CHAPTER II.

ECONOMIC CRIMES.

It is necessary to divide these crimes into separate groups. Notwithstanding their partial similarity they differ too much among themselves to be treated together. I propose to speak of them under the four following heads: A. Vagrancy and mendicity; B. Theft, and analogous crimes; C. Robbery, homicide for economic reasons, etc. (that is to say, economic crimes committed with violence or directed against life); D. Fraudulent bankruptcy, adulteration of food, etc. (that is to say, economic crimes committed almost exclusively by the bourgeoisie, while those of the first three categories are committed almost exclusively by the poor). Some crimes, like that of embezzlement, belong to the second class as well as to the fourth (for example, a workman’s making off with a bicycle loaned to him, and the embezzlement of deposits by a bank director).

It seems to me unnecessary to explain this division. It creates four fairly distinct groups, which contain all the economic crimes. However, I must point out why I treat vagrancy and mendicity in this way, while both are generally regarded not as misdemeanors but as contraventions. [822] Properly speaking they ought not, therefore, to appear in a work on criminality, but the following are the reasons why they nevertheless find a place here; first, they are the most important and the most common contraventions; second, there is a very close relation between vagrancy on the one hand, and criminality properly speaking on the other. This relation has been shown by many authors. As Professor Prins says in his “Criminalité et répression”, vagrancy and mendicity are the novitiate of crime. I will only recall here the opinions of two writers, Josiah Flynt and E. Sichart. The former, the author of “Tramping with Tramps”, has given up a part of his life to tramping for some years in America, Germany, and in other countries, in order to familiarize himself with the vagrant and the criminal; his conclusions accordingly have great value. He is of the opinion that the vagrants endowed with great energy become professional criminals, to fall again into vagrancy as soon as their physical and mental forces decline so as no longer to permit them to carry on their criminal trade with success. [823]

Sichart, the prison director, having examined 3,181 convicts, found that 28% of them had been convicted before for vagrancy, and 27% for mendicity—55% in all. [824] These figures differed according to the kind of criminal. There were to

each 100 thieves 44.2 vagrants, 35.0 mendicants ,, 100 swindlers 11.1 ,, 20.2 ,, ,, 100 sexual offenders 14.0 ,, 17.3 ,, ,, 100 incendiaries 15.1 ,, 15.5 ,, ,, 100 perjurers 4.2 ,, 4.7 ,,

For these reasons, then, it is necessary to treat of vagrancy and mendicity.

A. Vagrancy and Mendicity.

In examining the etiology of these contraventions, we perceive that different causes lead to them. We shall treat them successively and endeavor to find their relation to the economic life.

First. As a first cause of vagrancy and mendicity is the fact that under capitalism there are always workmen who cannot sell their labor. The number of these persons increases greatly at the time of a crisis. When the men out of work have no resource in their family and no longer receive aid from their union, they are obliged to go from place to place looking for employment, and if they do not succeed in finding it must have recourse to begging in order not to die of hunger. Statistics furnish the proof that the army of vagrants and mendicants is in fact made up in part of the unemployed who, though they wish to, cannot find work.

In the first place, vagrancy and mendicity increase in winter (as in general all economic criminality does), when forced unemployment is at its height, and needs are most pressing, while they diminish in summer. The following figures with reference to some of the German states show these facts.

Grand-Duchy of Baden, 1884–1891. [825]

=========+===================+================ | Number Convicted |Number Convicted Months. | of Vagrancy and | per Diem, the | Mendicity. | Minimum = 100. ---------+-------------------+---------------- January | 7,232 | 364 February | 6,315 | 336 March | 4,816 | 235 April | 2,945 | 148 May | 2,743 | 133 June | 2,475 | 124 July | 2,540 | 124 August | 2,410 | 118 September| 1,989 | 100 October | 2,672 | 130 November | 3,857 | 195 December | 5,310 | 259 =========+===================+================

Hesse, 1899–1900. [826]

==================+=============================== | Number Convicted of Vagrancy Months. | and Mendicity. +----------------+-------------- |Absolute Number.|Daily Average. ------------------+----------------+-------------- December-February | 479 | 5.32 March-May | 334 | 3.63 June-August | 259 | 2.82 September-November| 531 | 3.64 ==================+================+==============

The following figures confirm those that have preceded.

Saxony, 1882–1887. [827]

======+================================================================================== | Number Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. +-------------------++-------------------++-------------------++------------------- | First Quarter. || Second Quarter. || Third Quarter. || Fourth Quarter. Years.+--------+----------++--------+----------++--------+----------++--------+---------- | |Percentage|| |Percentage|| |Percentage|| |Percentage |Absolute| of ||Absolute| of ||Absolute| of ||Absolute| of |Numbers.| Annual ||Numbers.| Annual ||Numbers.| Annual ||Numbers.| Annual | | Total. || | Total. || | Total. || | Total. ------+--------+----------++--------+----------++--------+----------++--------+---------- 1882 | 6,752 | 36.1 || 4,220 | 22.6 || 3,181 | 17.0 || 4,546 | 24.3 1883 | 6,619 | 36.6 || 3,934 | 21.7 || 2,957 | 16.5 || 4,567 | 25.2 1884 | 6,641 | 37.6 || 3,855 | 21.8 || 2,721 | 15.5 || 4,462 | 25.2 1885 | 6,555 | 35.9 || 3,424 | 18.7 || 2,872 | 15.7 || 5,440 | 29.7 1886 | 7,139 | 41.5 || 3,507 | 20.4 || 2,654 | 15.4 || 3,900 | 22.7 1887 | 5,787 | 39.1 || 3,344 | 22.6 || 2,251 | 15.2 || 3,411 | 23.1 ======+========+==========++========+==========++========+==========++========+==========

These statistics justify the conclusion drawn by Ostwald, from whom I have taken the figures for Hesse. This author is a competent witness, as he tramped as a vagrant for some time himself. He says: “These figures directly contradict the statement that antipathy to regular work forms the principal source of vagrancy and mendicity; especially as there is no inclination to frequent the highways in winter. It is the need that comes of unemployment that drives out these poorest of the poor; and whoever wishes to do away with vagrancy must make the economic existence of the working people secure, instead of visiting the victims of poverty with Draconian punishments.” [828]

Another proof in support of the assertion that unemployment is a cause of mendicity and vagrancy, is to be found in the fact that the figures for vagrancy and mendicity rise considerably at the time of economic crises. The same phenomenon occurs more or less when the price of grain or bread goes up. Then those whose labor is only poorly paid must find some means of increasing their resources; and further when bread is dear less of other things can be bought, which brings about a decrease in production and consequently an increase in forced idleness.

In the first part of this work I have mentioned authors who have shown for different countries that the curve of vagrancy rises or falls as economic conditions become worse or better. I add here the data that I have been able to find elsewhere.

England, 1856–1896. [829]

=======+========================++=======+======================== | Vagrants Convicted. || | Vagrants Convicted. Years. +--------+---------------++Years. +--------+--------------- |Absolute| To 100,000 of || |Absolute| To 100,000 of |Numbers.|the Population.|| |Numbers.|the Population. -------+--------+---------------++-------+--------+--------------- 1856-57| 19,270 | 99.7 ||1876-77| 22,475 | 90.9 1857-58| 21,473 | 109.9 ||1877-78| 23,662 | 94.5 1858-59| 16,401 | 83.0 ||1878-79| 25,790 | 101.6 1859-60| 16,374 | 82.2 ||1879-80| 30,323 | 117.5 1860-61| 17,496 | 86.9 ||1880-81| 28,088 | 107.8 1861-62| 20,636 | 101.4 ||1881-82| 28,729 | 109.0 1862-63| 21,758 | 105.8 ||1882-83| 28,825 | 108.2 1863-64| 20,414 | 97.7 ||1883-84| 28,370 | 105.3 1864-65| 20,307 | 96.7 ||1884-85| 27,467 | 100.9 1865-66| 19,607 | 91.8 ||1885-86| 26,546 | 96.4 1866-67| 21,071 | 97.5 ||1886-87| 28,690 | 103.0 1867-68| 24,125 | 110.2 ||1887-88| 31,380 | 111.5 1868-69| 29,890 | 134.8 ||1888-89| 28,032 | 98.5 1869-70| 28,367 | 126.3 ||1889-90| 25,001 | 86.5 1870-71| 24,902 | 109.4 ||1890-91| 22,577 | 77.6 1871-72| 21,325 | 92.4 ||1891-92| 23,623 | 80.3 1872-73| 19,433 | 83.2 ||1893 | 24,830 | 83.3 1873-74| 19,582 | 82.8 ||1894 | 25,676 | 85.4 1874-75| 17,692 | 73.5 ||1895 | 23,524 | 77.4 1875-76| 19,841 | 81.4 ||1896 | 25,188 | 81.9 =======+========+===============++=======+========+===============

When we compare these figures with the course of economic events, we find the following: 1856 was a bad year economically, and 1857 and 1858 were still worse; in 1859 the situation improved, to become worse again in 1860, 1861, and 1862. The improvement was restored in 1863, while 1864 and 1865 were fair; in 1866, 1867, and 1868 conditions became worse again, but improved from 1869 to 1874. With 1875 things took a turn for the worse, and this condition lasted till 1879, when there was a slight improvement; 1880, 1881, and 1882 were fair, while 1883 was a passably good year. In 1884 a period of depression began, which lasted till 1888, following which there was an improvement until 1891, with the succeeding years up to 1894 not so good. In 1895 things once more took a turn for the better. [830]

With some exceptions the curve of vagrancy rises and falls, then, pretty much as the economic situation grows worse or improves.

Bavaria, 1835–1861.

Dr. G. Mayr has proved that during the period named there was a close connection between the movement of the price of grain and the figures for vagrancy. (See p. 42 of this work.) [831]

Flanders, 1839–1848.

Ducpetiaux had given proofs of the same correlation. (See pp. 33–37.)

France, 1840–1886.

Lafargue has proved that vagrancy and mendicity follow in general the curve for bankruptcies. (See p. 235.) [832]

Hesse, 1895–1900. [833]

======+==================================================== |Number of those Convicted of Vagrancy and Mendicity. Years.+-------------------+-------------------------------- | Absolute Figures. | To 100,000 of the Population. ------+-------------------+-------------------------------- 1895 | 2,583 | 21.96 1896 | 2,244 | 21.49 1897 | 1,968 | 18.49 1898 | 1,658 | 15.60 1899 | 1,267 | 11.82 1900 | 1,442 | 12.95 ======+===================+================================

In this period the economic depression in Germany, dating from about 1890, began to decrease.

Netherlands, 1860–1891.

Since there are no statistical investigations of the course of vagrancy and mendicity I have composed the following chart from the official data.

A comparison of the two curves shows that there is a parallelism, tolerably constant up to 1869. After this it ceases with some exceptions. The great fall in the price of bread, beginning with 1878 (as a consequence of the agrarian crisis), even coincides with a considerable increase in vagrancy and mendicity. To explain this we must consult the statistics of failures. These show that the great increase of vagrancy and mendicity coincide with an equally great increase in the number of bankruptcies, beginning in 1875 and lasting to 1882. For the following years there is no relation between the two phenomena apparent.

Prussia, 1854–1870.

I have composed the following table by means of the data given by Starke in his “Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen” (pp. 55 and 115).

======+=================+=============================== | Number of New |Price of 50 Kilograms in Marks. Years.|Cases of Vagrancy+---------+---------+----------- | and Mendicity. | Wheat. | Rye. | Potatoes. ------+-----------------+---------+---------+----------- 1854 | 14,619 | 12.90 | 10.40 | 3.17 1855 | 16,665 | 14.21 | 11.45 | 3.37 1856 | 20,414 | 13.51 | 10.64 | 3.13 1857 | 15,801 | 10.18 | 6.87 | 2.18 1858 | 15,318 | 9.08 | 6.38 | 1.91 1859 | 16,978 | 8.93 | 6.79 | 1.98 1860 | 16,320 | 10.48 | 7.65 | 2.41 1861 | 14,239 | 11.04 | 7.71 | 2.79 1862 | 12,846 | 10.68 | 7.97 | 2.47 1863 | 11,840 | 9.18 | 6.78 | 2.04 1864 | 12,026 | 7.95 | 5.69 | 2.10 1865 | 11,640 | 8.13 | 6.24 | 2.03 1866 | 13,664 | 9.80 | 7.30 | 2.05 1867 | 15,339 | 12.89 | 9.87 | 2.95 1868 | 14,801 | 12.48 | 9.84 | 2.62 1869 | 15,091 | 9.70 | 8.08 | 2.16 1870 | 13,320 | 11.04 | 7.78 | 2.58 ======+=================+=========+=========+===========

Although the curves of the price of foodstuffs and of vagrancy do not exactly conform, the influence of the price is none the less evident. The three periods of high prices (1854–56, 1860–62, and 1867–68) coincide with high figures for vagrancy and mendicity. (It is to be noted that the effect of an economic depression does not always make itself felt the following year.)

Kingdom of Saxony, 1889–1892.

Bebel showed that mendicity increased greatly in the above period (a crisis of great intensity). (See pp. 228–229 of this work.) [834]

I am of the opinion that these data show sufficiently that the increase or diminution of vagrancy and mendicity are regulated by the economic situation; in other words, that a great many persons become guilty of these contraventions not because they are not willing to work, but entirely as a consequence of an unfavorable economic environment. There are some exceptions to this rule. Above (pp. 89–90) I have shown that these exceptions do not weaken the general conclusion; the unfavorable influence of the economic depression may be neutralized by counter-determinants. It must further be remarked especially with regard to vagrancy and mendicity, that the application of the laws relative to these offenses is quite arbitrary, and it happens at the time of a crisis that the courts do not punish those who are guilty of them, whence it follows that the statistics do not give an accurate picture of the reality. [835]

It is impossible to fix exactly how far the influence of economic depressions extends; in other words, we cannot determine the number of vagrants and mendicants who become such directly through forced idleness. When it is necessary to record a certain number of convictions for vagrancy and mendicity, although the economic conditions are most favorable, we shall not even then be able to say that this proves that the convictions fell only upon persons who could have found work, but did not wish it.

Under the present economic system unemployment is chronic, that is to say, it is present even in times of economic prosperity. Consequently it has not been proved that those who are convicted during these periods are necessarily lazy and do not want to work. The only figure that I have been able to find with regard to the importance of this cause of vagrancy and mendicity is this: that in Germany, out of a total of 200,000 mendicants, there are 80,000 (40%) who are really in search of work. [836] This figure being only approximate, its significance is not great.

Before leaving the subject of this cause, we must say something with regard to the objection that the workers who, on account of a long period of unemployment, fall finally into vagrancy, are inferior to the average, generally do not know a trade, and are often addicted to alcohol; and that consequently in this case an individual factor plays a rôle beside the economic factor.

It is true that most of the vagrants and mendicants do not know a trade, nor are worth much as workmen. In his study Dr. Bonhoeffer says that 55.4% of the vagrants and mendicants examined by him had not learned a trade, or had learned it insufficiently. [837] This author also shows (we shall return to this later) that a great proportion of these people are also physically inferior to the average. This inferiority is in part not the cause but the effect of the conditions under which they have been living (insufficient food, etc.), [838] and in part congenital weakness.

However, supposing that each of these individuals knew a trade, supposing also that they were all robust and healthy and in a condition to work regularly, would there then be fewer persons without work than there are now? The answer to this question must be negative. Even if every workman knew a trade, this fact would not increase the demand for skilled workmen. At any given time the labor market demands only a certain number of skilled workmen, and a certain other number of unskilled laborers; the number of unskilled laborers available has no influence. The same thing is true as to fitness for work; if all the workmen had the same energy, the same zeal, etc., this would not increase the demand for workmen; this demand is regulated by other factors.

In my opinion it cannot be a question of individual causes; individual differences explain partially who remain without work, and so become vagrants; but it is the economic system which causes the existence of persons without work. Vagrancy and mendicity would be no less extensive even if all the workers knew a trade and were equal in zeal and energy.

In the second place the world of vagrants and mendicants is composed of people too old to work, or more or less incapable of working, from physical or psychical causes, so that they are no longer employed. So far as I know the data concerning the age of vagrants and mendicants are not numerous; I can cite those that follow.

England, 1894–1900. [839]

=======+==========+================================ | |Of Whom there were of the Age of |Number of +----------------+--------------- Years. |Mendicants| 50 to 60 years.| Over 60. |Convicted.+----------+-----+----------+---- | | Absolute | | Absolute | | | Numbers. | % | Numbers. | % -------+----------+----------+-----+----------+---- 1894 | 13,021 | 1,638 | 12 | 1,916 | 14 1895 | 10,497 | 1,387 | 13 | 1,490 | 14 1896 | 11,839 | 1,512 | 12 | 1,801 | 15 1897 | 10,735 | 1,338 | 12 | 1,701 | 15 1898 | 11,047 | 1,540 | 13 | 1,838 | 16 1899 | 9,308 | 1,374 | 14 | 1,667 | 17 1900 | 8,402 | 1,253 | 14 | 1,690 | 20 =======+==========+==========+=====+==========+====

Netherlands, 1896–1901. [840]

======+===========+================================ | Number of |Of Whom there were of the Age of | Persons +----------------+--------------- Years.| Convicted | 50 to 60 years.| Over 60. |of Vagrancy+----------+-----+----------+---- | and | Absolute | | Absolute | |Mendicity. | Numbers. | % | Numbers. | % ------+-----------+----------+-----+----------+---- 1896 | 2,181 | 541 | 24 | 273 | 12 1897 | 2,139 | 529 | 25 | 278 | 13 1898 | 2,173 | 534 | 24 | 291 | 13 1899 | 2,215 | 564 | 25 | 285 | 12 1901 | 1,857 | 491 | 26 | 257 | 13 ===================================================

Russia, 1897.

In the work of Löwenstimm already cited we find mentioned the fact that out of a total of 7,916 mendicants arrested in St. Petersburg, 1,185 (14.9%) were between 50 and 60 years of age, and 982 (12.4%) over 60. [841]

As has been said, a certain number of vagrants are weak or sickly, and consequently are nearly or quite unable to work. In “Les habitués des prisons de Paris”, Dr. Laurent gives the following description of some vagrants observed by him, true types of this kind of individual. “I have known at the Santé in recent years an individual who has passed almost the whole of his life in prison, who was born and lived in misery. A natural child, his mother received him as a mistake and a burden and tried to destroy herself and him. Later, convulsions twisted him upon a hospital bed, and he has remained half-paralyzed. So far from knowing how to read or write he can hardly see clearly, for an opaque film covers his left eye. He has undergone more than twenty sentences for mendicity and vagrancy, and he is still only 37 years old. He leaves prison only to enter it again. So he complains bitterly and blames the judicial authorities, who, instead of placing him in an asylum, where he belongs, cast him into prison, because, says he, the food does not cost so much.

“An individual 29 years old, the son of a drunkard and a consumptive, has already been seven times sentenced for mendicity. He has been half-paralyzed since he was 13 months old and can walk only with crutches. Epileptic in addition, he drifts from prison to prison.

“These facts are very common, and it is impossible to estimate how many of these poor devils live in the prisons, which are a kind of refuge for them. Lately I saw a blind man who had been arrested for mendicity and sentenced to a fortnight in prison.” [842]

The following figures, taken from the work just quoted, inform us as to the number of such individuals.

Breslau.

===============================+=========+====== Physical and Mental Condition. |Absolute | |Numbers. | % -------------------------------+---------+------ Physical condition weak | 337 | 91 Incapable of military service | | from physical weakness | 236 | 64 Mental anomalies | 322 | 87 Epilepsy | 43 | 11 Imbecility | 86 | 23 Total number examined | 369 | 100 ================================================

Here it must be noted that in the years 1896–97 there were on the average only 9% of the conscripts of Silesia who were incapable of military service.

The other figures that are known agree with the ones I have just cited. Dr. Kurella found 20% to 30% of imbeciles or epileptics among the vagrants. [843] Dr. Mendel also found a great number of psychic abnormalities among the vagrants. [844]

All that I have just said demonstrates sufficiently, I believe, that the cause named above plays a considerable rôle in the etiology of mendicity and vagrancy. It is still necessary to give an answer to the question: do all the individuals who fall under the unfavorable conditions named under one and two, become vagrants or mendicants? It is evident that the answer must be negative. Three expedients offer themselves to one who has fallen into the blackest poverty; mendicity, theft, and suicide. It is partly chance (opportunity etc.), and partly the individual predisposition which fixes what anyone under the conditions named will become, whether a mendicant or a thief. Generally those who have still some intelligence and energy become thieves, the rest vagrants. [845] The third expedient, suicide, also is frequently met with among the lower proletariat. [846] Those who have recourse to it are either those who have known better conditions and find that the miserable existence that mendicity procures is not worth the trouble of living, or those who have lost all energy. Sometimes persons commit suicide to escape the shame of begging or stealing. These have been called “the heroes of virtue”; but, considered from another point of view, they may also be called the “victims of vice”, the vice of others, of course. These have been born with a very strong moral disposition and have lived in an environment where this disposition has been developed. These cases prove the degree of intensity that the social sentiments can attain; they are stronger than the fundamental desire to live, although those whom these “heroes” are unwilling to injure, reject these sentiments, by abandoning their fellows who find themselves in want.

Third. A third category of mendicants and vagrants is made up of children and young people. Let us see what relation there is between this fact and the economic and social environment. All those who have taken up this subject are agreed that a great proportion of the children are systematically taught to beg by their parents. Whatever may be the cause for which the parents act thus, these children are entirely the victims of the detestable atmosphere in which they are forced to live. Brought up in a wholesome environment they would become neither mendicants nor vagrants. [847]

Another part of the vagrant body is made up of children who are either illegitimate or orphans, or deserted by their parents, or forced by bad treatment to run away from home. Tomel and Rollet mention the following typical case. A girl of 16 was charged with vagrancy, and made this heart-rending statement of her case before the tribunal: “I went on Friday to find the police commissioner of the ward; I told him that I had been without a lodging place for 15 days, and that I had not eaten for 48 hours. I was employed at the house of a wine merchant, who, when my mother died three years ago, took me as a servant (at 13 years of age) at two sous a day as wages. But my employer failed, his shop was closed, and I had to go out and wander in search of work without finding anything. My father, sentenced to hard labor for life, died in New Caledonia. I have no longer any mother, and since I did not wish to imitate my grown-up sister, who leads a bad life, I preferred to get myself arrested.” [848]

It is difficult to tell how many of these children there are. The only figures that I know of are the following.

Italy, 1885–1889. [849]

Among the minors sent to a house of correction for vagrancy there were

=====================================+=========+====== Divisions. |Absolute | |Numbers. | % -------------------------------------+---------+------ Illegitimate children | 91 | 8.0 Orphans | 498 | 43.8 Children whose parents were in prison| 25 | 2.2 Other children | 524 | 46.0 +---------+------ Total | 1,138 |100.0 =====================================+=========+======

We must now speak of another kind of vagrant and mendicant, those whom some criminologists have called born-vagabonds; children who run away from home to meet with adventures and to see something more than the neighborhood where they live. It makes little difference to us here whence comes this desire; everyone, especially every child, has it more or less (who is there who does not love to travel?) and there are those in whom it is very strong. “Who among us,” say Tomel and Rollet, “at certain moments of existence, does not feel the desire to break with social conventions, or more simply, to break through the circle of his horizon, in order to depart in search of the unknown? Put money in the pocket of the tramp and you make a tourist. The sportsman and the delinquent are separated only by the thickness of some hundred-sou pieces.” [850]

These authors have hit the truth of the matter. Such children are called born-vagabonds, but then we meet thousands of born-vagabonds who have never become vagabonds in reality. The children who have a great love of adventure are found in all classes of society, but only those who come from among the poor become vagrants. It is in poverty then that we find the “causa efficiens”; the same inclination that brings poor children to prison, would perhaps lead them to a post of honor if they had lived in better surroundings. There are people of all kinds among criminals, and it cannot be denied that the majority of them are inferior in every way. But this does not apply to this class of little vagrants. Those who, as a consequence of years of experience, have a right to speak, are agreed that such children can be made useful members of society, if they are rationally guided. [851] They are bold and energetic lads. Could it be believed that all the boys who, in 1889, came on foot to Paris from all parts of France to see the Eiffel tower (there were some of them under seven years of age) were not brave and energetic? Brought up in another environment they would have become sailors or explorers, or would have undertaken long journeys as tourists—while now they get into prison, to descend later lower and lower. [852]

Fourth. Finally, the fourth category of vagrants and mendicants. This consists of those not included in the other three classes of people who are physically in a condition to work and who have opportunity to do so, but are not willing to work. It is hard to determine with certainty how large a part of the army of vagrants and mendicants they make up. But it seems to me certain that the facts given above prove that they are not as numerous as some authors and many other people believe. Besides, how is it that the philanthropic institutions where everyone admitted has to work, are always full, if it is true that most vagrants are persons who are not willing to work?

The vagrants of this class are then lazy persons, unwilling to work, but living at the expense of others, and consequently parasites. It is with reason that many authors have blamed such persons (though, as Dr. Colajanni says, justice would require that we should include all do-nothings, and not the poor only). But this does not advance the cause of sociology; her task is to find the causes of the phenomenon.

It is incontestable that the zeal and energy, evidenced by modern peoples in their work, are not innate but acquired. All sound individuals have, not in the same measure, it is true, an innate tendency to exercise their muscles and their intellectual faculties, but without external causes this inclination does not go very far. The primitive peoples work no more than is necessary to provide for their very moderate needs. They find people laughable who work more than is strictly necessary. [853] The enormous change which took place in the method of production little by little induced men to produce a greater and greater amount of work; on the one hand were the slaves, forced to labor hard, and on the other hand the property owners driven to work by the desire of profit. In our present society the case is almost the same; the great mass are forced to work by fear of poverty, the smaller number by the desire for gain. And then the great majority of men have been accustomed to work from infancy; much work is done from necessity, but much from habit, which causes a feeling of uneasiness when one cannot work.

The first reason why there are people who do not want to work, is that they have not been accustomed to it from childhood. In general children, like primitive people, who are analogous to them in many ways, show little zeal for work. It is necessary to train them for a fairly long time before they set themselves to work assiduously. What will all those children whose parents have neglected them, or who have even taught them to beg, turn into when they are grown up, if not into vagrants and mendicants? They have never learned any trade, have never become accustomed to work, have never found any pleasure in it, so that later in life they will never have any desire to do anything. [854]

Part of those who have not been able to work for a long time go the same road, they lose the habit of working, become lazy, and in the end are not willing to do anything any more. [855] These, to be sure, are the least diligent by nature, but that would not alone send them into vagrancy if they had always been able to find work.

However, there is still one more thing to be said about the circumstances which give rise to this class of individuals. In the first place, the long duration, the monotony, and the disagreeable features of the work of the proletariat, which, as a consequence is rather hated than loved. [856] In the second place: the small wages of a large part of the workers, and the comparatively large amounts that clever beggars are able to secure. Flynt gives the following data as to the “earnings” of tramps; in New York, $1 a day; in the Eastern States generally, from 50 cents to $1 or $2, without counting food; in New Orleans a skilful beggar can “earn” $1 a day. He estimates that in Germany the daily receipts of a beggar are from a mark and a half to four marks, and food; in England most beggars get from 18 pence to two shillings, though some very clever ones even get as much as 10 shillings. [857] Löwenstimm tells that in Petrograd a skilful beggar has a daily income of three rubles. [858] Florian and Cavaglieri say that in Paris a beggar gets four francs, and if he is very clever, even as much as twenty-five francs, a day. [859]

In some cases, then, it is more profitable, and in all cases more easy, not to work. In consequence of these facts we read very often that the public ought not to give to these idlers. But the public cannot distinguish this class of mendicants from the others. It is certainly true that professional mendicity would diminish if nothing were given to mendicants; but on the other hand the great misery among the other poor would be aggravated still more. And I venture to doubt whether the advantage thus gained on one side would counterbalance the disadvantage created on the other.

And these laments upon the subject of the stupidity of the public are generally accompanied by anathemas upon those who prefer the life of the parasite to work. No one would naturally be inclined to excuse these individuals. But it is necessary to look at the question from both sides. If these people are blamed, blame must be attached also to a state of society in which honest labor is so poorly paid that begging is often more lucrative. These individuals are cunning egoists and as long as society is organized as it is, they are right from their point of view. To be sure, they have no feeling of honor, they attach no value to the opinion of others, but the feeling of honor is not innate but acquired. As the facts show, vagrants generally come from an environment where there can be no question of a development of moral qualities. Dr. Bonhoeffer shows, for example, that about 45% of the vagrants examined by him had been brought up in bad home surroundings (alcoholism of the parents, etc.). Then, as we have seen above, the social feelings can be developed only where there is reciprocity. I should like to know whether society really concerns itself with the fate of these unfortunates to such an extent that they in their turn care greatly for the opinion of this same society. Certainly not. They are pariahs, and since they are such the contempt of a hostile world is a matter of indifference.

As we come to the conclusion of our observations upon the etiology of vagrancy and mendicity, we have still but one category to consider, that of those who are indolent by nature. There are individuals in whom assiduous labor of any kind awakens a strong feeling of discomfort. [860] As we have already stated above, in speaking of poverty in general (see p. 288), the cause of this phenomenon is a species of neurasthenia, more especially physical. It is necessary to recognize that, while these individuals are out of harmony with society, they are sick and must be cared for if society is to avoid trouble. Besides, Professor Benedict, who was the first to point out physical neurasthenia, himself recognizes [861] that such sick persons need not become vagrants, if they are brought up in a favorable environment, and that later the struggle for existence will not be painful to them.

To sum up, it is evident that the principal causes of vagrancy and mendicity are lack of work, the want of care for the old, the sick, and the weak, the abandonment of poor children, the low wages and long hours of the workers. The persons who run most danger of being incorporated in the army of vagrants are the weak, whether mentally or physically, but this need not necessarily happen; the “causa causarum” is the environment. [862]

History proves this also. If vagrancy and mendicity sprang from the innate qualities of man, there would always have been vagrants and mendicants, which is not the case. The appearance of these is due to the economic structure of society. It is not possible to discuss this at length and the reader is referred to the work of Florian and Cavaglieri, “I vagabondi” (I, Part One). These authors show that the first type of vagrant was the runaway slave, and then the serf who had fled from his lord’s domain. In the following periods the penalties with which vagrants were threatened (and they were very severe) were especially designed to force the proletariat to serve the purposes of the possessors of the means of production. [863] In measure as the number of available workers increases and the proletariat submits to the will of the capitalists, this cause becomes less important, and disappears almost completely in our own time. It is rather the contrary that takes place, since the army of vagrants and mendicants is now mainly composed of those who have not been able to find work. Vagabondage and mendicity are at present punishable because of the importunity of the mendicants, the losses experienced by persons living in the country especially, and also because of the danger to society from the fact that the dangerous criminals are partly recruited from this class.

B. Theft and Analogous Crimes.

Before examining the motives inducing the commission of theft (the most important crime of this group, the others being mostly modifications of it) we must first stop a moment to ask the question, “Is honesty an innate characteristic or is it acquired?”

In my opinion it is indisputable that honesty is as little innate as any other moral conception. [864] No child can distinguish between mine and thine, it is only little by little that he gains this concept. On the contrary he has the tendency to monopolize everything that he desires (the prehensory instinct, Lafargue names it). [865] It is just this instinct that must be combated to make a child honest. It would, therefore, be more correct to say that dishonesty is innate. Unless one takes account of this fact it is impossible to give the etiology of theft and crimes of the same nature.

The motives for these crimes with which we are now occupied we shall speak of under three heads. The first group includes the crimes committed from poverty, the second those that result from cupidity, and in the third group we shall treat of the criminals by profession.

a. THEFTS COMMITTED FROM POVERTY.

There are some needs which a man must satisfy, without which his existence is impossible. These are fundamental needs, independent of environment. If a man has not sufficient food, if he has not (at least in non-tropical countries) clothing to protect him against cold, if opportunity for rest is lacking, etc., his life is in danger. In our present society there are always a number of persons who are in want of the strict necessaries of life, and who are therefore obliged to steal if they do not wish to succumb to poverty. It is evident that the word “poverty” is not to be taken in the most limited sense, so that one who can still buy a morsel of bread, and yet steals, may still be considered as a thief from poverty.

We must make here one more observation before we enter upon the proofs of this thesis. We have defined crime as an egoistic act. However, the same act may be at once egoistic and altruistic, and this is the case with some crimes committed from poverty, when an individual steals in order not to have those in his charge die of hunger. What conflicts of duty our present society creates!

The proofs that absolute poverty provokes a number of thefts are of three kinds. The first two are based upon the dynamics of criminality.

First. In winter, when poverty is most pressing, the number of thefts etc. is much greater than in summer. This is a fact so well known that it is unnecessary to give detailed proofs of it, and I think it will be sufficient to give the following statistics dealing with two important countries for a great number of years.

Germany, 1883–1892. [866]

===============+======================================================================================================== | Number of Punishable Acts Committed in the Months of Crimes.[867] +--------+---------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+----------+--------+---------+---------- |January.|February.| March.| April.| May. | June.| July.|August.|September.|October.|November.| December. ---------------+--------+---------+-------+-------+------+------+------+-------+----------+--------+---------+---------- Simple theft {a| 7,991 | 7,342 | 6,909 | 5,777 | 6,097| 6,003| 6,230| 6,481 | 6,249 | 7,436 | 7,966 | 8,523 {b| 113 | 115 | 98 | 85 | 87| 88| 88| 92 | 92 | 106 | 117 | 121 | | | | | | | | | | | | Aggravated {a| 913 | 877 | 830 | 777 | 840| 856| 879| 866 | 818 | 956 | 971 | 996 theft {b| 102 | 107 | 92 | 89 | 94| 98| 98| 96 | 94 | 106 | 112 | 111 | | | | | | | | | | | | Embezzlement {a| 1,539 | 1,358 | 1,454 | 1,397 | 1,505| 1,485| 1,583| 1,551 | 1,459 | 1,604 | 1,573 | 1,659 {b| 100 | 97 | 94 | 94 | 98| 100| 103| 101 | 98 | 104 | 105 | 108 | | | | | | | | | | | | Receiving {a| 682 | 615 | 571 | 442 | 458| 447| 444| 451 | 451 | 556 | 643 | 789 stolen goods{b| 123 | 122 | 103 | 82 | 82| 83| 80| 81 | 81 | 100 | 120 | 142 | | | | | | | | | | | | Professional {a| 3 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 4| 3| 3| 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 5 and habitual{b| 71 | 130 | 94 | 195 | 94| 73| 71| 71 | 146 | 71 | 73 | 118 receiving of | | | | | | | | | | | | stolen goods | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Fraud {a| 2,174 | 2,050 | 1,909 | 1,744 | 1,823| 1,869| 1,932| 1,845 | 1,758 | 2,065 | 2,279 | 2,432 {b| 107 | 111 | 94 | 89 | 90| 95| 95| 91 | 90 | 102 | 116 | 120 ===============+========+=========+=======+=======+======+======+======+=======+==========+========+=========+==========

There is, then, a pretty considerable increase as winter approaches, and a decrease with the summer months. I would call the attention of the reader especially to the fact that it is the crimes of simple theft and the receiving of stolen goods which show this change in the most marked way, while aggravated theft, embezzlement and the professional and habitual receiving of stolen goods show it in less degree. It is the two former crimes which have poverty as their cause, while the three latter are more apt to be committed from cupidity and by professional criminals.

The following figures, taken from the criminal calendar composed by Professor Lacassagne, have to do with

France, 1827–1870. [868]

Number of Crimes Against Property for Each Month, Reduced to an Equal Duration of 31 Days.

January. 16,350 February. 15,400 March. 14,250 April. 13,450 May. 13,625 June. 13,450 July. 13,225 August. 13,425 September. 13,875 October. 14,400 November. 16,100 December. 16,825

We have here, then, as always, a great increase in fall and winter, and a corresponding decrease in spring and summer.

Second. A second proof of the importance of absolute poverty as a cause of crime etc. is furnished by the fact that there is a considerable increase of the crimes in question in times of economic depression (high price of bread, lack of work, etc.). In Part One I have cited many works in which this phenomenon is proved for a number of countries. I refer the reader, therefore, to the more important of these, and add other data here.

Germany, 1882–1911. [869]

=======+============+===========+================================================ | | | Number of Persons Convicted of Crimes given | | | below, to 100,000 of Population over 12 Years |Price of Rye| Imports | of Age. Years. |in Marks per|and Exports+------+----------+---------+------+------------- |1000 Kilogr.| in | | |Receiving| | | (Berlin.) | Billions |Simple|Aggravated| Stolen |Fraud.|Embezzlement. | | of Marks. |Theft.| Theft. | Goods. | | -------+------------+-----------+------+----------+---------+------+------------- 1882 | 152.3 | 6.3 | 250 | 28 | 26 | 37 | 46 1883 | 144.7 | 6.5 | 241 | 25 | 24 | 38 | 46 1884 | 143.3 | 6.4 | 231 | 25 | 23 | 39 | 46 1885 | 140.6 | 5.8 | 214 | 22 | 22 | 38 | 45 1886 | 130.6 | 5.9 | 210 | 20 | 21 | 41 | 45 1887 | 120.9 | 6.2 | 198 | 21 | 20 | 43 | 44 1888 | 134.5 | 6.7 | 194 | 21 | 20 | 44 | 44 1889 | 155.5 | 7.2 | 211 | 23 | 21 | 49 | 47 1890 | 170.0 | 7.6 | 206 | 24 | 21 | 50 | 47 1891 | 211.2 | 7.7 | 216 | 25 | 22 | 54 | 50 1892 | 176.3 | 7.3 | 236 | 31 | 25 | 59 | 52 1893 | 133.7 | 7.3 | 202 | 26 | 22 | 58 | 51 1894 | 117.8 | 7.2 | 198 | 27 | 22 | 60 | 52 1895 | 119.8 | 7.6 | 192 | 24 | 22 | 61 | 53 1896 | 118.8 | 8.2 | 184 | 24 | 19 | 58 | 50 1897 | 130.1 | 8.5 | 188 | 23 | 18 | 61 | 51 1898 | 146.3 | 9.4 | 191 | 25 | 19 | 63 | 52 1899 | 146.3 | 10.0 | 179 | 24 | 19 | 63 | 53 1900 | 142.6 | 10.7 | 181 | 23 | 18 | 60 | 51 1901 | 140.7 | 10.2 | 190 | 26 | 19 | 64 | 52 1902 | 144.2 | 10.6 | 191 | 28 | 20 | 66 | 55 1903 | 132.3 | 11.4 | 182 | 26 | 19 | 64 | 54 1904 | 135.1 | 12.1 | 176 | 24 | 17 | 62 | 54 1905 | 151.9 | 13.2 | 175 | 25 | 17 | 61 | 56 1906 | 160.6 | 14.8[870] | 179 | 28 | 18 | 62 | 58 1907 | 193.2[871] | 15.5 | 178 | 28 | 18 | 61 | 60 1908 | 186.5 | 14.0 | 189 | 32 | 20 | 61 | 63 1909 | 176.5 | 15.1 | 182 | 33 | 20 | 62 | 65 1910 | 152.3 | 16.4 | 176 | 32 | 19 | 63 | 65 1911 | 168.3 | 17.8 | 169 | 30 | 19 | 63 | 65 =======+============+===========+======+==========+=========+======+=============

If, in examining the preceding table, we do not lose sight of the fact that the rise or fall of the price of grain does not make itself felt immediately, and that in the criminal statistics of a certain year there appear also persons who have committed their crime in a preceding year, it is clear how enormous is the influence of the economic movement upon economic crimes. The price of grain had formerly a decisive influence upon the trend of economic crimes; now, in industrial countries like Germany, it is rather the industrial situation, without, however, the price of cereals losing all influence. [872]

England, 1823–1896.

Dr. Tugan-Baranowsky proved for the periods 1823–1850 and 1871–1896 the correlation between good and bad times and the decrease and increase of criminality.

For the period 1858–1864 the same proof is given by Mayr (see Part I); and for the years 1840–1890 by Fornasari di Verce (see Part I). The figures of the former have reference only to crime in general, and do not, therefore, show sufficiently the effect upon crimes that are merely economic. [873]

Grand-Duchy of Baden, 1875–1892.[872]

J. S(chmidt), the statistician, shows the parallelism of the two curves for the period mentioned (p. 243).

Bavaria, 1835–1861.

Dr. G. Mayr was one of the first statisticians to show the influence of the price of grain upon crimes against property (pp. 39–42).

Belgium, 1839–1890.

Dr. Weisz has proved the influence of the price of grain during the period from 1841 to 1860 (p. 61) and Professor Denis that of the economic happenings for the period from 1840 to 1890 (pp. 235–237), while Ducpetiaux draws attention especially to the enormous increase of criminality in Flanders during the years of crisis, 1846–1847 (pp. 32–37). [874]

France, 1825–1886.

The influence of the price of grain upon crimes against property has been shown for the periods 1845–1864, 1850–1864, and 1855–1864 respectively, by Drs. Weisz (pp. 60–61), Corne (pp. 48–49), and Mayr (pp. 46–47). Lacassagne and Lafargue have shown the correlation between the fluctuations of the economic life and those of economic crime for the years 1825–80 and 1840–86 respectively (pp. 149 and 231 ff.).

Italy, 1873–1890.

For this period Fornasari di Verce has shown the parallelism between the curves of economic occurrences and of economic crime (pp. 138–143).

New South Wales, 1882–1891.

The same author has shown here also the same correlation (p. 144).

Netherlands, 1860–1891.

Since researches for this country upon our subject are lacking, I have composed the following diagram from the official data.

The parallelism of the two curves is striking, there being simply a slight exception in the years 1871–1873. The increase of theft in the years 1879–1881 coincides with a very great increase in the number of bankruptcies, which continued until 1882. [875]

The same parallelism has also been shown for Prussia, Russia, Wurtemberg, and Zürich by Starke and Müller, Tarnowsky, Rettich, and Meyer, as quoted in Part I of this work. [876]

Few sociological theses, it seems to me, have been proved as conclusively as the one of which we have just been speaking. The important influence of the trend of economic events upon that of economic criminality has been shown for thirteen different countries for different periods of the nineteenth century. Some authors are of the opinion that poverty cannot be the cause of crimes that are committed when economic conditions are most favorable, and when economic crimes have consequently reached their minimum. This assertion still needs fuller proof, as I have already pointed out, since there are still many persons who are in want of the necessaries of life even in times of prosperity.

I must say here a few words in answer to a final objection to the preceding observation; namely, that the increase of theft etc., in times of economic depression, is, in great part, a consequence, not of absolute poverty, but of the impossibility of satisfying needs that have sprung up in more favorable times; and that the increase will be, therefore, in large measure due to an increase of crimes committed from cupidity, and not from poverty. This may be true in some cases, but not, in my opinion in the great majority of cases, for the following reasons. When the economic situation is favorable, when earnings are more than usual, and when, consequently, wants increase and become more intense, can everyone satisfy the desires awakened in him by the spirit of imitation? Surely not; even at such times of prosperity there are still many individuals with whom desire is awakened but who are not able to satisfy it in a lawful manner. On the other hand, wants in general diminish in times of crisis; cupidity is therefore less excited, and with a limited income men are quite satisfied with having the means of subsistence, when there are so many who lack the very necessaries of life. In my opinion, crimes from cupidity increase rather than diminish in times of prosperity, while in times of depression the opposite takes place. This cannot be proved for each economic crime separately, since criminal statistics do not show whether a crime is committed from poverty or cupidity. However, embezzlement, fraud, and aggravated theft are committed in a greater degree from cupidity than is simple theft, (and by professional criminals). Now statistics show that it is chiefly simple theft that follows the course of economic events, the other crimes named doing so much less; the same is true of the changes during the different seasons. Finally, while absolute poverty in countries like Germany has decreased and simple theft also, luxury and cupidity have increased, together with the other crimes named. [877]

The third proof that poverty is a great factor in the etiology of theft is the enormous number of widows and divorced women who participate in these crimes (see pp. 452, 453). There is no reason to believe that these women are more covetous than married women or spinsters; but it is certain that their economic situation is often very burdensome. [878]

We shall not employ any further methods to establish our thesis; since for the reasons already stated they would lead to results of no great significance, and it seems that the accuracy of the thesis has been sufficiently shown by the proofs cited.

We have now come to the end of our consideration of the subject of thefts committed from poverty. There are two ways in which it is the cause of theft. On the one hand it incites directly the appropriation of the property of others, and on the other hand it exercises a demoralizing influence.

b. THEFT COMMITTED FROM CUPIDITY.

We have now to deal with crimes of persons who steal neither from absolute poverty, nor by profession. Those who are guilty of these crimes earn enough to satisfy their more pressing needs, and they steal only when the occasion presents itself (whence their name of occasional criminals) [879] in order to satisfy their desire for luxury.

The first question, then, which must be answered here is this: how do these needs arise? The answer can be brief; they are aroused by the environment. In a society where some are rich, who have more income than is needed to supply the fundamental necessities, and who create other needs for themselves, in such a society the cupidity of those who have not similar incomes at their disposal will be awakened. The desires which the criminals of whom we are speaking wish to satisfy by their misdeeds are not different from those of the well-to-do. It goes without saying that no one has ever desired any luxury that he has not seen someone else enjoying. It would be a waste of time to discuss this. Every need that is not strictly necessary, is not innate but acquired. If one has much, the other, an imitator, wants the same. There is but one piece of advice to give to those who are not convinced of this simple truth; that they read some ethnological works treating of peoples among whom there are neither rich nor poor. They will then see that cupidity, with us a universal quality, is there unknown. [880]

The division between rich and poor is many centuries old and does not belong to capitalism alone, although under capitalism the distance between the two has greatly increased and is still increasing. The greater this distance is, the more, other things being equal, cupidity increases. [881]

The cupidity of those who can satisfy only the desire for the bare necessities is not awakened in the same measure in each of them. As has already been remarked by Guerry and Quetelet (see Part I), economic crimes are most numerous in the countries where manufacturing and commerce are most developed, and where the contrasts of fortune are consequently the greatest. It is for this reason that the cities, where the contrasts between poverty and wealth are greatest, give also very high figures for crimes against property (see pp. 530–531).

Those who live in the same country or the same city are not, in spite of that, in the same environment. Every great city has thousands of workers who, because of the character of their labor, have no contact with luxury; others, on the contrary, have the desire for luxury awakened in them by the fact that their work brings them in touch with wealth. Hence it is, for example, that so large a number of economic crimes are committed by workers occupied in commerce (see p. 446), and by servants. [882] There are workmen who have never been accustomed to more than they are able to earn at the time, but there are also those who have known better days and to whom the impossibility of satisfying needs previously acquired is a constant source of suffering.

However, the contrast between rich and poor is not the only cause of the origin of cupidity. We must also sketch in addition to the above, especially the manner in which commercial capital tries to draw buyers. The times are long gone by when the producer worked principally to order. Modern industry manufactures enormous quantities of goods without the outlet for them being known. The desire to buy must, then, be excited in the public. Beautiful displays, dazzling illuminations, and many other means are used to attain the desired end. The perfection of this system is reached in the great modern retail store, where persons may enter freely, and see and handle everything, where, in short, the public is drawn as a moth to a flame. The result of these tactics is that the cupidity of the crowd is highly excited. [883]

After what has been said it is unnecessary to dwell longer upon the different ways in which cupidity is awakened in our present society. However we must note the following. Almost all the thefts of the class of which we are speaking (those committed by so-called occasional criminals) are thefts of articles of very small value (see the figures on p. 201); the exceptions are the thefts of large sums of money. The authors of these last are in general the employes of banks, etc., persons who, from the nature of their work, have the opportunity to appropriate other people’s money. When we investigate the reasons for their committing their misdeeds, we shall see that nine times out of ten (I cannot prove it by figures, but no one will contradict me) the criminal is a speculator who has lost, or perhaps an individual who visits prostitutes, and hence has great need of money.

Cupidity is thus excited by the environment, but not in the same degree in every case, the environment not being the same for all. However, even supposing that the environment were exactly identical for a number of persons, cupidity would not be excited in the same measure in some as in others, since they are not alike, one being born with more intense desires than others (admitting that it is the environment that calls forth the desires). The more intense a man’s desires, the more risk he runs, other things being equal, of falling foul of the law. As I have already remarked above, this is important for the person who is seeking the reason why A and not B has stolen, though both live in the same environment; for sociology this fact is only of secondary importance, for it does not ask “Who becomes criminal?” but rather “How does it happen that there are crimes?”

We have now examined one of the sides of the question; the principal cause of these crimes is the cupidity awakened by the environment. If the environment were different, cupidity would not be aroused and the crimes would not be committed. In my opinion most criminologists do not sufficiently appreciate the importance of this fact. It is very difficult for anyone who lives at ease to form an idea of what is passing in the mind of one who has only the bare necessaries of life and is deprived of every comfort and amusement, while he sees others who have too much, and yet often work less than he does.

Let us now examine the other side of the question. For this purpose let us make use once more of the figure of balances in describing the process that goes on in the brain of the man who hesitates. Upon one of the pans cupidity exercises its force, in different measure according to the person. What are the weights upon the other pan balancing the first? It is the moral forces which must be considered first. I have fully explained above how the economic environment has prevented the social instincts from being developed in man, and how this is especially true for certain classes of persons. It is unnecessary to repeat this here. It will be sufficient to note certain points which have a special importance for the kind of crimes with which we are occupied at the moment.

He who steals, prejudices the interests of another, does him harm, and at the same time injures society, the existence of which would become impossible were theft permitted. In my opinion, the present organization of society, of which the struggle of all against all is the fundamental principle, has reduced this moral factor to very small dimensions. In the economic domain each must be egoistic, for without egoism he would lose in the struggle for existence. In the case of theft and similar crimes, those injured are almost exclusively well-to-do persons, to whom the damage is disagreeable, but who, in general do not suffer much. The thieves, on the other hand, are almost exclusively persons who have to live on very little. How can we expect a poor man to take care not to do a small injury to the rich for fear of causing them a little discomfort, when most rich people are insensible to the suffering which without intermission, overwhelms the poor. The present organization of society is responsible for the fact that a slight sensibility to the misfortune of others offers only a trifling counterpoise to the tendency to realize one’s desires in a dishonest manner. [884] The idea that society in itself is injured by theft cannot constitute any considerable counterpoise, since he who violates the eighth commandment cannot feel himself at one with a society which never has helped him when he was in difficulties.

After this general observation let us pass on to particular remarks that apply to certain classes of persons only. How does it happen that a great proportion of mankind are honest? To this question the answer must be, “because they have been accustomed to it from infancy.” The opposite also is true; a great number of thieves are such because any moral education was out of the question in the environment in which they were brought up. They satisfy their “prehensory instinct” without being conscious of any ill-doing. With these the balance inclines to the side of dishonesty, unless a counterpoise of some magnitude is found. Above (pp. 489 ff.) we have seen that most criminals, especially thieves, come from a totally corrupt environment. [885]

This does not apply to another category of thieves; those who do not proceed from an absolutely corrupt environment—yet whose surroundings are not good and wholesome. Ferriani [886] and Aschaffenburg [887] go so far as to say that almost every child has once stolen something. This may be a little exaggerated but it certainly has truth at the bottom of it. If the child has no one to take the trouble to teach him that he ought not to steal, it is more than likely that he will have to answer for theft later (occasional theft is committed by children and minors especially). It is true that all the children whose education has been defective do not become thieves, nor even the majority of them; there are those for whom a single prohibition will be enough to make them respect the property of others for the rest of their lives. There are others of them, weak characters who, notwithstanding such prohibition, cannot resist when the temptation is strong. If their education had been good, the environment in which they were brought up more favorable, they would not have had to be turned over to justice. Hear the opinion of one of those most competent to judge of the matter, Raux, who, having put to himself the question whether the young people detained in the “Quartier correctionnel” of Lyons have a real tendency to steal, answers as follows. “Evidently not. Without entering into the analysis of the circumstances which provoke crime, we shall give, in support of our assertion, an observation as simple as conclusive. Young prisoners condemned for theft have shown us upon different occasions a probity, a most praiseworthy disinterestedness, in the presence of things that they might have appropriated without exposing themselves to any reproof.” [888]

We might close our observations upon theft from cupidity at this point if there were not fear of an objection drawn from what has just been said, namely the following. If the occasional thief has become such, on the one side because of the cupidity awakened in him, and on the other side in consequence of his lack of a good education, and if he differs, not qualitatively, but only quantitatively from the honest man, possessing less strength of character than the average—if all this is true, then the figures for theft should be higher than the statistics show. All of which would go to prove that it is wrong to deny that criminals constitute a biological anomaly.

Here is my reply. First. Moral forces do not constitute the only counterpoise to the tendency toward theft. Since the moral check often lacks efficacy, another has been created which acts in the same way to turn the egoist away from crime, namely the fear inspired by the possibility of punishment. Any one would be credulous indeed to fancy that those who have an opportunity to steal and do not profit by it are deterred by moral forces. Without punishment criminality would be much more extensive than it now is. Where the danger of being found out is not great, the number of transgressions is enormous (think, for example, of the cases of smuggling). [889]

Second. Many persons remain honest, not for moral reasons, but because they lack the courage, cleverness, or other qualities necessary for being otherwise, qualities which in themselves have nothing to do with crime.

Third. Still others remain honest for reasons based upon mature reflection. They find that it is too dangerous to commit an offense, but do not hesitate in the presence of acts essentially criminal, although they do not fall under the ban of the law. [890] No one is ignorant of this, and only certain anthropologists who examine no one but prisoners, have lost sight of it.

Those who compose the criminal world are by nature very diverse. Some are the most dangerous individuals that it is possible to imagine, others are rather weak than wicked. Among these last are ranged the occasional criminals, who, taken together, form a danger to society, but taken singly are not dangerous men in the strict sense. Leuss, who learned to know prisoners, not as judge, or as medical expert, but as a prisoner himself, says: “The great mass of prisoners are more good-natured than the average man; the good-nature of thieves corresponds with their weakness of will, that invincible obstacle to their maintaining themselves in the world of industry. Stress must constantly be laid upon the fact that these weak-willed, good-natured persons are the ones who swell the number of crimes.” [891]

When we place beside the occasional thieves, those who never steal but commit all sorts of reprehensible (though not illegal) acts, the comparison is not to the advantage of the latter. Their trickery, their pitiless egoism, often make them more dangerous to society than the others; which should be a reason for criminal anthropology not to build a system based solely upon investigations of prisoners.

Fourth. Finally many more crimes are committed than are mentioned by criminal statistics. Although I have already spoken of this (p. 84), I must return to it. In the first place, most criminal statistics give the figures only for those convicted. Those acquitted have no place, although, with few exceptions, a crime has nevertheless been committed. We know that the number of acquittals is very considerable. In Germany, there were 15 to 20 acquittals to 100 cases tried (1882–1896); [892] in Italy the number of acquittals ran as high as 51.37% (1890–1895). [893]

In the second place, in many cases the prosecution is postponed for different reasons, with the result that there is neither an acquittal nor a condemnation. Then a great many cases never come to trial because justice cannot discover the authors of the crimes. In Germany, for example, of all the cases on the dockets in the criminal courts between 1881 and 1891, only 43 to 45% actually came before the judges. [894] During the period between 1886 and 1890, the examining judges dismissed on an average 8900 cases, either because the author of the crime was unknown, or because the proof was insufficient. During the same period and for the same reasons, 98,741 cases on the average were not prosecuted by the authorities. [895] The authors of about 25% of the crimes committed in Italy remained unknown (1887–1894). [896]

These two reasons by themselves show that the number of crimes is much greater than the statistics would generally lead one to suppose, even if one takes account of the fact that some of the complaints made to the prosecutors are false.

In the third place, we have been speaking so far of the cases that come to the notice of the officers, while in a great number of cases no complaint is made, especially in the matter of petty theft, either because the person injured wishes to avoid the annoyance of having to appear in the police court as witness, or because he wishes to spare the delinquent.

In the fourth place, a great many small thefts remain unknown even to the person injured, since he does not notice the loss that he has suffered.

All this goes to show that crime, taken in the strict sense, and especially theft, is much more extensive than one would expect at first, and the objection that might have been made to my thesis is hence without weight. It is evident that the number of criminals unpunished cannot be fixed with certainty. Dr. Puibaraud places it at 50%; [897] while Tarde believes that it is greater; [898] Yvernès, the well-known French statistician, says that 90% of the professional thieves remain unknown, and Dr. Thomsen, from whom I take this last fact, says that this applies to other categories of criminals also. [899] However this may be the number in any case is very considerable.

To sum up. I believe I have shown that the fundamental causes of theft and similar crimes committed from cupidity are, on the one hand, the cupidity aroused by the environment and, on the other, neglected childhood among the poor. It is especially those weak in character who run the greatest risk of becoming guilty of these crimes.

c. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS.

In considering all the kinds of theft and analogous crimes, we note that the thefts committed by professional criminals represent only a minority. But as soon as we limit our consideration to the more serious forms of theft, such as burglary and similar crimes, we shall discover that they are committed almost exclusively by individuals whose principal or subsidiary occupation is theft, and who, in general, do not consider it shameful, and do not feel the slightest repentance.

The question arises, how it is possible for anyone to embrace so abject a profession, and thus become so harmful a parasite. [900] There are authors who would have us believe that there are persons who have chosen crime from pleasure in it. As Leuss observes in his work, “Aus dem Zuchthause”, this opinion is so absurd that it would be a waste of time to consider it. No one of sound mind could possibly prefer so abominable a profession, and one so full of risks from the point of view of simple calculation. There must be other reasons for the existence of such persons. [901] If we wish to examine these causes we must divide professional criminals into separate groups.

The first category is composed of children. Sad as this is it is none the less true. It is plain that not a single child follows the profession of thief from pleasure, for a child prefers not to work at all. These children, then, are taught to steal by their parents. If they are not very numerous, in the great cities there are always some cases of this kind. Dr. Puibaraud, former police official in Paris, describes one of these as follows. “We recall that one day, on visiting the Petite-Roquette, we found in a cell a child scarcely eight years old, with a wide-awake face, a quick eye, but whose physiognomy was already very peculiar. It was a young pickpocket who had been found drunk upon the street, and who, being arrested by an agent and taken to the station, had confessed that the gold he had in his possession was the proceeds of a theft committed by him without the knowledge of his ‘papa.’ This capture ended by the whole family’s being arrested at their lodgings, near the Place Maubert.

“This gamin was very intelligent and gave the following account of himself, which was corroborated by what was brought out in the examination. ‘My father showed me how to pick pockets, but so far I have only “done” ladies because that is easier. With gentlemen you may touch their leg when you stick your hand in their pocket and they turn round, and that’s no joke! With ladies you do not get so close and they do not feel your hand. It isn’t hard at all. Papa taught me well. We went every day together to the Palais Royal and Place de la Bastille omnibus stations. The Palais Royal is no good. The best is the Madeleine, but Mother G. works that and she quarrels with papa. We don’t go there any more. Last week papa told me to wait for him at the Palais Royal omnibus stand. He didn’t come, and, “ma foi!” I went to work by myself. I got a purse from an old lady. There were sixty francs in it. I drank a bit and then I was arrested.’” [902]

As we see this child found theft the most natural thing in the world (and any other child in the same environment would think the same); he “worked” with his father. If exceptionally favorable circumstances do not happen to present themselves to such children they will belong to the army of professional criminals all their lives.

Now, as for the others, those who have not been brought up for a life of crime, yet practice it as their profession—how can we explain their manner of life? The answer to this question can be found only in the works of those who have familiarized themselves with the life of criminals, and who have lived in their midst in order to know them (like Flynt, for example), or who are in a position, because of their profession, to study them in detail, and become their confidants (like the well-known almoners of the Grande-Roquette: Crozes, Moreau, and Faure). [903]

Except for a few subsidiary circumstances the life of the professional criminal may be summed up as follows. With very rare exceptions he springs from a corrupt environment, perhaps having lost his parents while still very young, or having even been abandoned by them. Being misled by bad company, he commits an “occasional” theft while still a child, for which he must pay the penalty of an imprisonment; he may, at times owe his entrance into prison to a non-economic misdeed. This, however, is a very rare exception. [904] As we have remarked above, prison never improves him, and generally makes him worse. If he is in contact with the other prisoners, among whom there are naturally a number of out and out criminals, he hears the recital of their adventurous life, learns their tricks and all that he still needs to know to be thoroughly informed as to “the profession.” Nor will the separate cell be any more profitable to him, brutalized as he already is by his earlier environment. Then after a certain time he is set at liberty and returned to society. The partisans of free will say that he has expiated his fault and can now commence a new life.

That is easy to say, and certainly justice will not concern itself with him any further until he commits a new offense. But this is not the same as saying that society pardons him and aids him, in order that he may remain in the right path. On the contrary, forgetting that we must forgive those who have trespassed against us, society makes life hard for him. It is almost impossible for him to find work; the fact that he has been in prison is enough to insure his being refused everywhere. Why should anyone hire an old prisoner when there are so many others who have never got into the courts? And then most prisoners have never learned a trade, and this is one reason more why they cannot easily find employment. The liberated convict becomes a nomad, begins by losing all contact with the normal world (supposing he ever had any) and feels himself a social pariah. On the other hand he has relations more and more frequent with the “under world”, with those who recognize no duty toward a society which is not interested in their fate. His moral sense comes to be more and more blunted until he becomes a criminal by profession, having a feeling neither of shame nor of repentance.

The ignorant public, who know nothing about the professional criminal except when he appears before the tribunal, is astonished to find that there are persons so abject. This astonishment is like that of some one who has never seen a house built, and cannot imagine how such a colossus can be put up. But he who has seen how the house has been erected by adding one small brick to another no longer feels any astonishment. It is the same with the professional criminal; he who has followed the story of the criminal’s life recognizes with Dr. Havelock Ellis, that his crime is but the last link of a solidly forged chain.

Generally the professional criminal does not give the least sign of repentance. He does as much injury to society as he can, without having any shame about it. Yet he is not entirely deprived of moral sense, only it extends merely to those who are really his fellows. All the tales of the world of professional criminals which depict them as void of all sense of duty toward their fellows, proceed rather from the imagination of the authors than from facts really observed. The only competent authors are those who have been able to study the criminal in his own environment, and not in prison, where his true character makes itself known as little as that of an animal in a cage. Hear the opinion of Flynt, for example. “It is often said that his (the professional criminal’s) lack of remorse for his crimes proves him to be morally incompetent; but this opinion is formed on insufficient knowledge of his life. He has two systems of morality: one for his business and the other for the hang-out.” [905] There follows the description of the relations existing between him and society of which we have already spoken, after which the author continues as follows.

“In the bosom of his hang-out, however—and this is where we ought to study his ethics,—he is a very different man. His code of morals there will compare favorably with that of any class of society; and there is no class in which fair dealing is more seriously preached, and unfair dealing more severely condemned. The average criminal will stand by a fellow-craftsman through thick and thin; and the only human being he will not tolerate is the one who turns traitor. The remorse of this traitor when brought to bay by his former brethren I have never seen exceeded anywhere.” [906]

After expatiating upon this subject, Flynt continues: “It is thought by criminologists that the good fellowship of the criminal is due to self-preservation and the fear that each man will hang separately if all do not hang together. They maintain that his good feeling is not genuine and spontaneous emotion, and that it is immaterial what happens to a ‘pal’ so long as he himself succeeds. This is not my experience in his company. He has never had the slightest intimation that I would return favors that he did me; and in the majority of instances he has had every reason to know that it was not in my power to show him the friendliness he wanted. Yet he has treated me with an altruism that even a Tolstoi might admire. At the hang-out I have been hospitably entertained on all occasions; and I have never met a criminal there who would not have given me money or seen me through a squabble, had I needed his assistance and he was able to give it. This same comradeship is noticeable in all his relations with men who are in the least connected with his life and business; and it is notorious fact that he will ‘divvy’ his last meal with a pal. To have to refuse the request of one of his fellows, or to do him an unkindness, is as much regretted by the criminal as by anyone else; and I have never known him to tell me a lie or to cheat me or to make fun of me behind my back.” [907]

This is altogether different from what is generally said and written by those who allow themselves to be led away by their imagination. It is plain that the manner in which criminals act toward a society that is hostile to them will not fail to influence the relations they have with their fellows, just as war for those who take part in it cannot leave their moral sense as regards their compatriots unharmed. However, nothing permits us to put the actions of these persons among themselves in the same rank as those towards society. In my opinion this fact has great significance for the moralist and the criminologist; it is one of the forms of the dualism of ethics. It is of very high importance for the criminologist, for its shows that we are upon the wrong track, since it is precisely the more serious forms of crime that the present methods of repression favor.

In imprisoning young people who have committed merely misdemeanors of minor importance, and who have not yet lost all touch with normal society, and putting them in contact with inveterate criminals, or perhaps putting them into a cage like beasts, without striving to enlighten their darkened minds or teach them morality, and without making them capable of sustaining the struggle for existence by teaching them a trade, we are bringing up professional criminals. Punishment, as a means of intimidation, misses its aim in great part, for the professional criminals are recruited among individuals who are not easily intimidated.

We have now come to the question why a certain number only of those whose childhood has been neglected and who have committed a light offense, become professional criminals. In the first place there are those whom chance favors, since they are assisted, it may be by their families, it may be by some philanthropist, and so return to the right path. There are those also who have the advantage of being able to find work, since no one knows that they have been in prison.

Others have less chance; no one aids them, there is no work for them; all, however, do not become professional thieves. Those who become such are the more intelligent, energetic, ambitious, and courageous of these outcasts; the others become vagrants and mendicants. Here is the opinion of Flynt upon the criminal by profession, an opinion which agrees with that of other competent authors. “I must say ... that those criminals who are known to me are not, as is also popularly supposed, the scum of their environment. On the contrary, they are above their environment, and are often gifted with talents which would enable them to do well in any class, could they only be brought to realize its responsibilities and to take advantage of its opportunities. The notion that the criminal is the lowest type of his class arises from a false conception of that class and of the people who compose it....

“In this same class, however, there are some who are born with ambitions, and who have energy enough to try to fulfil them. These break away from class conditions; but unfortunately, the ladder of respectable business has no foothold in their environment....

“Not all of these ambitious ones are endowed with an equal amount of energy. Some are capable only of tramp life, which, despite its many trials and vicissitudes, is more attractive than the life they seek to escape. Those with greater energy go into crime proper; and they may be called, mentally as well as physically, the aristocracy of their class. This is my analysis of the majority of the criminal men and women I have encountered in the open, and I believe it will hold good throughout their entire class.” [908]

There are readers, perhaps, who will find that these qualities of the professional criminal give the lie to the environment hypothesis, since individual factors are recognized in a certain way. For myself I do not find it so. The qualities mentioned have nothing to do with crime as such; they can be utilized to the profit as well as to the detriment of society; it will depend upon the environment in which the individual endowed with them has been raised what direction he will take. It would not be difficult to name a number of historic celebrities (Napoleon, for example) who, if they had been born in the lower stratum of a great city, in place of in a favorable environment, would have had only the sad celebrity of criminals exceptionally endowed.

The psychology of this kind of criminals is not yet complete however. Besides intelligence, energy, and courage we find cupidity as their great characteristic. [909] They see others who can enjoy themselves without working hard, and it is their ambition to do the same, cost what it may. Since fate has made it impossible for them to attain it honestly they risk another method. This type of criminal is well delineated in the remark made by the notorious Lemaire, when he said to the president of the court: “If I were a property owner, I should not be here.” [910]

To have invested funds, to spend plenty of money, not to have to work much, this is their ideal; to share the lot of the working-man, who, notwithstanding his long and hard labor, never succeeds in procuring for himself the pleasures of the rich, makes life insipid in their eyes. M. Gisquet, former prefect of police, gives in his memoirs the following declaration made by Leblanc, the notorious professional criminal. “If I were not a thief by vocation I should become one by calculation; it is the best profession. I have computed the good and bad chances of all the others, and I am convinced by the comparisons that there is none more favorable or more independent than that of thief, nor one that does not offer at least an equal amount of danger.

“What should I have become in the society of honest men? A natural child, with no one to protect me or to recommend me, I could only choose a disagreeable trade, become a delivery-boy in a store, or at most reach the miserable place of shipping clerk in a warehouse; and there, a supernumerary for many years, I should have died of hunger before I reached a salary of six hundred francs. As a workman in any class whatever you exhaust yourself quickly through the fatigues of your labor, to earn a miserable wage, and to live from day to day; then when accident, sickness, or old age come you must go beg or die in the poorhouse....

“In our condition we depend only on ourselves; and if we acquire skill and experience at least they profit ourselves alone. I know very well that we have risks to run, that the police and the courts are at hand, that the prison is not very far distant; but out of eight thousand thieves in Paris, you never have more than seven or eight hundred in jail; that is not a tenth of the whole. We enjoy, then, on the average, nine years of liberty to one in prison. Well, where is the worker who has not a dead season? Besides, what does he do when he is without work? He carries his possessions to the Mont-de-Piété; while we others, if we are free, lack for nothing; our existence is a continual round of feasting and pleasure.” [911]

This is the type of the perfect egoist. In ranking men according to their social sentiments, such an individual would be put at the very lowest point in the scale. And then he has grown up under unfavorable circumstances (illegitimate birth, etc.). The innate egoism of this individual may perhaps be modified by the individual factor. But this in no way diminishes the truth of the environment hypothesis, for we are treating for the moment the question why this particular individual has become a criminal, and not that of the cause of the existence of professional criminals. And these two questions are far from being identical. The existence of individual differences is the reason why one runs more danger of becoming a professional criminal than another; but it is the environment which brings it about that the predisposed individual actually becomes such. The falsity of the environment hypothesis would be demonstrated if such individuals could be proved to become criminals under all circumstances. This is of course not the case. When individuals like these are not brought up in an atmosphere of poverty, they no longer see on the one side persons who enjoy everything while doing nothing, and on the other side those who, while toiling hard, live in poverty,—they will not become examples of altruism indeed, but they will not become guilty of crime. They may even become very useful members of society, since they are generally more largely endowed with intelligence, energy, and courage than the average man. Rightly exercised, these qualities are very useful; but badly directed they are very harmful to society. [912]

So far we have been treating of the etiology of theft and analogous crimes; we shall conclude this section with some observations upon the causes that have led to the designating of these acts as crime.

Theft is a crime only because it is very harmful to society. [913] If in the majority of cases the individual does not take account of this, the assertion is nevertheless true. Everything that is harmful to society the individual considers as immoral. (Why this is so is a psychological question, with which we are not concerned here.) If we picture to ourselves present-day society, based as it is upon exchange, without the strict prohibition of theft, we shall see that it could not possibly exist. Life would be especially impossible in a society where the division of labor has attained a high degree of development, if it were permissible to take anything without giving an equivalent.

Since the human race has existed there has been private property, however trifling and unimportant it may have been. It is therefore very unlikely that theft has ever been permitted [914] (it is impossible to produce proofs in support of this), since it is difficult to imagine that anyone would consent to see himself stripped of things destined for his own use, to which, further he was more or less attached. [915] But there is a great difference between a prohibited act and a crime. It is proved that among primitive peoples theft is not reckoned among the crimes. Hear the opinion of one of the greatest specialists in this field, Dr. Post. “We find here and there a phenomenon very surprising from our modern point of view, namely that theft is not universally regarded as a misdemeanor, but the thief rather respected for his cleverness. The maximum obligation that a theft lays upon the thief is simple restitution of the stolen property. The consequence of theft is thus simply the duty of restitution under the civil law.... Theft lies entirely outside of the province of criminal law.” [916]

It is not difficult to explain the cause of this. Let the reader picture to himself the primitive forms of society, so different from those we have at present; contrasts of possessions were unknown, and the needs of men consequently less numerous; men produced only for their own consumption and not for exchange. If by chance more was produced than was needed, the surplus was given to others, for it was impossible to exchange it, or to preserve it for any great length of time, the necessary technique for this not having yet been acquired. “The law of hospitality” was universal and enjoined men to provide those in need with whatever they lacked. [917] It is quite comprehensible that at such a stage of development theft should not be in evidence, for the motives which drive men to it would be lacking. On the one hand cupidity was not awakened, and theft did not result from absolute poverty, since if there was poverty the whole group suffered together. [918] On the other hand the social instincts, being highly developed by the environment, constituted a restraint that would prevent the execution of a theft if the thought of it should occur. But even supposing that in such a society a theft, for no matter what cause, should nevertheless be committed, it would be little thought of, and certainly the thief would not be severely punished, for his act would not be very harmful to society.

As the social structure changed the ideas about theft changed equally; with the origin of the system of exchange and of the contrasts of property, came powerful motives for theft, and at the same time the social instincts grew weaker. Thus theft came to be considered a more serious matter than before, and the graded system of punishments for it, beginning with a fine, ended in capital punishment. [919] It is not our task to investigate the reason why the punishment for theft has not always been the same during the whole civilized period; it is enough for us to establish the fact that the act has always been considered as a grave offense, the perpetrator of which incurred severe penalties.

C. Robbery and Analogous Crimes.

As the figures reproduced above (pp. 535–542) have shown, the crimes with which we have now to concern ourselves are relatively rare. It is unnecessary to say that this has not always been so, but that there have been great changes in this regard. At one time robbery and similar acts of violence were the ordinary forms of professional crime. Happily for peaceable folk this is no longer the case; these crimes have been in large measure replaced by others less serious, like theft and fraud. [920] All modern states have not reached the same stage of development, nor all parts of the same state. There are those of them that, more than others, recall the past to us. So is it in regard to their criminality. While robbery may be said to have disappeared from the states of northern Europe, it is still very common in a country like Italy, and is met much less frequently in the modernized provinces of northern Italy than in the backward southern provinces, as the following figures show. [921]

Italy, 1887–1889.

===================+========================================== | Average to 100,000 Inhabitants. Provinces. +-------------------+---------------------- |Robbery, etc., with|Robbery, etc., without | Homicide. | Homicide. -------------------+-------------------+---------------------- Apulia | 5.01 | 0.27 Basilicata | 2.42 | 4.18 Sardinia | 2.06 | 12.11 Sicily | 1.22 | 14.56 Liguria | 1.07 | 8.65 Calabria | 0.97 | 6.36 Latium | 0.89 | 17.15 Campania and Molise| 0.71 | 8.08 Piedmont | 0.63 | 4.67 Romagna | 0.63 | 6.47 Abruzzo | 0.58 | 2.07 Marches and Ombria | 0.55 | 2.46 Venetia | 0.33 | 2.58 Emilia | 0.28 | 5.80 Lombardy | 0.21 | 3.14 Tuscany | -- | 5.68 ===================+===================+======================

According to the figures given by Dr. Bosco, in the United States, also, the most backward states give the highest figures for homicide. [922]

The poorer classes have more resemblance to the people of a bygone day than have the well-to-do; it appears from the statistics (see pp. 438 ff.) that economic criminality takes a more violent form among the former than among the latter. [923]

An investigation into the causes of this change in the form of economic criminality will indicate also the principal causes of the persistent existence of this kind of crime, however it may have decreased in modern times. In my opinion these causes are as follows:

First. The opportunity for committing them presented itself more often formerly, since the means of communication were very primitive, travelers had to traverse uninhabited countries, etc., and in addition the states were not so well organized as at present, and had not the means of suppressing bands of brigands vigorously.

Second. While the opportunity to commit violent economic crimes successfully was diminishing, there was a constantly increasing opportunity to commit other economic crimes, such as theft, embezzlement, and fraud. The accumulation of great wealth in the cities, the development of credit, in short, the enormous extension of capitalism, has multiplied the opportunity for economic crimes without violence.

Third. One of the consequences of the development of society has been the gradual diminution of the importance of the rôle played by violence, and, since criminality presents itself always and everywhere under the same forms as the normal life, violent economic criminality has also commenced to form a smaller and smaller part in the totality of economic crimes. The assertion that violence has lost the importance of its rôle upon the human stage might surprise one, and appear ironical in times like ours when war is the chronic condition, when the military preparations of all the states have reached a degree hitherto unknown. Violence, however, has decreased in so far as it is exercised by the individual as such. The greater becomes the centralization of the state, the more it claims for itself the exclusive right to use violence in the cases where it judges it necessary, and the more it prohibits individual acts of violence.

It is not the development of the state that is alone to be considered in this regard; the economic system enters in also. Under capitalism violence is of no use; he who is master of the means of production attains his end, i.e. makes a profit, without the use of violence. Where it is necessary, however, modern man does not recoil from it, as the wars of expansion prove.

Fourth. Civilization (in the proper sense of the word) has become more general. Formerly the privilege of a few only, it now extends to a greater number. The great mass are still deprived of it, but primary instruction contributes to its development.

When we consider the gradual diminution in the number of economic crimes committed with violence, it clearly appears how false is the notion that anyone committing such a crime is for that reason a biologically abnormal being. Will anyone claim that the number of biologically abnormal persons has constantly diminished? The contrary is much more likely.

We need not concern ourselves with the details of this question, since it has already been thoroughly treated by Professor Manouvrier (see Pt. I of this work, pp. 168–171). He who uses violence to attain an economic end may perhaps, physiologically considered, be a perfectly normal man. How many children are there who do not use force to take a toy from a weaker child? Must we class them as abnormal on that account? And are those who voluntarily take part in a war abnormal? Certainly there is a great difference between those who take part in a war, and those who, for economic reasons, commit a crime, but this difference is of a social nature. Our ideas of war and homicide are not the same, but the act of killing one’s neighbor remains identical. If homicide were the evident proof of biological abnormality the soldier also would be abnormal.

Scientific questions can be solved by reason alone, and not by sentiment. We who experience a profound repulsion at the thought of a murderer, hold him for a being apart, since we feel ourselves so remote from him. Scientific research tells us that this feeling is not innate but acquired, for we detest such acts because the environment in which we live has accustomed us to hate them. If our environment were different, our feelings would likewise be different. Besides, war proves that these feelings are not innate, by hardening the mildest persons in a very brief time.

With time the number of persons who have a horror of violence has increased. Does this prove that men have become better, or simply that they feel a repugnance to the act only and not to its effect? J. J. Rousseau once said: “If, in order to fall heir to the property of a rich mandarin living at the farthest confines of China, whom one had never seen or heard spoken of, it were enough to push a button to make him die, which of us would not push that button?”

It is certain that beside a great number of persons who would not wish to charge their consciences with such a crime, there would also be plenty who would commit it, and their number would be great enough to make the order of mandarins pass into legendary history. There is no reason to suppose that there are fewer persons in our day who would commit such acts, than formerly; if men are no longer as violent as they once were, they do not recoil any more than formerly when it is a question of suppressing, through the agency of a third party, those who oppose them; as witness the wars of expansion.

As the motives of these crimes are the same as those of economic crimes without violence, we shall treat first those that are caused by poverty; secondly, those that are committed from cupidity; and thirdly, those that are the work of professional criminals.

Statistics show that a part of the economic crimes of violence are committed from poverty, for their movement is influenced by the fluctuations of economic conditions. We take from the German criminal statistics the following table of the course of these crimes in the different months of the year.

Germany, 1888–1892. [924]

Number of Crimes a Day in the Different Months, on the Basis of an Average of 100 Crimes a Day throughout the Year.

=============+========+=========+======+======+====+=====+=====+=======+==========+========+=========+========= Crimes. |January.|February.|March.|April.|May.|June.|July.|August.|September.|October.|November.|December. -------------+--------+---------+------+------+----+-----+-----+-------+----------+--------+---------+--------- Robbery, etc.| 100 | 87 | 78 | 84 | 94 | 98 | 99 | 106 | 84 | 120 | 132 | 116 =============+========+=========+======+======+====+=====+=====+=======+==========+========+=========+=========

The highest figures are shown in the winter months when poverty is at its height. (The slight increase from April to August, which appears also in the case of a number of other economic crimes, I am unable to explain.)

As we have seen in the statistics in Part One, the economic situation also exercises its influence upon the movement of these crimes during a period of years. We refer to them here while adding some others.

Germany, 1882–1898. [925]

======+=========================+============================== | |To 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 Years.| Price of Wheat and Rye | there were Convicted for |per 100 Kilogr. in Marks.+--------------+--------------- | | Robbery. | Extortion. ------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------- 1882 | 185.19 | 1.3 | 1.7 1883 | 165.37 | 1.3 | 1.5 1884 | 159.73 | 1.4 | 1.5 1885 | 154.01 | 1.1 | 1.4 1886 | 147.26 | 1.3 | 1.3 1887 | 145.99 | 1.2 | 1.4 1888 | 155.43 | 1.2 | 1.3 1889 | 169.64 | 1.2 | 1.4 1890 | 181.32 | 1.3 | 1.4 1891 | 216.31 | 1.3 | 1.4 1892 | 184.00 | 1.4 | 1.8 1893 | 146.94 | 1.1 | 1.6 1894 | 127.10 | 1.3 | 1.7 1895 | 132.17 | 1.1 | 1.9 1896 | 139.29 | 1.2 | 1.7 1897 | 152.08 | 1.0 | 1.7 1898 | 170.55 | 1.3 | 1.6 ======+=========================+==============+===============

Although there are exceptions, the influence of the price of grain makes itself felt. It should be remarked that the years 1889–1892 were years of crisis.

France, 1825–1882.

In his study “De la criminalité en France et en Italie” Dr. Bournet shows that in the period mentioned the maxima of assassinations coincide with the years of economic crises, namely: 1839, 1840, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881. [926] It should be remarked that assassinations are committed not simply from economic motives, but for other reasons, whence it follows that the parallelism cannot be as great as in the case of economic crimes that are not committed from other motives.

Italy, 1873–1890.

Dr. Fornasari proves that economic events have a great influence upon these crimes (see Part One, p. 143).

Prussia, 1854–1896.

Dr. Starke (see Part One, p. 64) and Dr. Müller (see pp. 76–78) have proved that the changes of economic conditions are here also cause of an increase or diminution of these crimes.

Although these data are less numerous than we might desire, they show sufficiently that, in part, violent economic crimes are committed because of poverty. [927]

Above I have shown how it happens that only some of those who live in absolute poverty commit crime. We have only, then, to ask ourselves why one commits a crime with violence and the other without violence. The causes are of different kinds. Oftenest it is chance, i.e. opportunity, that is the cause. No one uses violence if it is not necessary, and since the opportunity of committing a successful theft is much greater than that of committing an economic crime with violence, it is the first that is most often practiced. Those who, when driven by abject poverty, commit an economic crime with violence, when the opportunity presents itself, are persons who lack neither the force nor the courage necessary, and in whom the environment in which they live has not inspired a great aversion to violence. Further, absolute poverty is so powerful a factor that it often neutralizes the important influences of education and environment.

From cupidity. The class of criminals who use violence or commit a homicide from cupidity is very small. They furnish only a minor part of violent economic crimes, the total number of which is not itself very great. To show how far the influence of economic environment goes I will cite some striking cases taken at random.

First. In 1892 a certain Scheffer was convicted at Linz (Austria) of attempted murder. His crime was the following. He and his wife could earn their living only by working hard. Chance brought a change. One of their relatives, a young girl who had lost her father and mother a short time before, came to live with them. The girl being very rich, the condition of the Scheffers was entirely changed; from then on they could live in abundance. Once habituated to this wealth they were filled with the fear that their relative would marry and the money pass to someone else. Little by little the idea came to them of persuading the girl to make a will in their favor, and then killing her, an idea which they rejected at first, but which nevertheless became stronger and stronger. From unforeseen circumstances the crime was never consummated, but stopped in the attempt. [928]

Second. In a little village upon the frontier of Austria and Bavaria there was committed in 1893 a murder under the following circumstances. One evening, while returning by himself along a lonely road, a rich peasant who was in the habit of carrying a considerable sum of money with him, was killed and robbed. It was proved that his servant was the author of the crime. This man was a natural child, very poor, and had had to work very hard all his life. Seeing his strength going he was in great fear of being no longer able to earn a living. His sole enjoyment in his monotonous and toilsome life was getting drunk on Sundays. Like most of the inhabitants of his commune he was an ardent poacher. [929]

Third. In 1892 the wife of an employe of the post office was assassinated in her dwelling in Berlin, and all her money stolen. The criminals were two young workmen of 17 and 18 years of age, one of whom knew by chance that the woman had savings. [930]

These three cases, types of hundreds of others, have in common the opportunity which had excited, in an unusual degree, the cupidity of the criminals, and the fact that these were very poor. Whatever other causes may have entered in, it is certain that without the great difference of fortune between the authors of the crimes and their victims, the crimes would never have been committed.

Finally, we come to the influence of the environment upon the authors of the crimes. As we have seen, the conditions under which criminals are brought up are in general very unfavorable, and this is especially the case with dangerous criminals. Consider, for example, the second case (we know nothing of the environment of the criminals in the first). What a life this murderer had behind him. The influences which give most men their aversion to violence were entirely lacking. On the contrary his environment had brutalized him. A natural child, he had been brought up in very poor circumstances, and was stupefied by long and toilsome work, with a weekly intoxication as his sole relaxation. No one would assert that this same individual would have become an assassin if he had lived under totally different conditions.

Or look at the third case. One of the guilty parties had been brought up under unfavorable conditions (of the education of the other we know nothing), both were forced, quite young, to earn their living and had been thrown with bad companions, and one of them had already been sentenced to imprisonment.

It is a mistake to believe that such a case is the exception instead of being the general rule. He who takes the trouble to read the biographies of these criminals knows that they have always been brought up in an unfavorable environment, that they have suffered imprisonment at an early age, and have fallen lower and lower. As far as I know there are no statistics upon this subject except those of Dr. Baer in his study already referred to. Out of 22 young assassins examined by him 9 (40%) had had a bad education, 11 (50%) a defective education, and only 2 (10%) a better education; 8 (36%) were orphans; 11 (50%) had been brought up in very poor circumstances and were obliged while quite young to contribute to the support of the family; 10 (45%) had grown up in the streets of a great city and had thus been exposed to demoralizing influences; and 13 (60%) had received an insufficient primary education. [931]

The researches of Dr. Baer have to do with Germany, but they hold good for other countries also. Take, for example, the opinion of Tomel and Rollet, who are authors of great experience. In speaking of the “criminal type” they say: “Well, no, this type does not exist, since we always find the same conditions in the genesis of the criminal temperament, and if these educational and environmental conditions had been absent, the destiny of the little assassin might have been quite different.” [932]

We have still to fix our attention upon one side of the environment in which the authors of the crimes with which we are concerned at the moment, have lived. They come generally from an environment where,

First, education often consists simply in the administration of a sound beating to the child, a fact which habituates him to the idea that violence is an ordinary act, especially as he sees the members of the family often strike one another;

Second, the men ordinarily carry a knife, and do not hesitate to threaten with it, or even to use it in case of a dispute. It is evident that the influence of this upon character is great at the impressionable age of childhood. The tendency toward violence, combated among children of the well-to-do classes, is, on the contrary, often strengthened among the children of the poor. If later chance places in their way an opportunity to profit by violence they recoil from it less than others. [933]

The authors of violent economic crimes spring nearly always from the lower classes of the population; the exceptions are few in number. We will take up one of these exceptions which has attained considerable notoriety, an evident proof of the rarity of these cases.

In 1878 an old woman was murdered in Paris and all her papers of value were stolen. It was proved that Barré, a business agent, and Lebiez, a medical student, both of whom had passed their youth in a favorable environment, were the guilty persons. This is one of those very rare cases where objection can be made to the environment hypothesis with a semblance of truth, but a closer examination shows that environment nevertheless played its part in this frightful tragedy. The two criminals, sprung from fairly well-to-do provincial families, having gone to Paris, had been living in straitened circumstances. At the time of their deciding to commit the crime their pecuniary condition was very bad. In the second place, both had constant recourse to prostitutes; and in the third place both were ardent speculators. Because of his business Barré was in contact with those who gambled at the bourse, and seeing men enrich themselves without work he entered feverishly into speculation. He lost, drew his father into a new deal, and was still unfortunate. In order to go on and retrieve his losses he used money entrusted to him (his first crime), but still lost. Going from one malversation to another he finally, in order to extricate himself, had recourse to the crime narrated above. His accomplice was found in nearly the same situation. [934]

The effect of environment is to be discerned, then, as easily in this case as in those that have been referred to before. Limiting ourselves to the principal influence alone, we see that if these individuals had not been in contact with the world of speculation, their cupidity would not have been excited to such a point that they were induced to commit crime. Here the rôle played by chance in such cases clearly appears; if they had been fortunate in their speculations they would never have become criminals.

As with all crimes, the question presents itself as to how far individual factors were active, in other words, do the individuals who are guilty of such crimes differ from other men? Certainly, and that to a considerable extent. But in granting this we do not, however, recognize a qualitative difference between them and other men such as would make them biologically abnormal. The motives which have induced these persons to commit crime, are present, though only in small measure, in everyone. Those who commit these crimes have by nature very intense material needs; in the curve A D (see p. 534) they occupy the places near D. As regards their social sentiments they are ranged near the other end of the curve, and their repugnance to violence is very small. Further, they have the necessary courage and strength. [935] If we consider how little chance there is of finding all this united in one individual, it will become clear that few individuals are predisposed to these crimes, and when they are committed the criminal is found in a special environment. In my opinion there can be no question of individual factors, then; it is the environment that decides here. There will be persons always and everywhere who run more danger than others of committing such a crime; but it is the environment which will decide whether they will commit it or not.

Professional criminals. The great majority of violent economic crimes are committed by professional criminals. When an individual has fallen, from whatever reason, into the world of professional crime, sooner or later comes the time when he must use violence if he wishes to attain his end. Joly has very well said in his social study, “Le crime”: “The man who has formed the habit of breaking into houses and bursting open safes, is forcibly drawn sooner or later to rid himself of witnesses who surprise him at this work, or of a victim who might perhaps recognize him.” [936] It cannot be asserted of these individuals any more than of others, that they are born with a special tendency toward assassination, a tendency to be explained by atavism, or something approaching it. They have been living in an environment in which such acts are considered as a necessary evil inherent in their trade. Driven by the tendency to imitate, they do as others do. Certainly there are those of them who do not commit these crimes, but that proves nothing, for it may be that chance has favored them and they have never been under the necessity of using violence, or they have less courage and force than the average man, or, it may be, have an exceptional innate aversion to violence.

As Professor Manouvrier remarks, the case would be entirely different if such criminals killed without plausible motives, if they committed murder without anything but the act in view. The facts show that this is not so. Note the opinion of Flynt. “The taking of life is ... [a] deed that he [the professional criminal] regrets more than he has been given credit for. One thinks of the criminal as the man who has no respect for life, as one who takes it without any twitchings of conscience; but this is not the general rule. The business criminal never takes a life, if he can help it.” [937]

We need not treat here of the causes which have led to the designating of these acts as crimes; they are the same as those given above in connection with economic crimes without violence. The harm done by these crimes is naturally greater than in the case of crimes without violence, since they put life as well as property in danger. It is interesting to note here, once more, the dualism of ethics; many primitive peoples consider these acts as crimes when they are committed within the same group, but very honorable when once the act passes beyond the limits of the group. [938] Further, with modern peoples this difference still persists; colonial wars often resemble a colossal robbery.

D. Fraudulent Bankruptcy, Adulteration of Food, and Analogous Crimes.

We reach now the last group of economic crimes, those which are committed wholly, or in great part, by the bourgeoisie. The motives of these crimes are not all the same; here too it is necessary to make distinctions. The categories into which we must distribute the motives leading to these crimes are analogous to those which lead to theft etc., poverty and cupidity. And as in the case of theft it is necessary to add a third category, that of the great criminals, who can be compared with criminals by profession.

The first category may be compared with that of theft committed from poverty; those who fall into this class are persons who, for one reason or another, have seen their business decline, and not knowing any other way to escape from their difficulties, hope to retrieve their losses and save themselves by committing a misdeed. I take from Moreau’s “Le Monde des Prisons” a typical case. After having described how a certain R. had succeeded in setting himself up in business and had been successful, the author speaks as follows. “Unhappily the panic caught him among the first. His business became worse and worse. In a few months he lost several thousand francs. Two of his traveling salesmen ran off with their goods. Orders ceased coming in. It was failure, dishonor. He fought, but was wrecked....” [939] Finally, in order to escape ruin he committed a breach of trust; he was discovered and convicted.

We cannot say that it is absolute poverty that drives these persons to commit a crime, for generally they have enough left to keep them from dying of hunger. And if not, they are generally members of families who are in a position to keep them from the worst poverty. Further they can try to provide for their wants by paid labor. Nevertheless these cases are somewhat analogous to those of absolute poverty. Picture to yourself the state of mind of one who has led a more or less comfortable life, who has been independent, and enjoyed the esteem granted to a man who is well-to-do, and who sees that the time is approaching when all this will come to an end, and that there remains nothing for him to do but accept some minor poorly paid employment, and lead henceforth an existence that cannot satisfy him in any way. Imagine also that chance throws in his way an opportunity to commit a crime with good hope of success. It must be granted that we find here very powerful determinants to crime.

This cause of crimes of this class is of an entirely social nature. Under another mode of production, for example, under that of village communities, the idea of committing such crimes could not arise. For this reason we cannot say that social causes have often nothing to do with the matter, but that it is the man’s own fault if his business goes to pieces. This is certainly true at times; but it is the present organization of society which makes it possible for a man to be in charge of an enterprise which he is not fitted to conduct, while another who is fitted for it cannot find employment for his talents. It is only in a society where complete anarchy reigns in the economic life, that it is possible for a man to think he is capable of directing a business merely because he happens to have capital.

Let us now examine the other side of the question. What are the forces capable of preventing these projects from being realized? First let us ask, what is the environment in which many of these individuals who are guilty of such crimes are brought up? Certainly they have learned that one must be honest, that it is wrong to pick pockets, etc., and they will not fail in this regard. But they have learned also that the principal end in life is to grow rich, to succeed. Too often this is contrary to the principle of probity. “Be honest, be honest, if possible, but ... make money!” This is the principal rule imprinted upon the minds of the children in certain bourgeois environments. It is an honesty of a special kind that is inculcated, not a moral honesty, but an honesty for the sake of one’s own interests. “Honesty is the best policy” says the quasi-moral precept. Those whose probity has this for a basis have only a weak check to prevent them from becoming criminal, when the thought of the wrong act arises within them. They remain honest so long as it is to their advantage, but woe to society when this is no longer the case.

But further, the environment in which these persons have lived after their youth has not contributed to reinforce the social sentiments, and consequently those that are working in an anti-criminal direction. “Every man for himself” is the principle of success in such an environment. It is evident that the social sentiments must be strongly opposed in their development if the maxim just given is that which dominates. To act morally implies sacrificing one’s own advantage for the sake of the general good. He who is compelled always to have his own interests at heart can give very little thought to the interests of others.

As in the case of all crimes, it is necessary with regard to these also to put the question, are the individuals who are guilty of them, as regards their innate qualities, like those who have lived and still live under the same conditions? And as is the case with all crimes, the answer here must be in the negative. Those who are guilty of these crimes are, in general, those who are below the average in the strength of their moral qualities. They are rather weak than bad; they are conscious of the harm that they do to others and are ashamed of it, but they are too weak to resist the pressure of circumstances. As always it is the environment that is the cause of the crimes’ taking place; it is the individual differences which explain in part who is the one to commit them. Adapting the well-known sentence of Quetelet we may say, “it is society that prepares the crimes, it is the men of inferior moral caliber who execute them.” If the environment were entirely different the men of inferior moral caliber would not be guilty of crime.

It may be observed, perhaps, that if it is true that a special predisposition on the part of the individual is unnecessary for the explanation of these crimes, they ought to be more numerous than they are. This is true enough, but it does not refute the opinion which has been expressed. For, first, as is the case with all the others, these crimes are more numerous than the criminal statistics show; second, there are reasons why some men do not commit crime, although all circumstances lead to it, and their moral condition does not prevent. For example, there are those who, as a consequence of the struggle for existence, have lost all energy and all courage, and give up the fight, even the fight with dishonest weapons; others, prudent by nature, take into consideration the fact that, bad as their situation may be, it would be worse if the crime were discovered, etc.

Statistics prove that it is really the decline of business that is the cause of a great number of bourgeois crimes. In the first part of this work I have given some which show this correlation, namely:

Italy, 1873–1890.

For this country the statistics on this question (see p. 144) have been compiled by Dr. Fornasari di Verce. This author has shown that with the exception of fraudulent bankruptcy (an astonishing and inexplicable fact), commercial crimes are strongly influenced by economic happenings.

Prussia, 1854–1878.

Dr. Starke has proved that the curve of these crimes is parallel with that of economic events (p. 65).

These statistics, to be sure, are not numerous, since the number of crimes committed by the bourgeoisie is small, and the other economic crimes, like theft, for example, are much more important, and hence draw the attention of statisticians more. [940]

We come now to the second category; bourgeois economic crimes from cupidity (as is always the case, the line of demarcation between this group and the preceding one is not distinctly traced, there being many gradations between the two). They are committed, not, as in the first category, by those whose business is declining, but by those whose affairs are more or less flourishing. The only motive, then, is cupidity; what they get by honest business is not enough for them, they wish to become richer. After what has been already said about cupidity it is unnecessary to go into detail here. It has been shown that it is only under certain special circumstances that this desire for wealth arises, and that it is unknown under others. It will be necessary only to point out the fact that although cupidity is a strong motive with all classes of our present society, it is especially so among the bourgeoisie, as a consequence of their position in the economic life. This, then, is the first and most important cause of these crimes, a cause which is not individual, but entirely of a social nature.

In the second place, the opportunity to commit these offenses undetected is enormous (I refer especially to the adulteration of food). In general the consumer cannot judge whether the merchandise is pure or not, and in most cases there is no inspection by experts, or else it is worthless, since the experts are named by the producers themselves.

In the third place, we have to ask ourselves, in what way does the environment in which these persons live exercise an influence upon their social sentiments? We have already called attention to this point some pages above, and can be brief therefore. This environment tends to weaken the social sentiments which might act as a check upon very egoistic acts.

Considered from the point of view of the consumer the adulteration of food products is a grave crime, for it injures the health and may even endanger the life. But what moral impropriety will be seen in it by a producer who derives great profits from the exploitation of children, or who, by a corner in grain, causes a great increase in the price of bread? Is there, sociologically speaking, a difference between these two groups of acts? Certainly not; the one is as harmful as the other, nay, the last two probably more harmful than the first.

This kind of crime must be the despair of those who seek for some biological anomaly of the criminal as the primary cause of crime, for here the anomaly forms almost the rule. Dr. Puibaraud, in his “Malfaiteurs de profession”, rightly says: “The adulteration of food is carried on under our eyes, at our very doors, and we are so used to it that we say nothing. They put fuchsine in our wine, margarine in our butter, chicory in our coffee, tallow in our chocolate, and we swallow it all in perfect good humor. What is the use of protesting? So things are, and ‘business could not be carried on’ if they gave us really pure food. So we swallow it all without gagging or moving a muscle. Provided we are not poisoned—too quickly—we profess ourselves satisfied.” [941]

Everyone knows that the adulteration of food is enormous. If anyone has any doubts let him read the reports of the chemists upon a product whose adulteration is easy, milk, for example. His doubts will disappear rapidly; at least half of the milk is adulterated. It is only the adulteration of food products that constitutes a legal offense, but the adulteration of other articles does not differ from this when considered from a sociological point of view, and it is unnecessary to say that there too the adulteration is enormous.

There are, to be sure, manufacturers and merchants who are not guilty of such acts; first, because certain articles cannot be adulterated; second, because in certain branches the oversight in the interests of the consumers is very rigorous; third, because certain producers find it more advantageous to be honest, knowing that thereby they will procure a large body of regular customers. These three reasons have nothing moral in them, though there is a fourth reason which affects certain producers, namely that they have scruples against such practices. [942]

Let us consider once more the curve of the individual differences. Those persons who should be placed between A and B are those who, if the conditions we have named are present, will commit without scruple misdeeds of the kind we are considering. The great average class, between B and C are those who, in general, are not guilty of acts prohibited by law, but who probably do things which in reality do not differ much from these, and, in any case, are not permissible by the moral code of the consumers (for commerce has a morality of its own). These are the persons who get rid of their merchandise by means of all sorts of tricks and dodges, are silent about the bad qualities of their wares and exaggerate the good ones; these are the dairymen who put water in their milk (“for absolutely pure milk is not wholesome”, they say); the doctors who make visits when they are no longer necessary; these are those who.... But let us stop; we could fill pages with the practices of those whose honesty is not proof against trial. [943]

In going from B to C the moral aversion to such acts, observed in individuals, becomes gradually greater, and the danger that they will commit such practices diminishes, and we finally approach those who should be placed between C and D, those who are in no way guilty of such acts.

As is always the case with economic crimes, it is, then, the environment that is the cause of these offenses, while individual differences explain in part who are the authors of them.

We come now to the last category of the criminals of this group, to the great criminals, to those who throw themselves into gigantic enterprises while knowing beforehand that these will certainly or probably fail, or those who make great purchases of stock, and afterward cause a rise in price through the dissemination of false news, etc.

If there is any kind of crime that is the consequence of the economic environment exclusively, this is the one. Such crimes can arise only in a time like ours, with its insatiable thirst for gold, with the unlimited opportunity to deceive the public, greedy for great profits. A superficial knowledge of economic history is enough to make it plain that the bourgeois crimes, and especially those which we are now discussing, can be committed only under an economic system of the kind that ours is.

This should make those anthropologists reflect who wish always to find the causes of crime in the man himself and not in his surroundings. Naturally the originators of such deeds are marked out by characteristic traits. But there is no reason to admit that persons with such dispositions could not have been born also under a different economic system. Yet such crimes do not appear under any other mode of production.

What is the kind of persons who commit these crimes which society has prepared for? We note first that chance must have prepared such individuals in the proper environment, for a crime of this kind. If they were in the class of agriculturists, for example, the idea of committing it would not have occurred to them; it is only in a special environment that such crimes can be committed.

These people are characterized, in the first place, by excessive cupidity. In this regard they come high in the curve. Their prodigality is without limits; once they have executed a great coup they buy splendid palaces, give costly fêtes, support several mistresses, etc. An individual of this type, Arton, had a mistress who cost him 300,000 francs in one year; he needed a million to cover his annual expenses. [944] This is why they are not content with the large incomes which they could obtain honestly; they wish to surpass others in wealth, being ordinarily very vain. [945]

We have said that such individuals would probably have succeeded in securing large incomes honestly, for all are of a high order of intelligence. In following their machinations we are astonished by their perspicacity and their cleverness. Plans like theirs could never have been conceived and still less executed by men of mediocre intelligence. [946]

“I believe,” says Professor Morselli in his preface to Laschi’s work which we have quoted, “in fact, that no common intelligence is needed to cover up malversations for a long time, to organize clever swindles, outrageous frauds and bankruptcies, exploitations of the credulous public. It needs no more talent, perhaps it needs less, to accomplish a great number of useful and honest things, to make a so-called discovery or invention. We have, as I have said elsewhere, a fetishism with regard to genius, talent, higher intelligence. The effort of mental energy which is required by the complex planning and execution of a financial crime does not differ, as far as cerebral dynamics are concerned, from the effort demanded by an action that is perfectly regular from a moral point of view.” [947]

In the third place, this class consists of persons who, as to the intensity of their moral sentiments, take the lowest place. What an ordinary criminal does in a small way, they do on a gigantic scale; while the former injures a single person, or only a few, the latter bring misfortune to great numbers. And they do it with indifference, for the disapprobation of honest men does not touch them.

As I have already shown elsewhere, brought up in no matter what environment, such individuals would not excel in the strength of their social sentiments. But I have added that, nevertheless, the influence of the environment of these persons is very great. We do not know much of the circumstances under which they have passed their youth. At least Laschi makes no mention of them in “Le crime financier”, the principal work upon this class of misdeeds. It is more than probable that their moral education is totally lacking, or has been only very superficial. Theresa Humbert, for example, had already been instructed by her father in the art of swindling on a large scale.

On the other hand we know the environment in which they have generally passed the rest of their lives. They belong to the world of speculation, an environment which has very special ideas upon economic morals. In most of the cases of this kind, facts are brought out which show that the moral ideas in these circles differ much from those of the rest of mankind. It is evident that those who commit these crimes go farther than the morality of their world permits. But it takes great moral perspicacity to distinguish in this field the demarcations between what is permitted and what is not, and it is just this perspicacity that some persons lack. This is why most criminals of this kind, when they are brought into court, say with sincere conviction that they are innocent, that they have done nothing that is incompatible with morality. [948]

Then, speculation etc. is one of the infallible means for killing all social sentiments; it is egoism pure and simple. Can we be astonished that some of these individuals [949] in such an environment enter into conflict with the penal law? It seems to me not. Nor is there any reason to grant that they are abnormal from a biological point of view. So even the Italian school is forced to admit that the stigmata found elsewhere cannot be pointed out in these individuals. [950] Furthermore, in this case we can hardly speak of atavism. It may be that our ancestors were great offenders, but it is not probable that they ever were guilty of swindles of this kind.

It is not necessary to speak fully of the reasons which cause these acts to be classed as crimes. They are harmful to the regular progress of capitalism and consequently are threatened with penalties. The punishment of the adulteration of food-stuffs, on the contrary, is a consequence of the opposition of the consumers to one of the harmful effects of this system.

In this connection it is interesting to note, first, that the penalties prescribed for these crimes are relatively light as compared with those for ordinary economic crimes, like theft, for example, especially when we reflect that the harm done by them is much greater; second, that the number of punishable acts is very limited as compared with those which really deserve punishment. As Baccaro observes in his work, “Genesi e funzione delle leggi penali”, it is these crimes which show clearly the class character of the penal law. [951]