III. THE ITALIAN SCHOOL. [88]…

III. THE ITALIAN SCHOOL. [88]

I.

C. LOMBROSO.

In “Crime, Its Causes and Remedies”, [89] one of his last works, Professor Lombroso treats, among other things, of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality.

Chapter VI, bearing the title, “Subsistence (famine, price of bread)”, is the first in which we find any observations especially interesting to us. By the aid of data from von Oettingen, Starke, Corre, and Fornasari di Verce, which we treat separately, the author calls attention to the fact that the course of criminality is very little influenced by the price of provisions. He closes by drawing the following conclusion:

“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account of the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the 100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater influence of heredity, climate, and race.” [90]

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

—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr. G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr. Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first, that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime. [91]—

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

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

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

==============+=============================++============================== | Wealth, 1885-86. || Wealth, 1890-93 (Bodio). |----------+-------+----------++----------+--------+---------- | Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. || Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. --------------+----------+-------+----------++----------+--------+---------- Fraud | 70.6 | 66.0 | 43.0 || 55.13 | 39.45 | 37.39 Sexual crimes | 15.6 | 13.4 | 19.4 || 16.15 | 15.28 | 21.49 Thefts | 206.0 | 143.0 | 148.0 || 361.28 | 329.51 | 419.05[92] Homicides | 11.3 | 17.0 | 23.0 || 8.34 | 13.39 | 15.40 ==============+==========+=======+==========++==========+========+==========

Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth is least; and this last is always true of homicides.” [93]

“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of wealth.” [94]

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

(Indictments. Average to 100,000 Population, 1887–89.)

===========+=========+=========+=========+============+============+========== | Average | Thefts. | Frauds. | Highway | Homicides. | Assaults. | Wealth. | | | Robberies. | | -----------+---------+---------+---------+------------+------------+---------- Latium | 3333 | 639 | 116 | 18 | 25 | 513 Piedmont } | | | | | | Liguria } | 2746 | 267 | 44 | 7 | 7 | 164 Lombardy | 2400 | 227 | 44 | 3 | 3 | 124 Tuscany | 2164 | 211 | 34 | 6 | 7 | 165 Venice | 1935 | 389 | 43 | 3 | 4 | 98 Reggio | 1870 | 320 | 49 | 7 | 13 | 287 Emilia | 1762 | 250 | 38 | 6 | 6 | 130 Sicily | 1471 | 346 | 65 | 16 | 26 | 410 Naples | 1333 | 435 | 47 | 6 | 21 | 531 Marches } | | | | | Umbria } | 1227 | 222 | 33 | 3 | 10 | 239 Sardinia | -- | 670 | 113 | 14 | 20 | 277 ===========+=========+=========+=========+============+============+==========

This table gives very little information as to the influence of wealth upon criminality, since we can draw from it the most contradictory conclusions. Note, for example, that the highest figures for theft are to be found in the regions of Latium and Sardinia, i.e. in the richest and the poorest provinces, etc., etc.

—I have more than once had occasion to show that the value of such researches is fictitious. It is not the total amount of wealth but its distribution that bears upon criminality. (See, for example, Quetelet and Colajanni)—

In the 3d section the author treats of the effect of involuntary unemployment. Wright tells us that in Massachusetts of every 220 persons convicted, 147 are without regular work, and that 68% of criminals have no occupation. According to Professor Lombroso this is easily explained by the fact that criminals do not like to work. According to Bosco there were only 18% of murderers in the United States without work (—the proportion not being given for non-criminals, these figures have little value—). Finally, Professor Lombroso mentions the opinion of Coghlan, who says that unemployment has no influence upon criminality in New South Wales (—upon what he bases his opinion, we do not know—).

—Such data as these (to a subject of such high importance as this the author gives but thirty lines) suffice for the conclusion that the phenomenon in question has little significance for criminality. I have only to recall the extensive studies of Mayr, Denis, Müller, Lafargue, and others, upon this subject, to prove the inaccuracy of this idea.—

===================================================================================================== | Number of Persons (to the 100,000 Inhabitants) convicted for: Days of Work Equivalent+------------------+------------------+------------------+-------------------- to a Year's Food. | Homicide. | Assault. | Sexual Offenses. | Theft. -----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+-------------------- 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 -----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+-------------------- England and Wales } |Scotland 0.51|England+Wales 2.67|Spain 1.03|Spain 59.63 Scotland } 127|England+Wales 0.56|Ireland 6.24|Ireland 0.85|Belgium 110.44 Ireland } |Ireland 1.06|Scotland 11.59|Scotland 1.41|France 110.95 Belgium 130|Germany 1.11|Spain 43.17|England+Wales 1.66|Italy 165.89 France 132|Belgium 1.44|France 63.40|Italy 4.01|Ireland 65.81 Germany 148|France 1.53|Germany 126.40|Austria 9.33|England+Wales 165.63 Austria 152|Austria 2.43|Italy 155.35|France 10.26|Scotland 208.39 Italy 153|Spain 8.25|Belgium 175.39|Belgium 13.83|Germany 226.02 Spain 154|Italy 9.53|Austria 230.45|Germany 14.87| =======================+==================+==================+==================+====================

Note.—Column 1 is taken from Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics (quoted by Coghlan, op. cit.); and columns 2–5 are figured from the data published by the Director of Italian Statistics (“Movimento della Delinquenza secondo le Statistiche degli Anni 1873–83”, Rome, 1886).

In the table on the preceding page the figures for criminality of different countries are compared with the number of days’ wages equivalent to the annual cost of food for one individual. These figures give us a composite picture of the price of food and the wage-scale.

This table shows; first, that excessive labor with a low wage, i.e. with a lack of proper nutrition, has a certain correspondence with homicide; second, there is also a certain correspondence with assaults (Spain and Belgium furnishing exceptions); third, sexual crimes are most common where we find the fewest days’ work and vice versa (Great Britain and some other countries being exceptions); fourth, that theft shows no correspondence. [95]

In another way Lombroso attempts to compare the economic conditions of different countries and their criminality, namely, by means of the number of savings-bank books. For Europe the figures are as follows (taken from Coghlan):

=============+=================+================================ | Persons to Each | Crimes to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Savings-bank +---------------+---------------- | Book. | Homicide. | Theft. -------------+-----------------+---------------+---------------- Switzerland | 4.5 | 16 | 114 Denmark | 5 | 13 | 114 Sweden | 7 | 13 | -- England | 10 | 5.6 | 163 Prussia | 10 | 5.7 | 246 France | 12 | 18 | 103 Austria | 14 | 25 | 103 Italy | 25 | 96 | 150 =============+=================+===============+================

These figures show how homicides move in inverse ratio to the number of savings-bank books, while the contrary is the case with thefts. The author forgets to point out that there are five exceptions to this rule.

In Italy the greatest number of accounts corresponds to the smallest number of homicides, as the following table shows:

======================================================================= Average Number of Crimes in 20 Provinces in which the Wealth (According to the Number of Savings-Bank Books) is: ---------------------+--------------+-------------------+-------------- | Maximum. | Intermediate. | Minimum. ---------------------+--------------+-------------------+-------------- Fraudulent crimes | 57 | 45 | 45 Sexual crimes | 11 | 12.6 | 20 Thefts | 132 | 133 | 160 Homicides | 10 | 12.6 | 27.4 =====================+==============+===================+==============

There are several exceptions to this rule; for example, the richest, like Palermo, Rome, Naples, and Leghorn, give very high figures for homicides. According to Professor Lombroso the explanation in the case of Palermo and Naples is to be found in the geographical situation; in the case of Palermo, in race and the abuse of alcohol; and in the case of Rome, in race, the abuse of alcohol, and in the political situation.

For France we get the following results:

=================================+===================================== In Departments where the | Average Number of: Degree of Wealth is: +--------------+-----------+---------- | Homicides. | Thefts. | Rapes. ---------------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------- Minimum | 64 | 83 | 17 Medium | 86 | 99 | 26 Maximum | 89 | 186 | 29 =================================+==============+===========+==========

Here is just the opposite of what we get in Italy. The author explains this in the following manner: first, the richest districts are those that are industrial, where the influx of immigrants is greatest (these latter committing four times as many crimes as the French); second, because of ethnic and climatic factors; third, because of the greater wealth of France, which is four times as rich as Italy; and fourth, because of the demoralizing influence of quickly acquired wealth. [96]

The industrial activity of a country causes a considerable increase of criminality, especially when it displaces agriculture. Of 42 agricultural departments only 11, or 26%, go beyond the average number of assassinations in France; while the average is exceeded by 10 out of the 26 departments of mixed industry, or 38%, and by 7 out of 17 manufacturing departments, or 41%. Rapes upon adults and crimes against persons show similar results. [97]

Percentage of departments exceeding the average of all France in:

=====================================+============+==================== | Rapes. | Crimes against | | Persons. -------------------------------------+------------+-------------------- Agricultural Departments (42) | 33% | 48% Mixed (26) | 39% | 39% Manufacturing (17) | 52% | 59% =====================================+============+====================

Not only poverty, but often wealth as well may cause crime. This is why some very wealthy districts show a figure for criminality as high as do the very poor. “The cause of all this is only too clear. On the one side poverty and the lack of absolute necessities impel toward the theft of indispensable things for the satisfaction of the individuals’ own needs. This is the first cord binding poverty and assaults upon property. On the other hand, poverty makes men impulsive through the cortical irritation following the abuse of wine and alcohol, that terrible poison to which so many of the poor resort to still the pangs of hunger. Account must be taken also of the degeneration produced by scurvy, scrofula, anemia, and alcoholism in the parents, which often transforms itself into epilepsy and moral insanity. Poverty also drives men to commit brutal eliminations of individuals who are an unwelcome burden upon the family, ... Poverty is indirectly a cause of sexual crimes, on account of the difficulty which the poor have of obtaining satisfaction through prostitution; on account of precocious promiscuity in factories and mines; etc., ... On the other hand, when a slight temptation toward evil is presented to an individual in comfortable circumstances, he is rendered physically and morally stronger by sufficient nutrition and a sounder moral training, and is less pressed by need, so that while he feels the impulsion to do evil, he can more easily resist it.

“But wealth, in its turn, is a source of degeneration from other causes, such as syphilis, exhaustion, etc. It drives men to crime through vanity, in order to surpass others, and from a fatal ambition to cut a figure in the world.” [98] It may be asked why it happens then that the inmates of prisons are almost always poor and rarely rich. The answer, according to the author, is that because of the influence of his fortune, family, etc., the rich man can more easily extricate himself from the clutches of the law than the poor man, who knows no one, cannot employ a famous lawyer, etc. etc.

Professor Lombroso sums up his opinion as follows: “The economic factor has a great influence upon crime, not, however, that poverty is the principal cause of it, for excessive wealth, or money too quickly acquired, plays a large part as well; and poverty and wealth are frequently neutralized by the effect of race and climate.” [99]

II.

R. GAROFALO.

In Chapter III of his “Criminologie”, and more especially in the first part, bearing the title “la Misère”, this author treats of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality. [100] The question which must be answered with regard to this subject, according to Garofalo, is the following: “Whether the so-called ‘economic iniquity’, a condition by which all citizens are either proprietors or proletarians, is the chief cause or, at least, one of the most important causes, of criminality.” [101]

It may be that a workman, i.e. a person who can only provide for his own needs and those of his family by selling his labor, can find no work, and for that reason falls into theft; but the author is of the opinion that in our days this almost never happens (leaving aside periods of crisis), and that if it happens the worker will generally find some one ready to help him, and that crime is therefore not a necessity. There is, indeed, absolute poverty, but it is almost always the result of a lack of courage and energy, and not due to a lack of work. It is not hunger, but a desire to procure the same pleasures as those enjoyed by the favored of fortune, that impels the working-man to commit crime. But this is not only the case with the working class but with other classes as well. For this desire belongs to every man; the millionaire envies the multimillionaire, etc. In order that this desire should lead to crime, it is not necessary that there should be a particular economic situation, but only a particular psychic condition—the individual must have his sense of honesty weakened or wanting. Desire will cease to lead to crime only when there is no longer any advantage to be gained by it, and since this is inconceivable, crime will always exist. This explains why the number of crimes committed by the proletariat is very great, but at the same time why the cases of forgery, bankruptcy, etc. are very numerous among the other classes. In 1880 the figure for crimes against property (and analogous crimes) committed in Italy by proletarians, compared with those committed by property-owners, was as 88 to 12, while the ratio of the number of proletarians to that of property-owners was as 90 to 10. These proportions are nearly the same, which proves that as regards these crimes the proletarian class is no more criminal than the others.

Some authors are of the opinion that crimes against persons are equally caused in large measure by bad economic conditions, since bad education, lack of discretion, etc. are consequences of these conditions. In Garofalo’s opinion this idea is inaccurate, since the bad conditions in which the proletariat live lead indeed to roughness, i.e. make them insensible to the suffering of others, but it does not follow that the proletarians are totally deprived of moral sentiments. The criminal statistics of Italy show that 16% of the correctional criminality was committed by property-owners, though they form but 10% to 11% of the population. Garofalo attempts to prove the truth of his thesis also by a classification of criminals by trades. The agricultural class in Italy, the poorest and most ignorant, form 25.39% of those brought before the correctional tribunals, while those engaged in manufacturing, commerce, the army, etc., those with some education, therefore, who are much less numerous in the population, form 13.58%. In 1881 the Italian population included 67.25% of illiterates, and in 1880 68.09% of those correctionally convicted were illiterate. Further it has been proved many times that an improvement in economic conditions is accompanied by an increase of crime. In France, for example, wages have risen, the consumption of cereals, like that of meat, has increased, and the number of children enjoying the advantages of a primary education is more extensive and yet criminality has grown greatly in the same period. To the possible objection “that many authors, like Mayr, have proved that the rise in the price of grain is accompanied by an increase of crimes against property, and vice versa, and that economic conditions are consequently an important cause of crime”, Garofalo responds that crimes against persons increase with the fall in the price of grain, and that consequently, by the changes in the economic life there has been brought about a change in the kind, but not in the extent, of criminality. Exceptional occurrences, such as famines, commercial crises, etc., increase crime only in appearance. If the question is probed to the bottom (the author appears not to have done so himself, at least he does not record any results) it is probable that it will be discovered that what happens is only that the form of crime becomes more serious, that the vagrant, for example, becomes a highway-man, etc.

The conclusions that the author draws are the following:

“First. The present economic order, that is to say, the distribution of wealth as it exists today, is not a cause of criminality in general.

“Second. The fluctuations which are wont to occur in the economic order may bring about an increase in one form of criminality, but this increase is compensated for by the diminution of another form. These fluctuations are, therefore, possible causes of specific criminality.” [102]

—My criticism of what has gone before will be limited to some principal points only.

First. The author dodges the question when he includes under economic conditions poverty only, and this in the very limited sense of the lack of the absolute necessities. He who writes upon the connection between crime and economic conditions must analyze the whole present economic system, and not stop with one of the consequences of that system, the poverty in which the proletarians find themselves. Consequently Garofalo’s whole argument, tending to show that the bourgeoisie have a great part in the crimes against property, is beside the mark, for capitalism results in great uncertainty of existence for the bourgeoisie also. It is then quite comprehensible that this class should be guilty of crimes of this kind. According to Fornasari di Verce, however, the Italian statistics show that the well-to-do class take less part in crime than the poor. According to him 13% of all those convicted in 1887 were well-to-do, a class which, roughly speaking, forms 40% of the whole population. (See also Colajanni, “La Sociologia Criminale”, II, pp. 536 ff.)

In consequence of this arbitrary restriction of the subject the author’s remarks are of little value. But aside from this there are still serious charges to be made against his manner of treating the subject.

Second. The assertion of Garofalo that in general in our present society he who wishes to work can find work, is not worth combating in a serious book. To say that machinery does not every day make some workers unnecessary, that there are no industrial crises causing an enormous amount of involuntary unemployment, is conclusive proof that one does not know the present mode of production. The existence of a group of the population, the so-called lower proletariat (“bas-prolétariat”, “Lumpen-proletariat”) cannot be a natural phenomenon, since it has not been always and everywhere present; it is strictly bound up with certain modes of production.

Third. As I have had occasion to show already in more than one place, the increase of crimes against persons during periods of prosperity has a very great, though indirect, connection with economic conditions.

Fourth. That poverty in the strict sense of the word is not the sole cause of economic criminality, that cupidity plays also an important rôle, I do not wish to deny. Only, this cupidity is not an innate quality of man, present everywhere and always, but is awakened only under certain economic conditions. This is especially the case in our present society.

Fifth. According to the author there are certain circumstances which may lead to the commission of a crime, but the true cause of crime is to be found in the absence or weakness of the instinct of honesty. That there exists such an “instinct of honesty” is one of numerous assertions made by Garofalo for which he produces no proof, and, in accordance with the general opinion of sociologists, I class it among the most profound errors. A moral disposition is innate in man, and varies greatly with individuals, but moral concepts—for example, that it is forbidden to steal—are certainly not innate. The very way in which Garofalo puts the question is wrong; we must not set the circumstances that have influenced a man at a certain moment over against an innate quality of honesty (fictitious besides) but must examine all the conditions which have influenced his innate moral disposition through the whole of his life, as well as his environment at a given moment.

To say that the influence of environment cannot be great, because persons well brought up sometimes commit crimes, is very superficial. Upon this point there is something deeper and more important to be said.—

III.

E. FERRI.

In order to present Professor Ferri’s views, I shall analyze “Socialismo e criminalità” and a passage connected with our subject, taken from “Sociologia criminale.” [103] This analysis will be more detailed than that of most of the other authors, since in reality the opinion of Professor Ferri is the synthesis of the opinions of many other authorities. For this reason and others it is of the highest importance.

“Socialismo e criminalità” is a polemic work directed in part against “Il delitto e la questione sociale” of Turati, and in part as Professor Ferri himself says in “Socialismo e scienza positiva”, against socialism as far as that involves the revolutionary method and the concomitant “nebulous romanticism.”

In his “Preliminari” the author gives some definitions of socialism; combats socialism of every kind, declares it to be unscientific, and sets in opposition to it sociology, which is entirely scientific. [104] We pass over this part of the work in silence, since it has little importance for our subject, and turn our attention to the end of the “Preliminari”, where the author gives an exposition of the ideas which the socialists, according to him, have about crime:

“I. The origin of the phenomenon of crime is to be found in society as at present constituted.

“II. More especially, the economic disorder of the population caused by the unjust inequality of individuals and classes, is the cause of every other disorder, moral or intellectual, and therefore of crime also.

“III. When the social transformation or revolution which the socialists desire has taken place, the social atmosphere will be most favorable.

“IV. In the socialistic order the individual also will be much superior to the man corrupted or demoralized by present conditions.

“V. And then crime, like poverty, ignorance, prostitution, and immorality in general, will have ended its unhappy tyranny over the human race.”

—It is not certain that an adherent of scientific socialism would agree that these theses are entirely accurate; for example, the second, that the bad economic condition of the population is the cause of crime—for the expression “economic condition” has here too limited a meaning, namely that of poverty, misery, etc. In place of this he would rather make use of the expression, “mode of production.” It is this which, in the last analysis, rules the whole social life, according to the Marxists.—

The first chapter of Professor Ferri’s work, bearing the title of “la genesi sociale e individuale del delitto”, begins by remarking that the socialists blame society as the cause of all evils, including poverty and crime. On the one hand, they do this because of their “strategy of propaganda”, on the other hand it is a reaction against the extreme individualism which sprang from the French Revolution. They generally pay no attention to individual factors, or perhaps recognize them in part, but attribute their origin to society also. Between these two extremes is to be found criminal sociology, which says that the causes of crime are manifold.

According to the author there are three groups of the factors of crime: the anthropological or individual factors, the cosmic or physical factors, and the social factors. Since many authors, wholly or partially, share this view, which constitutes an attack against the very foundation of the idea of the social origin of crime, we will examine it here fully.

We take from “Sociologie criminelle”, where this doctrine is best set forth, the following statement of it. “Every crime is the resultant of individual, physical, and social conditions.” [105] The individual factor is, according to the author, the most important, the primordial factor, so to speak, for he says: “The social environment gives form to the crime; but this has its origin in an anti-social biological constitution (organic or psychic).” [106] The factors pointed out are the following:

“The anthropological factors, inherent in the person of the criminal, are the first condition of crime, and divide themselves into three subclasses, according as the person of the criminal is looked at from an organic, psychic, or social point of view.

“The organic constitution of the criminal constitutes the first subclass of anthropological factors and includes all the anomalies of the skull, brain, viscera, sensibility, reflex activity, and all bodily characteristics in general, such as physiognomy, tattooing, etc.

“The psychical constitution of the criminal includes anomalies of intelligence and feeling, especially of the moral sense and the peculiarities of the criminal dialect and literature.

“The personal characteristics of the criminal include the purely biological features of his condition, such as race, age, sex; and the bio-social features, such as civil status, profession, residence, social class, and education, which have been up to this time the almost exclusive subject of criminal statistics.

“The physical factors of crime are the climate, nature of the soil, length of nights and days, the seasons, the annual temperature, meteorological conditions, and agricultural production.

“The social factors include the density of population; public opinion, morals, religion; condition of the family; the educational system; industrial production; alcoholism; economic and political conditions; public administration, the courts, the police; and in general the legislative, civil, and penal organization:—that is to say, a medley of latent causes, which interlace and combine in all parts of the social organism, and almost always escape the attention of ... criminologists and legislators.” [107]

ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTORS.

Let us consider first the “personal characteristics of the criminal.” Professor Ferri draws the following conclusions with regard to the existence of anthropological factors in general: “In fact, if crime were the product of the social environment exclusively, how could the fact be explained, that in the same social environment and in like circumstances of poverty, abandonment, and lack of education, out of 100 individuals, 60 commit no crime, and of the 40 that remain, 5 prefer suicide to crime, 5 become insane, 5 become beggars or non-dangerous vagrants, and only the 25 others become real criminals? And why is it that among these, while some limit themselves to theft without violence, others commit robberies, and even, before the victim resists, or threatens, or calls for help, commit a murder with the sole aim of theft?” [108]

—It seems to me that there are many objections to be made to this rather carelessly drawn conclusion. In the first place, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that it may be assumed that it will be easy to find groups of persons only a quarter of whom become criminal, though they all live in the same bad environment. Leaving out of account the individuals who, because of their physical condition are incapable of crime, I do not believe that there are, for example, 60% who have never been convicted. However, even admitting that this assertion is accurate, then, that out of 100 persons living in the same environment, only one part will fall into crime, I believe that it is impossible to find even two persons who live, and have lived, in an environment exactly similar, and whose parents also have always lived in the same surroundings. In this way only can the question be clearly put. It is not only present conditions that influence a man; all past conditions have their part in the motives of present acts. It cannot be denied that the present includes the past. Nor ought the conditions which have influenced the parents to be excluded. Let us put the following case: A, B, and C live in the same very bad surroundings. A commits suicide, B becomes crazy, C commits a crime. The parents of A were well-to-do, gave their child a good education, and accustomed him to consider many things as necessities. Fallen into poverty, then weakened and become incapable of good work, A believes that it is impossible for him to restore himself. His moral ideas, acquired in his youth, are opposed to his engaging in crime. And then the few francs that he would be able to steal would not be sufficient to maintain him in the life to which he has been accustomed. Consequently he commits suicide. B is the child of a father who became an alcoholic from actual poverty. Inferior on this account, B cannot keep up the struggle for existence and becomes insane. The parents of C were indigent. He received no education; moral ideas are totally unknown to him; he has never lived in anything but poverty, and commits a theft when the opportunity presents itself without any hesitation. In these three cases, which occur daily, circumstances are the only factor that enters into consideration.

I have said above that there are no two persons who live in exactly the same circumstances. This word “exactly” is not used by Professor Ferri, and in this, in my opinion, he is wrong. In ordinary life we speak of great and small causes. But in treating of scientific questions this is surely forbidden. For no one is ignorant that what is apparently the least important occurrence may have the most extensive consequences.

May I here be permitted to make a quotation from an interesting page of Professor Manouvrier upon this question: “That the effect of environment is generally understood in too limited a way, we see proved every day in the appreciation expressed, of the causes that have determined certain differences of productive power or moral conduct. It is a question, perhaps, of two brothers. It is said that they have been brought up exactly in the same manner, that they have received exactly the same education, and that the question of environment is thus settled. Immediately the doctors begin to call in atavism, to feel the bumps of the head, to study facial asymmetry, etc. Anatomy must be appealed to, since the influence of environment has been eliminated. It can be put down to bad luck if some bump, some depression, some asymmetry is not found that will serve, whether or no, to account for a solution of the question. There remains always, further, the resource of invoking invisible, hypothetical vices of the internal constitution. The phrenologists were in a relatively difficult situation; they had to find a fixed anatomical character, a bump for a function specified in advance, or they were obliged to imagine a conflict of bump with bump. The present method is less exacting; it is enough to find no matter what deviation from morphological perfection, without its being necessary to show the connection between this deviation and the physiological inferiority to be explained. But what am I saying? The question is often of an inferiority of a sociological order, and trouble is not even taken to make sure, to begin with, that this corresponds to a psychological inferiority. Yet however indispensable this may be as a preliminary, it is not enough; it must be ascertained that this inferiority implies a functional trouble before calling in pathological anatomy at all hazards.

“The statement is made that the two brothers have been subjected to the same environmental influences merely because they have been brought up in the same house, taught in the same school, fed and clothed alike. Yet the mere fact of having been born first or second is not without importance. To have been reared with an older or with a younger brother constitutes a difference of environment that may contribute powerfully to differentiate character. Add to this the differences of environment proceeding from nurses, servants, diseases, games, etc., and you will have opened headings under which may be classed differences innumerable. There are no small things in such a matter. Biographies as now written are no more than outlines when one thinks of what truly psychological biographies ought to be. To have been taught in the same college in the case of two brothers is a similarity that may, and certainly does, conceal the greatest differences. They have not had the same teachers, the same fellow-pupils, nor, above all, the same comrades. Between the education given, and that actually received, the difference may be great....

“The influences that act upon the child outside of the curriculum have the more chance to be effective, since the curriculum is carried out in the less agreeable manner.” [109]

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

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

The famous individual factors are only ordinary human qualities, like courage, strength, needs, intelligence, etc. etc., [110] which men possess in differing degrees, and which in like circumstances lead the one rather than the other to commit a crime. These qualities in themselves, however, have nothing to do with crime. Professor Manouvrier expresses my thought on this subject in the following: “There are, however, certain individuals more moved to crime than others, in circumstances otherwise equal. Certainly, as man is more given to crime than woman, as a robust and bold man is more given to crimes of violence than one who is miserable and timid, etc., yet each type of character finds some kind of crime practicable, if only arson. The athlete will be more inclined to strike, the smooth talker to play the confidence man, but we do not for that reason indict muscular strength, nor ready speech, nor boldness, nor agility, nor address. No more do we indict violence or trickery, qualities defined from the vicious use made of qualities valuable for honest purposes.” [111]

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

Thus we have finally come to two other groups of anthropological factors: the organic constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of the skull, brain, etc. and the psychical constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of intelligence and feeling. [112] This is the special territory of the Italian school: the criminal is a being apart—“genus homo criminalis”—with special stigmata peculiar to him; there is a criminal type, anatomically recognizable; most criminals are born-criminals, etc. The explanation of this special character is to be found in atavism, an hypothesis later replaced by that of epilepsy; finally it has been claimed that the character of the criminal is in general of a pathological nature.

In our purely sociological work, though it combats in an indirect way the hypothesis of the Italian school, we do not have to concern ourselves with the conflict between the different anthropological schools, with regard to the origin of crime. We demonstrate merely, what no one who judges fairly will attempt to deny, that the hypothesis of the Italian school is erroneous. The anthropological authorities like Manouvrier, Baer, Näcke, and others, have broken this doctrine down. [113] There are no stigmata belonging to criminals only, nor is there any criminal type; the atavistic hypothesis is one of the profoundest errors.

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

PHYSICAL FACTORS.

It is evident that the nature of the soil, the climate, the physical environment in a word, must have an important influence upon the mode of production, and consequently upon society. [114]

It is easily understood why those who inhabit the regions of Siberia covered with snow have not become agriculturists; and why Holland, without mines of iron and coal has not become a great manufacturing country, but instead, situated upon the sea and traversed by great rivers, has become commercial. But these physical factors have remained constant or nearly constant during historical periods, while the organization of society has undergone changes that have great effects. We cannot explain these changes by a constant factor.

Plechanow formulates this very well in his “Beiträge der Geschichte des Materialismus.” He says: “The character of man’s natural environment determines the character of his productive activity, of his means of production. The means of production, however, determines the reciprocal relationships of men in the process of production as inevitably as the equipment of an army determines its entire organization, and all the relationships of the individuals of which it is made up. Now the reciprocal relations of men in the social process of production determine the entire structure of society. The influence of the natural environment upon this structure is therefore incontestable. The character of the natural environment determines that of the social environment. For example: ‘The necessity of computing the time of the rising of the Nile, created Egyptian astronomy and with it the domination of the priestly caste as guides in agriculture.’

“But this is only one side of the matter. Another side must also be considered if one is not to draw entirely false conclusions. The circumstances of production are the result, the productive forces are the cause. But the effect becomes a cause in its turn; the circumstances of production become a new source of the development of the productive forces. This leads to a double result.

“1. The mutual influence of the circumstances of production and the productive forces causes a social movement, which has its own logic and a law of its own, independent of the natural environment. For example: Private property in the primitive phase of its development is always the fruit of the labor of the property-holder himself, as may be very well observed in the Russian villages. There necessarily comes a time, however, when it becomes the reverse of what it was before: it supposes the work of another, and becomes capitalistic private property, as we can likewise see any day in the Russian villages. This phenomenon is the effect of the immanent law of the evolution of private property. All that the natural environment can accomplish in this case consists in accelerating this movement through favoring the development of the productive forces.

“2. Since the social evolution has its own logic, independent of any direct influence from the natural environment, it may happen that a people, though inhabiting the same land and retaining almost the same physical peculiarities, may have at different epochs of its history social and political institutions which are very little similar, or even totally different one from another.” [115]

Crime being a social phenomenon, and society being influenced, as we have seen, by the physical environment, one might say that this environment is a factor in criminality. He who reasons thus would have to grant that the physical environment is only an indirect factor, and therefore a very remote cause. It would be as fair to say that the invention of gunpowder was one of the causes of all murders committed with fire-arms. However, in reasoning thus I believe we forget that crime is an historic phenomenon, modifying itself according to the condition of society, and consequently regulated by laws that are independent of the physical environment. In other words, the environment is the reason why a people provides for its needs by working the material that nature has furnished; but the manner in which this work is done is independent of this environment. And it is upon this manner of working that criminality depends. An example taken from practice will make clear what I have been saying.

From the nature of the soil of Sicily it is possible to work sulphur mines there. The criminality of Sicily is very great, especially in the parts where the mines are found, and many murders particularly are committed there. We might be disposed to believe that here the physical factors came into play. Now it is true that the nature of the soil is the cause of the exploiting of the mines, but the criminality is dependent entirely upon the way in which the exploiting is done, and this has nothing to do with the physical environment. To particularize: these mines are exploited in the capitalistic fashion, i.e., with the aim of getting as much profit as possible, which brings it about that the workers are untaught, demoralized and made degenerate by ill-paid labor, excessively severe, and carried on in an unwholesome atmosphere. Hence come the higher figures for criminality. [116]

Most authors who have concerned themselves with the influence of these physical factors, have only observed their direct influence upon man. Many of them have paid no attention to the importance that these factors may have for the character of society, and they have taken no account of the fact that society develops according to laws independent of the physical environment. Phenomena have been ascribed to the direct influence of the physical environment, which have no such relationship. It is a fact pretty generally recognized, for example, that the number of violent crimes is greater in the South than in the North. The cause frequently given is the obvious one that it is the difference of climate. But this overlooks the fact that the phase of social development reached in the southern countries is totally different from that in the northern countries, and this difference explains that of the criminality against persons. Upon this subject Professor Tarde says: “Statistics compiled in epochs when, civilization not having passed from the South to the North, the North was more barbarous, would certainly have shown that crimes of blood were more numerous in the northern climates, where now they are more rare, and would have induced the Quetelets of that day to formulate a law precisely the reverse of the one now stated. For example, if we divide Italy into three zones, Lombardy, Central, and Southern Italy, we shall find that at present there are in the first 3 homicides to the 100,000 inhabitants annually, in the second nearly 10, and in the third more than 16. But shall we estimate that in the palmy days of Grecia Major, when Crotona and Sybaris flourished in the south of a peninsula which, in the North, was totally peopled with brigands and barbarians, except for the Etruscans, the proportion of bloody crimes would not have been reversed? At present there are in Italy, in proportion to the population, sixteen times as many homicides as in England, nine times as many as in Belgium, and five times as many as in France. But we could swear that under the Roman Empire it was quite otherwise, and that the savage Britons, and even the Belgians and the Gauls surpassed the effeminate Romans in habitual ferocity of manners, in vindictive fury and bravery. According to Maine the Scandinavian literature shows that homicide during the period of barbarism was a ‘daily accident’ with these peoples of the North, at present the mildest and most inoffensive in Europe.” [117]

It is plain from what has gone before that I have not wished to deny the direct influence of the physical environment upon man. Indeed, it is a fact which the whole world has observed. According to many persons, then—and a number of scientific researches have proved it—a high degree of criminality against persons proceeds from a hot temperature, while a low temperature, on the other hand, leads to many crimes against property. This implies not only that the kind of crime is different in hot countries from that in cold, but also that the change of the seasons with their variations in temperature have the corresponding effects.

I will not fatigue the reader by citing an unlimited number of examples to prove that the exceptions to this rule are very numerous. We cannot find a greater number of crimes against persons and a smaller number of crimes against property with each degree nearer the equator. If this were the case dishonesty would be unknown at the equator, and everyone there would be very violent. There are countries which, though in the same latitude, are very different as to crime, as there are others, much alike as to crime though situated far from each other, etc., etc. [118] The adherents of the theory of the “physical environment” explain these exceptions by saying that they are caused by the “social environment.” By so doing they recognize that the latter may entirely alter and even annihilate the influence of the former. Let us concern ourselves rather with the different kinds of crime, and investigate the influence which the physical environment exercises upon it.

In the first place, as to the assertion that cold increases the number of crimes against property it is unnecessary to speak at length, for nearly all authors are agreed that not physical but economic causes come into play here. Cold increases men’s needs; they must have warmer clothing and a well heated dwelling. But it is clear that all this is no motive for stealing. For the person of means gets what he wants with his own money. It is the present social organization that, during the severe weather, does not permit people to provide for the needs that are more numerous then, for the opportunity to work is more often lacking in winter than in summer.

As to crimes against persons Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the direct influence of temperature is as follows: “The increase of acts of violence to persons, which is observed in connection with higher temperatures, must be chiefly dependent upon the direct physiological effect of heat upon the human organism. For by the greater warmth the consumption of material for the production of animal heat is cut down, and hence a surplus of force is stored up capable of being used for other purposes. But this, in union with the heightened irritability of temper, may easily degenerate into that criminal activity which shows itself in acts of violence to persons. With this psychological effect of the heat, it is true, there is coupled, in the case of the poorer classes who form the majority of the population, the effect of more easily obtained and more plentiful food, but this social cause in this connection is of less importance than the direct biological influence.” [119]

The first explanation of Professor Ferri is astonishing because everyone feels that the heat has a different effect upon himself than the one given. The fact that during hot weather the consumption of bodily fuel is not so great as in cold weather cannot be considered as the most important point in treating of the question of crime. Heat enervates men, weakens their organism, and is the cause of men’s doing as little as possible. It has, then, just the opposite effect to that ascribed to it. [120]

More than once I have had occasion to point out that it is unjust to say that the improved food of the poorer classes in summer can be the cause of the greater criminality during that season. If this were the case the persons who are well nourished at all times would furnish the greatest number of violent criminals. Now we know that just the contrary is the case. In my opinion the explanation is to be sought in the fact that in summer people come into contact with one another more, and consequently there is more opportunity for evil doing. [121] But this in itself cannot naturally explain the increase of crimes. Watering-places, where the bourgeoisie attempt to escape from the effects of the heat, are not places where crimes against persons occur in great numbers. Yet the concentration of many people in a limited space is there very great. The degree of cultivation of the people determines the greater or less ease with which quarrels arise. And what proves that this degree need not be very high is the fact that acts of violence are very rare among the bourgeois, the greater number of whom have only a superficial culture.

The most convincing proof that the increase of violent crimes in spring has no direct connection with the heat, is found in the fact that this increase is already very great in the months in which in the North of Europe there is absolutely no question of heat properly so called (i.e. in March and April); and in the second place the course of crimes during the week must be noted, with the maximum on Sunday, when naturally the heat is no greater than on other days; and in the third place, the maximum is not to be found at the hottest time of the day. [122]

The increase of sexual crimes in hot seasons is in part only apparent, because those who commit these crimes then operate more out of doors, and a greater number of arrests results. For the rest, it must be conceded that the sexual instinct in general is quickened a little during the spring and summer, and as a consequence sexual acts increase. But this does not mean that these acts are therefore criminal. The principal reason why sexual crimes increase during the hot weather is to be found in opportunity, which occurs much more frequently than in cold weather. The proverb says: “opportunity makes the thief”, and this is still more applicable to sexual criminals. [123]

I am therefore of the opinion that the social factors must not be included in the etiology of crime. They have their influence upon the structure of society, they have also their influence upon man, but it depends upon social conditions whether this influence takes a criminal direction or not. [124]

Before taking up our analysis of “Socialismo e criminalità”, I would remark that this division of the factors into three groups has to do exclusively with the individual criminal, and thus loses sight of the question why such an action in any place whatever, at any time whatever, is regarded as criminal? Such a query brings out the fact that we are here concerned with social factors only.

Let us take up now the exposition of Chapter I of “Socialismo e criminalità.” Turati, in his “Il delitto e la questione sociale” has made the following objections to Professor Ferri’s theses. Professor Ferri distinguishes five categories of criminals: insane criminals, incorrigible born-criminals, habitual criminals, criminals from passion, and occasional criminals. In the first two categories individual factors play a very important rôle; however, according to Professor Ferri’s investigations these two groups include but 20% to 25% of the whole number of criminals, and deducting the insane, only 10% remain. Since criminals form only the minority of the population, and physical factors have only a slight influence, it follows that these factors influence rather the form than the cause of the crime. The three factors work nearly all the time. It is clear, therefore, that the two other factors alone will not be strong enough to produce crime at a time when the social factor is eliminated, as has been proved by the socialistic colony at New Lanark, which preserved an exemplary morality for four years. Then, without taking account of the crimes that are the consequence of viciousness of life or of the abnormal economic condition, the authors of great crimes (except technical and professional ones) are less numerous among the well-to-do than among the lower classes, where the anthropological elements are nearly the same. And if the different classes show anthropological differences, this is not because these differences are innate in individuals on account of being born in the lower classes, but because they are produced and brought about by poverty, bad education, etc. The true causes of crime are consequently social conditions, and in the last analysis economic conditions.

Professor Ferri’s argument against what has just been said may be summed up as follows: Will there be no social atmosphere in a socialistic state? Or rather, will this atmosphere be so perfect that the germ of the smallest social factor of crime will be absent? Do we suppose that when poverty is suppressed, jealousy will disappear at the same time? If legal marriage is abolished will that prevent an ugly man from violating or killing a beautiful woman who refuses to accept him? It may be objected that in this case the man is not an habitual or an occasional criminal, but a born-criminal, or an insane criminal, or a criminal from passion. Well and good, but then in this future state we shall still be far removed from an earthly paradise.

Turati commits the following errors in his reasoning: First, he sets aside the insane criminals; wrongly, according to Professor Ferri, for, although insane, they are criminals. Second, 20%, the figure to which born and insane criminals count up, is a very large number out of 60,000 prisoners. Third, Professor Ferri claims that it is incorrect to say that the other causes are reduced to zero the moment the social factors of crime are suppressed. For even with occasional criminals, where the environment plays a very important part, an individual factor must make its effect felt, or the individual would not become criminal.

Professor Ferri asks, on the other hand: How does it happen that out of a hundred working-men living in the same environment, only a very few fall into crime? This can be explained only by admitting individual and physical causes. When socialists say that these individual differences are innate simply in consequence of the poverty in which ancestors of the persons in question have lived for thousands of years, the author admits this reasoning in great part, but thinks nevertheless that he is right in maintaining that these qualities are innate in certain individuals at the present time.

With regard to the fact that a very high morality was maintained in New Lanark, the author says: first, that he would very much like to convince himself with his own eyes, especially since he has read that in this colony the habit of celebrating Christmas eve with excessive drinking was kept up; second, that he knows that crimes were committed in a communistic colony of that time; further we are not to forget that difficulties are increased in a great city.

The following chapter is entitled: “Benessere e criminalità.” To the unproved assertion of the socialists that bad economic conditions are the principal if not the only cause of crime, the author opposes some facts to prove that this statement is largely incorrect. To this end he divides crimes into three groups: first, crimes against property, second, crimes against persons or crimes of blood, and third, crimes against morals. Besides these three categories there are many crimes which have neither directly nor indirectly any connection with bad economic conditions; for example, crimes against honor, insults, or abuse of power.

First, then, the crimes against property. The author recognizes that most of these crimes are caused by bad economic conditions. But it is an exaggeration, he says, to say that all these crimes result from such conditions. This is to overlook crimes against property committed out of revenge. However, in a communistic society there would necessarily be cases of theft still, without taking into account kleptomania, etc. For the articles of consumption would still remain private property; and why should one not rob his fellow-citizen from jealousy? Or is it not probable that someone would prefer to take from his neighbor the thing he needs rather than make a trip of some miles to get it from a central store? But if we admit that the bad economic conditions of the time are the cause of the crimes against property, it remains to find the causes of the crimes of the other groups. Though he recognizes that economic conditions occupy a place in the etiology of these last crimes, as, for example, murder from cupidity, the author does not believe that this can be made a general rule. When socialists object that the man of the future will be morally improved, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that at the present moment we have to do with the men of today and not with the men of the future.

The study of criminality in France during the years 1825–80 has shown an extraordinary increase in crimes against persons and against morals during the years 1848–52. A minute examination shows the author that it was due to the great increase in the consumption of meat and wine, both very cheap at this time, and also to a rise in wages. The result of the betterment in economic conditions was, therefore, an increase in the crimes mentioned.

Professor Ferri finds another proof in the following table:

Number of Persons Arraigned to 100,000 of Each Class (France).

===============================+==============+===============+=========+==============+=============== | Agricultural | Manufacturing | Arts | Other | Without Crimes. | Class. | Class. | and | Professions. | Occupation, | | | Trades. | | Vagrants, Etc. -------------------------------+--------------+---------------+---------+--------------+--------------- Thefts | 6.6 | 12.9 | 18.1 | 11.1 | 136.3 Forgery | 0.7 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 8.3 Arson | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 5.2 Infanticide | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 4.1 Serious assaults | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 2.7 Homicide | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 2.4 Murder | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 5.8 Sexual crimes with violence | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.9 ,, ,, against children | 0.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 5.5 -------------------------------+--------------+---------------+---------+--------------+--------------- Average of all crimes | 13.9 | 23.0 | 32.5 | 22.4 | 193.0 ===============================+==============+===============+=========+==============+===============

It follows from this table that the farming class, which, if you except vagabonds, is the class with the least means, shows the figure relatively lowest, and that the assertion of the socialists, that those who are brought to the bar of justice are almost all from the proletariat, is inaccurate.

—I shall not discuss the question, whether the proletariat furnishes a disproportionately large contingent of criminals. The arguments of Professor Ferri do not seem very strong to me. “Agricultural class”, for example, is too vague a distinction. What an enormous distinction between the rich farmer and the poor day-laborer, who earns only a few francs a week! Yet both are included in the first group.—

When we examine the course of crime in France during the period 1826–80, we see a considerable increase in the crimes against property, morals, and persons, while the economic conditions have improved during these years even for the proletariat. To what cause is this increase to be ascribed? It is impossible to attribute it to a relaxation of the strictness of the police and the courts, for the activity of these has become greater. Further, where it is evident that there are such strong causes of crime, it would be madness to think that a greater severity of penalties leads to a diminution of criminality. It is for this reason that the school to which the author belongs insists not upon the increase of penalties, but rather upon the elimination of causes. Hence the doctrine of “penal substitutes.”

The true cause is the following: The more abundantly a man is nourished, the more his organic forces are developed; there is, therefore, a greater activity which may express itself in more acts of honest labor, but may also express itself in an increased number of unlawful acts. And then we must not lose sight, especially with regard to sexual crimes, of the existence of a biological and of a sociological law, namely, first, that the generative force of animals and of man increases in proportion to the abundance and ease of nutrition; second, that by a continual development of foresight, the nations which follow the advice of Malthus are more and more giving the lie to the law that he formulated, since with them population shows a tendency to increase less rapidly than the means of existence, and almost in inverse proportion to wealth. This is why criminality is increasing in France, where the system of foresight is greatly developed, and where the population enjoys better nutrition than formerly.

Professor Ferri is of the opinion that we can derive from the observed facts the following rules: first, criminality increases in extent but diminishes in violence; second, scarcity makes crimes against property increase, and decreases those against persons, while abundance has the opposite effect; third, civilization decreases the number of homicides, but increases that of suicides; fourth, a development of foresight with regard to births prevents an excessive increase of the population, and consequently an excessive increase of pauperism, but increases the figures for sexual crimes.

Turati makes the following objections to these statements: In the first place, in civilized countries, crimes against persons are much less numerous than crimes against property, and just in proportion to the degree of civilization. Why is it not likely that in the end the criminogenous influence of nutrition will disappear in consequence of the law in accordance with which crimes increase in number, but decrease in grossness and intensity? Further, it is doubtful whether this influence is so strong. The true cause is not good nutrition but the Malthusian check, and it is this last which leads to crime, precisely in the proletariat, since in this class prostitution cannot act as a safety valve; and bad economic conditions are the cause of the “moral restraint.”

Professor Ferri recognizes that there is a partial truth in this reasoning, but makes the following objections: that crimes of blood are more numerous than crimes against morals and yet have no relation to the Malthusian check; that, as regards crimes against morals, it is not correct to say that the proletariat are driven to them by economic causes; that it is the proletarians that multiply the fastest, and the well-to-do classes who do not wish to have many children; and that the individual and biological factors would always remain, and lead to crimes against persons, even if the aforesaid cause of sexual crimes were to disappear. In the following chapters the author treats of the assertion of Turati that an improvement in education and the new “social atmosphere” will bring about a change.

—The criticism of the chapter of which I have just been speaking may be summed up as follows: Like so many other authors, Professor Ferri understands the expression, “economic conditions”, in a very limited sense. He includes only direct influences, and in this way it is very easy to prove that they explain only a part of criminality. But this interpretation is very incomplete, since all social life is influenced by economic conditions. In proving, therefore, like many other authors, that while an improvement in the economic condition of the working-class is accompanied by a decrease in crimes against property, it is also accompanied by an increase of sexual crimes and crimes against persons, Professor Ferri forgets not only that the lack of education leads to crimes of violence, but also that in our present society the possibility of satisfying the sexual appetites depends upon the social position of the individual. The argument, in opposition to Turati, “that Malthusianism is applied chiefly by persons of some means” is not a happy one for one who wants to prove that economic conditions have not a considerable influence. For the reason of this is just the difficulty of procuring a good position for many children, and, in the case of landholders, the desire to avoid a too great division of the land. These are purely economic causes.—

“Educazione e criminalità” is the title of the third chapter. The human brain is an organic mechanism, similar (but with numerous exceptions) to an inorganic mechanism in this, that it is subject to the great law of the conservation of energy, which manifests itself, among other ways, in inertia. From which it comes that man at all times has had an irresistible tendency to make use of a general principle as a basis for his logical structures. Without this he would always be forced to build each new structure from the ground up, which would involve the waste of too much cerebral energy. Opposed to this law is another which teaches us that life is impossible in a state of absolute repose, but that it requires a perpetual changing of the organic and physio-psychic materials. Hence it comes that eternal and absolute truths change at different epochs, and that they seem stable only when compared with the secondary truths, which are subject to the fashions of the time.

According to the author, then, there are truths that are more general and nearly inalterable, but there are others which, though general also, are more secondary, only retain their force during several generations, and end by being changed. Such, for example, are the views concerning human life, formulated by the great thinkers, then accepted by the majority, and finally supplanted by other truths. This is why science makes progress by dogmas. It is modern science that has made the great step in recognizing that these dogmas are relative and alterable.

Against this reasoning two objections can be alleged. First, that Spencer has given the name “hypothesis” to his doctrine of evolution, while Professor Ferri calls it a dogma. The author on the other hand thinks that his opinions and those of Spencer are exactly alike, for he calls the doctrine in question a relative and alterable dogma, and Spencer says of it: what I have given is an hypothesis; but so long as there is nothing better, that will explain a greater number of facts, I have a right to consider it as the image of the knowable truth, until the contrary is proved. In the second place, it may be asked: “Does man always oscillate between truth and error; will he never know an absolute and eternal truth?” According to Professor Ferri the answer to this question is not difficult. The origin as well as the aim of faith is the effort to give to men a relatively stable support, which they cannot find elsewhere. All discussion with the adherents of a theological opinion is excluded; and as for the others, ought they not to recognize that the life of human thought is just the constant proof of the continual modification of the so-called eternal verities?

After this introduction the author enters upon the subject itself. At the beginning of the 19th century the dogma was dominant, that instruction was the panacea for all crimes. Later many of the publicists, including the socialists, advanced the opinion that the true remedy for criminality was education. Just as the first theory was incorrect, Professor Ferri would show that the second is equally so.

The question is, can education lead man to good or to evil; and if it can, how far can it lead him? The scientific pedagogues have not treated this question, as far as the author knows. Without furnishing proofs the socialists admit that education can modify man in many respects. Owen, for example, says: “every child may be brought up to have in his later life only good habits, or bad, or a mixture of the two, according to his education.”

It is necessary to distinguish three kinds of education—physical, intellectual, and moral. First, a general observation applicable to all kinds of education. In his physical, intellectual, and moral make-up, each individual is the product of a countless number of ancestors, to whom he is bound by unchangeable laws of heredity. From this it is clear that the power of education, which acts only during a limited number of years, is small compared to that of the influences to which a man’s ancestors have been subjected for thousands of years. The question becomes, then: “what are the limits of such modification?” Further it is necessary to determine just how far this modification is due to education, and how far to environment. For education, properly so called, i.e. the direct and methodical influence of the educator upon his pupil, differs in many respects from that of the physical and social environment. This is why the author treats this latter in a special chapter, and limits himself now to education alone. The question is therefore reduced to this: “how far can a man (the educator) modify the constitution of another man (the pupil)?”

One more observation should precede the study of the question, namely that a force, or a complexus of forces, can be influenced only by other homogeneous forces. Now when we examine how far physical or biological education can make its influence felt, we see that this influence may be very great, though naturally limited, in proportion to the knowledge we have of the structure and functioning of the organs which it is attempted to modify. As to intellectual education, the results are much less, since the knowledge of the organs involved is much smaller. As to moral education, the following question is one to which pedagogues have given little attention: “how far do morality or immorality, good or bad character, depend upon the education received at home and in school?”

Spencer lays down the fundamental rule that the moral conduct of man can be studied scientifically only on condition of being considered as forming part of the conduct in general, and also of the activity in general, of all living beings. Sergi is of the same opinion. And this is correct, Professor Ferri thinks, if, as these two authors do, one studies the conduct and character of man in their constituent elements, in their genesis and development, without taking into consideration the variability of the character, and consequently of the conduct, of man because of his education. In our case, in studying the constituent elements, the genesis, the development, and the variability of the moral part of the character and conduct of man, it is necessary to separate these parts, and to limit ourselves to a special study of one of them.

All psychologists are agreed that the moral conduct of a man (including criminal conduct) although having naturally a certain relationship with his muscular and intellectual condition, depends directly and intimately upon the condition of his feelings, emotions, and passions in their moral aspect. Hence it is clear that the problem is: “how far can these feelings be modified by education?”

Let us first of all note that the expression, “a man of good (or bad) birth”, does not imply that there are persons who are totally good or totally bad, for these two qualities always appear in combination. It only indicates whether the good or the bad qualities predominate.

It is certain that some persons have become criminals from lack of moral education, added to bad surroundings. In this case this lack of education has favored the greater development of the bad germs, which, however, gives us no right to conclude that the converse would be true: that education can improve the moral character, strengthening the good germs to such a point that they have the mastery over the bad. For we must not lose sight of two things: first, that the bad germs that show themselves in our present society are the anti-social instincts, opposed to the sociability and sympathy upon which life is based, while the good germs are the social instincts; second, that, since individuals reproduce morphologically and physiologically during life the different phases that man and animal have gone through, it is in the lowest strata of his character that man preserves the savage and anti-social feelings that are the consequences of the condition in which the race has lived heretofore, while the germs of the modern social ideas are to be found in the higher and more recent parts. Hence it follows that the anti-social instincts, being of a more ancient date than the social instincts, are stronger than they and are not stifled by them. And then, the environment, the present civilization, is also partly the cause. This is why the author agrees with Sergi that in our present society there are individuals who are constantly driven to crime by their organic and psychical constitution, made up in great part of the deeper, anti-social strata (the born-criminals and incorrigibles), and that there are others whose constitution is formed primarily of the more recent, social strata, and who become criminal only under extraordinary impulses, in consequence of a volcanic eruption, as it were, from the deeper, anti-social strata (criminals from passion). While Sergi is of the opinion that the anti-social instincts will little by little become latent, lose their force, and cease to act, Professor Ferri thinks that this will be the case only with the minority of men.

Now in order to weaken the anti-social tendencies, it is, according to the author, necessary to know, first, their seat; second, their composition. Up to the present, psychology has made no study of the human passions, emotions, and feelings, and consequently cannot give us this information. It must therefore be considered as impossible that education should so stifle the existing bad germs and strengthen the good ones that these last should finally have the upper hand.

Moral education consists only of a series of auditory and visual sensations, impressed upon the individual by means of advice and example, which brings it about that it is more especially a moral instruction, which makes its mark in the intellect, but leaves intact the seat of the passions and feelings, which are the true motive forces of the moral conduct. Moral education becomes little by little more systematic, bases itself more than formerly upon the biological principle that each organ and function is developed by exercise, and consequently is improving. The author believes that we must nevertheless not deceive ourselves into fancying that too much has been accomplished, so long as the origin and condition of the moral and immoral germs are unknown. Further, he is of the opinion that the product of centuries is not to be destroyed in a few years.

In order to prove what has just been said the author cites the following example, which, according to him, is not uncommon. A family includes four or five children; all are reared with the greatest care, each in a different manner according to his character. The result is that three or four of them become more or less good and industrious citizens, while one becomes an incorrigible vagabond. This difference does not depend upon education.

Now it will be asked: is education, then, always and altogether useless? Here a distinction must be made. There is one small category of persons who are good and honorable and remain so under all circumstances, and this exclusively from their organic condition. Opposed to this is another group who are always bad and show anti-social instincts. These last are such from an innate organic and psychic anomaly. Between these two is to be found the very numerous class of individuals in whom the good and bad qualities are combined. For this last class education may be of some importance, but environment is still more so. Hence, in order to lower the number of occasional criminals, criminal sociology demands “penal substitutes.” For it is from this intermediate class that criminals are recruited. However, environment and education are of less importance for this category than heredity.

The conclusions drawn by the author are, then: first, that a development of the physiology and psychology of the human passions is very desirable, in order to improve the means at the disposal of education; and second, that the opinion of Owen, that education can make a bad man good, is incorrect.

—In my criticism I shall limit myself to the principal questions. In the first place I believe that the argument of Professor Ferri, based on the supposition that scientific socialists believe that “education is the omnipotent fact”, is futile. For scientific socialists do not hold this opinion. Owen (who belongs to the Utopists) might be thought to hold it, though he does not use the word education in the narrow sense given by Professor Ferri, but it will be very difficult to find such an opinion in Marx, or Engels, or any of their followers. Although holding that circumstances have a very great influence upon the individual, they do not attribute this to the systematic, conscious influence of one individual upon another, which is what is commonly meant by education. For the purposes of Professor Ferri’s argument it may be very useful to make a nice distinction between education and atmosphere, but this distinction is not therefore justified. The impressions gained by a child whether from the atmosphere in which he lives or deliberately impressed upon him by his teacher, are hardly distinguishable. Just out of class he plays with his comrades, and this easily makes him forget the moral lessons he has just received. A mother forbids her child to do a certain thing, and a little later he sees an older member of the family do with impunity what has been forbidden in his own case. It is because of this over-nice distinction that the argument of the author loses much of its value.

In the second place, as the author himself partly admits, the influence that education may exert cannot be exactly fixed, no matter what progress pedagogical science may make, for the following reasons. It is only in school that the scientific pedagogical method is applied, and plainly in an incomplete and imperfect manner. In order that children shall be taught and developed they must be well fed and well clothed. Without this the results will be very small, but pupils insufficiently fed and clothed are to be counted by thousands. It is also necessary that a class include as few pupils as possible, in order that the instructor may not have to divide his attention too much. Yet how many cases are there where this is found? For these reasons, to which might be added others, all of an exclusively economic nature, the school does not contribute as much as it might to moral education. The advantage of the education given in school over that furnished by the parents consists in its practical application, at least in part, according to pedagogical rules. The parents who set themselves to bring up their children on scientific principles are so few as to be easily counted. Almost all are novices in this very difficult trade; little attention is paid to whether parents are ignorant or educated, good or bad, patient or irascible, capable or incapable, in short, of bringing up their children. The present organization of society is based upon the fiction that the person who gives life to a child is also fitted to bring it up. Further, existing social conditions put many parents, however capable they might otherwise be, in a position where they cannot give their children any care, on account of the long working-day, the labor of married women, etc. These remarks, it seems to me, are in themselves enough to show that we cannot just now come to a definite conclusion, that the influence of education may extend to such and such a point, but no further.

In the third place, it remains to make valid objections to the principal thesis that forms the foundation of the chapter. Here it is in brief. There was a time when men lived in anti-social conditions; all were enemies one of another. This situation lasted for ages until the social sentiments grew up and civilization developed. But these anti-social germs having lasted for ages, while the social germs are only of recent date, it follows that the former are generally much stronger than the latter. This is why the tendency to evil has predominated in man, and why crime has such enormous dimensions.

I am of the opinion that this argument is based upon an error. In Part II of this work I shall attempt to show that the opinion of Professor Ferri (and other authors), that in the early ages all men were enemies and animated by anti-social feelings, is false. I shall endeavor also to show that the present constitution of society does not give rise to social feelings, but anti-social. Finally it is very problematical whether the hypothesis the author uses, namely that acquired characteristics may be inherited, is defensible; the contrary is coming more and more to be believed. But we cannot in any case admit the transmission of morality itself by heredity, as Professor Ferri does, when he speaks of men who remain good under all circumstances, and consequently of men who must have been born with innate moral prescriptions. A child is never born with positive knowledge; he is born with a brain more or less fitted for the reception and development of knowledge. There was never a child who, from his birth, knew the rules “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not kill”, etc. But the organs destined to become the seat of morality differ with each individual like other organs. When the author says, then, that there are men who remain good under all circumstances, he says, in effect, that there are men whose moral organs are very susceptible, and who consequently remain better than men whose organs are less susceptible. Therefore the accumulation of anti-social feelings in man of the present day, through heredity, is imaginary. Finally, Professor Ferri neglects to note the difference in nature and intensity between the needs of different men. For this is the cause of the great inequality of results obtained from the same education given to persons of equal capacity for receiving moral impressions. If a man has great needs it takes a much more intense moral effort to keep him from satisfying them in an immoral manner, than is the case with a man whose needs are slight.—

The following chapter, “Ambiente e criminalità”, begins with the assertion of Professor Ferri that the thesis of the socialists concerning the influence of the social atmosphere upon all the manifestations of human activity, and consequently upon criminality, is in great measure correct. The difference between the views of socialism and of sociology, therefore, is here only a question of limits.

According to the author here is the thesis in question: as soon as the social revolution or transformation which the socialists desire has taken place, the social atmosphere will become excellent, and man will then be morally higher than he is at present. He then examines the parts of this statement one by one.

First, Professor Ferri gives the classic formula of historic materialism, set forth by Marx in his “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, taken by the author, however, from Loria’s criticism of the work of Puviani in the “Rivista critica delle scienze giuridiche e sociali.” “In the memorable preface to the Kritik der politischen Oekonomie, published in 1859, Marx sets forth for the first time the daring theory that all the manifestations of mankind, in the juridic order as well as in the religious, philosophical, artistic, criminal, etc., are exclusively determined by economic relations, so that to each phase of these there corresponds a different form of human manifestations, as its necessary product.”

Just as in biology the phenomena of nutrition are related to the other vital phenomena, so is the economic aspect of human activity related to the other aspects. Economic conditions have, then, a great influence on the social life, but the author believes it an exaggeration to say that economic conditions fix it exclusively. Further, in this statement no attention is paid to the fact that the other phenomena react in their turn upon the economic conditions, and therefore become determining factors.

Then it is said that man will be morally better when he finds himself in a purified atmosphere. This the author admits in part—how far he admits it will be easily understood by one who knows his opinion with regard to the physical, individual, and social factors of crime, and his ideas about education.

Like most of the statements of the socialists, this has, according to Professor Ferri, the fault of being too simple and consequently too absolute. Human life is already so complicated (and social life still more so) that only very little can be explained by simple formulae. It is easy to say, “Abolish private property and all the cases of theft will disappear”; “abolish legal marriage, and adultery, uxoricide, infanticide, and the other crimes against morality will disappear.” But it is not therefore true. For, even in a communistic society a born-vagabond, who has a constitutional aversion to work, will commit thefts just the same. To all this it may be objected that these cases are pathological, and that these persons should be shut up in an insane asylum—but in reasoning thus one admits at the same time that such a society would not yet be an earthly paradise. Further it is pure metaphysics to believe that social institutions like property and the family are the consequences of a caprice of man or of a dominant class, and can therefore be abolished by a stroke of the pen. Everything that exists, in nature as in society, is the result of causes that are only the links in an infinite chain. Hence it is impossible to modify society at a stroke, in accordance with a plan drawn up by a theorist. This does not mean that every modification of society is excluded; but the situation predicted by the socialists is so much more beautiful than the present that it would not be a step, but a leap, forward. And by their prediction they deny evolution, for they constantly preach to the proletariat that the whole will be realized in the very near future.

We come now to the major premise of the socialistic thesis, namely the social revolution or transformation. The question which Professor Ferri puts to the socialists in regard to the matter is this: how long will it take you to realize your projects? There are two answers to be given according as one believes this realization possible by revolution or by evolution.

First, that by revolution. Leaving out of consideration the fact that a revolution could not take place without cruel acts being committed, with a consequent upsetting of the moral feelings, it must first of all be asked whether it is easy to bring about a revolution. The author is of the opinion that Laveleye is perfectly right when he says: “that a revolution has become an easy thing; that a social evolution is inevitable; but that a social revolution is impossible, since one cannot change by force in a single day the economic constitution of society.”

Neither the word nor the fact of revolution inspires the author with fear. He recognizes that it may be in the line of evolution, although it remains an exception and is in fact a pathological manifestation of evolution. Nevertheless the question arises, what does the revolution of a day, a month, or even a year signify in comparison with the evolution that goes on during thousands of years? Does not a revolution always lead to a reaction? Suppose, however, that this reaction does not happen; will the whole people have become more moral at a single shock? What did the great French Revolution accomplish? Much, in appearance; in reality, little. It follows from what has gone before that we can modify the environment in a way and with a rapidity that will seem great to one generation but not at all great to the whole of humanity.

Now the solution by evolution. As we have already remarked, Professor Ferri recognizes that criminality will be diminished by an improvement of the environment. However, since it is impossible to make all at once general and substantial changes, it is necessary to make every effort to obtain partial improvements. This is why the positive penal school defends the doctrine of “penal substitutes.” In his “Il delitto, etc.”, Turati calls them palliatives; he says that it is impossible to find a specific remedy for each crime; that there is only one universal remedy: the equal distribution of wealth, education, and the happiness coming from love and knowledge, in so far as this will be socially possible. Professor Ferri thinks that Turati’s objections are not based upon good reasons, because, first, the theory of penal substitutes is not limited to the designation of special means of treating special crimes, but it gives also universal means for all kinds of crimes; second, the improvements suggested by the author and his adherents have the great advantage of having been drawn up according to scientific researches, and of being immediately practicable. How could the desired transformation ever be reached if the whole system of penal substitutes were only a useless palliative?

There are only two roads leading to success; that of a violent revolution—which Turati rejects—and that of successive improvements. But it is just this which the positive penal school desires, and this is why the difference between this school and the scientific socialists has entirely disappeared. However, the error of the socialists is always that they want to get everything at one blow, and they attach too little value to what is within reach. There are many socialists who fear that the bourgeoisie will never give up their privileges without force, and who consequently have still much sympathy with revolution. However, this fear is not well founded. For most social improvements have been made by the dominant class without being compelled by revolutionary force.

Professor Ferri draws the conclusion that the social environment is circumscribed by economic conditions for the most part, and that these have a very great influence upon criminality. The socialists and the evolutionary sociologists differ, then, in this, that the first believe they can make themselves useful by protesting and prophesying, while the others think that it is more practical and more scientific to apply themselves to partial improvements.

—One cannot read this chapter without being astonished at the decided tone with which the author declares himself against a theory which he only knows from what he has heard said about it. The classic formula of historic materialism is quoted at second hand from a criticism of Professor Loria upon a work of Puviani, who says that the economic evolution is in its turn determined by the constant increase of the population (a theory entirely opposed to that of Marx).

And how the idea of this theory is treated! Let the reader judge for himself. In the original we read: “In the social production of their life men enter into fixed, necessary relationships in production, independent of their will, relationships which correspond to a definite stage in the development of their material powers of production. The sum total of these relationships forms the economic structure of society, the real basis upon which the juristic and political superstructure is erected, and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. The form of production of the material life conditions the social, political, and intellectual life-process in general. It is not the consciousness of mankind that determines their being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.” [125] 3

It is unnecessary for us to linger over this point. Professor Loria has stated the theory inaccurately, and Professor Ferri, who has depended upon Loria, combats something that Marx never said, and thinks that he has discovered the further error that account is not taken of the fact that each cause is in its turn an effect, and vice versa. This too it is an injustice to impute to the founders of historic materialism. Engels says upon this subject: “... according to the materialistic conception of history, production and reproduction of the material life are, in the last analysis, the determining factors in history. Marx and I have never claimed more. When the proposition is distorted thus: the economic factor is the sole determinant, the proposition is transformed into one devoid of sense, abstract, absurd. The economic situation is the basis, but the different factors of the superstructure—political forms of the struggle of the classes and its results—constitutions imposed by the victorious class after the battle has been won, etc.—juridical forms, and also the reflections of all these actual conflicts in the minds of those who have taken part in them, political, juridical, and philosophical theories, religious conceptions, and their ulterior development into systems of dogmas, have also their influence upon the march of the historic struggles, and especially in many cases determine the form of it. All these factors act the one upon the other, and finally the economic movement ends necessarily by dominating over the infinite crowd of chances.... Without this the application of the theory to any historic period would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the second degree.” [126]

Among the reproaches that Professor Ferri throws at the head of the socialists there is also that they wrongly believe it possible to change society at a single stroke. The author adds here some observations upon revolution and evolution. It is necessary to take up this question, since again Professor Ferri does not correctly represent the opinions of the Marxists. There is no question that Marx and his adherents do not suppose that they can change society at a stroke. Although evolutionists, Marx and his followers call themselves revolutionists. Many of their adversaries consider this a contradiction. I think that they are wrong, and that on the contrary the opposite is true, that every evolutionist in social matters who is not a revolutionist, has not the courage to support the consequences of his doctrine. For he who believes that society constantly undergoes quantitative changes ought to recognize that these must lead in the long run to a qualitative difference, in which case a revolution has taken place. The Marxists are consequently at once evolutionists and revolutionists, since, recognizing that there are continual quantitative changes, they strive for the total overturning of society as based upon the capitalistic system, and consequently for the foundation of the socialistic order. All this relates, then, only to an economic and social revolution. It follows, then, logically from what has gone before that the scientific socialists do not aspire primarily to a political revolution; on the contrary they wish to attain their ends as far as possible by legal means; as far as possible, which means, if the ruling classes do not prevent them from obtaining by legal means what they want. But in the contrary case they do not dread undertaking even a political revolution as soon as the proletariat shall be sufficiently prepared and organized. Professor Ferri is further of the opinion that there is no longer any difference between the socialists who are at the same time evolutionists, and the sociologists, since all reach out toward quantitative changes. However, Professor Ferri forgets to say that the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production is not one of his “penal substitutes”, and that there is consequently a fundamental difference, since socialists advocate only the modifications which accord with the tendencies of collectivism.

Finally, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the bourgeoisie will voluntarily relinquish their privileges, as the ruling classes have often already done. For this tremendous assertion he does not give any proofs, and would find it difficult to do so.—

The title of the fifth chapter is: “L’avvenire morale dell’umanità.” The socialists—so the author begins—believe that there is a great difference between them and the positivist sociologists, in that the latter consider crime as an inevitable social evil, while the socialists see in it only a passing phenomenon. Professor Ferri, on the contrary, claims that crime, that is, the act which endangers the conditions of existence, as well as the penalty, the corresponding reaction, defensive or preventive, both have their roots in the animal kingdom, and are consequently phenomena more or less inseparable from humanity. However, this sociological induction is not to be taken in an absolute, but in this relative sense: first, that in criminality it is necessary to distinguish two divisions, of which the one is determined by the normal saturation, and the second by the abnormal super-saturation; second, that the author and his adherents do not understand by the “absolute necessity” of crime that crime will always exist, but only that it will exist in the immediate future (19th and 20th centuries), and that they retain this expression because they regard it as useless and impossible to make predictions concerning times more remote than this.

With regard to future morality Professor Ferri considers in this chapter the two following socialistic theses:

I. The struggle for existence which has hitherto reigned among men, will find no place in the socialistic society.

II. In the socialistic society, egoism, which has been the basis of the moral and social life, will have to give place to altruism.

First, then, the question of the permanence of the struggle for existence. Professor Ferri cites here the opinions of Labusquière (“Rivista internazionale del socialismo,” 1880) and of Professor Loria (“Discorso sur Carlo Darwin,” 1882). Abridged, Labusquière says as follows: Is the struggle for existence, an integral part of the evolution of animals, also a “conditio sine qua non” of the development of humanity? No, since it prevents the total development by putting the majority of men in a most precarious situation. We cannot picture man as living all alone. He has always lived and will always live in a society. This demands a certain solidarity, without which a society is not imaginable. We cannot admit, then, the necessity of a continual struggle—at least we cannot admit the necessity, on the part of some, of receiving the fruits of the labor of others. The struggle for existence is necessary among animals, since they are not able to produce, and consequently must live upon such fruits as nature gives. But man can produce, and the productive forces increase just as men support one another more.

The opinion of Professor Loria is summed up as follows: the thesis that the Darwinian theory is entirely applicable to political economy is false. It is said that it justifies social inequality; nature being aristocratic, in society also the aristocracy occupies the place that belongs to it. According to Professor Loria this argument is as without sense as the argument that, since nature is a murderess, murder is justifiable. The view in question is not a legitimate conclusion from the theory as advanced by Darwin, but is simply a false interpretation made by some of his followers. There are no reasons why this struggle should always exist, but we are quite justified in supposing that it will disappear, having been but a transitory stage. For as long as egoism was the sole human motive, the struggle for existence was a necessary condition of initiative and progress. But altruism is more and more developing, and it is not Utopian to believe that some day man will reach out after physical and moral perfection, not with the aim of conquering his less-favored fellows, but with the higher aim of self-development. We forget too much how different is the struggle for existence among animals and among men. While in nature it is the strongest, hardiest, and most skilful who come out of the contest victorious, and consequently survive, in the present contest it is not the best (the workers and the capitalists who introduce improved methods of work), but those who are enriched by the labor of others, who are the conquerors. In the social struggle we perceive three phenomena which do not appear in the struggle in nature: military selection (which is an obstacle to the perfection of the human race); sexual selection (in which not strength and beauty, but money and class-prejudice determine the choice); and the economic system (which by the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, forces the workers to lead a life that exhausts them, and is the reason why the ill-nourished classes form the majority). This is why the results of the struggle for existence are so different for man from those of the combat in nature.

Professor Ferri makes the following objections to what has been said above: In treating questions like these it is necessary not to confuse two theories, that of Spencer and that of Darwin. For the latter is connected with the former as a part with the whole. Darwinism is expressed in the law of natural selection, while the theory of Spencer is that of evolution, a law which rules not only the animal and human world, but also the whole knowable universe.

After this introductory observation he attacks the theses that Labusquière and Loria have developed. The great error committed by Labusquière and by most of the socialists is their failing to grasp the idea of the continuity and naturalness of social phenomena. There results in such cases an erroneous distinction between societies of man and those of animals; hence they do not see that the combat, proved as always existing in the case of animals and men as well, is a natural law. And then Labusquière and his followers forget that while the sociologists explain this combat, that is not at all saying that they justify it. In any case the assertion of the socialists that it will be possible to make this combat cease at once, after only a very brief delay, is false. As to the question of knowing whether it will ever cease, this will be examined later.

Then Professor Ferri remarks that we must not confuse the principle of a natural law with its manifestations. In the case in question this would be saying that in recognizing that the struggle for existence is a law which rules in the animal kingdom and among men, it is necessary also to think that the forms of the combat have been, and remain, the same. The author believes, for example, that it would be desirable to mitigate the present economic combat and to carry it to a higher plane, without therefore being an adherent of the maxim, “each one according to his needs”, the application of which would ruin the human race entirely.

In criticising the law of the struggle for existence, we very often forget that it does not stand alone, but that there is another beside it, which in the long run levels all the inequalities produced by this conflict. We see thus that individuals, families, and races raise themselves above the general plane, reach the maximum of power, wealth, and intelligence, to fall again below the average.

We cannot admit that the struggle for existence, which is a principle of life, and the cause of human and animal evolution, will disappear some day because men, animated by humanitarian ideas, ardently desire it. The opinion that in the course of time this struggle is becoming and will become less and less violent and brutal, is scientifically more correct and humanitarian as well. It may be that after centuries and centuries a day will come when every individual will have his material existence assured. But the struggle for moral existence will not yet disappear on that account. For every need satisfied causes in its turn new needs to spring up, and rekindles the conflict. The socialists evince great one-sidedness in understanding by the struggle for existence only the struggle for food, forgetting that there is a struggle in every sphere.

It is claimed that there is a great difference between the struggle for existence among men and that among animals, and that consequently the results differ; that in the animal kingdom it is the strongest who remain victorious, while among men it is only a small minority of the weaker and less industrious who rule over the majority making up the ill-nourished classes. According to Professor Ferri this opinion also is incorrect; otherwise the consequences of the conflict would have a result entirely contrary to that in the animal kingdom; the human race would deteriorate instead of advancing. And the facts prove that the human race has made progress, organic, mental, social, and economic. The survival of the weaker, the less industrious, is only partial and apparent. Malon says that in our present society it is not those who are individually superior who conquer, but those who have the exclusive disposition of the social forces. But how have these forces fallen into the hands of these few? Only because in this phase of human evolution, they were the stronger, the best fitted. It is forgotten that there is not only a struggle between classes, but also between individuals, and that, by the greater and greater increase of altruism it is also the more altruistic workmen and employers who conquer. For an altruistic workman, who works with zeal and has his employer’s interests at heart, and an altruistic employer who treats his employes well, will be more able to maintain themselves than those who act differently. It is only in appearance, then, that the less strong and industrious property-owners are the victors; if this were the case it would soon cease to be so.

The conclusion of the author, then, is that the struggle for existence, which is a normal aspect of honorable activity, and an abnormal aspect in criminal activity, is the supreme law of the human race in the past and in the present, and consequently in the future; but this struggle will be carried on by means less and less rude and bloody.

The second part of the chapter treats of egoism and altruism. The individual, considered as such, is only egoistic; but considered as a member of a community he is also altruistic. We must therefore interpret the subject in the following manner: that a gradual evolution is taking place from egoism to altruism, between which, accordingly, is found ego-altruism.

There are now two questions that must be answered, first, will man ever come to be purely altruistic? second, if so, how long will it take to bring it about?

According to the author every evolutionist must answer affirmatively to the first question (at least if we exclude the absolute form in which it is put by many socialists, namely that egoism will disappear entirely), for the slow and continual evolution of morality teaches us that egoism is always decreasing and altruism increasing. But how much time is needed to realize this moral paradise? The answers made to this question by the socialists and by the sociologists differ greatly. The former are of the opinion that this will be possible almost immediately, or at least in a little while, while the latter think that it is impossible that it should take place so quickly. Since the author has busied himself in the preceding chapters with the influence of education upon morality he limits himself now to treating the question, how much time is needed for this moral progress?

According to Professor Ferri we do not properly grasp this question if we do not recognize that the evolution of morals has progressed but very slowly during the past centuries. Doubtless much has been accomplished, but not enough to justify the prediction of the socialists. Soury is quite right when he says: “we deceive ourselves greatly if we think that the man of the present day differs much from the man of antiquity, from the barbarian, and the savage.” When we examine the period of barbarism we see that homicide, cannibalism, and theft form the greater part of the criminality, while the first two are not often punished by the tribe, or are even obligatory. Impetuosity of the passions, ferocity, insensibility to pain in self or others, disloyalty, implacable revenge, improvidence, and superstition form the principal part of the moral life. All these traits still exist, though less strongly than formerly, in the man of the present, and especially in the individual born in the lower classes. Except in pathological cases cannibalism no longer appears in the civilized world, but this does not make it impossible that it would reappear in time of great famine. However, the high moral qualities which present-day man can show, are also to be found among savages, only with gradual differences. [127] The number of honorable and moral persons has increased relatively, which makes it certain that in the future morality will rise higher than at present, but this will not take place quickly, but very slowly, like all the other changes that have taken place.

It is therefore impossible that the predictions of the socialists should come true in a short time, and that crime, poverty, ignorance, and immorality should disappear as soon as society is transformed and revolutionized. It will only be the sublime end toward which the human race must always aspire.

—In order to avoid repetitions I will make no criticism of this chapter, since I should have to refute almost all the theses here laid down, but will treat of the questions of the struggle for existence, and egoism and altruism, in Part II of this work.—

In his “Conclusione” [128] Professor Ferri compares society to a sick person at whose bedside there meet three friends of his, who all wish him well. The first declares confidently that the soul dominates the body and that consequently material remedies are of no avail. The second says, on the contrary, that it is only a total change of the environment in which he is living that can cure the invalid. The third also believes that modifications are necessary, but he contents himself with partial improvements, though the second friend calls them only palliatives. The first is the spiritualist, [129] the second the socialist, and the third the sociologist.

—Having given my opinion after each chapter, a general criticism of “Socialismo e Criminalità” is superfluous. The impression that the book makes is strange. The author attacks the socialists as “excessively anti-scientific and sentimental”, while he vaunts the “great scientific character of the sociologists.” Yet these last, notwithstanding their great scientific character, combat a doctrine which they know only in part or not at all. Scientific socialism is left out of the discussion.

The best proof of the weakness of his attack against socialism is to be found in the fact that the author has for several years ranked himself among the socialists, of whom he has become one of the most fervent and intelligent chiefs.

As regards his opinion on the criminal question Professor Ferri has made no change, or almost none. [130]—

IV.

H. KURELLA.

This author gives some pages of his “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers” to the subject we have in hand. What he says may be summed up as follows.

The attempts to draw parallels between the fluctuations of the price of grain and those of the figures for criminality, according to the author, prove nothing, inasmuch as it is impossible to compare them with the statistics of wages and of forced unemployment. In fact any one who tries to show in this way the correlation between criminality and economic conditions, begs the question, that poverty is the principal cause of crime. Further, the hypothesis that the regularity with which human acts occur is fixed by the condition of the society in which they take place, is little by little giving way. From personal examinations, and from the information given by Ferri and von Oettingen (this proves that the literature of our subject is little known to the author) Dr. Kurella thinks he can draw the conclusion that insufficient food, caused by scarcity or low wages, does not cause the commission of crimes. Malnutrition may perhaps influence criminality indirectly; that is it may cause degeneration after some successive generations, which in its turn predisposes to crime.

A priori it is incontestable that we cannot picture to ourselves a society, if established by the socialists, [131] in which cupidity, hatred, and the instinct of the oppressor, the principal motives of crime, will have been annihilated or deprived of their influence because of social institutions. Nevertheless it is of importance that Morrison, Garofalo, and Ferri [132] have, according to the author, shown that poverty is not a factor of crime. At the International Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Brussels, the attempt was made to defend the contrary, but, according to Dr. Kurella, without success. (According to him it can only be in case of being suddenly thrown out of work that a person hitherto honest commits a crime from indigence.)

The necessity of the moment being consequently only rarely a cause of criminality, not only do the present social anomalies produce an increase of degeneracy, as has been said above, but also there are a number of persons who live in badly built and unsanitary dwellings, so that the family life is injured, and the development of feelings of honesty, modesty, etc., is interfered with. And it is also the social anomalies that strongly influence alcoholism, which is one of the important factors of crime.

The author draws the following conclusion: “As little as a change of environmental conditions can change an individual of one kind immediately into an individual of another kind, as little as we ever, under however modified circumstances, see a chimpanzee change himself into a gorilla, so little do social factors change a normally endowed man into a criminal. In isolated cases it may appear as if passion or opportunity had caused a crime; social forces do indeed have their effect upon the individual, but they do not essentially change his fundamental attributes—which include his character; the slight modifications through environment that individuals experience, must constantly recur, heap themselves up in the course of generations, until a socially significant change of type has arisen. Accordingly it is the permanent social distresses, the chronic evils of society which influence criminality, because by unnoticeable influences they go on for generations gnawing at the inmost kernel of man; misery and intellectual and moral neglect must be as long continued as in the Papal States, in the Kingdom of Naples, in Ireland, and among the Poles, drained by the territorial nobility for centuries, before an entire people becomes inoculated with the ‘penchant for crime.’” [133]

—I will refrain from making any criticism. One does not argue with a man who gives convincing proofs that even the meaning of criminal sociology is unknown to him. Assertions, for example, that the character of man is invariable, that the distance between the honest man and the dishonest man is as great as that between the chimpanzee and the gorilla, are only absurdities. What author will deny at this time that the differences between men are, in the last analysis, only quantitative?

In general, Dr. Kurella still shares the opinions of the Italian school (cf., for example, “Anthropologie und Strafrecht”, which appeared in 1912); nevertheless he should have recognized, when he wrote “die Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, that he was not familiar with the social factors of crime. He has written the following remarkable words, which do him honor. “I do not hesitate to confess that deeper socio-political studies, which became possible to me only after the publication of that work [“Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”] show me today the social factors of crime more plainly and sharply, than I was able to recognize them ten years ago” (Vorrede, “Zurechnungsfähigkeit, Kriminalanthropologie”).—

V.

E. FORNASARI DI VERCE. [134]

In the first chapter (on poverty and criminality in Italy) the author calls attention to the following facts. According to the statistics of 1881 there were in Italy to the thousand (of both sexes over nine years of age) 390.66 persons who were rich, well-to-do, moderately well-off, or with enough to live on, and 609.34 who had scarcely the necessities of life. Out of 100 persons convicted there were:

1887 1888 1889

56.34 57.45 56.00 Necessitous 22.99 30.77 32.15 Having only the bare necessities 11.54 9.98 10.13 Moderately well-off 2.13 1.80 1.72 Well-to-do or rich

Here the favorable influence of means comes out distinctly. For 40% of the population had some means and 60% were in need; but among those convicted there were 13% with means and nearly 87% who were poor.

Then the author gives a sketch of the influence of poverty in causing degeneracy among the proletariat and predisposing them to crime, for poverty is very destructive to men’s mental faculties. He cites in support of this many authors of weight.

By comparing the different Italian districts, grouped about the average figure for wealth per capita, with the number of prisoners to the 100,000 of the population, grouped according to the place from which they came, the following result is obtained.

Wealth. Prisoners according to the Place from which they Came.

(3.333) Latium. VII -- -- VI -- -- V -- (2.746) Piedmont-Liguria. IV -- { Lombardy (43) (2.400) Lombardy. III { Piedmont-Liguria (51) { Venice (53) -- II Tuscany (76) (2.164) Tuscany. I Emilia (95) (1.935) Venice, } { (1.876) Kingdom. } Average. { Kingdom (118) (1.762) Emilia. } { -- 1st Marches-Umbria (137) (1.471) Sicily. } 2d { (1.333) Naples } { Sardinia (167) (1.227) Marches-Umbria 3d Naples (173) (?) Sardinia 4th -- 5th Sicily (212) 6th -- 7th Latium (250)

According to the author this table shows that wealth and criminality present a certain symmetry, to this extent, that the wealthy regions have in general a lower criminality than the poor ones. It is only Latium that forms an exception, which is explained, according to Dr. Fornasari di Verce, first, by the circumstance that the capital is situated in that district, second, by the climate, and third, chiefly by the fact that the absolute wealth of a country gives no indication of the distribution of wealth. We can properly expect to find that where great wealth is heaped up there will also be considerable pauperism.

Not only does poverty predispose to crime, but it also furnishes the motives for it. Leading to alcoholism it is the cause of violent crimes; it drives persons who cannot find work to vagrancy and mendicity, which in their turn are the preparatory school for greater crimes; it puts the great number of those who cannot provide honestly for their needs to the necessity of stealing. And when these factors act upon a man already predisposed, they even lead as far as homicide.

In the following table the different Italian districts, as well as the crimes committed, have been grouped about their average figures.

Wealth. Crimes.

(3.333) Latium VII -- -- VI -- -- V -- (2.747) Piedmont-Liguria IV -- (2.400) Lombardy III -- -- II -- } { Lombardy (649) } { Tuscany (710) (2.164) Tuscany } I { Piedmont-Liguria (732) } { Emilia (749) } { Marches-Umbria (774) (1.935) Venice } { Venice (857) (1.876) Kingdom } Average. { Kingdom (926) (1.762) Emilia } { Sicily (1021) -- 1st Naples (1150) (1.471) Sicily } { (1.333) Naples } 2d { Sardinia (1440) (1.227) Marches-Umbria 3d -- Sardinia 4th Latium (1797)

According to the author it appears from this table that, with the exception of Latium, the districts with wealth above the average have a number of crimes below the average. Nevertheless the regions with a figure for wealth above the average, i.e. Piedmont-Liguria, Lombardy, and Latium, show a greater number of crimes than one would expect, while Sicily, Naples, Marches-Umbria, and Sardinia show lower figures for crime than would be supposed. This contradiction is only apparent, according to the author, and is to be explained as follows: first, because where there is wealth there is also poverty and frequent opportunities to steal; second, because dangerous individuals migrate less to districts where there is less wealth; third, because, as John Stuart Mill says, it results from the social conditions of our day that the education of the poor is nil and that of the rich bad.

The second chapter, having as its title, “Il fattore economico e la delinquenza.—Dinamica”, contains some data upon the trend of criminality in the period in question. Criminality in general is increasing; serious crimes remain nearly stationary, while less serious crimes increase. As Ferri observes, criminality is decreasing, even in Italy, as to its intensity and violence, but increasing as to its extent.

Finally, the author considers the influence of emigration. It is chiefly the crimes against property that feel the favorable effects of it, as murder does among crimes against persons. The cause of this favorable influence is easily explained. Emigration removes a number of persons who, not having the means of existence, would easily become criminals.

The consequences of agricultural vicissitudes are as follows: the years of abundant harvests show a decrease in criminality, bad years, on the contrary, an increase; good vintages, however, lead to the same result. It is chiefly crimes against property (especially rural thefts) that yield to the influence of the degree of the abundance of the harvest; while among crimes against persons it is principally assaults that show the effect of the character of the crops. It is plain that the agricultural class is that which especially shows the effect of a bad harvest. During the years 1887–1889 the proportion of the farming class among those convicted rose from 35.3% to 37.8% and 38.2%.

The effect of the fluctuation of the price of food is the following: criminality in general shows the influence of it greatly. When prices fall crime diminishes, and vice versa. This is more clearly to be seen in crimes against property. Crimes against persons increase especially when the price of wine is low, and vice versa. When a fall in the price of food coincides with a fall in the price of wine, the increase of crimes against persons is great.

According to Dr. Fornasari di Verce the cause of the increase of crimes against persons in the case of low food prices is not to be found in the improved nutrition that results, but in the greater consumption of alcohol. The other crimes feel the effect of the fluctuations in the price of provisions less.

The author then takes up manufacturing. (As a consequence of the defectiveness of the official statistics the data are incomplete.) During the period of which the author speaks, manufacturing increased enormously, and crime in general increased also. The serious forms, however, decreased while the less serious ones increased. Industrial crises bring an increase chiefly of crimes against persons.

The condition of the working-people. According to the author it would be of the highest importance to establish for each year the number of industrial workers. For this has a greater importance for criminality than the price of food or the rate of wages. In default of official data such an investigation cannot take place, and he has to limit himself to an examination of wages. With some few exceptions these wages increased about 35% during the period 1873–1889. However, to obtain a clearer picture of the condition of the working-class, the author has combined the fluctuation of wages with those of the price of grain; that is, he has made a calculation of the number of hours each man has had to work to get 100 kilograms of grain.

After having called attention to the fact that the average wage of the Italian workman is lower than in other industrial countries, the author gives the following results of his researches: the influence of the fluctuation of wages upon crime in general is less than, and almost always subordinated to, that of the fluctuation of food-prices. However, it must not be forgotten here that wages do not always represent exactly the condition of the majority of the proletariat. With some few exceptions, all crimes against property decrease when wages rise (in combination with the price of grain). This influence is not noted in commercial crimes and counterfeiting. Crimes against persons increase a little when wages rise; but when this rise coincides with a low price of wine, they increase considerably.

The influence of strikes is exclusively limited to the crime of rebellion.

From the investigation into criminality and commercial occurrences we learn that fraudulent bankruptcy, and also forgery in great measure, are almost entirely independent of economic occurrences; and the fluctuations of the number of commercial crimes, in so far as they are not influenced by other economic facts, are explained in great part by commercial occurrences.

Financial occurrences (credit and deposits) do not make themselves felt in criminality in general, but in crimes against property and commercial crimes.

The author concludes finally from the increase shown by private fortunes and the rise in wages, that there is a correlation of these phenomena with a decrease of certain serious forms of crime.

The results of the study are summarized in the following table:

{ { { { a. Thefts of all kinds. { { { { b. Embezzlement, cheating, and other frauds. { { { Much. { c. Crimes against property (coming before the magistrate).[#] { { { { d. Commercial crimes.[#] { { { { { { { e. Blackmail, extortion, and robbery. { { { Moderately. { f. Crimes against the order of the family. { Subject to the { Inversely. { { g. Crimes against persons (coming before the magistrate). { Influence of { { CRIMES. { Economic { { { h. Crimes against the public order. { Occurrences and { { Little. { i. Crimes against the public administration.[#] { varying with Them. { { { j. Forgery and counterfeiting. { { { { { { Crimes over { I. Assault and extortion (with homicide). { { { which the { II. Rebellion, and violence to the public authorities. { { { Influence { { of { { { Alcohol is { III. Homicide of every kind. { { Directly. { Predominant.{ IV. Assaults and intentional injuries. { { { -- Sexual crimes. { { { Hardly { k. Attacks upon the safety of the state. { Outside of the { at All. { l. Perjury, etc. { Influence of { { Economic { { m. Fraudulent bankruptcy. { Occurrences. { Not at All. { n. Insults, and defamation of character. { { { o. Crimes against religion. { { { p. Arson and malicious mischief.

According to the author it follows from his investigation, that the economic factors fill a very important place in the etiology of crime, but that all crime is not to be explained by that means. He is of the opinion that if we are to combat crime effectively we must make use of the “penal substitutes” recommended by Professor Ferri.

The author treats the influence of economic occurrences upon criminality in Great Britain and Ireland in the same way. Here are his results:

{ { { Much. { Crimes against property without violence. { { { { { { Moderately. { Crimes against property with violence. { { Inversely. { { Subject to the { { { Crimes against property with premeditated destruction. { Influence of { { Little. { Crimes other than those named above and those CRIMES AND { Economic Occurrences { { { against persons and against the currency. MISDEMEANORS. { and varying with { { Them. { { Crimes over which { { { Directly. { the Influence of { Crimes against persons. { { { Alcohol is Predominant. { { { Not subject to { Not at All. { Misdemeanors and contraventions. { the Influence of { { Economic Occurrences. { Only Slightly. { Forgery and counterfeiting.

His investigation gives the following results for New South Wales:

{ { { { 1. Theft and receiving stolen goods. { Subject to the Influence of { Inversely. { Much. { 2. Petty larceny. { Economic Occurrences { { { 3. Horse-stealing. { and varying with Them. { { { 4. Minor offenses against property. { { { Moderately. { 5. Domiciliary thefts. CRIMES AND { { { { 6. Sheep-stealing. MISDEMEANORS. { { { { 7. Forgery. { { { Little. { 8. Cattle-stealing. { { { { { { Crimes and { 9. Murder. { { { Misdemeanors over { 10. Arson. { { { which the Influence { 11. Homicide. { { { of Alcohol { 12. Assaults. { { { is Predominant. { 13. Extortion. { { { { 14. Robbery. { { { { 15. Other minor offenses. { { Directly. { { I. Offenses against public decency. { { { { II. Offenses against morals (homosexuality). { { { { III. Offenses against morals. { { { { IV. Minor offenses against persons. { { Not subject to the Influence { A. Blackmail and cheating. { of Economic Occurrences. { B. Perjury.

—It is incontestable that the researches of Dr. Fornasari di Verce must be placed in the front rank of the works that show the correctness of the thesis that the economic factors are the most important factors of criminality. An objection may be made, however, that the question has been conceived in too mechanical a fashion, in consequence of the exclusive use of the statistical method. He seeks the correlation between criminality and each economic phenomenon separately, in place of that of the ensemble of these phenomena. For the economic life does not exist in reality as separated and isolated parts, but forms a great whole, a compact mass, of which the parts fit in together. When an important economic occurrence takes place, in case the expected effect upon crime is not observed, we must not be too quick to say that it has no importance for criminality, for it may be that it is neutralized by something else.

With this remark is connected a final objection. The author has not proved the truth of his conclusion that criminality cannot be explained exclusively by means of economic conditions. For, although his researches include very important economic factors, the author leaves out many economic factors and, with one exception (the degenerating influence of poverty), the numerous consequences of economic conditions, which are of the highest importance for the question in hand. In other words the author has not called attention to the fact that we live under an economic system of a comparatively recent date, having peculiar characteristics that are of great significance for criminality. He has indicated some very important consequences of the system, but he has not analyzed the system itself.

I am of the opinion that the work that I have been treating, and which has a great value for the subject, shows that economic conditions are of great importance for criminality. However, it does not prove that this influence is not greater than is shown by statistics.—

VI.

A. NICEFORO.

In the first part of his study, “Criminalità e condizioni economiche in Sicilia”, the author calls attention to the fact that Sicily is one of the Italian districts where crime is greatest and is increasing most rapidly. One could draw upon the map lines enclosing a definite criminal zone, taking in the provinces of Caltanissetta, Girgenti, and Catania. This zone might, in its turn, be divided into two others, one of which would give a high figure for robberies and homicides, and the other chiefly for crimes against property and against morals.

The author divides the economic causes into direct and indirect. In speaking of direct factors he treats successively:

a. Large real-estate holdings. The landed proprietor rents his lands to the “gabelletto”, who in turn sublets them to the laborers. This system exhausts the latter. The proprietor rids himself of all expense by charging it to the “gabelletto”, and makes his profit; the “gabelletto” does the same by the laborer and makes his profit. The latter is always the person that suffers. Then the “gabelletto” advances the necessary provisions to the laborer until the harvest comes in; but since he does so at a high rate, the laborer is bowed down by the burden of his debts. In consequence of this system the agricultural population is ill-nourished and degenerate. The consequences of this system as it affects criminality are apparent. In the province of Caltanissetta, where large land-holdings are the rule, crimes against property, and especially rural thefts, cattle-stealing, vagrancy, etc., are the most numerous.

b. Small holdings. However, it is not only the agricultural population dependent upon great property-holders that lives in poverty, for the small farmers also have a hard life. They raise chiefly grapes and citrous fruits. The price of citrous fruits has fallen greatly through overproduction and foreign competition. Wine also has gone down in price, and the cultivators have had enormous losses from phylloxera besides. Consequently the small farmers are crushed with debts; failures are the order of the day; their situation, then, is most unfortunate. But that of the non-property-holders is still worse if possible. For the small holder also often rents his land to others, and from this follows a kind of “sweating-system.”

At the end of these observations the author gives, in the following table, the movement of some prices in relation to criminality:

========+===========+=============+===========+=============+============ | Price of | Price of | Price of | | Robberies, Years. | Wheat per | Wine per | Meat per | Homicides | Extortion, | 1000 | Hectolitre. | Kilo. | Prosecuted. | Blackmail. | Kilos. | (Sicily.) | (Sicily.) | | --------+-----------+-------------+-----------+-------------+------------ 1875 | 27.42 | 13.00 | 3.09 | -- | 658 1876 | 28.78 | 21.62 | 2.91 | -- | 1,039 1877 | 33.66 | 30.38 | 2.98 | -- | 777 1878 | 31.43 | 29.04 | 2.89 | -- | 1,110 1879 | 31.35 | 19.03 | 2.80 | -- | 1,138 1880 | 32.27 | 29.65 | 2.74 | 1,063 | 829 1881 | 26.36 | 30.92 | 2.74 | 1,001 | 708 1882 | 20.42 | 28.35 | 2.80 | 938 | 560 1883 | 23.11 | 22.11 | 2.75 | 943 | 419 1884 | 21.52 | 17.95 | 2.77 | 949 | 340 1885 | 21.24 | 31.84 | 2.76 | 822 | 330 1886 | 21.28 | 35.63 | 2.42 | 859 | 418 1887 | 21.48 | 15.66 | 2.44 | 863 | 446 1888 | 21.50 | 11.85 | 2.46 | 899 | 485 1889 | 22.83 | 15.06 | 2.40 | 865 | 478 1890 | 22.63 | 22.07 | 2.46 | 869 | 547 1891 | 24.60 | 16.92 | 2.77 | 966 | 710 1892 | 24.32 | 14.32 | 2.87 | 1,117 | 677 1893 | 21.08 | 15.76 | 2.95 | 1,066 | 902 1894 | 18.77 | 18.38 | 2.98 | -- | -- 1895 | 20.30 | 18.42 | 2.75 | -- | -- ========+===========+=============+===========+=============+============

c. The mining zone. The production of sulphur, formerly of great importance, when Sicily was the principal source of supply for Europe and America, has decreased greatly now that sulphur is manufactured from chemical products. The condition of the miners is pitiful. The mines are often exploited by middle-men, which makes the condition of the laborers worse. Degeneracy has consequently taken on enormous proportions. When we compare the change in wages with the number of thefts, we see that thefts decrease when wages rise, and vice versa, and that the price of grain also influences criminality. It is the provinces of Sicily where the sulphur mines are found that give the highest figures for criminality in general, and homicide in particular.

d. The class-conflict. The property owners, whose economic position is already very influential, also control the political forces, and consequently the case of those who have nothing is made much worse. Taxes, indirect for the most part, weigh most heavily upon the poor; public property is exploited for the benefit of the rich, etc., etc. Hence it follows that in the districts where the non-possessors are unconsciously struggling against the possessors, this strife of classes engenders class-hatred, and consequent crimes.

In the last part of his study the author speaks of indirect economic factors, among which he includes:

a. The increasing decline in the altruistic feelings. The miner and the laborer, both ill-nourished, humiliated, and despised, dwelling in miserable hovels, are pariahs far removed from any feeling for their fellow men.

b. Organic degeneracy. As a consequence of the economic conditions named, degeneracy is always increasing more and more among the poor, especially among the miners. This degeneracy becomes in its turn a factor of criminality, since it predisposes individuals to crime.

See also: Virgilio Rossi: “Influence de la température et de l’alimentation sur la criminalité en Italie, de 1875 à 1883” (“Rapport Ier Congrès d’Anthropologie Criminelle. Actes”, pp. 295 ff.); N. Pinsero: “Miseria e Delitto” (“Scuola Positiva”, 1898).

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

IV. THE FRENCH SCHOOL (THE SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT)

I.

A. LACASSAGNE.

While the Italian school reigned supreme at the first congress of criminal anthropology at Rome, Professor Lacassagne opposed it with his so-called “hypothesis of the environment” in the following terms: “The important thing is the social environment. Allow me to make a comparison borrowed from a modern theory. The social environment is the bouillon for the culture of criminality; the microbe, that is the criminal, is an element which is only of importance when it has found a medium in which it can grow.

“The criminal with anthropometric and other characteristics seems to us to have only a moderate importance. All these characteristics may be found elsewhere among honest men.

“But you should look at the different social consequences of these two points of view. On the one hand is the fatalism which flows inevitably from the anthropometric theory; and on the other, social initiative. If the social environment is everything, and if it is so defective as to favor the growth of vicious or criminal natures, it is to this environment and its conditions of functioning that our reforms must be directed.

“... This phrase ... sums up my whole thought, and is, so to speak, the conclusion of what I have been saying; societies have the criminals they deserve.” [138]

In his “Marche de la criminalité en France, 1825–1880”, the author points out, among other things, the connection between criminality and economic conditions. An examination of the movement of crimes against property shows that the great fluctuations to be observed there are intimately connected with economic conditions. The number of crimes against property corresponds almost exactly with the fluctuation in the price of wheat; and all the economic crises make their influence felt.

During the years 1828, 1835–1837, 1847, 1848–1854, 1865–1868, and 1872–1876, in which the price of wheat was high, there were also a great number of crimes against property. The year 1855 was the sole exception, for then crimes against property did not increase, although the price of grain was very high. This is to be explained by the fact that the government then took measures to lessen the consequences of this calamity. Further, other provisions were then very cheap. From 1860 on the number of crimes against property decreases, which, according to the author, is to be explained by the importation of grain, which increased greatly at this time.

The influence of the production and consumption of alcohol is strongly felt in crimes against persons, especially in assaults.

I would further call attention to the report made by Professor Lacassagne to the Fourth Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Geneva, entitled, “Les vols à l’étalage et dans les grands magasins”, in which he shows how the display of goods on the counters in the great bazaars, which are meant to fascinate visitors, and force them to buy, so to speak, leads to crime in individuals predisposed to kleptomania.

Professor Lacassagne has always remained faithful to the judgment that he pronounced at Rome; at the Congress at Brussels, [139] and at Amsterdam as well [140], he repeated: “Societies have the criminals they deserve.”

II.

G. TARDE.

This author considers criminality as being preëminently a social phenomenon, which, like all social phenomena, is to be explained by imitation.

“All the important acts of the social life are performed under the sway of example. One begets, or one does not beget, through imitation; the statistics of births have shown us that. One kills, or one does not kill, through imitation; should we have the idea today of fighting a duel, or declaring war, if we did not know that this is always done in the country where we live? One kills himself, or he does not kill himself, through imitation; it is recognized that suicide is an imitative phenomenon in the highest degree.... How can we doubt, then, that a man steals or does not steal, murders or does not murder, through imitation?” [141]

Imitation, says the author, is governed by two laws, namely, that men imitate one another more the more closely they come together, and that imitation of the high by the low is what most often takes place (that the customs of the nobility are imitated by the people, etc.). If we test these rules in their application to crime, we shall find that they hold good there also. The author gives the following examples, among others, in support of this:

“Vagrancy, under its thousand actual forms, is an offense essentially plebeian; but if we go back into the past it will not be difficult to connect our tramps and street singers with the noble pilgrims and minstrels of the Middle Ages. Poaching, another nursery of criminals, which in the past, together with smuggling, has played a part comparable with vagrancy in the present, is still more directly connected with the life of the lord of the manor.” [142] “Arson, a crime of the lowest classes today, was once the prerogative of the feudal nobility. Was not the Margrave of Brandenburg heard to boast one day that he had burned in his life 170 villages? Counterfeiting takes refuge at present in mountain caverns, or subcellars in the city, but we know that coining was long a royal monopoly.

“Finally, theft, so degrading in our day, has had a brilliant past. Montaigne tells us, without being very indignant at it, that many young gentlemen of his acquaintance, whose fathers did not give them enough money, procured more by stealing.” [143]

There was a time, then, when criminality extended itself from the higher classes to the lower; at present new forms of crime take their rise in the great cities and spread out into the country. The increase of crime in the cities is very considerable, and it is very probable that, in accordance with the law cited, criminality will at length increase in the country as greatly. It is especially the crimes of assassination, sexual crimes against minors, abortion, and infanticide, that have increased. So the opinion of several Italian criminologists, “that crimes against persons decrease where crimes against property increase, and vice versa”, is wrong, according to Professor Tarde, since both kinds of crime increase in the great cities.

“To sum up, the prolonged action of the great cities upon criminality is manifest, it seems to us, in the gradual substitution, not exactly of trickery for violence, but of covetous, crafty, and voluptuous violence, for vindictive and brutal violence.” [144]

Nevertheless, civilization improves men, and the growing criminality is in opposition to the greater and greater increase of civilization. This contradiction is explained by the author by means of another law of imitation; the law of insertion, i.e. the alternate passage from fashion to custom.

“All industry is thus fed by a stream of improvements, innovations today, traditions tomorrow; every science, every art, every language, every religion obeys this law of the passage from custom to fashion and of the return from fashion to custom, but to an enlarged custom.

“For at each of these steps in advance the territorial domain of imitation increases; the field of social assimilation, of human brotherhood, extends itself, and this is not, as we know, the least salutary effect of imitative action from the moral point of view.” [145]

After having mentioned how these different currents of imitation meet, the author applies the idea set forth above to the influence of education upon criminality. He shows that instruction, by itself, is not a remedy for crime, since it may furnish new means for committing crimes, and hence may only change the character of criminality. Finally the author points out the influence of labor upon criminality, combating the theory of Poletti, who says that it is necessary to take into account the economic development (for example, if during the period 1826–78 criminality in France increased in the ratio of 100 to 254, and productive activity was quadrupled, criminality did not increase, but really diminished). The fundamental error in Poletti’s argument, according to Professor Tarde is, that he considers crime as a regular, permanent, and inevitable effect of industrialism.

“Only, there is labor and labor; and if in a more laborious class the work is badly divided, excessive for some, whom it enervates and disorders, insufficient for others, who become dissipated, or if it is badly directed, turned toward deleterious compositions and reading which excite the senses ...—in this case it will probably happen that progress in labor is accompanied by a growing lack of discipline and by academic vices of different kinds. An analogous phenomenon takes place in our cities, where the mad chase for luxury outruns the rise of wages, and where sexual crimes are sextupled or septupled while wealth is tripled and quadrupled. The socialists, then, are right in imputing, in part, to unjust distribution and to the objectionable direction of the productive activity, the moral evil that has grown with it, and which, further, does not decrease when productive activity becomes weaker. For since the period when Poletti made his observations upon the prosperity of France, this has ceased to grow, and has even decreased rapidly, as we know only too well, but crime has continued its onward march with a more marked impetus.

“In short, there remains nothing of the law laid down by this distinguished writer, and all the statistics contradict him. Delinquency, as Garofalo remarks, is so little proportional to commercial activity that England, where crime is on the decrease, is the nation most remarkable for the increase of its commerce, and that Spain and Italy, where the criminality is greater than that of the other principal states of Europe, are far behind them in business development. We may add that in France the most hard-working class is without any doubt the peasant class, and this shows the smallest proportionate number of delinquents, notwithstanding unfavorable conditions. We may conclude that work is in itself the adversary of crime, that if it favors it it is by indirect, not necessary action, and that its relation to crime is like that between two antagonistic forms of work.” [146]

In the following section the author treats the influence of wealth and of poverty upon the criminal. He mentions the different opinions of Turati and of Colajanni on the one hand, and of Ferri and Garofalo on the other. The former tried to prove that poverty is often a cause of a poor man’s becoming a criminal. Garofalo tries to disprove it by calling attention, among other things, to the fact that, according to the criminal statistics of Italy for 1880, property owners committed as many crimes in proportion as the proletariat did.

In opposition to this Professor Tarde points out that the French criminal statistics in 1887 show that there were, out of 100,000 of each class of the population, the following number of persons arraigned: 20 out of the class of domestics, one of the poorest classes; 12 from the liberal professions including persons of independent income; 139 from the class of vagrants and persons without occupation (the most necessitous class, therefore); 21 from commerce; 26 from manufacturing (a very high figure considering the profits of that year); and 14 from the farming class (a very low figure considering their relative poverty).

The author explains these contradictions as follows: “Let us not forget that, the desire for wealth being the ordinary motive and more and more the preponderating motive of crime as it is the only motive of industrial labor, the possession of wealth must keep the most dishonest man from crime as it does the most laborious man from industrial labor—for it is impossible to desire what one has—at least if the satisfaction of this desire has not meant the over-exciting of it.... Now in business circles, where on account of men’s throwing one another into a fever, a constant gaining of wealth, rather than wealth itself, is the end pursued, a fortune is like those peppered liqueurs which arouse thirst more than they quench it. Hence it comes, doubtless, as well as from the excitement prevailing in these circles, that criminality there is as great as among domestic servants. In the same way, in the licentious environments, in the great cities, where there are masses of working people, sexual crimes are as much more numerous as the pleasures of the senses are there more easily come by. But we can lay it down as a principle that where wealth is an obstacle to activity it is also an obstacle to crime, very much as political power ceases to be dangerous at the moment when it ceases to be ambitious. This is the situation among the rural proprietors, small and great, among stockholders, and even in the majority of the liberal professions...; content with his relative well-being, man indulges in an intellectual half-labor, artistic rather than mechanical, honorable rather than mercenary, and abstains from flagitious means of obtaining an increase of income which he desires moderately. The French peasant, in general, partakes of this moderation of desires, and, rich from his sobriety, his stoicism, his frugality, his plot of ground at last acquired, he is happier than the feverish millionaire, financier, or politician, driven by his very millions to sow the seed of his rotten speculations, rascalities, and extortions upon a vast scale. Further the well-to-do agriculturists are in general the most honest people. Let us not speak of wealth and poverty, to tell the truth, not even of well-being and the reverse, but rather of happiness and unhappiness, and be careful how we deny this truth, as old as the world, that the wicked man’s excuse is often to be found in his being unhappy. Children of this century ... let us confess that under its brilliant exterior our society is not happy, and if we had no other assurances of its great evils than its numerous crimes, without giving a thought to its suicides, and its increasing cases of insanity, without lending an ear to the cries of envy, of suffering, and of hatred ... we should not be able to call its woes in question.

“From what does it suffer? From its internal trouble, from its illogical and unstable condition, from intestine contradictions, stirred up by the success even of its unheard-of discoveries and inventions, piling one on top of the other, the material for contrary theories, the source of unbridled, egoistic, and antagonistic desires. Upon this obscure gestation, a great Credo, a great common end awaits; it is creation before the Fiat Lux. Science multiplies its notions, it elaborates a high conception of the universe; ... but where is the high conception of life, of human life, that it is ready to make prevalent? Industry multiplies its products, but where is the collective work that it brings to birth? The preëstablished harmony of interests was a dream of Bastiat, the shadow of a dream of Leibnitz. The citizens of a state exchange information, scientific and otherwise, through books, newspapers, or conversation, but to the profit of their contradictory beliefs; they exchange services, but to the profit of their rival interests; the more they assist one another, therefore, the more they nourish their essential contradictions, which may have been as profound at other times, but were never so conscious, never so painful, and consequently never so dangerous.” [147]

Suppose, asks the author, there was no more foreign war, how could we avoid civil war? There have, indeed been historic periods when there existed a common aim uniting individuals, as the faith did in the Middle Ages. In our days this aim can be nothing but “art, philosophy, the higher cultivation of the mind and imagination, the æsthetic life.”

In order to be able to answer the question whether civilization (the collective name for education, religion, science, arts, manufacturing, wealth, public order, etc.) causes a diminution of criminality, it is necessary to discriminate between two stages of civilization. In the first there is an afflux of inventions; this is the stage at which Europe is at the present time. In the second this afflux decreases and it forms itself into a coherent whole. A civilization may be very rich, then, and but little coherent, or very coherent and not very rich, like that of the commune in the Middle Ages.

“But is it by its wealth or by its cohesion that civilization makes crime recede? By its cohesion without any doubt. This cohesion of religion, of science, of all forms of work and of power, of all kinds of different innovations, mutually confirming one another, in reality or in appearance, is a true implicit coalition against crime, and even when each of these fruitful branches of the social tree combats but feebly the gourmand branch, their agreement will suffice to divert all the sap from it.” [148]

—This is not the place to criticise the theory of imitation in general, with which Professor Tarde thinks that we can explain every social phenomenon. In my opinion, this theory, in so far as it is new is not correct, and in so far as it is correct is not new. It is true as explaining how a social phenomenon, having taken its rise in a locality, has been rapidly propagated, or why it still persists when the original causes have ceased to operate.

However, it is plain that by means of imitation one can give but a partial explanation of the phenomena mentioned. Other factors must be pointed out to explain, for example, why something spreads everywhere in consequence of imitation, at a certain moment, while before it passed unperceived, etc.

I agree, then, that the significance of imitation and tradition is very important in explaining social phenomena, but I am of the opinion that imitation and tradition represent the conservative element, and give us no information with regard to the birth of new social phenomena. [149]

In the domain of criminality also imitation plays a great part. Children brought up in a vicious environment, easily contract bad habits by imitation; the harmful influence of prison is proverbial; a sensational crime often leads to analogous crimes. It is also by imitation that we can explain, in part at least, the existence of the Mafia and the Camorra, of which Professor Lombroso says, among other things: “The long persistence and obstinacy of such associations as the Mafia, the Camorra, and brigandage, seem to proceed in the first place from the antiquity of their existence, for the long repetition of the same acts transforms them into a habit, and consequently into a law. History teaches us that ethnic phenomena of long duration are not to be eradicated easily at a stroke.” [150]

Since the phenomena named remain permanent, there must be other important social factors which have nothing to do with imitation. Thus, for example, faith, whose prevalence is based to a great extent upon tradition, would have disappeared long since, notwithstanding tradition, if there had been no factors in the present society to make it persist.

Admitting what has gone before, there is no reason to see in most of the examples cited by the author in support of his theory, anything else than his great knowledge of historic details of little or no importance for the question of criminality. Where, for example, is the connection between the minstrels of the Middle Ages and the vagrants of our own days? There is certainly none but this, that both went from place to place. But even if there had never been wandering minstrels, the social phenomenon called “vagrancy” would have existed all the same. It has nothing to do with imitation, but on the contrary has everything to do with the existing social organization. It could thus be proved by many examples that Professor Tarde exaggerates the extent of the influence of imitation. We must not lose sight of the fact that imitation teaches us nothing of the essential causes of a social phenomenon. When we seek the causes of a disease that some one has, we frequently see that it is the result of a contagion; we know, then, that the disease is contagious, and this knowledge will point out precautions to be taken to limit or prevent the spread of the disease; but as to the causes of the disease itself we still know nothing.

It is the same way with regard to crime. It is certain that immoral ideas and customs are easily contracted by children. The removal of children from a harmful environment is therefore a preventive of the extension of crime. But we are still ignorant of everything that concerns the rise of these immoral ideas and customs, which is, however, the essential thing.

With regard to the remarks of the author upon the influence of labor, wealth, poverty, and civilization, I simply observe that these very important and very complicated questions occupy but a few pages in his work. It will be, then, quite superfluous to note in detail how the whole has been treated in a very incomplete manner, although very true remarks are found there (for example, those upon the bad distribution of labor, upon the desire for wealth as a cause of crime, etc.).—

Beside an article that appeared in the “Revue Philosophique” (1890), entitled “Misère et criminalité”, Professor Tarde has taken up his subject again in a report: “La criminalité et les phénomènes économiques” (Fifth Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Amsterdam). Of this report we give a synopsis.

According to Professor Tarde, since it has been recognized that the social factors of criminality are the most important, there has been a manifest tendency to exaggerate the importance of economic factors. Their high importance, which is incontestable, does not at all justify our forgetting the stronger and more decisive action of the beliefs and feelings in the aberrations of the will. Which of the two sources of criminality is the more important, the economic or the religious (or intellectual)? That cannot be decided. But it is much more important to know in what phases, from what sides the economic life is criminogenous.

Each economic phase, as, for example, domestic economy or urban economy, has its special form of criminality. But political and religious changes, whether they correspond or not to the transformations in the mode of production, have, perhaps, a much greater part in criminality than have the economic transformations. The domestic economy, for example, gives rise to different crimes in which no economic factor comes into play; as uxoricide, for example.

Neither poverty alone nor wealth alone is an obstacle to honesty. Poor peoples or classes, accustomed to poverty, are often very honest, nor is there any more need that great differences of wealth should lead to crime. But it is the abrupt passing from wealth to poverty and from poverty to wealth that is dangerous to morality.

“In short, criminality and morality are less dependent upon the economic state of a country, than upon its economic transformations. It is not capitalism as such that is demoralizing, it is the moral crisis that accompanies the passage from artisan production to capitalistic production, or from some particular mode of the latter to some other mode.

“Economic phenomena may be regarded from three points of view: first, from the point of view of their repetition, which has to do chiefly with the propagation of habits of consumption, called needs, and of the corresponding habits of labor; second, from the point of view of their opposition, which includes principally the contests of producers among themselves by acute or chronic competition, during strikes, or crises of overproduction,—or contests of consumers among themselves, through sumptuary laws, aristocratic or democratic, or monopolies of consumption over which they dispute in a thousand ways, in time of famine, or scarcity, or any form of underproduction,—or contests of producers with consumers, through their attempts to exploit one another, monopolize prices, or laws regulating the maximum price, municipal tariffs, or protectionist rights, etc.; third, finally from the point of view of their adaptation, always being renewed and always incomplete, which embraces the series of successful inventions, fortunate associations of ideas from which proceed all fruitful associations of men, from the division of labor and of commerce, an association spontaneous and implicit, to industrial, commercial, financial, and syndical societies, etc.” [151]

It is through the second aspect that the economic life can give a direct explanation of crime; that which is given by the other two is only an indirect explanation. That is to say, each invention gives rise to a contest among producers, and the progress of manufacturing creates the possibility of satisfying needs, but at the same time makes those who for want of the means cannot satisfy them, feel their needs all the more strongly.

Every individual must satisfy a certain number of needs which have their marked recurrences. A peaceful and honest society will be one in which the great majority of the persons who compose it have, in measure, the means of satisfying these needs. “Regular habits of consumption and production form the first condition for good moral health whether individual or collective, just as regular digestion is the foundation of good physical health. Those who are irregular become easily the ‘déclassés.’ Nothing is more contagious than disorder.” [152]

Hence, then, comes the importance for criminality of social crises, since during these production and consumption are deranged.

According to Professor Tarde, the social contradictions, which are the chronic crises of societies, can be the sole causes of criminality. If a society succeeds in avoiding every internal contradiction there can hardly be any further question of crime.

Our opinions can always harmonize with those of the people around us, while we are foreign to them in desire and feeling. “The criminal is he who, undergoing conformity to the ideas of the community in which he lives, yet escapes from conforming to the feelings and acts of the community. He acts contrary to his own principles, which are those of society.” “It is, then, not to a social crisis that we must mount, but to a psychological crisis that we must descend, to explain crime.” [153]

Social crises are of two kinds: politico-religious, and economic. In opposition to divers statisticians, who are of the opinion that the former class cause a diminution in criminality, the author thinks that this diminution is only apparent, and that in reality the number of crimes increases at these times; which is shown, for example, for France by the addition of cases not prosecuted to those prosecuted.

As to the effect of economic crises, statisticians, Professor Tarde claims, have not yet examined it. It seems to him that there is no parallelism between economic crises and criminality.

The struggle of classes, which springs up and grows during the periods of crisis, is a great danger to public morals, since it gives rise to a class spirit, and consequently increases the contempt for the rights of individuals of another class. However, the class struggle does not increase the number of individual crimes, but only the number of collective crimes.

To sum up, Professor Tarde is of the opinion, then, that social crises in general, and economic crises in particular, are not the only source nor a continual source of crime. The question of what is the cause of economic crises remains unexplained. To solve this we must call in all political economy. The causes of these economic crises are in brief: first, unlimited competition; second, unforeseen disasters. “We may add that these acute conflicts lead to suicide more than to crime; they are a factor of crime much less important than the sullen conflicts, the low but continuous fevers of troubled epochs in quest of a stable state. And these are then less the conflicts of production with itself, or of production with consumption, than the conflicts of consumption with itself, i.e. the conflicts of needs that have grown but cannot be satisfied at the time, within the limits of the always insufficient wages or profits, a fertile source of criminal suggestions. When labor no longer suffices to satisfy the legitimate needs in accordance with the prevailing standards, the desire of gain without labor invades the heart and becomes general. The only remedy for this danger would be the advancement of manufacturing and its reorganization upon a vaster and better conceived plan than the present one, if, at the same time that any industrial progress gave more wealth for less labor, it did not give rise to still more new wants. The individual organization of wants, their hierarchization, by virtue of a certain unanimity of fundamental principles, must precede the social organization of labor, if we wish this latter really to make for peace and morals.” [154]

—Professor Tarde’s report is characterized by many very true observations (as, for example, that every economic phase has its own form of criminality; that sudden transitions from wealth to poverty, and vice versa, are morally more dangerous than slow changes; etc., etc.), but at the same time is still more marked by a certain elasticity and lack of close reasoning. Hence it is almost impossible to frame a criticism of the report that will follow it step by step.

However there are some things to be noted. According to the author there are two sources of criminality, the one economic, the other intellectual. I consider that this distinction is not correct. Every crime has an intellectual source, in this sense, that it is an act conceived by the intellect. It is impossible, therefore, to see beside this source an economic cause. But the intellect considered by itself is empty; it is from the environment that it must draw the material which it will transform into ideas. Consequently the question becomes this: how far is the economic environment the cause of the formation of criminal thoughts. Intellect and economic conditions do not stand side by side but the one follows upon the other. It is only making use of a commonplace to say that crime has an intellectual source; that explains nothing.

In reading the first pages of the report one expects, after the historical exposition which says that every economic phase has its own form of criminality, to find an exposition of the present economic system, and an inquiry into how far the criminality of our own day is bound up with it. This would have been, I think, most important, and would have advanced the subject. The most serious criticism that I have to make is that nothing of the kind is attempted. What follows is only a series of isolated remarks, which are correct only in part, and in which the whole question is reduced to a matter of economic crises, although the title speaks of economic conditions.

It is incorrect to say that the statisticians have not investigated the influence of economic crises, as the second chapter of this work proves. In it I have analyzed the works of the different authors who have especially treated of this subject. Finally, I would call attention to the fact that he furnishes no proof of his assertion that the class struggle takes its rise in times of crisis—and would find it difficult to do so.

What Professor Tarde means in speaking of “the advancement of manufacturing and its reorganization upon a vaster and better conceived plan”, is not clear. But it is certain that the final observation that there must be “an individual organization of wants”, is purely Utopian. For it is one of the characteristic phenomena of our present society that it has strongly excited the cupidity of men, and that this will disappear only when its cause has ceased to exist.

All Professor Tarde’s works upon criminality convince us of the great knowledge of their author. The report of which I have been speaking contains also ideas that are often very original, but this does not prevent the necessity of confessing that it does not contribute much to the solution of the problem that it treats.—

III.

A. CORRE.

In the third book of his “Crime et suicide” the author treats of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality, beginning with “labor, wages, and needs.”

Dr. Corre notes first the true condition of the free workman. No one is obliged to give him work or bread, and it is forbidden to beg or even to be idle. “There is no opinion more monstrous, more revolting, and more cowardly. It is a social crime as well as the most dangerous of follies. For it is necessary to be logical. If you oblige a man under all circumstances to live by his own means, in the midst of a limited circle, where the places are distributed in advance, the land divided to the smallest fragments, if you refuse him the right to alms after having refused him work ... you drive him to suicide or crime.” [155] We must give work to everyone who wants to work, in order that he may support himself and his family, and help must be given to those to whom work cannot be given, as in the case of workmen not longer able to work because of sickness or old age. On the other hand idleness must be punished as well as professional crime. Wages must be so high that they are sufficient not only for the strict necessities, but for others as well; for example, for a progressive education, without, however, arousing in the laboring class the desire for luxury that always corrupts morals. Though naming a single exception, Dr. Corre is of the opinion that wages are in general very insufficient, especially if we take into account the fact that there are times of unemployment, sickness, etc., during which nothing is earned. The question of wages is one of great importance, then, for the etiology of criminality. Nevertheless all the improvement of the material condition of the working class will accomplish nothing unless there is at the same time a moral improvement.

As other authors have already proved, the price of bread also has an influence upon the course of criminality.

Under the heading “economic conditions”, he calls attention, in the second place to “assistance, savings, property.” When we study the effect of charity upon criminality in the departments of France, we see that mendicity and vagrancy decrease, and that crimes are only of moderate frequency, in places where the official assistance given is the smallest, while criminality is pretty prevalent and even on the increase where the greatest amount of official assistance is given. “Thus very limited assistance will do less harm than if it were more extensive. Such is the interpretation the mind gathers from a comparison of the economic and judicial statistics. Excess in alms-giving, with difficulty separable from a bad distribution of wealth, will therefore have a demoralizing influence; it enervates and sterilizes, and its fruits would appear more bitter if it were possible to unveil the little secrets of assistance under the thousand forms that it wears.” [156]

“Saving enlarges the field of the needs of the laborer, gives him security for the future, strengthens his independence with regard to the state, and his dignity in his relations with other citizens; it permits him to surround his family with a greater degree of comfort, and through education to raise his children into the professional hierarchy. It is therefore useful, and has a moralizing influence.” [157]

However, exaggerated saving is very prejudicial to morality for it degenerates into avarice and thus becomes the cause of crime. We often find the average number of depositors in savings-banks in the departments that gave the lowest figure for crime. The departments with a number of depositors above or below this average are apt to have high figures for crime.

“It is possible to criticise academically the famous saying of Proudhon, ‘property is theft.’ To refute it will be at times difficult. I do not mean to say that all property is theft, but I maintain that property in a measure that can be fixed is nothing else. As it is organized with use, it is often immoral and one of the most active factors in anti-social crime, latent or actual.” [158] According to the author, one who owns property is a supporter of the state. For this reason the number of small proprietors ought to be increased, even if this is possible only by dividing great estates, which, however, have almost always been gotten together by immoral means, by pillaging, by paying very small wages in manufacturing, by gambling, etc. “They are all, in the first instance, the fruit of a skill and a want of scruple which would never obtain the sanction of a really equitable society; at their blaze, which scorns poverty, the passion for gain is kindled, and dull rage begins to develop the germ of reprisals. How shall we make men who have nothing, and exhaust themselves to gain the bare necessaries of life, satisfied that the persons who do no work and only amuse themselves possess everything? You may talk of legal limitations as much as you like, but conscience will revolt against a doctrine that makes stolen property sacred after a certain period of impunity, and leads to the cynical conclusion that any article or piece of land, acquired by crime, is the legitimate possession of the bandit if during 5, 10, 20, 30 years he succeeds in warding off the attacks of the law.” [159] Not only has property often been acquired in an illegal manner, but the transmission of it is also immoral. For it is by this means that persons have acquired great fortunes which they would never have earned by their labor. It would be preferable to make private fortunes accrue to the state, after provision had been made for the widow and children “to provide for the needs of persons who are useful but made unproductive by poverty, and to reënforce the collective labor.” In this way a general prosperity would replace great fortunes; this would increase the feeling of solidarity, while great fortunes only awaken cupidity and lead to the commission of crimes. The richest departments give the highest figures for criminality. By the suppression or limitation of inheritance we should suppress also the numerous crimes against life resulting from it.

In the sixth chapter, in which Dr. Corre examines the relative importance of the principal sociological factors, he sums up his opinion as to the influence of economic conditions upon criminality. Too great wealth and too great poverty are both causes of crime. “The first corrupts and the second degrades; both lead to crime through lessening the resistance to temptation that promises the satisfaction of wants fictitious or real, and when they both appear in the same environment, they give more energy to bad impulses, more violence to conflicts.” [160] This is why the agricultural class, in which moderate prosperity prevails, is the least criminal. The means by which this condition of things is to be improved is complex: “it is not altogether to be found in the solution of the question of wages; it is chiefly to be found in a better system for making the masses moral, in the reduction of the influences which tempt them to improvidence and idleness, lead them to drunkenness and alcoholism.” [161]

—The second part of this work will show sufficiently why, in my opinion, the treatment of Dr. Corre is confused and incomplete, notwithstanding the truth of some observations made by him with regard to the subject which concerns us. The criticism of the author upon the organization of society at present is that of the petty bourgeoisie; he expects salvation only from the multiplication of small holdings, and hopes that this will make mankind happier. However, the development of large industries makes me believe that this hope will never be realized.—

IV.

L. MANOUVRIER.

Of all the adherents of the “hypothesis of the environment,” Professor Manouvrier is undoubtedly the one who has set forth this doctrine in the clearest manner. Being an anthropologist it is evident that he has not given his attention more especially to economic conditions. But it seems to me that what he says in opposition to the theory of Professor Lombroso, and in support of that of the environment, is of the greatest importance. I will give a résumé, therefore, of his “Genèse normale du crime”, [162] and in doing so will quote his own words as far as possible, in order to give their full value. Although there is no connection between the doctrine of Professor Lombroso and his adherents, and this work, I shall be forced to follow his whole demonstration, because of the interlacing of the theories of the Italian school and the detailed exposition of the doctrine of the “environment.”

The doctrine of the innate character of crime and the phrenology of Gall and Spurzheim are closely connected. Gall thought that he had discovered in the brain the organs of homicide and theft, without, however, denying the importance of surroundings, so that he explained a case of theft by means of circumstances when the bump of theft was wanting in the thief.

This doctrine has been entirely supplanted by the theories of Lamarck and Darwin. “In the place of attributing to the environment the rôle of a simple player of a hand-organ, Lamarck sees in it a true musician playing upon his instrument any airs suited to its complexity and qualities. Further, the quality and characteristics of the instrument can be modified, transformed under the influence of this marvelous musician and that of the music executed. This was the ruin of craniomancy. The diagnostics of phrenology found themselves limited at once and for always to the faculties, the elementary dispositions that Gall and Spurzheim had tried in vain to discover, and which are consistent with the execution of acts indefinitely variable.

“The phrenologists are right in connecting the ‘properties of the soul and mind’ with organization, but they are wrong in connecting such acts as theft and homicide with organic causes, as if these acts had the value of real, irreducible functions.” [163]

Notwithstanding the bond between phrenology and the positivist school, this school does not rely upon the theory in question, but upon the transformist theory, i.e. upon the theory that gives its attention to environment. The cause of this is that the fundamental error that forms the point of departure is still universally prevalent. “This error consists in believing that acts sociologically defined, like crimes, can be connected with the anatomical conformation, without being first referred by a psychological analysis to their psychological elements, the only ones, whether normal or pathological, that depend directly upon anatomy. The same error consists in confusing the combinations of aptitudes formed under the influence of environment, with the elementary aptitudes resulting from the native organization or its successive modifications. It also leads to a misunderstanding of the primary fact that two individuals similarly constituted can be led, in consequence of the influence of dissimilar environments to which they have been subjected since their birth, to conduct themselves in different, and even quite opposite, ways, without their acts ceasing to be, on that account, conformed to their anatomical constitution.” [164]

It is a fact well known to biologists that in all living beings qualities often occur that did not appear in their immediate forebears but in more remote generations. This reappearance of qualities is called atavism. Its importance has been too much exaggerated, however, and it has been made into a magic word with which, it has been thought, everything could be explained, including crime. The line of reasoning has been as follows: crime is one of the ordinary phenomena among savage peoples, and must therefore have been so among the ancestors of the civilized peoples. It is observed that among the criminals of our day there are more of the anatomical stigmata indicating atavism than among non-criminals; consequently crime is a phenomenon of atavism! There are numerous errors in this reasoning. “Since we are treating the question of crime, we must first of all know what is understood by crime, must give a definition of it indicating what crime corresponds to physiologically, and to what order of anatomical characteristics the physiological tendency to crime corresponds. Considered in themselves, these acts suppose only the existence of a conformation permitting, and of needs demanding, their accomplishment. If such a conformation and such needs no longer exist in the normal state among civilized peoples, where nevertheless the acts are frequent, it would be proper to examine the authors of them for abnormal characteristics; not merely any abnormal characteristics, but characteristics, anatomical or physiological, that it would be possible to connect with these aptitudes and needs that have become abnormal.” [165]

Among the anatomical stigmata observed in criminals in prison there are several which, considered by themselves, have nothing abnormal about them; none of them would serve to characterize criminals. We often find, for example, that murderers have relatively large jaws, which are ordinarily thus an index of a conformation disposed to brutality; “but this brutality is absolutely of the same order as that of men compared with women; it is a masculine characteristic, and the masculine conformation is indubitably favorable to crimes of violence much more than the feminine; but happily it happens that most men, in civilized countries, live under conditions in which their natural brutality does not prevent their being very peaceable citizens, though it would be imprudent to molest them. Very vigorous men are ordinarily endowed with square and very solid jaws; they are men for attack or defense, who may be very useful to society or very harmful, as the case may be. Given to acting vigorously and brutally, this they may be, but inclined to crime they are not, any more than the men with small jaws, whose mildness is often the effect of muscular weakness, and who, though little given to striking and breaking down doors, nevertheless know how to be brutal and violent in their own way.” [166]

However, it might be thought that these anatomical characteristics, though not dangerous in themselves, are nevertheless an indication of a tendency on their part to act like savages. But this is not the case; these characteristics “are morphological accidents that are purely local and are compatible with the most fortunate conformation.” But this is not saying that every peculiarity must remain unutilized. Thus, for example, there are persons who are able to move their ears. “If murder and theft were acts as little complicated, and of as little importance as moving the ears, and if these acts, having become criminal, did not suppose very complex anatomical and psychological coördinations; if there were, in other words, as Gall supposed, cerebral organs specially and innately fitted for murder and theft, we could believe that the mere atavistic presence of these organs would constitute a tendency to commit these crimes; but neither anatomo-physiological analysis, nor psychology will justify today so simple a conception.” [167]

And then it has not been proved that murder and theft were habitual with our ancestors; they had recourse to them only under stress of circumstances, quite like any normal man of today. Considered from an anatomical point of view our means of injuring our fellows have decreased; on the other hand we have now other means at our disposal (firearms, etc.). “As to the need of pleasure and of life, this can only have increased, and never can cupidity have been more aroused than in our civilized society. Never have the temptations to appropriate the goods of others been stronger and more frequent. Civilization tends to develop wants and appetites, whence there comes this colossal extension of the means of repression and of coercion employed to make criminal attempts dangerous, in order that crime may not be too easy a means of acquiring fortune. Except for purely pathological cases, the criminal is moved by his wants, by wants that have nothing extraordinary about them; when a man has an interest, or thinks he has an interest in committing a crime, he brings into play muscular and cerebral aptitudes which every normal man possesses, the same elementary aptitudes as those he might have made use of, under other circumstances, to pursue and punish a criminal.” [168]

Some biological facts are to be explained by atavism; their explanation nevertheless remains mysterious. But atavism loses all its importance as a means of explanation as soon as we know how to explain a fact by actually existing causes, as is the case with crime. “We should understand that it would be a question of atavistic tendencies if assassins killed for the sole pleasure of killing, if thieves stole for the pleasure of stealing. Now we know well that theft and murder are only means, and that their use is called ‘work’ by professional criminals. If they prefer this kind of work it is because it is quicker and less painful than regular work.” [169]

It might be objected here that the horror of blood being natural to most men it would be necessary just the same to have recourse to atavism to explain murder. This horror of blood is assuredly found in most men, but only so far as their interest requires. Not a single surgeon or butcher pursues his bloody trade through atavism, but only because forced to it by his interests. More than one born-bourgeois thinks that he would never eat meat rather than have to kill cattle himself, but this is only pure illusion or an unconscious hypocrisy. For he would do it without any doubt if he could not gain his livelihood in any other way. Do not the bourgeoisie shoot their inoffensive fellow citizens who revolt against a social condition that no one would dare to call ideal? Do they not mow down savages with machine guns in order to divide up their country? Or do they not make war against other states in order to protect their own commercial interests? It will be objected that these things are not crimes; this is a question of definition, but assuredly they are similar to crime.

“It is not only in the prisons that we find born-criminals; but we are all such, if we understand by this abusive expression the possession of hereditary tendencies to enjoy things ourselves, in case of need, to the detriment of our fellows. The human crimes to which I have just alluded indicate chiefly the cruelty and ferocity of the species, and of ethnic collectivities, social or otherwise. As to the individual equivalents of crime, I will recall further that they are not difficult to discover in the conduct of honest men, most of whom do not trouble themselves to make use of means as harmful and immoral as those which criminals do. The equivalents of crime among honest men present, it is true, the great advantage of remaining more or less unperceived by the penal code, by the police at least, and the psychologists of the New School; but they are nevertheless recognized as immoral and harmful by those who have recourse to them, and they suffice to show in what way honest men would conduct themselves if the conditions in which they live and have lived had not driven them away from crime, legally so-called, with as much force as the opposite environmental conditions have driven others to it.” [170]

Having made fuller remarks to the effect that the cruel and repugnant professions referred to above are not practiced because of atavistic tendencies, but solely from necessity, the author ends this part of his article as follows: “There nevertheless remains a tremendous difference between the killing of an animal and the killing of a man, from a moral point of view, of course, but also from the point of view of the motives generally fitted to prevent the killing. But it must be remarked that these motives are connected with environmental influences which are exceedingly variable, and which, for too many persons, are considerably diminished and at the same time replaced by influences of the opposite environment. Most assassins have received a certain culture appropriate to the conception of murder and to its realization, and this is simply facilitated by their conformation, which is in no wise exceptional. If we had only to twirl our thumb to get rid of an enemy we should have to put forth all our efforts to harm no one. Already too many respectable men can order murders that they would not be courageous enough to execute. Let us congratulate ourselves that self-interest more often deters men from murder than drives them to it, for every normal man possesses the cerebral and muscular qualities necessary to conceive, prepare, and execute the crime. It is not necessary to call in the return to animal instincts through atavism. The continuity of man and the animals is much more perfect than the atavistic school pretends. Man is always an animal; the most dangerous of all because he is the most intelligent and because he can utilize his faculties in all sorts of ways, harmful or useful to his fellows according to his own interest. The formula to be applied is to arrange things so that every man will find more advantage in being useful to his fellows than in injuring them. Progress in this regard would be more rapid without this unfortunate predilection for occult causes, which leads so many excellent minds to seek in the clouds for explanations that lie under their noses, but which have to be found just where they are.

“Those ferocious instincts which seem the return of another world, in brawls or in times of revolution, are not returning at all, because they have never disappeared. During a certain time they do not manifest themselves in the individual or the family, because there is no need that they should; or possibly they manifest themselves in ways less dangerous, in connection with ordinary circumstances and relatively favorable to tranquillity. But let there arise any need, no matter what, of a “mobilization of the offensive and defensive forces”, then the mobilization takes place, and the most civilized man appears under the form of the dangerous animal he has never ceased to be, happily for himself and his species. This man whom you take for an atavistic throw-back, appears such to you only because you have failed to recognize in their mild form, in yourself and in others, the fundamental brutality and egoism of the human species. Notwithstanding the civilizing influences in the midst of which you have lived, notwithstanding the peaceable habits that you have contracted, and all the horror with which you are inspired by the contrary habits of which you fear to fall the victim, it is enough that you should be worked upon rather strongly by a combination of annoying circumstances, that even you should become a dangerous individual. When we wish to study crime as anthropologists or as psychologists, we must not be afraid to look the truth in the face, and it is important to clear our minds beforehand, as far as possible, of the illusions of self-love, and of deceptive conventions.” [171]

Then Professor Manouvrier criticises in a manner as just as it is witty, the hypothesis of the “delinquent man.” He demonstrates that, according to the method of the New School, a work could be written upon the “hunting man” also, full of scientific observations upon his argot, his boasting, etc., etc., upon all sorts of signs, in short, which go to show that a taste for hunting is an atavistic phenomenon. The explanation of crime by atavism is no more true than this other, for both can be explained by the environment.

If we hold absolutely to the expression: “born-criminal”, every man is one, just as every dog is a born-swimmer. Every dog knows how to swim very well, but this does not prevent a number of dogs from never swimming, since ordinarily there are more convenient ways of crossing the water. In the same way every man is a born-criminal, but most men refrain from becoming actual criminals, since that course is more advantageous to them than the other.

“No one is ignorant that the educational influences to which one is subjected during his whole life and especially during infancy, and the solicitations of self-interest, are exceedingly variable under different circumstances and for different individuals; and that the educational influences and the solicitations of self-interest unite very generally to furnish the motive for criminal conduct and for honest conduct as well. And it is this that governs every man’s manner of acting in his relations with others; and it must not be forgotten in treating of anthropology, whether anatomical, physio-psychological, or sociological. It is never forgotten in practical life.

“We all know that, whatever our fundamental character may be and the honest habits that we have been able to form, our manner of conducting ourselves may vary considerably under the influence of changes in our environment, and in proportion to those changes. It is a temptation to which the most austere man would greatly dread to be exposed, and to which he would never voluntarily expose himself, because he knows that the tendencies imputed to criminals (said to be atavistic, but all simply human) are not lacking in himself. These tendencies, when they have found abundant and honorable means of satisfaction during long years, become so much the more to be dreaded on this account, and run great danger of becoming criminal as soon the legal means of satisfaction disappear. The man who comes to lack these means finds himself in a much more dangerous situation as far as the likelihood of his becoming a criminal is concerned, than one who had become accustomed to privations.” [172]

Professor Manouvrier begins the last section of his study by asking what is the significance of the anatomical peculiarities observed in the so-called born-criminals. “The truth probably is that we do find in a number of criminals in prison more of the lower or abnormal characteristics than in a like number of persons chosen at random. But this in no wise proves that those among the criminals who have such characteristics, have been predestined to crime from their physical make-up. Those among them who are not so constituted are nevertheless criminals, and honest men who bear the criminal marks have nevertheless remained honest.

“The truth is that the ‘new school’ consider as criminals only the refuse of this class, the prisoners; just as, when they wanted to depict prostitutes, they took poor syphilitic girls who had been at least three years in brothels, that is to say, the refuse of refuse. Under what family and social conditions these criminals and prostitutes lived during childhood and afterward, it is easy for anyone to imagine who has caught but a glimpse of the slums of manufacturing towns. In order to escape crime and prostitution or mendicity when one has grown up in such an environment, it is necessary to have virtues that are extremely rare among respectable people, so much the more so since, to the temptations that come from poverty in the midst of luxury, is ordinarily added the effect of example, and even of education of the particular kind that is called criminal education. All this may be resisted for some time, but it is only the first step that costs. The good qualities themselves that one possesses become the causes of crime. It may even be maintained that physical excellencies themselves drive men to crime more strongly than defects, when once the external conditions become favorable for crime.” [173]

The fact that we generally find more inferior individuals among the criminals imprisoned than among other men must be attributed to the two following circumstances: first, that criminals who have not been arrested, owe their liberty generally to the fact that they are better endowed; and second, that in all social classes a selection goes on by which those best constituted are always in possession of the most desirable and least painful means of existence, while to those less privileged fall the lowest professions, and they “end sooner or later by falling into the ditch where the influences that drive men to crime reach their maximum frequency and power, while the contrary motives are proportionately weak.” Those who have known better days sometimes prefer suicide to crime; but those who are born in the ditch, know no other life, and are consequently led into crime.

What is much more astonishing than crime is the fact that workmen labor courageously and patiently for ten or twelve hours a day, and notwithstanding this lead only a miserable life. The reason is that they have known nothing but labor since infancy and have always had to be content with very simple amusements. It goes without saying that one man is more moved to commit crimes than another, although the conditions under which they are living are the same, just as an athlete will use violence quicker than a weakling. But this is no reason to declare strength a factor of crime, since it serves for useful acts as well. Acts which are contrary to the proper working of society are, therefore, called abnormal and those are called normal that are in harmony with it. But it is not therefore permissible to transfer this distinction to the field of biology, and call the criminal abnormal. “Aptitudes that are very normal physiologically, may be employed for acts that are equally normal physiologically, but which, from a social point of view are classed as abnormal, because contrary to the social prosperity. Yet this is an abuse of the word ‘abnormal’, because society as at present constituted is, in its normal functioning, consistent with innumerable causes of conflict between its own interests and those of individuals. And just as the annoying consequences of our mistakes often make us recognize the truth, so crimes very often serve to indicate to societies the reforms they ought to bring about in order to perfect themselves.

“Every individual has wants to satisfy, wants primordial or secondary, that may become infinitely complicated and clothed in forms as much more various as the environment becomes more complex. Now it happens in every society, and especially in very civilized societies, that the different individuals do not find the same facilities, and further, do not possess the same means of action. There is an evident disproportion between the existing needs and the milder means of satisfying them; whence the struggle for existence and well-being.

“In our estimating the intrinsic worth of criminals, we must not fail to take account of this fact, that most honest men do not deprive themselves of any of the pleasures which are the aim of criminals, and that most criminals, in order to escape crime would have had to have rare virtue. Among the legal means of satisfaction offered by society there are those that are easy and agreeable, among others that of drawing the income from capital amassed by one’s parents. There are also difficult and painful ones, which are the lot of those whom pecuniary heredity has not secured against the so-called criminal heredity. In order to share legally in the pleasures of which they are witnesses, those whom we may call disinherited by fortune, must make efforts of which those born to wealth have no idea. This is why, if the disinherited seek a short-cut, we must ask ourselves, before we consider them as monstrous beings, whether under the same circumstances we should be able to keep to the legal path.

“The struggle for existence and well-being is regulated by social laws. If these were perfect, each individual could satisfy his wants in an equitable measure, that is to say in the measure of his faculties, his labor, and the service he renders to the community. Crimes would then be diminished in an enormous proportion, but they would not be suppressed, for there would still be inevitable competitions, and the time will probably never come when, on the one hand, each individual will have just the wants that his social worth will permit him to satisfy legally, and, on the other, will have sufficient virtue to renounce the satisfaction of wants, even factitious ones, which he has once contracted without being able to comply with the conditions which the most just law imposes for this satisfaction.” [174]

The penal law is one of the means the object of which is combating the illegal satisfaction of wants. Everyone knows, however, that this means does not always attain the end sought. The penal law will, in fact, produce a diminution of criminality only when it shall have brought about profound penal changes,—when punishment shall be no more than the useful and necessary reaction against acts that are harmful to the well-being of the community and to the development of society.

It is to be proved that there is, besides the normal, or ordinary, origin of crime, a pathological, or extraordinary, origin. “It is quite superfluous to bring in tendencies atavistically recalled by pathological degeneracy, in order to explain the harmful effects of this degeneracy, and of mental diseases, upon the way in which the degenerate and mentally diseased act. The least functional trouble is enough to alter our sensations, our judgment, our imagination, our deliberations, and consequently, to make us act wrongly.” [175]

The theory of the innate character of crime through atavism is consequently quite erroneous. “It would be unseemly on my part to refer it, through atavism, to original sin or to the call of the blood of the ancient melodramas. I will not even say that it is derived through tradition, which is an environmental influence, from the old phrenological doctrine, although that is an error of the same kind. Errors, in fact, are like crimes; they have no need of atavism nor of immediate heredity, nor even of tradition, in order to repeat themselves. Causes of error or causes of crime, the springs are far from being dried up. They always flow abundantly. It is necessary in science to react against errors, and in society to react against crimes. But it must never be forgotten that every man is normally exposed to commit both errors and crimes.” [176]

—I shall make only a few observations upon Professor Manouvrier’s study, a work which, in my opinion, is one of the best, not to say the best, upon the origin of crime, and in about fifty pages says more than many a bulky volume.

In the first place Professor Manouvrier shows that in our days wants have increased greatly, and he believes that civilization is the cause of it. I am of the opinion that this last assertion is not correct and that civilization has nothing to do with it. Many writers commit this error of confusing civilization and the present mode of production, and it is just for this reason that it is useful and necessary to correct it. All the evils that have been brought upon the peoples of Africa and of China, war, alcohol, etc., etc., have been called by the collective name of “civilization.” In reality it is those who have brought all these calamities upon these countries, and have tried to destroy a veritable, age-long civilization like that of China, who are the barbarians. It is not a civilizing instinct that has driven European states to a policy of expansion, but rather cupidity, eagerness for gain on the part of the owning class, who are seeking a new outlet for their merchandise; in short, it is the present mode of production, capitalism.

The same is true with regard to the constant increase of wants; it is the present system which creates wants. New methods of procuring profit are invented, and it is only with this in view that many inventions are made, most of them useless, often even harmful. And on the other hand there is a class of persons who grasp at any means, even the most absurd, of passing the time, and have the money to procure these means. And these wants spring up in other persons also, and the impossibility of satisfying them makes men the more eager. Consequently it is not civilization, but capitalism, which must be designated as the cause of this phenomenon.

In the second place, Professor Manouvrier thinks that criminality would diminish enormously, but without disappearing entirely, if the social laws were perfected so that each individual could satisfy his wants according to his capacities, his labor, and his services to the community. This is, in my opinion, entirely correct; but the maxim of Saint-Simon, “to every man according to his capacities, to each capacity according to its works”, which, in Professor Manouvrier’s opinion, is perfect, by many others is not thought to be so, though superior to the present distribution of commodities. We can set over against this the rule, “that each shall work according to his faculties and his strength, and receive according to his needs.” If this were realized, crime would become almost unimaginable. Many persons are of the opinion that such a thing could never be realized. But they forget that it is exclusively from the environment that the enormous differences in wants arise (the wife of the millionaire has perhaps a thousand times as many needs as the wife of the proletarian). If these two persons had been born and brought up in the same environment, the wants of the one would have been to those of the other perhaps as 1 to 3, or even less, but certainly not more. And then those who believe in a future distribution according to needs, are of the opinion (and think they can prove it) that, if in the present organization of society egoism is omnipotent, the feeling of solidarity will be so strengthened in the future social organization, that the man endowed with great abilities and much energy, will not begrudge his fellow less highly endowed, the satisfaction of all his wants.

I would, at the same time, make a remark concerning the environmental school in general, a remark not to be considered as a criticism, for I agree perfectly that it is the environment that makes the criminal. It is this: it is not enough for the treatment of the question of criminality, to furnish proof of the assertion that the cause of crime is not inherent in man; it is also necessary to show in what respects the environment is criminogenous, and in what way it can be improved. Now the French School has given but little attention to this.—

V.

A. BAER.

The work of Dr. Baer, “Der Verbrecher in anthropologischer Beziehung”, has only an indirect importance for our subject, as the title indicates. Since his medical and anthropological studies lead him to the conclusion that the social atmosphere is the fundamental cause of crime, it is worth while to note his opinion. For this it will be sufficient to quote the following: “For us crime is, as Prins excellently expresses it, not an individual phenomenon, but a social one. ‘Criminality is made up of the elements of human society itself, it is not transcendent but immanent. We can see in it a kind of degeneration of the social organism.... The criminal and the honest man are each dependent upon their environment. There are social conditions that are favorable to moral health, where there is no tendency, no inclination toward crime; there is a social environment where the atmosphere is corrupt, where unwholesome elements have accumulated, where crime settles as soot does in a flue, where the tendency toward crime bears fruit.’ Though Ferri has recently advocated the opinion that the criminal is the result of three factors, operative at the same time, and that these three causes are individual (i.e. anthropological), physical, [177] and social; in our opinion, on the other hand, these three causes are actually to be reduced to a single one, if, as he himself points out, we take into consideration the fact that the first two are both dependent upon social conditions. The anthropological and physical stigmata of criminals are, as we have endeavored to show above, in most cases wholly conditioned by the influences and circumstances of their environment.

“Crime, we will close this work by saying, is not the consequence of a special organization of the criminal, an organization which is peculiar to the criminal alone, and which forces him to the commission of criminal acts. The criminal, such by habit and apparently born as such, bears many marks of bodily and mental deformity, which have, however, neither in their totality nor singly, so marked and peculiar a character as to differentiate the criminal from his fellows as a distinct type. The criminal bears the traces of degeneracy that are to be found in abundance among the lower classes from which he mostly takes his rise. These traces, acquired through social conditions and transmitted, in his case at times emerge in stronger form. Whoever would do away with crime must do away with the social wrongs in which crime takes root and grows, and, in establishing and applying forms of punishment, must give more weight to the individuality of the criminal than to the category under which the crime falls.” [178]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us