,900 | 85 Women | 615 | 14 | 646 | 15 | 631 | 16 | 500 | 15 -------------------------+-----------+----+-----------+----+-----------+----+-----------+---- Before the Correctional | | | | | | | | Tribunals: | | | | | | | | Men | 162,573 | 86 | 172,162 | 86 | 179,194 | 86 | 165,586 | 86 Women | 26,330 | 14 | 27,719 | 14 | 29,992 | 14 | 28,049 | 14 =========================+===========+====+===========+====+===========+====+===========+====

As the two following tables show, the part which women take in different crimes varies greatly, as in the countries cited above.

France, 1900 (Assizes). [655]

===============================================+============================= | To 100 Accused there where: Crimes. +--------------+-------------- | Men. | Women. -----------------------------------------------+--------------+-------------- Infanticide | 5 | 95 Abortion | 12 | 88 Domestic theft | 82 | 18 Murder | 84 | 16 Fraudulent bankruptcy | 84 | 16 Arson | 84 | 16 Counterfeiting | 85 | 15 Serious assault | 86 | 14 Crimes in general | 86 | 14 Homicide | 90 | 10 Other aggravated thefts | 91 | 9 Parricide | 92 | 8 Forgery | 92 | 8 Concealment or false attribution of parentage | 93 | 7 Rape and indecent assault upon children | 98 | 2 Breach of trust | 98 | 2 Theft with violence | 98 | 2 ===============================================+==============+==============

For the correctional tribunals the figures are as follows:

France, 1900 (Correctional Tribunals). [656]

================================+====================================== | To 100 Persons Arraigned there were: Offenses. +------------------+------------------- | Men. | Women. --------------------------------+------------------+------------------- Concealment of parentage | 5 | 95 Offenses against chastity | 29 | 71 Adultery | 50 | 50 Defamation and insult | 75 | 25 Theft | 80 | 20 Fraud | 83 | 17 Offenses against public decency | 85 | 15 All offenses | 87 | 13 Criminal breach of trust | 88 | 12 Assaults | 89 | 11 Mendicity | 89 | 11 Domiciliary trespass | 91 | 9 Rebellion | 92 | 8 Vagrancy | 95 | 5 ================================+==================+===================

It is only in some few crimes that women play a larger part than men (infanticide, abortion, concealment of parentage, offenses against chastity—including procuration); in all others they play a smaller part, and in some cases much smaller, than the men.

We turn now to Italy:

Italy, 1884–1895. [657]

=======+=========================================================================== | Number of Women Convicted. +-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+--------------------- Years. | Justices of the | Correctional | Assizes. | Total. | Peace. | Tribunals. | | +---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+-------- | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % -------+---------+-------+---------+-------+---------+-------+------------+-------- 1884 | 46,683 | 18.31 | -- | -- | 304 | 6.00 | -- | -- 1885 | 48,063 | 17.58 | -- | -- | 304 | 5.91 | -- | -- 1886 | 51,199 | 18.23 | -- | -- | 297 | 6.38 | -- | -- 1887 | 45,598 | 17.58 | 4,690 | 9.30 | 265 | 5.11 | 50,553 | 16.05 1888 | 49,125 | 17.38 | 4,482 | 8.56 | 290 | 5.81 | 53,897 | 15.86 1889 | 53,690 | 18.38 | 4,910 | 9.08 | 272 | 5.68 | 58,872[658]| 16.78 1890 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 23,984 | 18.29 1891 | | | | | | | 26,182 | 18.23 1892 | | | | | | | 25,638 | 17.21 1893 | | | | | | | 22,959 | 16.21 1894 | | | | | | | 26,274 | 17.34 1895 | | | | | | | 28,502 | 16.96 =======+=========+=======+=========+=======+=========+=======+============+========

The following table shows us to what extent the women are guilty of the different crimes:

Italy, 1891–1895. [659]

======================================================+========================== | To 100 Sentenced for | Each Offense there were: Offenses. +------------+------------- | Men. | Women. ------------------------------------------------------+------------+------------- Infanticide | 7.70 | 92.30 Procuration | 19.11 | 80.89 Abortion | 21.65 | 78.35 Defamation | 53.70 | 46.30 Insults | 54.78 | 45.22 Offenses against morals and order of the family | 58.27 | 41.73 Abandonment of children, abuse of means of correction | 62.85 | 37.15 Simple theft | 75.63 | 24.37 Fraud in commerce and industry | 79.46 | 20.54 Offenses in general | 82.81 | 17.19 Minor assaults | 83.32 | 16.68 Corruption of minors and offenses against decency | 84.80 | 15.20 Fraud, etc. | 85.74 | 14.26 Aggravated theft | 88.77 | 11.23 Threats | 90.68 | 9.32 Rebellion and insults to public officials | 90.95 | 9.05 Forgery | 92.49 | 7.51 Serious assaults | 93.61 | 6.39 Murder | 93.91 | 6.09 Counterfeit money | 95.02 | 4.98 Homicide | 96.74 | 3.26 Offenses against public order | 97.70 | 2.30 Robbery, etc. | 97.77 | 2.23 Rape, etc. | 99.04 | 0.96 ======================================================+============+=============

According to the census of 1901 the population over 9 years old consisted of 49.4% men and 50.6% women. [660]

Finally some figures for the Netherlands:

Netherlands, 1896–1900. [661]

========+==================================== | Number Sentenced. +-----------------+------------------ Years. | Men. | Women. +----------+------+----------+------- | Number. | % | Number. | % --------+----------+------+----------+------- 1896 | 13,964 | 89.6 | 1,625 | 10.4 1897 | 14,483 | 90.0 | 1,613 | 10.0 1898 | 14,018 | 89.5 | 1,646 | 10.5 1899 | 13,928 | 90.5 | 1,463 | 9.5 1900 | 13,234 | 91.3 | 1,254 | 8.7 ========+==========+======+==========+=======

Women participate in the different crimes in the following proportions:

Netherlands, 1901. [662]

================================================+============================== | To 100 Sentenced there were: Crimes. +--------------+--------------- | Men. | Women. ------------------------------------------------+--------------+--------------- Debauch of a minor (as principal or accessory) | 6.2 | 93.8 Simple insults | 64.9 | 35.1 Simple theft | 79.0 | 21.0 Fraud | 80.0 | 20.0 Offenses against public decency | 81.8 | 18.2 Homicide | 89.5 | 10.5 Aggravated theft | 90.5 | 9.5 Embezzlement | 91.1 | 8.9 Receiving stolen goods | 91.8 | 8.2 Forgery | 92.1 | 7.9 Assault | 93.5 | 6.5 Serious assault | 94.7 | 5.3 Malicious mischief | 95.5 | 4.5 Mendicity and vagrancy | 96.5 | 3.5 Assaults upon officials | 97.3 | 2.7 Domiciliary trespass | 98.1 | 1.9 Rebellion | 98.7 | 1.3 ================================================+==============+===============

The whole population being divided in 1901 into 50.5% women and 49.5% men, the figures given above make the criminality of woman appear a little greater than it really is.

Here, then, are the facts, which may be reduced to this, that in all the countries named the criminality of women is much less than that of men. However, it is greater than we should suppose from the figures, since almost all the figures (except those for France) have to do with persons convicted, and acquittal is much more common in the case of women than in that of men. We have already given the figures for Germany in regard to this matter. In England the percentage of convictions is 82% for men and 79% for women. [663]

In France the differences are still greater:

France, 1881–1890 (Assizes). [664]

=======+=================================================== | Percentage of Acquittals. Sex. +------------+------------+------------+------------ | 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896-1900. -------+------------+------------+------------+------------ Men | 25 | 25 | 26 | 28 Women | 45 | 47 | 50 | 52 =======+============+============+============+============

1896–1900 (Correctional Tribunals). [665]

=======+================================================ | Percentage of Acquittals to Each Age-category. Sex. +---------------+---------------+---------------- | Under 16. | 16 to 21. | Over 21. -------+---------------+---------------+---------------- Men | 57 | 6 | 5 Women | 58 | 9 | 7 =======+===============+===============+================

These figures lead to the presumption that in other countries also women are more apt to be acquitted than men.

Other reasons why the criminality of women seems smaller than it really is are the following: As is shown by the statistics cited, the offenses of which women are most often guilty, are also those which it is most difficult to discover, namely those committed without violence. Then, those who have been injured are less likely to bring a complaint against a woman than against a man. [666] But even when we take account of all these things, the criminality of women remains much smaller than that of men. This may be explained as follows:

First. An examination of the tables shows that women participate less in the crimes which require strength or courage. The first cause is to be found in the fact, then, that the average woman of our time has less strength and courage than the average man, and consequently commits on the average fewer crimes than he.

Second. It is clear that women take small part in sexual crimes (for procuration is not a sexual crime but an economic one), which is to be explained by the fact that most sexual crimes cannot, from their nature, be committed by women. Another reason is that the rôle of women in the sexual life (and thus in the criminal sexual life) is rather passive than active.

Third. The small part played by women in economic crimes committed because of poverty or even of greed, is explained by prostitution, which generally yields greater and more certain returns than crime, and avoids the risk of prison.

Fourth. A comparison of the criminal statistics of different countries has not much value for the different reasons already given (Pt. I, Ch. II, sec. XIX). Only when the figures are very different may one draw a conclusion from them. A comparison of the tables brings out the fact that the criminality of women does not differ much in the countries named. However, when we fix our attention upon the crimes and misdemeanors more or less grave in the Italian statistics (assizes and correctional tribunals) we discover that there is a considerable difference between England, for example, on the one side, and Italy on the other. While the former country shows about 12% (offenses tried on indictment) and 23% (offenses tried summarily) of women among those convicted, the figures are 5 to 6% (assizes) and about 9% (corr. trib.) in the latter country. This difference shows that the direction in which the principal reason for woman’s small part in crime must be sought, is in her social position. This differs less from that of the man in England than in Italy. However, there are figures much more significant than those I have just cited. Between 1893 and 1899 the percentage of convicts in prison in Scotland was between 36 and 37. [667] In Denmark from 1876 to 1885 about 26% of the convicts were women. [668] It is an incontestable fact that Denmark and Scotland are countries where the social position of women approaches most closely that of men. Let us set in opposition to this now a country like Algeria where the life of woman is entirely different. It appears that there between 1881 and 1900 3% of those arraigned before the assizes were women, and 4% of those arraigned before the correctional tribunals. [669]

An examination of the criminality of women in the different parts of the same country, Germany for example, shows that the highest figures for female criminality are furnished by the great cities and the countries most developed economically.

Germany, 1897–1898. [670]

=============================+========================================= | Percentage of Women among the Convicts. Cities or Countries. +--------------------+-------------------- | 1897. | 1898. -----------------------------+--------------------+-------------------- Berlin | 27.8 | 27.6 Hamburg | 24.7 | 25.3 Saxony | 22.0 | 21.7 Prussia | 21.8 | 21.5 Germany as a whole | 20.6 | 20.3 Bavaria | 18.6 | 18.6 Alsace-Lorraine | 17.3 | 18.1 Wurtemberg | 16.7 | 15.8 Hesse | 15.2 | 14.4 Baden | 13.8 | 12.1 =============================+====================+====================

As regards England, Morrison says that of misdemeanors 25% are committed by women in London (Metropolitan Police District), and 33% in Manchester; while women commit only 10% of the misdemeanors in Surrey, and about 14% in Lancashire. [671] The high percentages come then in the places where the social position of woman is most nearly equal to that of man.

Dr. H. Hoegel gives the following table for Austria. As the author says it proves that the country where the woman takes the greatest part in the economic life gives the highest figures for female criminality.

As to the movement of the criminality of women the data that I have given, and others that I have at my disposal, are not significant enough to lead to a definite conclusion. In England it has been made out that there is a small diminution of serious crimes and a slight increase of minor offenses, though the period of observation is very short. Between 1881 and 1900 the relative criminality of men and women remained constant. In Italy there was between 1890 and 1895 a slight increase in the absolute number, and a slight, but fluctuating, diminution in the relative number. In the Netherlands the proportions remained pretty constant from 1896 to 1901.

Austria, 1889–1893. [672]

======================+====================================+======================= | Number of Women to | Number of Convictions Country. +--------------------+---------------+ for Crime to 10,000 | 100 of Population. | 100 Convicts. | of Population. ----------------------+--------------------+---------------+----------------------- Moravia | 52.5 | 18.0 | 15.9 Silesia | 52.5 | 17.8 | 17.8 Salzburg | 50.9 | 17.6 | 17.6 Bohemia | 52.0 | 17.2 | 8.9 Lower Austria | 51.4 | 16.7 | 14.1 Upper Austria | 50.9 | 16.1 | 13.9 Austria | 51.4 | 14.9 | 12.6 Carinthia | 51.6 | 14.7 | 18.5 Galicia | 51.0 | 13.7 | 13.7-10.4[673] Tyrol and Vorarlberg | 51.4 | 13.5 | 10.5-12.0[674] Styria | 50.7 | 12.9 | 17.3 Bukowina | 50.0 | 11.8 | 13.3 Littoral of Trieste | 50.2 | 8.8 | 14.2 Carniola | 52.5 | 7.5 | 19.5 Dalmatia | 50.0 | 6.8 | 13.9 ======================+====================+===============+=======================

The following are the figures for Germany and Austria:

Germany, 1888–1900. [675]

=======+=================================+================= | Number Convicted. | Number of Years. +---------------------------------+ Women Convicted | To the 100,000 | To the 100,000 | to Each 100 Men | Men over 12. | Women over 12. | Convicted. -------+----------------+----------------+----------------- 1888 | 1,821.7 | 358.0 | 19.7 1894 | 2,164.3 | 374.9 | 18.7 1896 | 2,177.7 | 388.9 | 17.9 1898 | -- | -- | 19.5 1900 | -- | -- | 19.3 =======+================+================+=================

There was, then, an increase in the criminality of women, but a smaller increase than that of men (except in 1898).

Austria, 1881–1899. [676]

Percentage of Persons Convicted who were Women.

===========+============+============+=======+=======+=======+====== 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899. -----------+------------+------------+-------+-------+-------+------ 14.8 | 14.6 | 14.7 | 14.1 | 14.4 | 13.5 | 13.9 ===========+============+============+=======+=======+=======+======

Here, then, there was a slight but fluctuating diminution in the criminality of women in proportion to that of men.

It must be conceded that the figures given do not contribute much to the support of the thesis that it is especially the social position of women which is the cause of their being less criminal. This position has been modified during the years to which the figures given refer. Women participate much more than formerly in the whole economic and social life. One would accordingly naturally look for a great increase in the criminality of women. Nevertheless these figures cannot, it seems to me, be used to refute the thesis in question, for the following reasons:

In the first place the figures given cover a short period only. They do not show very much, therefore; for, notwithstanding the continual increase of the importance of the rôle of woman in the economic life, the modification of her position in the whole social life is not made so quickly that one can expect much of an increase in female criminality in the criminal statistics of the last few years. [677]

In the second place, most of the figures give the ratio of the crimes of women to those of men; they do not then show whether the decrease in the percentage is due to a decrease in the criminality of women, or rather to an increase in that of men. This latter is the case, for example, in Germany. [678]

In the third place the statistics at my disposal are not sufficiently detailed with regard to the movement of the criminality of women, so that it is impossible to tell whether there are changes in the qualitative character of the crimes even though its quantitative character remains about the same. [679]

A very conclusive proof of the thesis that the social position of woman is what explains her lower criminality, is as follows. The difference in the manner of life of the two sexes decreases as we descend the social scale. If the social position of woman is then an important determinant of her lower criminality, the figures ought to show that the criminality of men differs more from that of women in the well-to-do classes than in classes less privileged. Now the figures already given (pp. 482 ff.) upon the intellectual development of criminals confirm our hypothesis completely. Just so the tables upon the financial situation of criminals (see pp. 493, 494); in Austria, for example, 0.2% of the women convicted in 1899 came from the well-to-do classes, and 0.4% of the men. There were no well-to-do women at all among those convicted of the graver crimes. Just so again, in the table of Prussian recidivists the women form 4% of the well-to-do convicts and 14% of the poor convicts.

Finally the figures for the influence of marriage upon criminality show (see p. 513 ff.) that the criminality of widows is very great. This proves that the smaller criminality of woman is not to be sought in innate qualities, but rather in the social environment. For widows are generally forced to come into contact with the economic and social life of the world more than other women.

We have still to explain how social position is a cause of a lower degree of criminality. As to economic offenses, it must be remarked that the small part that woman plays in the economic life has the result that the desire to be enriched at some one else’s expense is less aroused in her than it is in man, and that the opportunity to accomplish the desire is presented to her less often than to him. As to crimes committed for vengeance etc., since women live more retired lives they enter less quickly into conflict with others, and hence are less in danger of committing such crimes. Then the fact that women are less addicted to alcohol must be taken into account. The almost wholly negligible participation of women in political life explains why they are almost never guilty of political crimes, a kind of crime rare enough in any case.

After the long detour that we have made (in order to comprehend what follows), we come now at last to the subject which especially concerns us in this section, the influence of the economic and social life upon the social sentiments of women.

It results from this examination that, on the one hand, women feel generally less than men the direct harmful influences of the present economic system, and those of alcoholism; that the influence, very significant for criminality, of the environment in which she passes her youth, acts as strongly upon her as upon a man; and that militarism has no influence upon her, nor has prostitution itself upon the majority of the sex.

Then woman has lived for ages in a state of oppression injurious to the development of the social instincts, which forces her to have recourse to lying and hypocrisy, those two defensive weapons of the oppressed. Just so also her retired life has been an obstacle to the development of her feeling of solidarity with reference to persons outside of the family.

In looking the whole field over I see nothing to justify the opinion that the less criminal character of women indicates a higher morality, whether innate or acquired. The consequences of her manner of life, in so far as they are harmful to the formation of character, are probably counterbalanced by those which are favorable. Her smaller criminality is like the health of a hothouse plant; it is due not to innate qualities, but to the hothouse which protects it from harmful influences. If the life of women were like that of men their criminality would hardly differ at all as to quantity, though perhaps somewhat as to quality. [680]

e. The family. Here we have to take up the question of how far the family in which the criminal has been raised has contributed to make him such. It will be well to begin with some theoretical observations upon the question, what is the effect of moral education upon a child (in the larger sense of moral surroundings), and how far does this education in the end affect the adult?

It is unnecessary for us to tarry long upon this. The facts which we shall cite below are more convincing than all the theoretical observations, and they show clearly how great this influence is. Nevertheless some brief observations are necessary. It is not far from the truth, it seems to me, to say that the power of moral education upon the character, and that of intellectual education upon the intelligence, are equal. The thesis has been maintained that the intellectual capacities of all men are equal, and that education is the sole cause of the great differences which exist. No reasonable person would maintain this theory; men differ enormously in their innate intellectual capacities; some have great intellectual power, others have very little, while between the two extremes is found the general average. What now is the rôle that education has to play?

Those who have small intellectual capacity naturally never become superior men, even if their education is the best possible; though by virtue of proper education they might become fairly useful. Those who have great intellectual capacity also need education (though less so than the run of mankind), for otherwise their faculties will remain dormant. Darwin would never have made his great discovery if he had been born and reared in the slums of a great city and had learned nothing (even supposing that, with his poor health, he had not succumbed to such an environment). His acquaintances would have doubtless thought him intelligent, but the scientific world would never have heard of him.

It must be much the same with the moral faculty. We are not born with moral precepts in our heads, but only with a greater or less predisposition to become moral. If this predisposition, even though it be very strong, is not cultivated, there is no question of morality.

The child, even more than the man, is an imitator, and responds to suggestion in everything, but especially in morals. If we put the question: how does it happen that there are honest persons? the answer must be: largely because in their youth they have become accustomed to be honest. [681] In his “Descent of Man”, Darwin says: ... “Habit in the individual would ... play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instinct, together with sympathy, is like any other instinct, greatly strengthened by habit, and so consequently would be obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community.” [682]

A great proportion of the whole number of criminals have become such through the evil example of those about them, or have even been deliberately trained to crime. Even those who are endowed with great innate moral capacities cannot withdraw themselves from these influences. One of the men most competent to speak on this subject, M. Raux, director of one of the penitentiary districts in France, and author of one of the best books upon juvenile criminality says, after speaking of the miserable environment in which young criminals are brought up: “Let no one attempt to tell us after these revelations that the child, born in surroundings which asphyxiate him morally, can escape from vice. No nature would resist such demoralizing agencies. In order to convince ourselves of the truth of this it would only be necessary to try an experiment, which, it if were possible, would not fail to be conclusive.

“The method would be to transport some children of the middle or wealthy class, neither of which furnish any inmates to our reformatories, into families considered as types of those from which our young delinquents come, and to substitute for them in their former homes the children of poor families. This double substitution would have immediate effects. Little time would be needed, very little, we are convinced, for the former group of children to lose all trace of their early education and to become thoroughly bad characters. As to the other group, a moral movement in the other direction would be produced in them, but much more slowly. Vices are like diseases, they take hold quickly, and let go with difficulty. There would long remain to the second group a taste for vagabondage and gross pleasures. But when even these habits and impressions of childhood are painfully eradicated, well-being, advice, and care would always keep the child away from the possibility of theft, and after a certain time of probation passed in the bosom of well-to-do and respectable families the public would certainly regard our subjects, grown to be men, as upright and worthy of all confidence. Thus we should have transformed children of good character into malefactors, and of the malefactor we should have made an honest man.

“This experiment, which no good family would consent to try for fear of the result, would prove on the one hand, that any child placed in the living conditions of most of our young delinquents would inevitably become vicious and criminal, and on the other that if circumstances easily make a malefactor of a child well brought-up, it is much more difficult to transform a bad character into an honest man.” [683]

In consequence of what we have just said we may put two questions; first, do all those who are brought up in such an environment inevitably become criminals; second, is there, then, no difference as to morality between two persons of whom one is born with a strong and the other with a weak moral disposition (supposing that both live in the same unfavorable moral environment)?

The answer to the first question must be that there may be sometimes those who succeed notwithstanding the very bad surroundings of their youth. (As we have seen, an expert like Raux denies this possibility.) But such cases are very rare and prove nothing against the theory of environment, for it may readily happen that such persons fall in with a better environment (at school, for example) which puts them on the right track, if they have a strong moral disposition by nature.

To the second question the answer must be made that one endowed with a strong moral disposition, but raised in unfavorable surroundings, will perhaps become criminal, and yet need not be as bad as another with a weak moral disposition, raised in a like environment.

There are criminals and criminals. Anyone who has given himself the trouble of reading the biographies of great criminals knows that all have not been entirely corrupted. It is with morals as with intelligence; in unfavorable circumstances Darwin would not have become a genius, but even in such environment he would nevertheless have been recognized as intelligent; so a child with great moral capacity would not become an honest man when brought up in the company of thieves and assassins, but in his own circle would have been considered as a good boy.

Beside very bad environments there are the great mass of those that are neither the one thing nor the other, in which the children neither have bad examples, nor are, properly speaking, deserted, but in which, nevertheless, they do not receive an education positively good. What is the influence of such environments? They are absolutely insufficient for children with little moral disposition. These have need of a strong and well-taught guide, without which they run much danger of leaving, sooner or later, the straight path. It is evident that an education such as that in question, is insufficient for the great middle class. The future lot of these young people will depend especially upon the circumstances in which chance shall place them. The surroundings spoken of will be enough for those who have great moral capacities, in the sense not that a better environment would not have had a better effect upon them but in the sense that they are more susceptible to the good than to the evil influences and—except in rare circumstances—they will cause less trouble to their fellows.

Finally, how far does the effect of a good education extend? What can a good education do for a person born with weak social instincts? This is the well-known controversy. For no one denies that those who are endowed with strong social instincts, as well as those who have them only in moderation, and who constitute the great majority, do not become bad when they are brought up in a good environment.

It will perhaps be impossible to give a decisive answer to this question. For, since we cannot make experiments with living persons, we cannot get sure results. And then an education really good is so great a rarity that the number of cases where children with little moral disposition are excellently brought up is certainly very small. [684]

We may consider it as certain that children not well endowed will never become very altruistic even if brought up under the best conditions imaginable. But on the other hand no one would doubt that a favorable environment would develop, however little, their weak social instincts (for no one is wholly without such instincts). For the moment we cannot decide how far this influence may extend.

After this introduction we come to the organization of education in present-day society. Before stating the facts we must sum up what has been said above (see Ch. I., Sec. III, B, of this part). The organization of our present social system charges the legitimate parents of the child with his support and education. Most authors who treat of the family wax so enthusiastic that they lose all critical sense. They note that there are parents who love their children, perform all their duties towards them, etc., and they wish to make themselves believe that this is the general rule. But the subject must be considered in cold blood. Certainly it would be ridiculous to deny the social importance of the family; we may even say without hesitation that without the family our present society could not exist. But all this would not be a reason for not seeing its defects.

Are there not many who are bad, even aside from criminals? Is not the majority of mankind made up of those weak in character? Are there not many alcoholics? Are there not persons who do not love their children at all? Are not the persons numerous who have little patience and tact to guide children, or who are lacking in other pedagogic qualities? Is it not true that nearly everyone is ignorant of psychological and pedagogical principles? And have not most men their whole time taken up with the struggle for existence, so that they are not able to concern themselves with the education of their children?

These are the questions that we must ask ourselves; and the answer to all of them is categorically: yes. And have not all these persons offspring? Most certainly. Then the results may be imagined. It will be of the highest importance to know how many children receive an education that is really good. I do not know of any statistics covering any very great number of children. But it will not be far from the truth to infer that the following figures are applicable, not simply to a limited number, but in general to all children. These figures are given by Ferriani: [685]

To each 100 children between 8 and 12 years of age:

Good education 5 Education fair 10 ,, superficial 20 ,, partially neglected 17 ,, entirely ,, 42 ,, bad 6 --- 100

One of the characteristics of our present education is that it makes children egoistic. It is to be expected. The organization of society obliges men to be egoistic, and “like father, like son.” An apparent morality is the consequence. Children are taught that they ought to do or leave undone this or that, not because it is needful to help their fellows or not to injure them, but because it will be advantageous to them to act morally, or because otherwise they will be punished. It is unnecessary to say that brought up in such a manner, the individual will not recoil from crime because of any moral restraint, when the opportunity presents itself of making a profit, or when the risk of being punished is not great.

As to education among the well-to-do classes, there it is especially egoistic. The children—speaking of course in a general way—are brought up with the idea that they must succeed, no matter how; the aim of life is presented to them as getting money and shining in the world. Such principles are incompatible with a really moral education, and the education of this class aims only at an apparent morality instead of a real one. [686]

Whatever may be the defects of this education, it is at least an education; the children are watched, prevented from getting into bad society, etc. The consequence is that the children of the well-to-do almost never get into the courts. This sad monopoly is reserved for the children of the poor. [687] This is not to say that the defects of education among the well-to-do classes are not among the causes of the criminality to be met with in the adults of these classes. When a poor devil appears in court it will often happen that his counsel in defending him will draw attention to the fact that the environment in which his client has grown up is one of the causes of his fall; but it does not often happen that the advocate makes a similar appeal when his client is from the well-to-do. It is generally believed that nothing is wanting in the moral education of one who has not known poverty, and has not been neglected; but this is a mistake. There can be no doubt that one of the factors of criminality among the bourgeoisie is bad education.

The figures of the following tables show that it is almost exclusively the children of the poor who are guilty of crime.

England and Scotland.

According to the English law the parents of children placed in a “Reformatory” or an “Industrial School” must, if they are able, contribute toward their children’s expenses. The following table shows the assessments due in 1882 (in shillings per week). [688]

===================+==========+==========+=========+=========+=========+=========+========+======== | | | Less | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total. | Exempt. | than | Shill. | Shill. | Shill. | Shill. | Shill. | | | 1 | and | and | and | and | | | | Shill. | More. | More. | More. | More. | -------------------+----------+----------+---------+---------+---------+---------+--------+-------- Reformatories | | | | | | | | Absolute numbers | 6,601 | 3,858 | 257 | 1,818 | 573 | 66 | 15 | 14 Percentage | 100.0 | 58.5 | 3.9 | 27.5 | 8.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 Industrial Schools | | | | | | | | Absolute numbers | 17,641 | 10,406 | 600 | 3,904 | 2,316 | 301 | 67 | 20 Percentage | 100.0 | 59.1 | 3.4 | 22.2 | 13.1 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 ===================+==========+==========+=========+=========+=========+=========+========+========

A little less than 60% of the parents, then, were unable to make any contribution, 25 to 30% of them were able to pay less than two shillings, while the remaining 10 or 15% were working people not at all well-to-do. [689]

France.[689]

The French “statistique pénitentiaire” gives information with regard to the financial condition of the parents of the children received into the “Etablissements d’éducation correctionnelle.” The following figures covering the years 1878 to 1882 [690] will give a sufficiently accurate notion, as figures for a longer period would lead to the same results.

================+============+===========+===========+===========+===========+============ | | | | | | 1878-1882 Children | 1878. | 1879. | 1880. | 1881. | 1882. | Average Belonging | | | | | | Percentage. to Parents +-----+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ |Boys.|Girls.| B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. ----------------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ Well-to-do | 81| 32| 75| 60| 61| 3| 50| 4| 43| 5| 0.9| 1.2 Living by their | | | | | | | | | | | | own labor |5,874| 1,254|5,799|1,177|5,800|1,224|5,455|1,154|5,300|1,090| 79.3| 68.7 Mendicants, | | | | | | | | | | | | vagabonds, | | | | | | | | | | | | prostitutes | 923| 421| 956| 433| 809| 429| 726| 395| 697| 349| 11.5| 23.6 Unknown, | | | | | | | | | | | | disappeared, | | | | | | | | | | | | deceased | 707| 133| 684| 138| 545| 102| 546| 84| 486| 101| 8.3| 6.5 ----------------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ Total |7,585| 1,840|7,514|1,808|7,215|1,758|6,777|1,637|6,527|1,545|100.0|100.0 ================+=====+======+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+======

After 1882 the penitentiary statistics no longer mention the financial condition of the parents, but their occupation. The results confirm those that we have just cited.

France, 1890–1895. [691]

================+============+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+============ | | | | | | | 1890-1895 Children | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | Average Belonging | | | | | | | Percentage. to Parents +-----+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ |Boys.|Girls.| B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. ----------------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ Property owners | | | | | | | | | | | | | | or possessing | | | | | | | | | | | | | | incomes | 29| 2| 36| 1| 36| 1| 36| 2| 34| 2| 29| 0| 0.6| 0.1 Practicing | | | | | | | | | | | | | | liberal | | | | | | | | | | | | | | professions | 31| 2| 28| 0| 31| 0| 30| 0| 42| 17| 46| 0| 0.8| 0.0 Agricultural |1,000| 125|1,192| 105|1,199| 101|1,252| 138| 893| 102| 929| 115| 20.8| 10.0 Industrial |1,252| 193|1,186| 179|1,059| 163|1,237| 240|1,304| 300|1,317| 304| 23.7| 20.1 Miscellaneous |2,084| 572|1,937| 493|2,130| 413|1,866| 373|2,199| 311|2,120| 327| 39.8| 36.4 Mendicants, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | vagabonds, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | prostitutes | 391| 201| 434| 224| 423| 287| 440| 294| 403| 286| 333| 300| 7.8| 23.3 Unknown or | | | | | | | | | | | | | | disappeared | 364| 91| 342| 133| 347| 136| 374| 129| 325| 95| 263| 106| 6.5| 10.1 ----------------+-----+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------ Total |5,151| 1,186|5,155|1,135|5,225|1,101|5,235|1,176|5,200|1,131|5,037|1,152|100.0|100.0 ================+=====+======+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+======

These figures show clearly that it is only an insignificant number of young criminals who come from the well-to-do classes. [692]

I have been able to procure only a few data from other countries; their results, however, are identical with those for England and France.

Italy.

Of the 2,000 young criminals examined by Ferriani, there were 1,758, or 87.9%, coming from families where a profound poverty reigned, and only 148 (7.4%) from families that had never known poverty. [693]

Prussia.

77.8% of the children received in the correctional educational institutions during the year 1901–02 came from very poor families. [694]

It is then the poorest classes that furnish the greatest number of juvenile criminals.

We come now to education among the proletariat. Here we meet first, insufficiency of the pecuniary means which education requires; second, bad housing conditions, which oblige the children to pass a great part of the day in the street; third, the total absence of pedagogical ideas; fourth, the absence during the greater part of the day of the father of the family, and in many cases even of the mother. The number of married women who work away from home is continually increasing. In 1882 there were in Germany, for example, 507,784 married working-women, and by 1895 this figure had risen to 807,172—an increase of 299,388 (59%) in 13 years. In 1882 17.3% of the working-women were married; in 1895 21.5%. [695] There are no official figures but Braun [696] calculates that in Germany there are 500,000 children under 14 years of age, whose mothers are working-women. In Austria 44.6% of the working-women are married, and in France 20.6%. [697] We have seen above (pp. 409 ff.) that juvenile criminality is increasing. This is explained in part by the increase in the labor of married women, from which it results that an increasing number of children are brought up without the proper care.

Among the working classes there is no question of education properly speaking. We can consider the children as fortunate if their parents do not set them a bad example, are not continually engaging in disputes, and are not given to alcohol. It is plain that all this does not make up a proper education; and yet how many children there are who do not have even so much of an education as this! [698]

In the lower proletariat the situation is naturally worse. Not only is there a total lack of care and surveillance, but children are even brought up to crime.

Up to this point we have supposed the parents to be living. From the present organization of society it follows that the condition of the children of the poor becomes very bad as soon as the parents or even one of them dies. Often private or public charity intervenes, but generally the community does nothing for the orphan.

As a last consequence of the present system it must be noted that children born of illegitimate unions are in a still more precarious situation, since it is only the mother who has to protect them.

The community (in this case the state) concerns itself little with the education of children; it makes education compulsory (at least in some countries) and deprives parents of the charge of their children when they neglect them too much (this again in some countries only).

Now we come to the facts. They prove that the surroundings in which many children live are an important factor in the etiology of crime. The figures at my disposal are not as numerous as I could wish, but official statistics are not yet as full as is desirable for sociological purposes.

In reading the statistics which follow we must not lose sight of the fact that when it is stated that a certain percentage of children were brought up in a bad environment, it does not follow that all the others had a good education. The figures record only the very grave cases, as, for example, where the parents have been convicted, or the children entirely abandoned, etc. It is easier to prove, in making an investigation into the condition of a family, that the children do not receive a good education than it is to prove the contrary. Raux says that 36% of the parents of the juvenile criminals whom he had examined had a good reputation. The author adds, however, that this figure is too high for the following reason: “For certain officials charged with furnishing information on this point, every man who, without being absolutely irreproachable, has not been complained against, is a person of good character. So we have been made to add to the list of those of good reputation certain families where the father, drunken, idle, and unchaste, sets a very bad example to his son.” [699]

Some readers will see in what follows only a tiresome mass of figures—quite wrongly, for those who know how to read the figures find in them a language much more convincing and more shocking than that which can be expressed in words.

Before beginning, the following remark must be made. We shall give, as far as possible, the percentages of criminals born of illegitimate unions together with the percentages of illegitimate births in general. We shall see that with some exceptions, even so, the percentage for criminals is much greater than that for the population in general. However, to make the comparisons exact it is necessary to know the percentage of illegitimate persons among the population of an age to commit crime, and not among the newly born. This percentage is very much less, because, first, the mortality among illegitimate children is especially great, second, because a considerable number are legitimated. In general the percentage of illegitimate persons among the adult population is unknown. From researches by Neumann (“Die jugendlichen Berliner unehelicher Herkunft”) and Spann (“Untersuchungen über die uneheliche Bevölkerung in Frankfurt a/M.”), it appears that 3.6 times fewer illegitimate children in proportion, than legitimate, reach the age of 20 years! [700]

Austria, 1883–1889. [701]

The following figures have to do with illegitimacy among the criminals imprisoned in the years 1883 and 1884.

========+======================================+====================================== | 1883. | 1884. +-------------+------------------------+-------------+------------------------ Sex. | Total | Illegitimate. | Total | Illegitimate. | Number of +-----------+------------+ Number of +-----------+------------ | Criminals | Absolute | To 100 | Criminals | Absolute | To 100 | Imprisoned. | Number. | Prisoners. | Imprisoned. | Number. | Prisoners. --------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ Men | 4,988 | 595 | 11.9 | 4,512 | 626 | 13.8 Women | 781 | 149 | 19.0 | 751 | 156 | 20.7 +-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ Total | 5,769 | 746 | 12.9 | 5,263 | 782 | 14.8 +-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ | Recidivists. +-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ Men | 2,719 | 392 | 14.4 | 2,353 | 366 | 15.5 Women | 425 | 93 | 21.8 | 365 | 97 | 26.5 +-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ Total | 3,144 | 485 | 15.4 | 2,718 | 463 | 17.0 ========+=============+===========+============+=============+===========+============

For the years 1896 and 1899 I have the following data, bearing upon the persons convicted of crime during those years. [702]

========+======================================+====================================== | 1896. | 1897 +-------------+------------------------+-------------+------------------------ Sex. | | Illegitimate. | | Illegitimate. | Total +-----------+------------+ Total +-----------+------------ | Convicted. | Absolute | To 100 | Convicted. | Absolute | To 100 | | Number. | Convicted. | | Number. | Convicted. --------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ Men | 24,833 | 2,095 | 8.4 | 28,984 | 2,838 | 9.7 Women | 4,065 | 621 | 15.2 | 4,679 | 642 | 13.7 --------+-------------+-----------+------------+-------------+-----------+------------ Total | 28,898 | 2,716 | 9.3 | 33,663 | 3,480 | 10.3 ========+=============+===========+============+=============+===========+============

In order to be able to make a comparison we must have the figures for illegitimate births in the population in general. For Austria they are very high: in the period 1876–1880 13.84% of the children born living were illegitimate, and in the period 1887–1891 14.67%. [703] During the period between 1883 and 1892 the general mortality of children under a year old was 24.9% as against 30.3% for illegitimate children. [704]

Baden, 1887–1891. [705]

In 1887 correctional education (Zwangserziehung) was introduced into the Grand Duchy of Baden. The family conditions of the children received between 1887 and 1891 were as follows:

========+=========================================================== | To Each 100 Children there were: Years. +----------------------------------------------------------- | Illegitimate. | Full Orphans. | Motherless. | Fatherless. --------+---------------+---------------+-------------+------------- 1887 | 18.5 | 3.3 | 21.8 | 24.3 1888 | 17.0 | 4.7 | 16.2 | 30.2 1889 | 15.9 | 5.0 | 16.5 | 30.6 1890 | 15.0 | 4.8 | 16.6 | 32.8 1891 | 15.6 | 4.1 | 17.7 | 32.6 ========+===============+===============+=============+=============

England and Scotland, 1887–1899.

With regard to the children received into the “Industrial Schools” during the years 1887 to 1891 there are the following data: 5% were illegitimate, while for the same period 4.52% of all children born living were illegitimate. [706] Here we must take into consideration the greater mortality among illegitimate children. There are no recent data, but in England in 1875 this mortality was twice as great as that of legitimate children, and in some countries it is four times as great.

4% were full orphans; 34% half orphans, 20% being fatherless and 14% motherless; 6% had been abandoned by their parents; and 2% were the children of habitual criminals. 51%, therefore, were living under unfavorable conditions. For the pupils of the “Reformatories” in the same period this percentage was 53. [707]

The following figures indicate also the relative numbers for the two sexes:

Industrial Schools, 1891. [708]

=============================================+===============+=============== | Boys. | Girls. +-------+-------+-------+------- |Number.| % |Number.| % ---------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+------- Illegitimate | 233 | 6.8 | 108 | 11.6 Full orphans | 115 | 3.4 | 65 | 6.7 Fatherless only | 532 | 15.6 | 181 | 18.6 Motherless only | 535 | 15.7 | 171 | 17.6 Abandoned by parents | 193 | 5.7 | 76 | 7.8 One or both parents perverted or criminal | 118 | 3.5 | 53 | 5.5 Parents living and able to care for children | 1,681 | 49.3 | 317 | 32.7 ---------------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+------- Total | 3,407 | 100.0 | 971 | 100.0 =============================================+=======+=======+=======+=======

It is interesting to note that with girls the influence of bad family surroundings is worse than it is with boys, more than two thirds living under abnormal circumstances.

However, confining ourselves to figures for the period 1887–1891, 49% and 47% of the children in the two classes of institutions respectively came from normal families. In what follows we see what their education was; different competent witnesses before the “Royal Commission on Reformatory and Industrial Schools” affirmed that the environment from which these children came was very unfavorable. The most important testimony was that of Mr. Macdonald, one of the officers who receive the contributions of the parents to the support of their children in the “Industrial Schools.” According to him only 6% of the children came from homes favorable to their moral education. In Manchester 68% of the parents of children in the industrial schools had a bad reputation; 14.7% were of doubtful character; and only 17% conducted themselves well. [709]

Of 1,209 juvenile delinquents in the English prisons (1898–99) 90 (7.4%) had had no education; 512 (42.3%) had had very little; 496 (41%) a fair education; and of 111 (9.1%) only could it be said that their education was good. 211 (17.4%) were without father or mother; 183 (15.1%) had bad homes; 198 (16.3%) had none at all; and 30 (2.4%) slept in night-lodgings. [710]

If the environment in which the young criminals have lived is the cause of their fall, a considerable portion of them ought to return to the right way as a result of the education given in the schools in question. If this is not the case with all, this proves nothing against the influence of environment, for the impressions received by the child in the surroundings in which he has lived before his conviction are too strong to be effaced by a comparatively brief stay in an educational institution (even if these reform-schools were perfect). Finally, after they are set at liberty environment may once more contribute to recidivism. The following figures show the facts in the case: [711]

======+================================================================================ | To Each 100 Released there were: +---------------------------------------++--------------------------------------- Years.| Boys. || Girls. +---------------------------------------++--------------------------------------- | Good |Doubtful|Recidivists.|Conduct || Good |Doubtful|Recidivists.|Conduct |Conduct.|Conduct.| |Unknown.||Conduct.|Conduct.| |Unknown. ------+--------+--------+------------+--------++--------+--------+------------+-------- a. Reformatory Schools. ------+--------+--------+------------+--------++--------+--------+------------+-------- 1882 | 76 | 3 | 14 | 7 || 72 | 7 | 6 | 15 1883 | 76 | 3 | 14 | 7 || 69 | 9 | 8 | 14 1884 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 || 70 | 9 | 6 | 15 1885 | 79 | 2 | 14 | 5 || 72 | 9 | 6 | 13 1886 | 77 | 3 | 14 | 6 || 73 | 11 | 5 | 11 1887 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 || 75 | 10 | 5 | 10 1888 | 76 | 1 | 17 | 6 || 75 | 9 | 6 | 10 1889 | 74 | 2 | 18 | 6 || 76 | 9 | 6 | 9 1890 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 || 73 | 10 | 7 | 10 1891 | 78 | 2 | 14 | 6 || 76 | 8 | 5 | 11 ------+--------+--------+------------+--------++--------+--------+------------+-------- b. Industrial Schools. ------+--------+--------+------------+--------++--------+--------+------------+-------- 1882 | 81 | 4 | 5 | 10 || 79 | 7 | 1 | 13 1883 | 80 | 4 | 5 | 11 || 79 | 7 | 2 | 12 1884 | 81 | 4 | 5 | 10 || 80 | 7 | 2 | 11 1885 | 81 | 3 | 5 | 11 || 81 | 7 | 2 | 10 1886 | 82.5 | 3 | 4.5 | 10 || 83 | 8 | 1 | 8 1887 | 83.3 | 3 | 5 | 9 || 84 | 7 | 1 | 8 1888 | 83 | 3 | 5 | 9 || 81 | 8 | 1 | 10 1889 | 83 | 3 | 5 | 9 || 82 | 8 | 1 | 9 1890 | 84 | 2 | 5 | 9 || 83 | 7 | 1 | 8 1891 | 85.5 | 2 | 4.5 | 8 || 84 | 7 | 1 | 8 ======+========+========+============+========++========+========+============+========

The percentage of those who conduct themselves well is considerable, therefore, and indicates how great the influence of an unfavorable environment upon these children has been. [712]

France, 1890–1895. [713]

The following important data concern the children in the “établissements d’éducation correctionnelle”:

=======================+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+===========+============= | | | | | | | 1890-1895 Condition as to | 1890. | 1891. | 1892. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | Average Family. | | | | | | | Percentage. +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------- | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. | B. | G. -----------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------- Illegitimate | 693| 236| 669| 238| 654| 277| 635| 295| 589| 289| 535| 395| 2.1 | 25.1 Half orphans |1,676| 432|1,641| 419|1,753| 418|1,634| 410|1,690| 428|1,492| 452| 1.7 | 37.1 Full orphans | 384| 152| 310| 172| 323| 203| 333| 212| 324| 236| 271| 225| 6.2 | 17.4 Parents: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Convicted one or | | | | | | | | | | | | | | more times | 977| 412| 875| 443| 864| 570| 922| 566| 853| 481| 801| 488| 7.0 | 43.0 Mendicants, vagabonds, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | or prostitutes | 391| 201| 434| 224| 423| 287| 444| 294| 403| 286| 333| 300| 7.8 | 43.0 Unknown or disappeared | 364| 91| 342| 135| 347| 136| 374| 129| 325| 95| 263| 106| 6.5 | 10.0 Total of juvenile +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | delinquents |5,151|1,186|5,155|1,135|5,225|1,101|5,235|1,176|5,200|1,131|5,037|1,152| | =======================+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=====+=======

Out of 100 children born living 8.41 were illegitimate (1887–1891), [714] while the mortality in the first year of life rose to 28.8% of the illegitimate children, and only to 16.7% of the legitimate. [715]

The figures given above constitute a crushing accusation against present conditions. If we suppose that the number of persons born of illegitimate unions who have attained the age at which it is physically possible to commit a crime are 6% of the whole population (a figure which is certainly rather too low than too high), it follows that a natural son runs twice as much danger of becoming a criminal as he would if legitimate, and that this danger is even four times as great in the case of a natural daughter. The other data are striking, especially those which deal with girls. There were 54% who were orphans or half-orphans; 43% had criminal parents; 33% had parents who were vagabonds or prostitutes, or who had deserted their children! [716]

As the official statistics furnish no other data, we will pass on to some of those given by private individuals. In the work already more than once quoted, Raux gives the following table, based upon careful researches and dealing with 385 juvenile prisoners received in the “Quartier correctionnel” at Lyons, to which the juvenile delinquents guilty of grave crimes are sent: [717]

===================================================================== Juvenile Prisoners. -------------------------------------------------+-----------+------- Under normal surveillance | 51 51 | 13% ,, weak ,, | 90} | ,, impotent ,, | 44} 158 | 41% ,, brutal ,, | 24} | Morally abandoned | 98 } 145 | 38% Completely ,, | 47 } | Excited to crime by the example of parents | 15} 31 | Having committed crime under the instigation | 16} | 8% and with the complicity of parents | | +-----------+------- Total | 385 385 | 100% =================================================+===========+=======

Only 13% among them enjoyed a normal education (and who could say how far it was really good?), while 87% had an education insufficient or bad. The author arrives at the following conclusion: “... the population of the ‘quartier correctionnel’ of Lyons, more unfortunate than guilty, has been recruited for more than 16 years from families the majority of which bore within themselves, by reason of the vices of their constitution, the principle of disintegration; whose morality was detestable or very doubtful, and whose means of subsistence were insufficient or totally lacking.

“It is to these different causes that the young delinquents owe first their deplorable antecedents, then their recklessness at the moment of the crime, their perversity, their corruption, and finally, their arrest.” [718]

The opinion of M. Grosmolard, of great value because of the competence of the author, who has been attached to the penal institutions of Lyons, is entirely in accord with what has just been quoted. After having spoken of the strong influence of poverty upon juvenile criminality, Grosmolard continues thus: “Besides material poverty, and as an auxiliary to this factor, we find the moral poverty of the home, manifested by the disorganization of the family. Whether it is due to the misconduct of the father or of the mother, or of both, the disruption, whether private through separation of the couple, or officialized by divorce, has no less deplorable consequences for the children. There is always the depressing spectacle of domestic disputes, the abandonment of the home, the weakening of parental discipline.” [719]

Concerning 400 children in a parental school in Paris we have the following figures: [720]

There were: Natural children 11.25% Half orphans 35.00% Full orphans 10.00% Children whose parents had disappeared or been convicted 13.25% Whose parents had separated or been divorced 16.25% Coming from a normal family 14.25% ------- 100.00%

These results agree, therefore, with those of the official statistics and of Raux. The normal families were those which did not present any of the external marks of demoralization, and it is more than probable that their “morality”, in many cases was only apparent.

Out of 600 families from which juvenile criminals had issued, studied by Dr. L. Albanel, 303 (50.5%) had been disorganized by death, divorce, desertion, etc. In 268 (44.6%) families the fathers and mothers worked away from home and the children were entirely neglected; 291 children (48.5%) were confided to persons outside of the family; and 41 (6.8%) were brought up by their grandparents, etc. [721]

Finally, there is the following fact about the children undergoing correction in Paris during the period 1874–1878: nearly 68% of them received visits from no one at all, not even from their parents. What complete misery! Out of 100 children 68 in whom no one was interested, not even when they were in prison. [722]

The results obtained by correctional education (probably no more perfect in France than elsewhere) prove the correctness of what has been advanced. If the thesis that the environment is the cause of the criminality of minors is true, the conduct of most of those set free ought to be good. Here are the results obtained in the “Quartier correctionnel” of Lyons: [723]

101 discharged prisoners led a good life, i.e. 60% 20 conducted themselves passably, i.e. 12% 24 were put down as bad, i.e. 14% 24 disappeared (died, etc.), i.e. 14% --- ---- 169 discharged prisoners 100%

As I have already remarked, the fact that all do not lead good lives proves nothing against the theory of environment, for it is quite possible that earlier evil influences have not been eliminated in a comparatively short detention. To prove how strong an influence the environment exercises anew upon discharged prisoners, let us look at the following figures, which also have to do with the pupils of the Lyons “Quartier correctionnel”: [724]

=======================================+===========+============== Discharged Inmates whose Parents: | Reformed. | Recidivists. ---------------------------------------+-----------+-------------- Had a good reputation | 83% | 5% ,, doubtful ,, | 52% | 16% ,, bad ,, | 37% | 16% ,, been convicted | 50% | 29% =======================================+===========+==============

Ireland, 1891.

Among the children subjected to correctional education in 1891 there were: 1.2% of illegitimate birth; 8.1% who had lost their parents; 16.2% without father; 19.3% without mother; and 0.6% who had been abandoned or whose parents were unknown. [725] 43.6%, then, were entirely or partially orphaned. These figures have no great value since they relate to so small a number (160).

Italy, 1885–1889.

With regard to illegitimacy among criminals I have data for the years 1885, 1886, and 1889. In these years there were among those convicted at the assizes 2.35%, 2.25%, and 2.21% respectively, of illegitimate birth. [726] The number of natural children in general in the years 1872–1889 was about 7%; [727] the mortality among children in general in the first year was 19%, and that among the illegitimate children 26% (these percentages are the averages for the years 1884–1893). [728] Italy is an exception, therefore to the rule, good everywhere else, that a larger proportion of criminals than of the general population are illegitimate.

In his “Entartete Mütter”, Ferriani says that more than 25% of the 806 juvenile criminals examined by him had become such because of the depravity of their families. [729] In his “Minderjährige Verbrecher” he gives the following results from an examination of 2,000 juvenile criminals: 207 (10.3%) came from families of which one or more members had been convicted; 53 (2.6%) from families entirely demoralized; 701 (35.0%) from families of bad reputation; and 169 (8.4%) from families with a doubtful reputation—all together 56.3%; while 896 (44.8%) had been corrupted by bad examples. [730]

Dr. A. Marro gives the following figures: [731] of 507 criminals examined by him there were:

19 ( 3.6%) whose father or mother was a criminal 98 (13.4%) who had a criminal brother or sister 115 (22.6%) whose father was immoral or violent 56 (11.0%) ,, mother ,, ,, ,, ,, 209 (41.0%) ,, father was alcoholic 26 ( 5.1%) ,, mother ,, ,, 120 (24.1%) had lost their father before the age of 16 90 (18.1%) ,, ,, ,, mother ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, and 36 (7.0%) were orphans before the age of 16.

Netherlands, 1896–1901.

The data concerning the Netherlands are limited to the following: [732]

Percentage of Persons of Illegitimate Birth.

=======+========================++======================== | Convicts. || Recidivists. Years. +------+--------+--------++------+--------+-------- | Men. | Women. | Total. || Men. | Women. | Total. -------+------+--------+--------++------+--------+-------- 1896 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 1.7 || 2.2 | 6.8 | 2.4 1897 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 1.6 || 1.9 | 3.5 | 2.0 1898 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.3 || 1.6 | 1.6 | 1.6 1899 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.6 || 2.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 1900 | 1.8 | 2.0 | 2.0 || 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.9 1901 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 1.9 || 1.5 | 2.8 | 1.6 =======+======+========+========++======+========+========

In the period 1887–1891 the number of illegitimate children to 100 born living was 3.2 [733]; the mortality among illegitimate children during their first year rose to 26.6% as against 17.5% among children in general (1885–1893). [734] It is not possible to calculate for the population in general the number of individuals born of illegitimate unions and arrived at the age at which they are capable of committing crime, but it is certain that the mortality is greater among illegitimate children at each age than among legitimate children, and that the number of children legitimated is very considerable. The percentage of illegitimates to the whole population, then, is much smaller than 3.2. It is consequently probable that in Holland also illegitimate children are more likely to become criminals than legitimate children.

As to juvenile criminals there are the following figures to be gathered from the criminal statistics for the years from 1899 to 1901:

======+=================================================================== | To 100 of Each Category. +---------------------------------+--------------------------------- Years.| Boys. | Girls. +----------+---------+------------+----------+---------+------------ | Illeg. | Orph. | Half-Orph. | Illeg. | Orph. | Half-Orph. ------+----------+---------+------------+----------+---------+------------ 1899 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 18.8 | 4.3 | 2.2 | 27.2 1900 | 3.5 | 0.1 | 18.3 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 29.6 1901 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 15.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 19.6 ======+==========+=========+============+==========+=========+============

New York (State), 1875–1897.

Dugdale gives the following figures in “The Jukes.” They deal with 233 criminals imprisoned in New York in 1875. 40.77% were orphans; 46.78% had been neglected in their youth; 17.16% were descended from criminal families, and 42.49% from intemperate families. [735]

The following very interesting figures are taken from the annual reports of the Elmira Reformatory.

=====+============================================================================ | To Each 100 Prisoners. +------------------+------------------------------+------------------------- |Parents Alcoholic.|Character of Home Environment.| Length of Stay at Home. +------------------+----------+---------+---------+-------------------------- Year.| | | | | | Left Home. |Plainly.|Probably.|Positively| Fair. | Good. +------+-------+----------- | | | Bad. | | |Before|Between|Soon after | | | | | | 10. | 10 and|the Age of | | | | | | | 14. | 14. -----+--------+---------+----------+---------+---------+------+-------+----------- 1881 | 33.8 | 18.0 | 47.7 | 44.0 | 8.3 | 5.4 | 7.6 | 22.5 1882 | 35.1 | 16.0 | 48.1 | 41.1 | 10.8 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 22.7 1883 | 35.6 | 14.1 | 49.3 | 39.1 | 11.6 | 5.2 | 7.0 | 23.6 1884 | 35.9 | 13.3 | 50.0 | 39.2 | 10.8 | 4.4 | 6.8 | 25.0 1885 | 36.4 | 12.8 | 50.6 | 38.9 | 10.5 | 4.9 | 6.8 | 25.5 1886 | 37.5 | 12.0 | 52.4 | 37.4 | 10.2 | 4.6 | 6.4 | 25.5 1888 | 38.4 | 10.9 | 52.1 | 38.9 | 9.0 | 5.2 | 6.3 | 29.5 1889 | 38.7 | 11.1 | 51.8 | 39.9 | 8.3 | 5.2 | 6.2 | 30.8 1890 | 38.4 | 11.4 | 52.0 | 40.4 | 7.6 | 4.7 | 5.8 | 29.5 1891 | 38.4 | 13.0 | 52.6 | 39.8 | 7.6 | 4.5 | 5.9 | 30.7 1892 | 38.3 | 13.1 | 54.1 | 38.3 | 7.6 | 4.1 | 5.8 | 32.0 1893 | 37.8 | 12.7 | 50.3 | 40.0 | 9.7 | 3.8 | 6.1 | 32.6 1894 | 37.5 | 12.1 | 49.0 | 40.6 | 10.4 | 3.8 | 6.1 | 31.8 1896 | 37.5 | 11.3 | 47.0 | 41.3 | 11.7 | 3.6 | 6.7 | 33.0 1897 | 37.6 | 51.7? | 46.7 | 41.1 | 12.2 | 3.7 | 6.3 | 34.2 =====+========+=========+==========+=========+=========+======+=======+===========

In round numbers then: 50% of the criminals come from a corrupt environment, and only 10% from a good environment; 40% had left home before the age of 15; and further, 40 to 45% had alcoholic parents. [736]

Norway, 1897–1900. [737]

The following figures deal with illegitimacy of birth among the prisoners in Norway.

==========+================================================== | Persons of Illegitimate Birth to 100 Prisoners Years. | of Each Category. +----------------+----------------+---------------- | Men. | Women. | Total. ----------+----------------+----------------+---------------- 1897-1898 | 12.7 | 14.7 | 13.0 1898-1899 | 11.8 | 17.2 | 12.6 1899-1900 | -- | -- | 12.0 ==========+================+================+================

During the years 1887–1891, out of 100 living births 7.33 were illegitimate, [738] while the mortality of natural children in the first year was 15.3% and that of children in general 9.5%. [739] Persons of illegitimate birth formed a much greater proportion of the prisoners than of the population in general.

Prussia, 1891–1900. [740]

=========================================================== To 100 Prisoners Born of Illegitimate Unions there were: -----------------+-----------------+----------------------- In Houses of | In Correctional | In Institutions for Detention. | Prisons. |Correctional Education. (1891-1900). | (1896-1900). | (1895-1900). --------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+----------- Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. --------+--------+--------+--------+-----------+----------- 8.5 | 10.2 | 8.3 | 12.5 | 11.6 | 15.1 ========+========+========+========+===========+===========

In the years 1887–1891 there were 7.81 illegitimate children out of each 100 living births; 35.7% of the illegitimate children died in the first year as against 20.8% of children in general (1884–1893). [741] In Prussia also, then, the influence of illegitimacy upon criminality is very marked.

The following table gives the figures for 18,049 recidivists in Prussian houses of detention in the years 1894–1897. [742]

==================================================================== |Absolute| |Numbers.| % ----------------------------------------------|--------|------------ Of illegitimate birth | 2,218 | 11.2 | | Had lost father before age of 14 | 3,230 | 17.8 } ,, ,, mother ,, ,, ,, ,, | 2,116 | 11.7 } 35.1 ,, ,, both ,, ,, ,, ,, | 1,027 | 5.6 } | | ,, ,, father after ,, ,, ,, but before 18| 1,183 | 6.5 } ,, ,, mother after the age of 14 but | | } before 18 | 880 | 4.8 } 12.2 ,, ,, both after the age of 14 but before | | } before 18 | 167 | 0.9 } ,, committed their first crime before the | | age of 14 | 1,150 | 6.3 } ,, committed their first crime between the | | } 33.6 ages of 14 and 18 | 4,936 | 27.3 } ====================================================================

Consequently 47.3% had lost one or both parents before reaching the age of 18; 11.2% were of illegitimate birth—a total, therefore, of 58.5% brought up under abnormal home surroundings. And what was the environment under which the other 41.5% had lived? The table gives no answer to this question, but we may imagine it on the basis of the figures given above.

Switzerland, 1892–1896.

Among the 14,612 persons confined in the Swiss prisons during the years 1892–1896 there were 1,359 of illegitimate birth—1,044 men (8.5%) and 315 women (13.9%). [743] In the period 1871–1890 there were only 5 illegitimate births to the 100, while the mortality during the first year was 24.0 to the 100 natural children as against 16.4 to the 100 children in general. [744] The influence of illegitimate birth upon criminality, therefore, is very great in Switzerland; an illegitimate child is at least three times as likely to become a criminal as a legitimate child.

As regards the education of criminals, 22% of the women and 17% of the men had been brought up by persons outside of the family. The following table bears upon the others, i.e. those who were brought up at home: [745]

============+======================================= | Number of Prisoners. +------------+------------+------------ Education. | Men. | Women. |Illegitimate. +------------+----------- +------------- | Total. % | Total. % | % ------------+------------+------------+------------- Good | 4,696 57 | 586 44 | 37.6 Defective | 3,096 37 | 619 46 | 47.6 Bad | 481 6 | 141 10 | 14.8 ------------+------------+------------+------------- Total | 8,273 100 | 1,346 100 | 100.0 ============+============+============+=============

These figures show that the education of a very great number of criminals was very insufficient, and especially so in the case of illegitimate children.

The following table, dealing with the canton of Berne, gives still further details. [746]

============================+======================================================== |To 100 Convicts of Each Category the Education had been: Categories of Convicts. +-------------+--------------+-------------+------------- | Good. | Defective. | Bad. | Not known. ----------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+------------- Legitimate | 33.0 | 54.0 | 11.0 | 2.0 Illegitimate | 8.4 | 63.4 | 25.3 | 2.8 Brought up at home | 38.0 | 11.0 | 49.0 | 2.0 ,, ,, in another family| 9.0 | 17.0 | 73.0 | 1.0 ,, ,, ,, an institution| 16.0 | 19.0 | 53.0 | 13.0 ============================+=============+==============+=============+=============

The figures concerning the bad education of illegitimate persons are very striking, as well as those brought up in families other than their own; of the latter only 9% had received a good education even as that term is used in the table.

Wurtemberg, 1877–1888.

The following figures have to do with 3,181 criminals in prison in Wurtemberg during the years mentioned:

Out of 100 in each group there were the following number of illegitimate births:

All prisoners 27.0 Habitual criminals 30.6 Occasional criminals 17.4 Thieves 32.4 Swindlers 23.1 Sexual criminals 21.0 Perjurers 13.0 Incendiaries 12.9

Between 1876 and 1885 there were 8.76% of illegitimate births in the general population; and while the general mortality of children in their first year was 26.1% (1884–1893) that of illegitimate children was 32%. [747] The influence of illegitimacy is very strong here, therefore.

To 100 persons of each category the following were brought up outside of their own family:

Prisoners in general 16.0 Habitual criminals 19.3 Occasional criminals 7.6 Thieves 20.9 Incendiaries 11.0 Swindlers 10.8 Sexual criminals 9.4 Perjurers 6.0

To 100 persons of each category there were the following one or both of whose parents had led an immoral or criminal life:

Prisoners in general 43.7 Sexual criminals 51.7 Thieves 47.3 Swindlers 34.8 Incendiaries 31.0 Perjurers 23.0

Finally it must be mentioned that 16.2% of 1,714 in the detention prison had alcoholic parents.

We are now at the end of our statistical data and also of our observations upon the environment in which criminals are brought up; for it seems to me superfluous to make further comments: the great influence of environment is indubitable.

Tomel and Rollet close their work “Enfants en prison” with these words, which I make my own, and which are as applicable to adult as to juvenile criminals: “Has society done everything that it ought to spare children the prison? We believe that with ourselves [the reader] will answer, ‘No!’ Each child to whom we refuse protection will become a delinquent. It is a wolf that we are preparing for the sheep-fold. If tomorrow he makes his fellows pay his own arrears of injustice, if he steals, if he kills, he will not say, ‘I commit a crime’; he will say, ‘I make reprisals.’” [748]

f. Prostitution. Prostitution has a special importance for the etiology of sexual offenses and of procuration. However, it is not with this that we are concerned at present, but with the correlation between prostitution and criminality in general, in the sense, that is, that prostitution has a demoralizing effect upon the women who practice it and upon the men who have intercourse with them.

Let us begin with the effect upon the prostitutes themselves. And as with all observations upon the relation between certain social phenomena and criminality, these must be preceded by statistical data.

How large a quota do prostitutes contribute to crime? This is a hard question to answer, because, first, most criminal statistics make no mention of the occupation of prostitute; second, when the statistics do mention prostitution they do not give the real truth, since the facts will often be concealed by the woman interested; third, the extent of prostitution is almost unknown, so that it is impossible to make the necessary calculations.

The following figures give us some information on the subject.

Austria, 1896–1898.

It is to the study of Dr. A. Baumgarten “Die Beziehungen der Prostitution zum Verbrechen”, that I owe the following figures (which, I believe, bear wholly upon Vienna). In the years 1896–98 there were 34 annually convicted out of a total of 2,400 prostitutes, or 1.4%, not counting those who were punished for infraction of the regulations covering prostitution. [749] The author thinks this degree of criminality very small. I venture to be of a different opinion. If we note that criminal statistics, those of Germany, for example, show that there are annually only 0.3 women over 12 years of age convicted to the 100, we shall see that the part that prostitutes take in crime must be called more than a small one.

England, 1836–1900.

The English penitentiary statistics show whether the female prisoners are prostitutes or not. As we have seen above (p. 499) the percentage of prostitutes rose in the period between 1894–1900 to 15% of the total. The figures bearing upon earlier years, however, show a much higher percentage; in the years 1836–1854 25.2% of the women convicted (in London) were prostitutes [750]; in the years 1858–1862 prostitutes made up 24.7% of the women arrested. [751]

However, when we examine these exceptionally high figures, we must not forget that, according to the “Vagrant Act”, the fact of being a prostitute itself is a misdemeanor; a part of these women, therefore, were convicted for this and not for having committed some other offense. The following figure however, where this circumstance is excluded, also shows a great criminality upon the part of prostitutes, and gains added weight from the fact that many persons would not care to make complaint for fear of scandal: to each 100 persons of both sexes convicted in London between 1843 and 1854 of “theft from the person”, there were 36.0 prostitutes. [752]

France, 1890–1895.

In citing the figures upon the occupations of the prisoners (1890–1895) we showed (p. 501) that about 5% were prostitutes. Compared with that given in the corresponding statistics for England this percentage is small. It must, however, be taken into consideration that a great number of occasional prostitutes figure in the penitentiary statistics under the head of another occupation.

Germany, 1885.

For this country I have been able to find only the following. Among the 2,900 women imprisoned in the 16 great German prisons there were found in 1885 500 (17.2%) who had already been punished for professional prostitution. [753] Although there are no positive data upon the extent of prostitution, it is nevertheless certain that much less than 17.2% of women in general are prostitutes. The figure cited shows that prostitutes take a relatively large part in crime.

Italy, 1891–1895.

1,949 (1.5%) out of 126,717 women convicted in the years 1891–1895 were prostitutes. [754] Here also it must be taken into account that this number is made up only of prostitutes by occupation, and that those who follow it as an auxiliary calling are grouped under other occupations. Also, L. Ferriani, in his “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, concludes that of the 460 young female criminals studied by him, 243 (52.8%) were prostitutes. [755]

What data I have been able to secure do not prove—but render exceedingly probable—the assertion that prostitutes show a high degree of criminality. In my opinion this phenomenon is to be explained as follows.

First. From its nature the profession opens a vast field for committing economic offenses.

Second. Prostitution has a very demoralizing effect upon those that practice it. Those who have not sufficiently taken account of the real causes of prostitution consider this a confusing of cause and effect, and believe that it is the demoralization which causes prostitution. In reasoning thus they forget that part of the prostitutes are forced by poverty to take up this profession, and that in such cases there is no need of supposing demoralization. Whatever may be the case with regard to the rest, the profession would increase the demoralization already existing.

All the authors who have taken up the question are agreed that this is really the case. It is impossible to imagine a more degrading situation than that of a prostitute. A woman who is continually forced to act in opposition to her feelings, who is obliged to enter into intimate relations with the first comer however abject he may be, who has become unaccustomed to all work, and who is despised, inevitably loses all respect for herself and falls lower and lower. [756]

A second bond of connection between criminality and prostitution is that it makes possible a category of persons who constitute a permanent danger to society, namely the “protectors.” The unregistered prostitutes need a man who will look after them, and to whom they may attach themselves in their forlorn condition. In exchange for this protection the prostitute gives up a large part of her earnings. In examining the biographies of great criminals we see that a large number of them have belonged to this category. It is evident that only demoralized persons can lead such a life, but that this life in its turn increases their demoralization. [757]

In the third place, prostitution has a demoralizing effect upon the men who come into contact with the prostitutes. We cannot lay it to chance that it is shown in many criminal procedures that guilty persons have had relations with the world of prostitution. This world includes only a relatively small number of persons; but the men who frequent it are numerous, and the demoralization which ensues is prejudicial to society. This demoralization is easily explained, as Dr. Lux shows in his “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, in these words: “The venality of the delights of love debases the pleasure; the man learns to see in woman only a means of satisfying his lust; all higher regard for woman is lost to him, his thoughts become frivolous and cynical, his character continually more vulgar. Whoever has an opportunity to come to know the young men of the large cities, must, unless he is already tainted with their opinions himself, be shocked at the brutality and coarseness of their thought and speech. The whole conversational material of our gilded youth consists of filth and obscenities; they boast of things that a decent man would blush to be charged with. The young man is demoralized and depraved by association with prostitutes, of whose standard of morality he must beware lest he stifle in it every nobler feeling.” [758]

g. Alcoholism. Here we have to take up but a single one of the ways in which alcoholism is connected with criminality. For while acute alcohol-poisoning enters into the etiology of sexual offenses and those committed in revenge, etc., it has almost no relation to the largest of the classes, namely economic crimes. Acute alcoholism, therefore, has no place among our general observations. With chronic alcoholism it is otherwise; for the man who is subject to this undergoes a general demoralization by which he is predisposed to crime even when he is not drunk. The manner in which this demoralization takes place is not a question within the province of sociology; it is sufficient for us that this consequence of chronic alcoholism is universally recognized. [759]

To show the influence of chronic alcoholism upon criminality we can use only the direct statistical method; that is to say, we must find the number of chronic alcoholics among criminals, and then place beside this the number among the non-criminal population, in order that we may compare them. If the latter figures are lacking, a comparison is impossible. However, as we shall see, the percentage of chronic alcoholics is so great among the criminals, that we can affirm that among the non-criminals the percentage is very small. Consequently the influence of chronic alcoholism, whether greater or less, is indubitably proved. Here are the statistics which we have at our disposal.

Belgium, 1874–1900.

M. Masoin tells us that out of 2,588 convicts (sentenced for 5 years at least) who entered the central institution at Louvain between 1874 and 1895, there were 1,157 (44.7%) addicted to drunkenness. Out of 216 sentenced to hard labor for life there were 118 (54.6%), and out of 202 sentenced to death 121 (60%). [760]

In the prison of Mons Dr. Morel shows that out of 325 recidivists 181 (53.9%) were given to alcoholic excesses. [761]

It appears from the “Statistique Judiciaire de la Belgique” of 1900, that in 1898, out of 19,169 recidivists (men) there were 5,976 (31.2%) who had already been convicted of breaking the law against drunkenness, and out of 22,904 non-recidivists (men) 1,984 (8.7%). Among the women the figures were 8% (recidivists) and 1.1% (non-recidivists). [762]

Denmark, 1871–1897.

Out of 2,982 prisoners received between 1871 and 1880 in the prison at Vridslöselille, 797 (27%) were drunkards. The penitentiary statistics show us that during the years 1891–1897, among the non-recidivists 16.3% of the men were drunkards, and 4.6% of the women. [763]

England and Wales, 1858–1897.

The following figures are taken from the police statistics [764]:

=======+===========+================================================ | | Of whom there were Habitual Drinkers:[765] | +---------------+---------------+---------------- |Number of | Men. | Women. | Total. Years. | Persons +---------+-----+---------+-----+----------+----- |Prosecuted.| Absolute| | Absolute| | Absolute | | | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % -------+-----------+---------+-----+---------+-----+----------+----- 1858 | 434,492 | 13,553 | 3.7 | 4,130 | 4.5 | 17,683 | 4.1 1859 | 419,929 | 18,440 | 5.6 | 5,303 | 5.9 | 23,743 | 5.7 1860 | 409,780 | 19,471 | 6.0 | 5,210 | 6.0 | 24,681 | 6.0 1861 | 421,891 | 19,475 | 5.8 | 4,960 | 5.7 | 24,425 | 5.8 1862 | 438,228 | 20,830 | 6.0 | 5,209 | 5.8 | 26,039 | 5.9 1894 | 689,761 | 19,224 | 3.3 | 6,557 | 5.3 | 25,781 | 3.6 1895 | 687,075 | 16,268 | 2.8 | 5,695 | 4.7 | 21,963 | 3.1 1896 | 728,374 | 17,308 | 2.8 | 6,015 | 4.7 | 23,323 | 3.2 1897 | 757,485 | 17,012 | 2.7 | 6,084 | 4.6 | 23,096 | 3.0 =======+===========+=========+=====+=========+=====+==========+=====

These figures have no great value; they represent the number of habitual drinkers to be less than it really is. The statistics cited divide all persons prosecuted into eight groups (habitual criminals, prostitutes, vagrants, etc.) and under the heading of habitual drinkers only those alcoholics figure who are not included under other headings. If a vagrant, for example, is also a habitual drinker, he will be counted among the vagrants and not among the habitual drinkers; hence this latter group is much larger than the figures would indicate. [766]

France.

At the penitentiary Congress in Brussels (1900), M. V. Marambat, well known for his studies on the relation between criminality and alcoholism, gave the following figures: [767]

=======================================+=========+==========+====== Crimes and Misdemeanors. |Number of|Number of | |Convicts.|Drunkards.| % -------------------------------------- +---------+----------+------ Murder, assault, and other crimes of | | | violence | 787 | 649 | 82.4 Malicious mischief, etc. | 433 | 344 | 79.4 Theft and other economic offenses | 3,359 | 2,156 | 64.2 Arson | 42 | 26 | 61.9 Rape and other sexual offenses | 683 | 352 | 51.5 Other offenses | 18 | 9 | 50.0 +---------+----------+------ Total | 5,322 | 3,536 | 66.4 =======================================+=========+==========+======

At the same congress Dr. Malgat reported the following results of an investigation made by him in the prison at Nice: [768]

=======================================+=========+==========+====== Offenses. | Entered.| Drinkers.| % ---------------------------------------+---------+----------+------ Insults and violence to public officers| 138 | 91 | 65.9 Theft | 579 | 357 | 61.6 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 56 | 34 | 60.7 Assaults | 275 | 160 | 58.1 Vagrancy | 346 | 196 | 56.6 Indecent assault | 52 | 29 | 55.7 Homicide | 33 | 18 | 54.5 Expelled offenders | 175 | 95 | 54.2 Breach of trust | 63 | 33 | 52.3 Other offenses | 133 | 80 | 60.1 +---------+----------+------ Total | 1,850 | 1,093 | 56.3 =======================================+=========+==========+======

Germany.

An inquiry made by Dr. A. Baer with regard to the inmates of the German prisons, in the period after 1870, gives the following results: [769]

=======+==========+============================================ | | Number of Drinkers. | Number +--------------+--------------+-------------- | of | In General. | Occasional. | Habitual. |Prisoners.+--------------+--------------+-------------- | |Absolute.| % |Absolute.| % |Absolute.| % -------+----------+---------+----+---------+----+---------+---- Men | 30,041 | 13,199 |43.9| 7,071 |23.5| 6,128 |20.4 Women | 2,796 | 507 |18.1| 198 | 7.1| 309 |11.0 +----------+---------+----+---------+----+---------+---- Total | 32,837 | 13,706 |41.7| 7,269 |22.1| 6,437 |19.6 =======+==========+=========+====+=========+====+=========+====

For the different crimes and misdemeanors the figures are as follows: [770]

=================+=========+===============+============================== | | |Among the Drinkers there were: Crimes and | Number | Drinkers. +---------------+-------------- Misdemeanors. | of | | Occasional. | Habitual. |Prisoners+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- | (Men). |Absolute| |Absolute| |Absolute| | |Number. | % |Number. | % |Number. | % -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- A. Houses of Correction. -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- Assaults | 773 | 575 | 74.5 | 418 | 72.7 | 157 | 27.3 Robbery, etc. | 898 | 618 | 68.8 | 353 | 57.1 | 265 | 42.9 Homicide | 348 | 220 | 63.2 | 129 | 58.6 | 91 | 41.4 Rape, etc. | 954 | 575 | 60.2 | 352 | 61.2 | 223 | 38.8 Theft | 10,033 | 5,212 | 51.9 | 2,513 | 48.2 | 2,699 | 51.8 Attempted | | | | | | | homicide | 252 | 128 | 50.8 | 78 | 60.9 | 50 | 39.1 Arson | 804 | 383 | 47.6 | 184 | 48.0 | 199 | 52.0 Murder | 514 | 237 | 46.1 | 139 | 58.6 | 98 | 41.4 Various crimes | 1,689 | 712 | 42.2 | 358 | 50.2 | 354 | 49.8 Perjury | 590 | 157 | 26.6 | 82 | 52.2 | 75 | 47.8 -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- B. Houses of Detention. -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- Offenses | | | | | | | against morals | 200 | 154 | 77.0 | 113 | 73.3 | 41 | 26.7 Rebellion | 652 | 489 | 76.5 | 445 | 89.0 | 54 | 11.0 Assaults | 1,130 | 716 | 63.4 | 581 | 81.1 | 135 | 18.9 Robbery | 48 | 28 | 58.3 | 16 | 57.0 | 12 | 43.0 Domiciliary | | | | | | | trespass | 411 | 223 | 54.2 | 210 | 94.2 | 13 | 5.8 Disturbance of | | | | | | | public peace | 34 | 18 | 52.9 | 12 | 66.6 | 6 | 33.3 Various | | | | | | | misdemeanors | 826 | 433 | 52.4 | 306 | 70.7 | 127 | 29.3 Arson | 23 | 11 | 48.0 | 5 | 45.4 | 6 | 54.6 Theft | 3,282 | 1,048 | 32.0 | 666 | 63.5 | 382 | 36.5 Obtaining | | | | | | | money under | | | | | | | false | | | | | | | pretenses, | | | | | | | forgery, embez.| 786 | 194 | 24.7 | 111 | 57.2 | 83 | 42.8 =================+=========+========+======+========+======+========+=====

Out of a total of 359 vagabonds and mendicants Dr. Bonhoeffer found 281 (78.2 %) alcoholics. [771]

Italy.

Out of a total of 507 criminals examined by him Dr. Marro found 379 (74.7%) addicted to excess in alcohol, and only eight (1.5%) abstainers or “unknown.” [772]

Netherlands, 1900–1901.

It was only in 1900 that the criminal statistics mentioned for the first time the number of habitual drunkards among the convicts. Here are the results:

======================================+======================= |Percentage of Habitual Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Drunkards in Each | Category. --------------------------------------+----------------------- Obtaining money under false pretenses | 16 Crimes against the public authority | 13 Mendicity and vagabondage | 10 Crimes of violence | 10 Crimes against morals | 10 All crimes | 8.31 Assault | 7 Theft | 7 Receiving stolen goods | .5 Poaching | 3 ======================================+=======================

Among the recidivists the drunkards formed 11.6%.

The data for 1901 are more detailed and also more worthy of confidence.

======================================+======================= |Percentage of Habitual Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Drunkards in Each | Category. --------------------------------------+----------------------- Mendicity and vagabondage | 26.51 Rebellion | 21.16 Embezzlement | 19.20 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 18.26 Serious assaults | 16.94 Malicious mischief | 16.59 Insult to public official | 16.10 Disturbing the public peace | 14.33 Simple theft | 11.61 Sexual offenses | 10.84 Assaults | 10.87 Insults | 9.96 Aggravated theft | 8.84 Poaching | 1.46 All crimes | 13.00 ======================================+=======================

Of the recidivists 21.96% were habitual drunkards. [773]

New York (State), 1869–1870.

In his “Dangerous Classes of New York”, C. L. Brace states that in 1870, out of 49,423 criminals in the prisons of New York City there were 30,507 (61.6%) habitual drunkards, and 893 (81.6%) of the 1,093 prisoners in the Albany penitentiary in the years 1869–70 likewise were drunkards. [774]

R. L. Dugdale gives the following figures for the 233 criminals examined by him: [775]

======================================+======================= |Percentage of Habitual Crimes. | Drunkards. --------------------------------------+----------------------- Theft from the person | 55.00 Robbery | 47.36 Crimes against persons | 40.47 Theft | 39.28 All crimes | 39.05 Crimes against property | 38.74 Burglary | 33.33 ======================================+=======================

Prussia, 1894–1897.

Out of 18,049 recidivists in the houses of correction in the years 1849–1897, there were 4,930 (27.3%) habitual drunkards, of whom 4,473 (28.7%) were men, and 457 (18.2%) were women. [776]

Sweden, 1887–1897.

Out of 27,452 inmates in the prisons during the years 1887–1897 there were 3,273 (11.9%) addicted to drink, of whom 3,101 (12.7%) were men and 99 (3.2%) women. [777] These figures, however, are below the reality, since only those are counted as alcoholics who were drunk at the time they committed the crime. When we take into consideration that the number of criminals who were in a state of intoxication when they committed their crimes was 52.6%, we may be certain that a considerable number of them were habitual drunkards.

Switzerland, 1892–1896.

On the 1st of January, 1892, there were 2,201 persons in the 35 penitentiaries; 1,816 men and 385 women. Among these there were 880 drunkards (39.9%); 762 (42%) men, and 118 (31%) women. [778]

In the years 1892–1896, the Swiss criminal statistics give alcoholism as the cause of crime in 23.1% of the cases. [779] This figure, however, has no great value; not only are the statistics concerning alcoholism as a cause little worthy of confidence, as the author of them confesses (indeed, it is impossible to speak of “the cause” of a criminal act, since there are always several); but further there is no distinction made between acute and chronic alcoholism.

Wurtemberg, 1887–1888.

Among the 3,181 prisoners examined by Sichart in the years 1887–1888, there were 939 (29.5%) habitual drunkards. The figures for some of the more important crimes are as follows: [780]

=====================================+============== |Percentage of Crimes. | Drunkards in |Each Category. -------------------------------------+-------------- Crimes against morals | 36.3 Arson | 34.2 Theft | 28.0 Obtaining money under false pretenses| 25.7 Perjury | 24.0 =====================================+==============

The data given above show sufficiently, it seems to me, what the relation is between chronic alcoholism and criminality. Notwithstanding their divergences the percentages in the different countries are generally very high, and in every case much higher than among the non-criminal population. The danger that these statistics are based upon inaccurate data is not great, since the culprit has every reason to pretend that his act has been committed in a state of intoxication, in order that he may be less severely punished, and not that he is a chronic alcoholic.

There still remains the question as to what is the degree of influence which chronic alcoholism has upon crime. We should be exaggerating if we were to declare (as is sometimes done by total abstainers) that whenever a criminal is an habitual alcoholic, alcoholism is one of the principal causes of his crime. It is evident that in many cases it is only an accidental phenomenon. Nevertheless, the figures given above agree with the thesis that chronic alcoholism is a demoralizing agent and as such belongs to the etiology of crime. Its influence naturally cannot be exactly expressed in figures. [781]

h. Militarism. Although the influence of militarism upon criminality may not be an important factor in comparison with some others, it is still necessary to speak of it here briefly, and under two heads: its influence in time of peace, and its influence in time of war.

First, the influence of militarism in time of peace. The army is recruited in great part among those who do not volunteer, in other words among persons who have not the least taste for the military life and only serve for fear of incurring severe penalties. Then a great number of the volunteers have become soldiers only from necessity, because they could not find a place for themselves anywhere else. Finally one class of volunteers have enlisted very young, for a long term of service, perhaps at the instance of their parents, or drawn by the brilliant uniform, or other means of advertising peculiar to the army. It is unnecessary to add that for the last two classes the military service is often a deception, which makes them regret having engaged in it.

The first source of demoralization in an army is to be found in its composition. When you bring together a number of men, uneducated for the most part, with nothing to unite them but constraint, and when there are already certain bad elements among them, the demoralizing influence makes itself felt at once. No moral bond unites these men, but on the contrary a vague irritation begins to spread. And this demoralization is not counteracted by that great moral force, work; a great part of the time among the soldiers is passed in forced idleness, and the rest in learning things in which they have little interest, if indeed they do not feel an aversion to them.

It is naturally only by a discipline of iron that order can be maintained and the recruits taught their trade. As soon as a man is debased by excessive discipline to the rôle of a machine, his moral qualities deteriorate; the state of things thus created brings it about that the great power given to superiors often degenerates into a thirst for domination, and renders the subordinates servile, and yet of the opinion that anything is right for them so long as they are not found out. [782]

Since most soldiers are only under arms for a short time, the consequences named are not of great importance for them, but those consequences nevertheless exist for the professional soldier. The best known set of statistics upon the criminality among soldiers is that of Hausner, [783] who shows that it is 25 times as great as the criminality of civilians. These figures, however, have little value, because among the civilians are counted not simply the men of military age, but the whole population. Further, a statistical comparison of military and civil criminality will always meet with great difficulties, for, first, there are offenses of which only soldiers can be guilty; second, the number of the soldiers is not constant even in any one year. Although we cannot, therefore, express in figures the harmful influences of militarism, it exists, nevertheless. But even if we had the figures and they were to show—supposing a most improbable case—that criminality was no greater among soldiers than in civil life, even this would not contradict the evil influence of military life, since repression and the fear of punishment are greater among soldiers than among civilians, and abject poverty, one of the powerful factors in economic criminality, is totally lacking in the army. [784]

The question may be raised as to whether the disadvantages spoken of above are inseparable from every form of organization of the army. The answer must be that this is the case in part only. The harmful consequences will partially disappear when the army is adapted to the democratic spirit, and the service remains limited to the time strictly necessary to make a good soldier; but the fact that the great mass of which the army is composed has no sympathy with its aim and end but remains in service only by constraint, will continue to exist. This latter circumstance will disappear only in the country where the army is exclusively for the purposes of defense, to repulse an enemy that wishes to destroy democratic institutions.

We come now to the influence of war itself. That which, at ordinary times, is one of the gravest crimes, homicide, is commanded in war; ravages and burnings are the order of the day. It is inevitable that those who are driven to commit such acts, lose little by little their respect for the lives and property of their fellows. War arouses a spirit of violence, not only in those who take part in it, but in the whole population.

Happily wars are neither so numerous nor so long continued as formerly, so that the consequences have no longer so wide a scope.

Statistical research into the influence of war upon criminality is very difficult, for criminality diminishes in time of war in an abnormal fashion, first, because a great part of the male population of the age most disposed to crime is under arms; second, the repression of crime being less vigorous makes the degree of criminality appear smaller than it really is, which explains why the figures for the criminality of women and juveniles are less.

We often hear that war has also a good moral influence, since the whole nation is then animated with a single ideal. This is true only in the very rare cases where a war is really popular, in place of being the means of procuring material profits for a small minority, while the great majority remain indifferent. It goes without saying that even in these exceptional cases, the harmful consequences to the participants still remain. [785]

We have examined the tendencies of the present economic system and of its consequences. Before concluding we must treat of the effect of

i. The penalty. The present codes give prominence to three kinds of penalties: fines, different kinds of imprisonment, and capital punishment. We naturally do not have to say anything of the first of these, since there can be no question raised as to its effect upon the person upon whom the fine is laid. All that we can say is that this penalty fails of its object since no account is taken of the financial condition of the person sentenced to it, and it follows that while the punishment involved is only trifling for the rich, it constitutes a heavy burden for the poor. Often a fine for a poor man who cannot pay is simply a sentence to a short imprisonment.

The death penalty also naturally is outside of our present discussion. I would simply observe that among the numerous arguments against this penalty it must be noted that it has no intimidating effect upon those who are present, as one would suppose, but on the contrary a demoralizing influence; besides which the attention of the ignorant class is drawn to the crime and the perpetrator of it. Those who are condemned to death have almost all been present at executions. Out of a total of 511 of whom we have information, there were only 15 (about 3%) who had never witnessed an execution. [786]

In investigating the influence of punishment upon morality it is imprisonment alone, therefore, which must be taken into consideration, so much the more since even in the case of minor crimes it is almost always inflicted, while capital punishment is either altogether abolished, as in some countries, or else rarely pronounced and still more rarely executed.

The following table shows how many times imprisonment is inflicted in comparison with other forms of punishment.

Germany, 1882–1895. [787]

=================+============================================= | Penalties to Each 1,000 Persons Sentenced. +------+------------+------+------------------ Years. |Death.|Imprisonment|Fines.|Public Admonition. | |(All kinds.)| | -----------------+------+------------+------+------------------ 1882 | 0.3 | 736.3 | 253 | 10 1883-87 } annual | 0.2 | 697.4 | 291 | 11 1888-92 } average| 0.1 | 660.2 | 323 | 17 1893 | 0.1 | 619.2 | 363 | 18 1894 | 0.1 | 607.2 | 375 | 18 1895 | 0.1 | 595.2 | 386 | 19 =================+======+============+======+==================

60% to 70% of the sentences, then, were deprivation of liberty. What is the effect of this? The answer to this question must be found in the statistics of recidivism. Here are the results for certain countries of Europe, which probably are not much different from those of other countries.

Germany, 1882–1900. [788]

======+==============+========================================== | |To 100,000 of the Population over 12 there | Numbers of | were Recidivists who were Convicted Years.|Recidivists to+-------+--------+-------------+----------- |100 Convicts. | Once. | Twice. |3 to 5 Times.|6 Times and | | | | | Over. ------+--------------+-------+--------+-------------+----------- 1882 | 24.9 | 115 | 56 | 64 | 23 1883 | 25.8 | 119 | 59 | 69 | 20 1884 | 26.3 | 127 | 63 | 72 | 22 1885 | 27.4 | 127 | 63 | 75 | 26 1886 | 28.0 | 129 | 65 | 79 | 30 1887 | 28.8 | 131 | 66 | 81 | 34 1888 | 29.3 | 127 | 65 | 80 | 35 1889 | 31.2 | 142 | 71 | 87 | 40 1890 | 32.7 | 150 | 76 | 93 | 43 1891 | 34.0 | 158 | 79 | 99 | 47 1892 | 34.7 | 169 | 87 | 107 | 54 1893 | 35.2 | 171 | 88 | 111 | 57 1894 | 36.9 | 181 | 93 | 120 | 65 1895 | 37.9 | 184 | 96 | 124 | 69 1896 | 38.8 | 183 | 96 | 129 | 75 1897 | 39.6 | 186 | 99 | 129 | 78 1898 | 40.1 | 189 | 100 | 133 | 83 1899 | 40.8 | 187 | 100 | 133 | 85 1900 | 41.2 | 180 | 96 | 131 | 86 ======+==============+=======+========+=============+===========

Recidivism has regularly increased, then: a little more than 65% in 18 years.

It is present in different crimes in very various degrees. For the following crimes it is very great.

Germany, 1882–1895. [789]

===============================+=================================================== |Number of Recidivists having undergone Imprisonment | to Each 100 Convicts in the Crimes. | Years +-------------+-------------+-------------+--------- | 1882. | 1886. | 1890. | 1895. -------------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+--------- Leze-majesty | 40.7 | 41.3 | 43.2 | 52.8 Rebellion | 31.8 | 41.3 | 46.8 | 52.7 Robbery and blackmail | 44.4 | 45.6 | 51.5 | 50.9 False accusation | 34.8 | 37.1 | 42.1 | 48.3 Crimes of fraud | 32.9 | 38.9 | 42.9 | 45.4 Crimes against personal liberty| 26.6 | 32.3 | 37.8 | 42.8 Theft and embezzlement | 32.1 | 35.2 | 37.2 | 40.4 Crimes against morals | 24.1 | 31.3 | 35.9 | 38.3 Counterfeiting | 28.5 | 31.1 | 35.1 | 38.2 ===============================+=============+=============+=============+=========

The following figures give a picture of recidivism in

England and Wales, 1871–1900. [790]

=======+===============+====================================================== | |Percentage among Convicts of Recidivists who have been | Percentage | Convicted Years. |of Recidivists +----------+----------+----------+----------+---------- |among Convicts.| Once. | 2 to 5 | 6 to 10 | 11 to 20 | Over 20 | | | Times. | Times. | Times. | Times. -------+---------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------- 1871-77| 40 | | | | | 1880-92| 48 | | | | | 1894 | 54.5 | 15.2 | 18.3 | 7.7 | 6.2 | 6.9 1895 | 55.5 | 15.7 | 18.0 | 8.9 | 6.9 | 5.9 1896 | 57.3 | 14.8 | 19.1 | 9.0 | 7.7 | 6.6 1897 | 57.6 | 18.9 | 19.0 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 7.1 1898 | 59.9 | 16.2 | 20.0 | 8.9 | 7.5 | 7.1 1899 | 60.2 | 16.4 | 19.9 | 9.2 | 7.6 | 7.0 1900 | 59.3 | 15.8 | 19.2 | 9.2 | 7.7 | 7.4 =======+===============+==========+==========+==========+==========+==========

Here also, then, as in Germany there is a great increase in recidivism; 72% in 29 years.

For some offenses recidivism is more common than for others, as the following figures show.

England and Wales, 1899–1900. [791]

(Assizes and Quarter Sessions.)

======+=============================================================== |Number of Recidivists to 100 Persons Convicted of the Following | Crimes. Years.+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------------+-------- | Crimes | Crimes | Crimes | | | |against |against |against | | Forgery | |Persons.|Property |Property |Malicious| and | Other | | with | without |Mischief.|Counterfeiting.|Crimes. | |Violence.|Violence.| | | ------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------------+-------- 1894 | 32.1 | 67.3 | 64.1 | 42.5 | 41.1 | 27.9 1895 | 35.2 | 67.3 | 66.1 | 51.8 | 38.5 | 24.4 1896 | 36.1 | 67.2 | 66.3 | 44.3 | 37.4 | 25.0 1897 | 38.0 | 68.7 | 66.4 | 51.1 | 40.0 | 28.1 1898 | 39.3 | 68.1 | 68.3 | 56.0 | 43.2 | 32.4 1899 | 37.7 | 69.9 | 67.4 | 58.3 | 40.0 | 35.2 1900 | 39.7 | 71.0 | 68.9 | 59.4 | 40.9 | 29.8 ======+========+=========+=========+=========+===============+========

The following table has to do with

Austria, 1866–1899. [792]

=========+========================================================================== | Percentage of Convicts Who +------------------+------------------+------+----------------+------------ Years. |Had been convicted|Had been convicted| |Had been already| Were | of Crime | of Crime |Total.| convicted |Recidivists. | Once Before. | Several Times. | |of a Misdemeanor| | | | | or | | | | | Contravention. | ---------+------------------+------------------+------+----------------+------------ 1866-1870| 11.9 | 15.5 | 27.4 | 17.5 | 44.9 1871-1875| 11.6 | 14.2 | 25.8 | 17.9 | 43.7 1876-1880| 10.9 | 14.6 | 25.5 | 22.2 | 47.7 1881-1885| 10.6 | 14.2 | 24.8 | 25.2 | 50.0 1886-1890| 10.9 | 12.9 | 23.8 | 27.9 | 51.7 1891-1895| 11.1 | 12.5 | 23.6 | 28.9 | 52.5 1896 | 12.5 | 10.7 | 23.2 | 31.5 | 54.7 1897 | 12.7 | 10.6 | 23.3 | 30.4 | 53.8 1898 | 12.5 | 9.9 | 22.4 | 29.1 | 51.5 1899 | 12.4 | 10.1 | 22.5 | 29.8 | 52.4 =========+==================+==================+======+================+============

This table has only a little value for the problem of recidivism; it bears only upon those convicted of crime and leaves out of account those convicted of misdemeanors; and in the last two columns are included persons convicted of contraventions, who ought not to figure in statistics of recidivism.

The following figures have much greater value.

France, 1850–1900. [793]

=============+============================== |Percentage of Recidivists in | Each Group of Convicts. +--------+--------------+------ Years. |Assizes.| Correctional |Total. | | Tribunals. | -------------+--------+--------------+------ 1850-1855 | 33 | -- | -- 1856-1860 | 36 | -- | 31 1861-1865 | 38 | -- | 34 1866-1870 | 41 | -- | 38 1871-1875 | 47 | -- | 42 1876-1880 | 48 | -- | 44 1881-1885 | 52 | 44 | 44 1886-1890 | 56 | 47 | 47 1891-1895 | 57 | 46 | 46 1896-1900 | 57 | 46 | 46 =============+========+==============+======

Here, then, is a steady increase, checked only in the last 15 years by the law of May 27th, 1885, upon recidivism.

The following table shows recidivism for certain offenses. [794]

========================================+===================================== | Percentage of Recidivists among Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Convicts. +--------+--------+--------+---------- |1881-85.|1886-90.|1891-95.|1896-1900. ----------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+---------- Drunkenness | 81 | 79 | 79 | 86 Vagabondage | 73 | 78 | 79 | 82 Mendicity | 72 | 77 | 75 | 80 Assaults upon parents, etc. | 69 | 63 | 55 | 80 Aggravated theft | 73 | 77 | 79 | 79 Counterfeiting | 50 | 54 | 57 | 55 Insults and violence to public officials| 48 | 50 | 51 | 51 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 51 | 50 | 51 | 50 Homicide | 42 | 50 | 52 | 50 Murder | 46 | 44 | 44 | 48 Arson | 53 | 50 | 52 | 46 Theft | 47 | 51 | 47 | 46 Serious assaults | 40 | 35 | 42 | 46 Domestic theft | 47 | 45 | 42 | 44 Forgery | 37 | 43 | 46 | 44 Fraudulent bankruptcy | 33 | 26 | 31 | 44 Misdemeanor connected with fishing | 35 | 39 | 39 | 41 Breach of trust | 41 | 43 | 41 | 39 Offenses connected with hunting | 26 | 32 | 34 | 38 Minor assaults | 32 | 36 | 35 | 35 Offenses against morals | 31 | 30 | 32 | 31 Maltreatment of children | 32 | 25 | 21 | 25 Infanticide | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 ========================================+========+========+========+==========

Here are the figures for

Italy, 1876–1889. [795]

========+========================= |Percentage of Recidivists | among those arraigned | Before. Years. +----------+-------------- | Assizes. | Correctional | | tribunals. --------+----------+-------------- 1876 | 10.4 | -- 1877 | 11.2 | -- 1878 | 13.2 | -- 1879 | 20.7 | -- 1880 | 21.5 | -- 1881 | 26.5 | 20.2 1882 | 28.8 | 21.1 1883 | 29.4 | 22.6 1884 | 32.8 | 23.6 1885 | 34.7 | 27.6 1886 | 34.0 | 27.8 1887 | 36.0 | 32.2 1888 | 32.2 | 30.6 1889 | 36.3 | 32.3 ========+==========+==============

In Italy also, then, there is a constant increase of recidivism (except in 1888).

In conclusion, here are the figures for the

Netherlands, 1896–1901. [796]

========+=========+============+============+======================== | | | | Percentage of Convicts | | | Percentage | who had been Convicted. Years. |Convicts.|Recidivists.| of +-------+-------+-------- | | |Recidivists.| |2 to 5 |6 times | | | | Once. |times. |or more. --------+---------+------------+------------+-------+-------+-------- 1896 | 17,205 | 5,097 | 29.6 | 17.1 | 10.3 | 2.2 1897 | 16,832 | 5,566 | 33.0 | 19.6 | 11.6 | 1.8 1898 | 16,368 | 5,997 | 36.6 | 21.2 | 13.2 | 2.2 1899 | 15,631 | 6,092 | 38.9 | 20.7 | 15.4 | 2.8 1900 | 15,169 | 6,048 | 39.8 | 20.3 | 16.2 | 3.3 ========+=========+============+============+=======+=======+========

The imperfection of the present mode of combating crime is shown even by the evidence of the statistics we have given. It would be hard to imagine a more complete fiasco; in place of a decrease there has been an increase of recidivism; in place of making men better, the prison makes them worse.

Here is in brief the explanation of the fact. As we have already observed above in treating of the definition of crime, one of the important elements in the present system of punishment consists, for many people, in the desire to satisfy their revengeful feelings excited by the crime. Those who realize that the punishment must be especially aimed at the improvement of the criminal form only a small minority. The present forms of punishment and the manner in which they are inflicted are little if at all in accord with this latter point of view. At present the penalty is not much more than an evil inflicted upon the criminal to satisfy the vengeance of a great part of mankind, and at the same time to make it impossible for the criminal to do harm, either for a time or else forever, and finally to terrify him and other men into not committing crimes. So long as punishment has this characteristic, so long as it does not aim at the improvement of the criminal, so long will it fail to effect a decrease in crime, but will rather bring an increase, as the facts prove. No one, not even the most dangerous criminal is morally improved in the slightest degree by vengeance wreaked upon him. Vengeance engenders only vengeance and no other feeling. We can expect to see good results from punishment only if the criminal, from the manner in which he is treated, perceives that those who have him in charge wish him well, are trying to improve him, and that his act was wicked and intolerable.

There are two types of imprisonment; imprisonment in common, and in separate cells. It is very easy to understand that a term of imprisonment served in common has disastrous consequences for the prisoner. It is because of this system that the prison has had the name of a school of crime, which would be a good joke if the facts were less serious. All kinds of criminals, young and old, those sentenced for minor offenses, [797] and those guilty of grave crimes, criminals against property and criminals against persons, all find themselves massed together, so that instead of leaving prison bettered, almost every one leaves it worse than he went in. No work is done, or at least only stupefying labors; a real trade is neither practiced nor learned. [798]

The disadvantages of this system have led to the cellular plan by which the contagious influences of the prison are gotten rid of. Much was hoped for from the change, but the statistics of recidivism show the hope to have been ill-founded; separate confinement improves the prisoner no more than the older type. This fact is not difficult to explain. Starting from the false theory that man has a free will, the non-determinists have believed, and unhappily still believe, that the criminal left to himself and to his own reflections will repent. As Sacker in “Der Rückfall” judiciously remarks, the criminal must not be left to his thoughts—if he has any—but must be given new ideas. It is unnecessary to remark that it is not life in a cell that will give them to him.

Man is a social being; without life among his fellows he is like an animal out of its element. How can he become better if he lives alone. The cell stupefies him, isolation and monotony make him a machine, which later will not be fit for a free life. I do not know a better description of the consequences of separate confinement than that given by the competent author of “Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts”, Th. Holmes. He says: “How is it that a man’s facial expression changes during a long detention? How is it that his voice becomes hard and unnatural? How is it that his eyes become shifty, cunning, and wild? It is no fault of the prison officials; they cannot help these things; from the governor downward they are not to blame. It is not because of hard work. From conversation with, and knowledge of, such men, I gather that some of them at any rate would be thankful for more work. It is the system that does it, the long-continued, soul-and-mind-destroying monotony, the long, silent nights in which for hours men lie awake thinking, thinking, thinking, driven in upon themselves and to be their own selves’ only companion. No interchange of ideas is possible, no sound of human voices comes to call forth their own, and their own vocal organs rust. Nor does returning day bring change, nothing but the same duties, performed in the same way, at the same hour, and the same food, in the same quantities, served in the same demoralizing way. They become strangers to the usages of civilized society, and devour their food even as the beasts, but not with the wild beast’s relish. To the use of knife and fork they become strangers; to a knowledge of their own lineaments they become strangers; to high thoughts, amiable words, courtesy, love of truth, and all that makes a man they become strangers, for these virtues cannot dwell with senseless monotony. But if these things die of atrophy, other but less desirable qualities are developed. A low cunning takes their place; the wits are sharpened to deceive or to gain small ends; hypocrisy is developed, and men come out of prison hating it, loathing it, but less fitted to perform the duties of life than when they entered it.” [799]

Read further the opinion of Dostoievsky: “I am firmly convinced that the boasted cellular system pursues but a false, if specious, aim. It sucks the vital power out of a man, enervates his mind, weakens and cows him, and finally presents the desiccated mummy of a man made half mad, as a picture of reformation and repentance.” [800]

It would be possible to fill these pages with the well-supported opinions of those who regard the cellular system as “an aberration of the 19th century” (Ferri). [801]

To sum up then, we come to the conclusion that the system of imprisonment is not in a condition to arrest the tide of criminality, but further that it is even one of the causes of the increase of crime, since it makes the prisoners still worse. It may be that in consequence of what I have just said the reader will remark that there is no other expedient possible than imprisonment, whether in common or cellular. Although the question of the treatment of the criminal as it ought to be is not one of those with which we are at present occupied, I shall nevertheless say a few words on the subject.

It is possible to practice a third system, which takes its origin from the idea that the crime does not proceed from the free will, but from causes which it will be necessary to try to remove, in place of inflicting a useless punishment. It is to the credit of the State of New York that it should be the first to put in practice this sort of a system of combating crime (in the Elmira Reformatory). An effort is made to make a man of the criminal, to turn him into a strong and sound individual; he is taught a trade, his mind is elevated, his feeling of honor revived, in short, everything is done that is necessary to stimulate the development of what is human in the man. And the results prove that those who are following this method are surely on the right road. [802]

There is only one objection to this system; that many persons who have not committed crime lead a life which in various ways is worse than that of the criminals so treated. However, this very sound objection does not condemn the system, but rather the present organization of society, which obliges a great number of persons to drag out a miserable existence. The question of crime and the social question are inseparable; he who examines the first without the second will not do much toward solving it.

j. Imitation. Before concluding we must give our attention to one more factor: imitation. We have already pointed this out in speaking of the moral education of the young, but it is also of importance with adults (e.g. the influence of the press, etc.; see above, C., a., in this chapter), though not to so great an extent. When society shows very egoistic tendencies imitation strengthens these considerably; when we see persons with whom we have to do, always acting in an egoistic manner, our anti-egoistic forces weaken little by little and we end by doing as the others do. [803] In the crime of mobs imitation plays an important part.

The proofs to support the power of imitation in the etiology of crime are to be found in the biographies of most great criminals; bad example plays generally a preponderant rôle in the drama of life. I know only a single set of statistics giving exact information of the atmosphere in which criminals have lived, and so furnishing an idea of the influence of imitation. It is that furnished by the “Elmira Reformatory”. According to the “Twenty-second Yearbook” (1897) the character of the people with whom the inmates had associated was as follows: [804]

=========================+========================== | Prisoners. Character of Associates. +------------------+------- | Absolute Number. | % -------------------------+------------------+------- Positively bad | 4,511 | 54.2 Less bad | 3,614 | 43.4 Doubtful | 81 | 1.4 Good | 113 | 1.0 +------------------+------- Total | 8,319 | 100.0 =========================+==================+=======

A second proof of the influence of the contagion of crime is found in the fact that the criminality in the cities, where people come more into contact with each other, is in general greater than that in the country. Although it is evident that we cannot impute this exclusively to imitation (it is due, among other things, in part to the great differences of fortune found in the cities), it still plays an important part. [805] The following figures give a picture of the criminality in the large cities and in the country. [806]

England and Wales, 1894–1898.

======================+=========================================================== | Crimes Known to the Police, to the 100,000 | of the Population. +---------------+---------------+--------------------------- |All Indictable |Crimes Against | Crimes Against Persons. Districts. | Offenses. | Property. +-------------+------------- | | | Crimes of | Sexual | | | Violence. | Crimes. +-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------ | 1894.| 1898.| 1894.| 1898.| 1894.| 1898.| 1894.| 1898. ----------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------ London | 416.77| 391.56| 386.24| 358.90| 11.95| 10.63| 5.93| 5.72 Mining districts | 234.33| 230.84| 214.32| 211.07| 8.39| 7.19| 8.11| 7.89 Manufacturing cities | 351.84| 325.93| 332.48| 306.21| 6.66| 6.74| 4.43| 4.00 Sea-ports | 643.60| 611.10| 597.91| 575.60| 22.54| 16.72| 8.44| 5.95 Watering places, etc. | 265.70| 302.25| 250.37| 283.34| 4.38| 5.93| 4.14| 6.16 Agricultural districts| | | | | | | | divided into: | | | | | | | | 1st. Eastern | 128.20| 120.23| 119.06| 107.84| 3.76| 3.22| 3.63| 5.45 2nd. South-eastern | 182.97| 195.86| 163.52| 176.55| 5.29| 6.22| 8.10| 8.70 3rd. Around London | 202.13| 198.07| 185.97| 181.41| 4.29| 4.94| 6.53| 6.32 England and Wales | 296.70| 284.20| 275.93| 262.83| 7.28| 7.39| 6.09| 5.94 ======================+=======+=======+=======+=======+======+======+======+======

The following table [807] relates to

Bavaria, 1883–1897.

=============================+================================================== | Number of Convicts to 10,000 of the Population | over 12 Years of Age. +----------------+----------------+---------------- Crimes. | 1883-1887. | 1888-1892. | 1893-1897. +-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+-------- | City. |Country.| City. |Country.| City. |Country. -----------------------------|-------+--------+-------+--------+-------+-------- Assault | 19.9 | 27.7 | 19.9 | 31.2 | 22.4 | 32.8 Theft | 37.4 | 26.6 | 39.7 | 26.1 | 37.3 | 25.9 Fraud | 10.2 | 5.0 | 12.1 | 6.9 | 12.5 | 6.9 Violence and threats against | | | | | | public officials | 4.7 | 2.7 | 4.5 | 2.4 | 4.9 | 2.6 All crimes | 137.1 | 114.0 | 133.7 | 119.6 | 139.4 | 123.1 =============================+=======+========+=======+========+=======+========

As in England the criminality in the cities is in general greater than in the country.

We find the same picture in the figures for

France, 1881–1900. [808]

=============+============================== Residence. |Number of Persons Arraigned to | 100,000 of the Population. +---------------+-------------- | 1881-1885. | 1896-1900. -------------+---------------+-------------- Urban | 15.4 | 11.1 Rural | 7.8 | 5.4 =============+===============+==============

The following table gives figures for certain important crimes. [809]

==================+================================= |Percentage of Persons Arraigned. +----------------+---------------- Crimes. |Living in Rural |Living in Urban | Communes. | Communes. +--------+-------+---------------- | 1881. | 1900. | 1881. | 1900. ------------------+--------+-------+-------+-------- Murder | 64 | 50 | 36 | 50 Homicide | 58 | 54 | 42 | 46 Assaults | 50 | 56 | 50 | 44 Indecent assaults | 55 | 53 | 45 | 47 Forgery | 37 | 37 | 63 | 63 Breach of trust | 35 | 14 | 65 | 86 Arson | 77 | 74 | 23 | 26 Theft | 33 | 21 | 67 | 79 ==================+========+=======+=======+========

In studying the preceding table it must be noted that in the two periods 34% and 39% of the population respectively were urban.

Netherlands, 1901. [810]

======================+==============================================+================== Places where the | Percentage of Convicts who had | Percentage of Offense was Committed.| Committed their Crimes in the Groups |Whole Population | of Communes Designated. | Living in the | |Groups Designated. +------+----------+---------+------------------+------------------ |Total.|Rebellion.| Simple |Simple |Aggravated| | | |Assaults.|Theft. | Theft. | ----------------------+------+----------+---------+-------+----------+------------------ Communes of more than | | | | | | 20,000 inhabitants | 38.3 | 45.3 | 21.2 | 41.7 | 50.4 | 36.8 Communes of less than | | | | | | 20,000 inhabitants | 61.7 | 54.7 | 78.8 | 58.3 | 49.6 | 63.2 ======================+======+==========+=========+=======+==========+==================

An examination of the statistics given shows that except for a few offenses the cities are more criminal than the country. [811] However, it must not be forgotten that the cities have proportionately a greater number of inhabitants at the age at which there is the greatest tendency to crime, and that the figures therefore give the criminality of the cities as a little greater than it is. On the other hand there is a greater proportion of crimes that are not prosecuted, or whose authors remain undiscovered. The English statistics, which do not speak of the persons arraigned or convicted, but of the crimes known to the police, are better in this regard.

It is unnecessary to treat more fully of the rôle of imitation in the etiology of crime; no one will deny it. As I have already noted, in