V. THE BIO-SOCIOLOGISTS…

V. THE BIO-SOCIOLOGISTS

I.

AD. PRINS.

I cannot better give Professor Prins’s opinion upon the subject of my work than by quoting what he says in his book, “Criminalité et répression”, and especially in his first chapter entitled “De la criminalité en général. Des classes criminelles. Des délinquants d’accident et des délinquants de profession.” There we read: “There exists no abstract type of a moral man, nor of a guilty man; crime is not an individual phenomenon, but a social phenomenon. Criminality proceeds from the very elements of humanity itself; it is not transcendent, but immanent; we can see in it a sort of degeneration of the social organism.” [179]

There is an environment favorable to moral health, where the tendency to crime is almost wholly lacking; there is a social environment where the atmosphere is corrupt, where unwholesome elements are heaped up, where the most vigorous perish, where criminality spreads like the mould in the dunghill; the tendency toward crime there is formidable, and we can say in this sense that it is a social fact with a social cause, and that it is in intimate connection with a given social organization.

Let us consider our own epoch for a moment. A century of progress and refinement is a century of vices; the increasing complexity of our mechanism creates, with new temptations, new occasions of falling. The car of civilization, like that of Juggernaut, destroys many of those who throw themselves under its wheels. The world has enormous appetites that it cannot satisfy: sensuality, greed of gain, a taste for and facility in speculation; the contrast between great wealth and extreme poverty; the brutal necessities of the struggle for existence in the face of the concentration of property and of capital; the defects of the industrial organization, which abandons the proletariat to chance, keeps no watch over apprenticeship, and leaves the child of the working-man to the excitations of the streets and the promiscuity of the workshop, and finally sharpens everywhere the obscure instincts of animalism; all this recoils upon criminality with deplorable certainty. How far wrong we should be in such an environment simply to contrast the delinquent with the honest man! It is two social states that are contrasted; the one is based upon comfortable means, sociability, mutual protection, useful work, and thrift; the other upon poverty, isolation, egoism, and unproductive labor. And in the great urban agglomerations, pauperism, mendicity and vagrancy, idleness, the spirit of adventure, prostitution, the dissipation of strength, everything, in short, naturally concurs in developing social anemia.

“Take any district whatsoever, however poor, uncivilized, and wild, and you will always find in the great cities, London or Paris, New York or San Francisco, a worse environment and greater depravity. It is here, in the lowest slums, where never a glimmer of physical or moral well-being penetrates, that the disinherited live. They get a glimpse of the splendor of luxury only to hate it; they respect neither property nor life, because neither property nor life has any real value for them; they are born, grow pale, struggle, and die, without suspecting that for certain persons existence is good fortune, property a right, virtue a habit, and calm a constant state. Such is the natural and fatal home of criminality.

“In a quarter subjected to detestable hygiene, built upon marshy soil, devoid of drainage and potable water, furrowed with narrow and filthy streets, covered with hovels without life or air, where an atrophied population vegetates, epidemics are inevitable and propagate themselves with great intensity. In the same way, crime finds an easy and certain prey in the environment of the poor of a great city. The illegitimate and abandoned children, the children of convicts and prostitutes, the vagrants, etc. are so many designated recruits. Without family, without traditions, without fixed home or settled occupation, without relations with the ruling classes, what wonder that they have no other motive than complete egoism, no other activity than selfish and transitory efforts for the immediate satisfaction of their material appetites? The emigration from the country to the city still further increases this army and multiplies the chances of crime. When the sons of peasants leave the plow for the workshop and come to seek fortune in the furnace of great cities, they follow the spirit of adventure; they must have, at any price, a means of subsistence, and as competition is great and temptations arise at every step, the prisons profit by this overplus that the country gives to the city. Another consequence of the immigration from the country is that the population becomes excessive, places are lacking, and wages fall below the living expenses. Ducpetiaux showed, in 1856, that the budget of the working-man in the great cities is lower than the sum representing the budget of the working-man in prison. This situation has not changed, and the laboring class, badly lodged, badly nourished, vegetate at the mercy of economic crises. The working-man is always on the verge of vagrancy, the vagrant always on the verge of crime. The whole proletariat is thus exposed in the front rank, and whether it is a question of sickness or crime, it is the first to fall.” [180]

“Such are the conditions of the development of the criminal classes, that is to say of the classes where we meet the tendency to crime. And it is of importance to remark that we can determine their legal character; they are the vagrants and delinquents by profession. They are clearly differentiated from the vagabonds and delinquents by accident. This distinction, which modern statistics has brought into relief, is now the basis of penal science, and the judge can no longer overlook it.

“The occasional delinquents constitute the minority, their life is regular, their instincts are right; a sudden passion, an unpremeditated outburst, a passing depression of the will, leads them into crime; a sort of fever dominates them and, the fit once past, their normal life takes up its course again.

“On the other hand, the professional delinquents, who make up the largest part of the population of the prisons, are really the criminal class. They are the hardened, the incorrigible, the recidivists. They form, by the side of regular society, the great rebel tribe, where gather and mingle poverty, ignorance, vice, idleness, and prostitution. The soldiers of this army obey, not a momentary desire, but a permanent tendency. They do not always commit crime for crime’s sake, but the most trivial incident drives them to it; they profit by every opportunity, and we can say that, as in certain circles virtue is a reflex act, so crime is a reflex act with them. Further, they have, quite like the civilized world, a public opinion which supports them, arouses them, gives them their own kind of popularity, and constitutes, in a word, an incentive for the heroes of vice, just as the other public opinion encourages the soldiers of duty.

“What is true of criminal society as a whole, is equally true of the individual as such. In each infraction of the law, besides the accidental factor, i.e. age, character, temperament, in a word, the personal disposition, there is the collective or social factor, i.e. the environment, the permanent conditions, the general laws. With the occasional delinquent the individual factor predominates, it is especially the man that appears. With the habitual delinquent, it is the social factor, the collectivity that comes upon the scene.

“In the well-to-do, polished, educated classes, who have lacked nothing and have had the benefit of civilizing influences from the cradle, the fault is chiefly personal, and it is the exception. In the lower strata, where everything is lacking, where, to combat evil, men have neither in the present, social protection, nor in the past, the generations of ancestors who have enjoyed power, wealth, and education, it is chiefly collective. In this sense, then, the collective forces have a dominant action in criminality; in order to combat it these must be attacked, and the legislator finds in the law only a blunted weapon if he does not understand this supreme truth, the social character of criminality.” [181]

II.

W. D. MORRISON.

The preface to “Crime and its Causes” contains an abridgment of the opinion of the author upon the influence of economic conditions. He says there:

“Economic prosperity, however widely diffused, will not extinguish crime. Many people imagine that all the evils afflicting society spring from want, but this is only partially true. A small number of crimes are probably due to sheer lack of food, but it has to be borne in mind that crime would still remain an evil of enormous magnitude even if there were no such calamities as destitution and distress. As a matter of fact easy circumstances have less influence on conduct than is generally believed; prosperity generates criminal inclinations as well as adversity, and on the whole the rich are just as much addicted to crime as the poor.” [182]

The chapter “Climate and Crime” contains some observations that are of interest in connection with our subject. In speaking of the great number of crimes against persons in Italy, the author says:

“Nor can it be said to be entirely due to economic distress. A condition of social misery has undoubtedly something to do with the production of crime. In countries where there is much wealth side by side with much misery, as in France and England, adverse social circumstances drive a certain portion of the community into criminal courses. But where this great inequality of social conditions does not exist—where all are poor as in Ireland or Italy—poverty alone is not a weighty factor in ordinary crime. In Ireland, for example, there is almost as much poverty as exists in Italy, and if the amount of crime were determined by economic circumstances alone, Ireland ought to have as black a record as her southern sister. Instead of that she is on the whole as free from crime as the most prosperous countries of Europe.” [183]

—This quotation is one of the best samples of Morrison’s logic and knowledge of facts! Italy is poor; Ireland is poor; the former has many crimes, the latter few. Hence, economic conditions are not an important factor. To say nothing of the care necessary in comparing two countries where the penal law, police, courts, etc. are very different, there is an error of logic in the quotation. For poverty may be in one of these countries a determinant that leads to a certain phenomenon, while in another country it does not lead to it, because neutralized by a counter-determinant. And then, the knowledge of facts that Morrison gives evidence of here, is not great. It is not at all true that in Italy every one is poor. On the contrary, there is plenty of wealth in that country, while Ireland, on the other hand, is drained by landlords who live elsewhere. [184]—

The chapter that interests us next is that entitled “Destitution and Crime.” “A ‘destitute person’ is a person who is without house or home, who has no work, who is able and willing to work but can get none, and has nothing but starvation staring him in the face.” [185]

According to Morrison there are two kinds of crime of which a destitute person may be guilty, namely theft and mendicity. Two questions must be answered, then, first, what percentage is there of these crimes? second, how far can one attribute theft and mendicity to destitution?

During the years 1887–1888 the number of cases tried in England and Wales was 726,698, of which 8% were crimes against property and 7% offenses against the “Vagrancy Acts.” Consequently 15% of all the crimes might have been committed because of destitution. From investigations made by himself, half the thieves had work and were earning something at the time they committed their crimes.

Now we still have to explain the other half of the cases of theft. Those who committed these thefts were without work, then; but there were among them habitual criminals, and these could probably have found work, but did not want to work. Therefore they were not “destitute persons.” This leaves still 25% of the thieves. Among these destitution is now truly the direct cause. However lack of work is not the sole cause, but the fact that children of proletarians are left to themselves when their parents are sick or dead, enters in. And then many aged working-men become criminals because they are too old to work and no one supports them. Drunkards also at times come to commit crimes because of poverty, since they find it difficult to work. The estimate is, then, as follows:

Proportion of criminals earning at the time of arrest 4% ,, ,, ,, habitual thieves 2% ,, ,, ,, adults without shelter and old men 1% ,, ,, drunkards, vagrants 1% ,, ,, crimes against property compared with total number of crimes 8%

Then come the infractions of the “Vagrancy Acts.” The offenses that are punished under these laws are chiefly prostitution, presence in public places with criminal intentions, presence in a particular house with criminal intentions, and carrying burglars’ implements. Prostitution aside, destitution ought not to be considered as the cause of these infractions, according to the author, because the guilty persons are those who ordinarily will not work and would not change their lot for anyone else’s. The class of vagrants is no more unhappy than any other; it has even its own philosophy. (—Who could be unhappy, then? This statement of the case gives one a great desire to ask the author how it happens that no people of means have adopted this enviable career.—) The same reasoning applies to most of the mendicants (45% of those who break the vagrancy laws), they do not want to work. Another fraction is made up of those who cannot find work; their number is difficult to determine; according to Morrison’s opinion it is not very high (he estimates it at 2% for mendicants). It is especially aged persons who belong to this class. There are two principal reasons for this.

First, the increasing use of machines, which throw workmen out of employment, while increasing the possibility of utilizing the labor of women and children.

—However true this observation, it is nevertheless very incomplete. It is not the machine that is the cause, but the system of free labor, which throws everyone on his own resources when he can work no longer, whether this is from lack of work or from the disability of the worker.—

A second cause of vagrancy and mendicity is to be found in the Trades Unions. For these Unions have been able to obtain a uniform wage, and aged workmen must, in accordance with their rules, earn as much as the young ones although not able to do as much work. The employers, not being able to afford to give them the whole amount, discharge them.

The circumstance that there are more male than female beggars is a proof to the author that economic conditions are not the cause of mendicity, etc., for women ordinarily live under worse conditions than men.

“The only possible explanation of this state of thing is that vagrancy is, to a very large extent, entirely unconnected with economic conditions; the position of trade either for good or evil is a very secondary factor in producing this disease in the body politic; its extirpation would not be effected by the advent of an economic millennium; its roots are, as a rule, in the disposition of the individual and not to any serious degree in the industrial constitution of society.” [186]

After having stated that, in his opinion, prostitution also has little to do with economic conditions, Morrison arrives at the conclusion that 14% of the delinquents under the Vagrancy Acts have been made so by destitution; as such delinquents constitute 7% of the total of the criminal population, these destitute persons form 2% of the whole. [187] Adding these 2% to the 2% of destitute persons among the thieves, we get a total of 4%. Further, the author estimates the destitute persons among the other criminals (those not punished for theft or infractions of the Vagrancy Acts) at 1%. Of all criminals, then, 5% have become such from destitution, according to Morrison.

—I shall not insist upon proving that these calculations have little value. In the first place all the figures are only estimates, without any indication of what they are based on. In the second place Morrison has only proved, supposing his estimates are correct, that 5% of the criminals belong to a category defined by the author himself. All this gives him absolutely no right to conclude that economic conditions are not a powerful factor in crime. Just where the writer believes that the question has been solved the difficulties properly commence. If we wish to treat the question of vagrancy in a scientific manner we must ask: how does it happen that with the present mode of production there are found persons who prefer vagrancy to work? This is one of the questions that must be answered, yet for Morrison it does not exist. The causes of professional theft, alcoholism, etc. seem, according to the author, to have nothing to do with economic conditions. I shall show in the second part of this work how far wrong he is.—

The following chapter treats of “poverty and crime.” To prove the slightness of the causal connection between the two, Morrison gives the following table:

Italy 1880–84 New cases of theft per an. to 100,000 inh. 221 France 1879–83 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 121 Belgium 1876–80 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 143 Germany 1882–83 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 262 England 1880–84 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 228 Scotland 1880–84 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 289 Ireland 1880–84 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 101 Hungary 1876–80 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 82 Spain 1883–84 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 74

England is six times as rich as Italy, and the figure for theft is greater; hence, economic conditions are not causes, etc. etc. [188]

—It has been some years since Quetelet pointed out (see Chap. II, Sec. II, of this work) that absolute wealth throws no light on the criminal question, because the total wealth of a country gives no idea of its distribution. Yet Morrison thinks that the preceding table proves the correctness of his statement!—

The author sees a second proof in support of his reasoning in the fact that during the prosperous period of 1870–74 criminality in England was greater than during the period of economic depression from 1884 to 1888. (—See our summaries of the works of Tugan-Baranowsky and of Müller, where it is shown that the economic conditions of that period do have a relation to criminality. There is perhaps no country where the connection between crime and the course of economic events is so close as in England; and it is surprising that there are authors like Morrison who are so little in touch with the situation, and who yet express themselves so decidedly.—)

In America the immigrants commit fewer crimes on the average than those who are born in the country; the position of these last being better, economic conditions are not causes of crime. (—As if assertions as vague as this: “the American has a better position than the immigrant”, could have any value!—)

Morrison sees another proof in the fact that the criminality in the English colony of Victoria, where prosperity is fairly general, differs little from that of other countries where the prosperity is less. (—See A. Sutherland, “Résultats de la déportation en Australie”, Compte Rendu du Ve Congr. d’Anthr. Crim., p. 270, where it is shown that criminality in Australia on account of the deportation of English criminals is great, but has fallen continually since 1850, and now is not so high as in Italy, Sweden, Saxony, and Prussia. So this proof given by the author is not convincing.—)

Then the author draws attention to the fact that, according to him, the number of criminals in the different classes of society in England is proportional to the respective numbers of individuals in each of these classes. Finally he also thinks that his thesis is supported by the fact that during the summer months the prisons in England are more populated than in winter.

—The author deceives himself, for to find out that more crimes are committed in winter than in summer one has only to consult, not the statistics of the prisons, but those of the courts; the former give no information as to the time when the offense was committed; it is even probable that a part of the prisoners incarcerated in summer committed their offenses in winter. Many writers who have not fallen into this error have come to the conclusion that crimes and misdemeanors against property, which are those chiefly in question, increase in winter and decrease in summer.

If one wished to make a complete criticism of Morrison’s work it would be necessary to write a whole book, so great is the number of his errors and omissions, which is why I refer to the second part of my work.

The fundamental error of the author is that he believes that the question of how far economic conditions lead to crime is exhausted when the effect of poverty has been investigated. This is only a part (though an important one) of the question, which though apparently simple is in reality very complicated.

Finally, I must protest against the unmerited reproach that the English Trades Unions are the cause of criminality among aged working-men. We live in a society in which a great proportion of the men wear themselves out for a small wage in order to enrich others, and where aged working-men who can now do little or no work are tossed aside like oranges from which the juice has been squeezed. When they commit crimes, therefore, it is society that is the cause of it, and not the unions, which, after years of struggle, have succeeded in getting higher wages for their members than those of non-union labor. [189]—

III.

F. VON LISZT.

The following quotation, taken from “Die gesellschaftlichen Ursachen des Verbrechens”, [190] gives the opinion of this author in a few words:

“Crime is the necessary result of the joint action of two groups of conditions. The first group is due, partly to the innate, partly to the acquired character of the agent; the other to the environment surrounding him. The microbe of crime flourishes only in the culture medium of society. This sentence, which has gradually become a commonplace, indicates the significance of social conditions for the origination and development of criminality.” [191]

“It is obvious that a diminution in the number of certain crimes may be brought about by an improvement in the social order. The impulse toward crime is undoubtedly quickly strengthened by social conditions, and also quickly made weaker. Political and religious offenses become so much the more numerous, the more definitely and relentlessly the dominant opinion takes its stand against diverse persuasions. If today a certain tendency in art were to attain state recognition and the protection of the criminal law, tomorrow the aesthetic heretic would be persecuted as the religious heretics were persecuted in earlier centuries. The sexual instinct will constantly long for satisfaction and take it where it finds it. If you prohibit the possibility of such satisfaction within the bounds of legality, the instinct will break the bonds and lead to crime. And whoever finds neither bread nor work will, in the great majority of cases, be able to discover ways and means of securing the one without the other at the expense of society.... ‘The beast in man’ is in all circles, in all strata of our society.... But the beast, with all its wild passions, with rage and hate, with covetousness and envy, with thirst for blood and insatiable vanity, is it not derived from father or mother, who have drained the pleasures of life or the woes of life to the dregs, who were corrupted in blood through their own fault, or without their own fault, before they gave life to the germ to which they imparted the curse of their forefathers as a heritage?

“A reorganization of our social order will materially lessen the impulsion to crime in the men who are living today, but infinitely more important and infinitely more permanent will be its effect upon coming generations. While diminishing the number of those tainted by heredity it will tame the beast in man. This is no Utopia. It will be easier, perhaps, to underestimate the effect of such a transformation, than to appreciate its full value.

“But which transformation? That is the question that we must answer, if we are not to be pushed aside as harmless visionaries.

“Our entire education, in school as in life, rests upon suggestion. What keeps us from crime is the inhibitory ideas, which are instilled into us until they permeate our flesh and blood and control our actions, without our being conscious of it. ‘Thou shalt’, ‘thou shalt not’, these general prescriptions of right and morality, of religion and philanthropy, or whatever you choose to call it, must determine our conduct, unless we stop to consider, hesitate, and delay....

“The inhibitory ideas, however, retain their force only if we live in the community of our fellows, the enclosed circle held together by like views and a community of interests. Put upon his own resources, the true man makes himself known. But the men who can do this are rare. The great majority of us need outside support. Who has not seen in his own experience how the judgment and prejudice, the beliefs and superstitions of his associates have a determining effect upon him; how he supports others and is supported by them? Break up the enclosed circle and you weaken or annihilate the inhibitory ideas; shatter society to atoms, so that each stands by himself in the war of all against all, and you set loose whatever evil instincts have their roots in us; ‘declass’ man and you have driven him into the arms of crime.

“And this declassing has been most abundantly provided for by our present economic system. It has unshackled egoism without setting any bounds to it. It reaps what it sows. In the proletariat it has created the very medium in which the microbe of crime flourishes. Next to the wealth of individuals lies the misery of the masses. Do we still wonder, then, that the criminal-statistician laments an increasing number of cases. Every society has the criminals that it deserves.” [192]

—The opinion of Professor von Liszt and of other bio-sociologists with regard to crime is a union of the doctrine of the Italian and French schools. Having already given a criticism of these schools I will limit myself to a few remarks.

The formula, “every crime is the product of an individual factor on the one side, and of social factors on the other”, is of little value for the question, being applicable to every act, even the most laudable, and explains very little of what is peculiar to crime. A more special examination of the so-called individual factor of crime shows that it is formed, for example, of great needs, of highly developed muscular strength—in short, of things which do not belong to crime alone; or it may be a lack of moral conceptions (the result of an unfavorable environment, of bad education, etc.). A veritable individual factor is to be found only in some special cases, where crime is the result of a predisposition, resulting from a morbid mental condition, combined with unfavorable circumstances. At times, then, crime is the resultant of an individual factor with a social factor; in most cases this is not so. In maintaining that it is always these two together which give birth to crime, one makes use of a commonplace, since by individual factors are understood conditions necessary to every act; or else the statement is quite inaccurate.

Finally it may be said also that most of the bio-sociologists, while recognizing the great influence exercised by environment do not give any description of this environment. It is not enough to name social imperfections existing in our days, and to demand their reform, one after another; we must first of all find out whether these imperfections are connected with the present economic system, and can be removed without attacking the system itself. [193]—

IV.

P. NÄCKE. [194]

In his work, “Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, Dr. Näcke treats the criminal question from the medico-anthropological point of view. However, his remarks upon the connection which exists between economic conditions and crime are very important. In the fifth chapter, entitled, “Die anthropologisch-biologischen Beziehungen zum Verbrechen und Wahnsinn beim Weibe”, he puts the question: can one fix the idea of “crime” anatomically?

According to him the answer must be an absolute negative. “Semal is right when he says: ‘The moral sense is a slow and gradual acquisition of the ages.... The conscience of peoples like that of the individual, calls every act moral that is useful to the agent himself or to others....’ Every people, then, fixes the concept ‘crime’ according to the moral code prevailing among them at the time; it is consequently not rooted in man physiologically, but is as Manouvrier brilliantly demonstrates, purely sociological. It is therefore really nonsense to seek for anthropological stigmata for a sociological concept.

“But another consideration also leads us to the same result. The stability of a people demands the establishing of certain boundaries, called ‘laws’, the transgression of which might disturb the social order, and therefore must be punished. But the laws form only single boundary marks, not a tight enclosure, so that between them many, consciously or not, pass through without being caught or punished. Besides, the laws of a higher morality do not always correspond with the prevailing legal system, so that many things are offenses in the eyes of the moral code that are not such in the eyes of the law, a fact which, as is well known, the conscienceless take advantage of. It is plain, therefore, that there are innumerable transgressions that are not punished, innumerable criminals who pass as honest men, so that we cannot really speak of criminals and honest men, but simply of the punished and the unpunished.

“Punishment is, however, as we have already seen, a poor criterion. Habitual criminals are often not nearly so depraved as many persons of good reputation, especially in certain districts whose moral concepts are of a very elastic kind; or as others who have, to be sure, been punished but once, but who, in all their actions, have always been crafty criminals.” [195]

“As there is to be found no such thing as absolute bodily and mental soundness, so there is no such thing as an absolutely ‘honest’ man. ‘We are altogether sinners’, say the Scriptures with entire truth—and not in thought only—none of us is proof against becoming a criminal, and under certain circumstances, even a great one.” [196]

“There is an unbroken gradation from the purest to the worst man. When we speak simply of ‘criminals’ we mean only those standing on the farthest step, who are not always, however, the worst. It is a question, then, of the refuse of the world, and not of real crime. In every environment there are always individuals who become evil-doers exclusively or chiefly through circumstances—this possibility no mortal can escape—and on the other hand there are those who owe this in part (seldom, however, exclusively) to their inferior psychic personality, which allows them to run counter to the prevailing morality and drives them to breach of the law; these last constitute the criminals in the narrow sense.” [197]

In chapter VI, “Zusammenhang von Verbrechen und Wahnsinn”, the author explains that in case an individual factor exists, it is not ordinarily this alone that leads to crime, but it must be coupled with a social factor.

This is what Dr. Näcke says of the causes of this individual factor: “Indeed it is even probable that in the last analysis the individual factor is dependent upon the environment, since this so influenced the parents, grandparents, etc. that the germ of the next generation must have been injured directly or later through corrupted blood or narrow pelvis on the part of the mother (both again dependent upon the environment).” [198]

Further along he makes this idea more specific, when he is examining the different causes of crime. Among these causes the author cites the following:

1. Lesion of the germ (favored especially by the marriage of degenerates). 2. Alcoholism. 3. Syphilis. 4. Malnutrition and unhealthy mode of life. 5. Excessive labor of women and children. 6. Bad domestic life. 7. Desertion in which children under age are left.

The author sums up in the following terms: “In what has gone before we have attempted to pick out and follow up some threads of the complex social fabric, in the firm persuasion that only an improvement of the environment in its thousand-fold ramifications will be able effectively to combat crime, and gradually to exert a favorable influence upon the individual factors, which are certainly not to be undervalued.

“If we survey the whole matter, everything comes in the end to the stomach-question; only so long as this is not solved—and perhaps it never can be satisfactorily solved—must we keep the point of view given above practically before us, which, upon the solution of the matter, becomes in large measure no longer necessary.” [199]

V.

HAVELOCK ELLIS. [200]

The work of Dr. Havelock Ellis, entitled “The Criminal”, contains only one passage which is of importance for the question of criminality considered from the economic point of view. Like most bio-sociologists he considers the social factors as the most important. This is the passage in question:

“The problem of criminality is not an isolated one that can be dealt with by fixing our attention on that and that alone. It is a problem that on closer view is found to merge itself very largely into all those problems of our social life that are now pressing for solution, and in settling them we shall to a great extent settle it. The rising flood of criminality is not an argument for pessimism or despair. It is merely an additional spur to that great task of social organization to which during the coming century we are called.

“It is useless, or worse than useless, to occupy ourselves with methods for improving the treatment of criminals, so long as the conditions of life render the prison a welcome and desired shelter. So long as we foster the growth of reckless classes we foster the growth of criminality. So long as there are a large body of women in the East of London, and in other large centers, who are prepared to say, ‘It’s Jack the Ripper or the bridge with me. What’s the odds?’ there will be a still larger number of persons who will willingly accept the risks of prison. ‘What’s the odds?’ Liberty is dear to every man who is fed and clothed and housed, and he will not usually enter a career of crime unless he has carefully calculated the risks of losing his liberty, and found them small; but food and shelter are even more precious than liberty, and these may be secured in prison. As things are, the asylum and the workhouse, against which there is a deep prejudice, ingrained and irrational, would have a greater deterring effect than the prison. There are every morning in Paris 50,000 persons who do not know how they will eat or where they will sleep. It is the same in every great city; for such the prison can be nothing but a home. It is well known that the life of the convict, miserable as it is, with its dull routine and perpetual surveillance, is yet easier, less laborious, and far more healthy than that to which thousands of honest working-men are condemned throughout Great Britain.” [201]

VI.

CARROLL D. WRIGHT.

The author of the brochure, “The Relation of Economic Conditions to the Causes of Crime”, begins by declaring that there are two kinds of criminals; persons who have become such from their psycho-physical constitution, and others who have become such from circumstances.

“I believe the criminal is an undeveloped man in all his elements, whether you think of him as a worker or as a moral and intellectual being. His faculties are all undeveloped, not only those which enable him to labor honestly and faithfully for the care and support of himself and his family, but also all his moral and intellectual faculties. He is not a fallen being: he is an undeveloped individual.” [202]

The author then continues by saying that since there is a relation more or less close between all the important social questions and the labor question, it is necessary to take that up also in studying the criminal question.

We know that there are three great systems of labor: the system resting upon slavery, the feudal system, and the system now in force, i.e. that of free labor. In the first two, which intrinsically do not differ much, crime had a totally different character from what it has under the last. Under the feudal system the peasants lived in the most deplorable condition, without hope of betterment. In many countries conditions were so bad that great bands of thieves and brigands overran them. During the reign of Henry VIII, which lasted 38 years, 72,000 criminals were executed. “Pauperism, therefore, did not attract legislation, and crime, the offspring of pauperism and idleness, was brutally treated; and these conditions, betokening an unsound social condition, existed until progress made pauperism, and crime as well, the disgrace of the nation, and it was then that pauperism began to be recognized as a condition that might be relieved through legislation.” [203]

In the end the feudal system was overthrown and that of free labor, the present system, became general. Since then the differences between poverty and wealth have appeared more distinctly.

“Carry industry to a country not given to mechanical production or to any systematic form of labor, employ three-fourths of its inhabitants, give them a taste of education, of civilization, make them feel the power of moral forces even in a slight degree, and the misery of the other fourth can be gauged by the progress of the three-fourths, and a class of paupers and resultant criminals will be observed. We have in our own day a most emphatic illustration of this in the emancipation of slaves in this country (America). Under the old system the negro slave was physically comfortable, as a rule. He was cared for, he was nursed in sickness, fed and clothed, and in old age his physical comforts were continued. He had no responsibility, and, indeed, exercised no skill beyond what was taught him. To eat, to work and to sleep were all that was expected of him, and, unless he had a cruel master, he lived the life that belongs to the animal. Since his emancipation and his endowment with citizenship he has been obliged to support himself and his family, and to contend with all obstacles belonging to a person in a state of freedom. Under the system of villeinage in the old country it could not be said that there were any general poor, for the master and the lord of the manor took care of the laborers their whole lives; and in our Southern towns, during slavery, this was true, so that in the South there were few, if any, poorhouses, and few, if any, inmates of penal institutions. The South today knows what pauperism is, as England learned when the system of villeinage departed. Southern prisons have become active, and all that belongs to the defective, the dependent, and the delinquent classes has come to be familiar to the South....” “But so far as the modern industrial order superinduces idleness or unemployment, in so far it must be considered as having a direct relation to the causes of crime.” [204]

After having tried to show, by the aid of some historical examples, that the conditions in the system which preceded ours were of a nature much more serious than those of our own day, he continues as follows:

“In the study of economic conditions, and whatever bearing they may have upon crime, I can do no better than to repeat, as a general idea, a statement made some years ago by Mr. Ira Steward, of Massachusetts, one of the leading labor reformers in that state in his day. He said: ‘Starting in the labor problem from whatever point we may, we reach, as the ultimate cause of our industrial, social, moral, and material difficulties, the terrible fact of poverty. By poverty we mean something more than pauperism. The latter is a condition of entire dependence upon charity, while the former is a condition of want, of lack, of being without, though not necessarily a condition of complete dependence.’

“It is in this view that the proper understanding of the subject given me, in its comprehensiveness and the development of the principles which underlie it, means the consideration of the abolition of pauperism and the eradication of crime; and the definitions given by Mr. Steward carry with them all the elements of those great special inquiries embodied in the very existence of our vast charitable, penal, and reformatory institutions, ‘How shall poverty be abolished, and crime be eradicated?’” [205]

Let the circumstances be favorable or unfavorable, let the governments be liberal or despotic, let the religion and commercial systems be what they may, crime has always existed. This is why it would exist even if there were no longer any unemployment, if everyone had received an education, if the efforts of temperance societies and social reformers had been realized, and Christianity were universal. But all these good influences together would certainly reduce crime to the minimum.

Criminality will decrease but little if the improvements have to do simply with the physical condition and not at the same time with moral and intellectual conditions. It is, on the other hand, not to be disputed, according to the author, that a development of these last qualities will have a favorable influence upon criminality. For the man who has received an education will betake himself to crime less quickly than the ignorant man, while on account of his education he will generally be able to find work to protect him against poverty and crime. The lack of work is an important cause of crime; for example, among the convicts of Massachusetts there were 68% who had been without work, and in the whole United States in 1890, 74% of the murderers had been without work. This lack of employment may have been because of an antipathy to work or of a lack of opportunity. And it is this last case especially that occurs only too often in the present social organization.

Great improvements are urgently demanded; living conditions must become better and more sanitary, and work must be better paid. The fundamental complaint of the writer against political economy is that it has not considered moral forces as one of its elements. As soon as it shall have considered them as such it will have entered upon the way that leads to real improvements.

After having indicated what these improvements ought to be, the author goes on in these terms: “In a state in which labor had all its rights there would be, of course, little pauperism and little crime. On the other hand, the undue subjection of the laboring man must tend to make paupers and criminals, and entail a financial burden upon wealth which it would have been easier to prevent than to endure; and this prevention must come in a large degree through educated labor.

“Do not understand me as desiring to give the impression that I believe crime to be a necessary accompaniment of our industrial system. I have labored in other places and at other times to prove the reverse, and I believe the reverse to be true. Our sober, industrious working men and women are as free from vicious and criminal courses as any other class. What I am contending for, relates entirely to conditions affecting the few. The great volume of crime is found outside the real ranks of industry.” [206]

It might still be asked whether civilization favors crime. The answer would have to be at once affirmative and negative. Affirmative in exceptional times, otherwise negative. The more civilization advances, the better the condition of the working people will become, the more equitable will be the division of profits, and the more crime will diminish. The attempts of Robert Owen and many others prove the truth of this.

The author closes his study with these words: “Trade instruction, technical education, manual training—all these are efficient elements in the reduction of crime, because they all help to better and truer economic conditions. I think, from what I have said, the elements of solution are clearly discernible. Justice to labor, equitable distribution of profits under some system which I feel sure will supersede the present, and without resorting to socialism, instruction in trades by which a man can earn his living outside a penal institution, the practical application of the great moral law in all business relations—all these elements, with the more enlightened treatment of the criminal when apprehended, will lead to a reduction in the volume of crime, but not to the millennium; for ‘human experience from time immemorial tells us that the earth neither was, nor is, nor ever will be, a heaven, nor yet a hell’, (Dr. A. Schäffle) but the endeavor of right-minded men and women, the endeavor of every government, should be to make it less a hell and more a heaven.” [207]

—The study of Carroll D. Wright contains some very true observations upon the relation between crime and economic conditions (for example, upon the difference between the slave and the free laborer, whose liberty consists chiefly in this, that he can die of hunger if he cannot find work or is no longer able to work). But in general the work gives the impression of vagueness and hesitation proper to the school of economists and sociologists to which the writer belongs. They condemn certain manifestations of capitalism, but wish to maintain the “causa causarum”, the system itself. This is not the place to speak of this more fully and I will confine myself to pointing out some historical errors of the author.

In the first place, a classification of economic systems into only three is incomplete. It is very surprising that this error should have been made by an American. For the North American Indians neither lived under the feudal system nor under that of free labor, and for the most part never knew slavery; the author has forgotten to mention the primitive-communistic mode of production.

In the second place, it is incorrect to call all those who lived under the feudal system “poor.”

In the third place it was not to the feudal system that the famous executions under Henry VIII belong, but rather to incipient capitalism which, by dispossessing a great number of peasants, made them poor. (Compare More, “Utopia”, and Marx, “Capital.”)—

Among the partisans of the bio-sociological doctrine, I think that certain other authors should also be classed, for example: L. Gordon Rylands, “Crime, Its Causes and Remedy”; Dallemagne (see p. 224 of the “Actes du IIIme Congrès d’Anthrop. Crimin.”); Drill (see “Des principes fondamentaux de l’école d’anthropologie criminelle” and “Les fondements et le but de la responsabilité pénale”); Kovalewsky, “La psychologie criminelle”; Orchanski, “Les criminels russes.” With regard to Russian criminologists see Frassati, “Die neue positive Schule des Strafrechts in Russland.”

The Dutch criminologists must be reckoned as among the bio-sociologists.

G. A. v. Hamel, “De tegenwoordige beweging op het gebied van het strafrecht”, and “L’anarchisme et le combat contre l’anarchisme au point de vue de l’anthropologie criminelle”; G. Jelgersma, “De geboren misdadiger”; A. Aletrino, “Twee opstellen over crimineele anthropologie”, and “Handleiding bij de studie der crimineele anthropologie”; S. R. Steinmetz, “De ziekten der maatschappij.” Dr. C. Winkler inclines, as it seems to me, rather toward the opinion of the Italian criminologists. See: “Iets over crimineele anthropologie.”

[Note to the American Edition: Of the recent literature there should be mentioned: in Germany, especially Aschaffenburg, “Das Verbrechen und seine Bekämpfung”, and Wulffen, “Psychologie des Verbrechens.” In Holland the authors already named, van Kan, and de Roos are to be classed among the bio-sociologists. For Russia there should be added von Bechterew, “Das Verbrechertum im Lichte der objektiven Psychologie.” In America it seems to me more reliance is placed upon the Italian theory than in Europe; see, for example, Henderson, “Introduction into the Study of the Dependent, Defective, and Delinquent Classes.” Upon the recent development of criminology in Holland, England, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Greece, and Servia see the study already cited of von Thót, “Die positive Strafrechtsschule in einigen europäischen Ländern.”]

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

VI. THE SPIRITUALISTS. [208]

I.

H. JOLY.

It is in the second chapter of his “France criminelle”, bearing the title of “Richesse et misère”, that the author gives his opinion of the connection between criminality and economic conditions. [209]

According to Joly, the opinion expressed by many persons that poverty is the great factor in criminality, appears to be true, at least at first sight; for the problem is, in fact, very complex and difficult.

In the first place a distinction must be made between voluntary and involuntary poverty. “With vagrants by profession, beggars from choice and speculation, drunkards, those who have made up their minds to live no matter how, gamblers who have systematically used up their capital and that of their family, workmen who have given up work only from rebellion against society, yes, with all these poverty leads to crime.” [210] The second kind of poverty springs from disease, accidents, etc., i.e. from causes independent of the will of man.

“There are, then, evidently innocent poor people; and there are others so much the more pardonable as the consequences have been aggravated by the fault of others. Is it then in the intermediate region that we must seek for the influences that lead to evil? It may be. This region is not unknown to us. Let us seek here, without taking sides in any way, and examine the facts as well as we can.” [211]

In opposition to the continual increase of criminality the author shows that the national wealth has increased, although—and this should not be forgotten—real property, with the exception of small holdings, has decreased; the condition of the rural workers, on the contrary, has improved.

In the second place Joly calls attention to the condition of working-men in the cities. According to him the question of whether it has grown worse must be answered in the negative, for the emigration from the country to the city always keeps up. Notwithstanding their higher wages men are no better off there, since they spend upon amusements their additional earnings. If criminality increases among them it is not, then, in involuntary poverty that the cause is to be found.

At the same time with the increase of wages the price of food must be noted. In most of the departments of France these prices have risen in the same proportion as wages. Consequently the working-man has not become better off. He has new needs, but when he has met these he has not enough left for the primary necessities. It is not economic factors, but moral factors, that come into play here.

The proportional increase of wages and the price of food, of which mention has been made above, in the different departments of France, is not met with in the departments of Morbihan, Vendée, Bouches-du-Rhône, and Hérault. In the first two, prices have risen much more than wages, while the contrary appears in the last two. As regards criminality, the first two take their place among those that show the lowest figures, the last two among those that show the highest. Joly draws from this the conclusion that social life is too complicated for us to be able to learn the morality of persons merely from the rise or fall of wages. In any case it is certain, according to him, that the increase of criminality that has been shown is not due to poverty, and that consequently we have not the right to say that poverty in general is one of the primary causes of crime.

However, it must not be lost sight of that in speaking of the increase of wealth and the rise in wages, we are speaking only of average figures, and that there are many individuals whose wages remain below this average. “Now, where do we see the greatest differences, and where are they most felt? Exactly in wealthy epochs and in wealthy surroundings. So it is in the poor departments that crimes against property develop the least. There are two reasons for this, psychological and social. What any man feels the most is not being or having absolutely; it is being or having more or less than those who surround him. What must drive men to crime chiefly, then, is the comparison of wealth with poverty.” [212]

Joly thinks he can produce further data upon the connection between crime and poverty by checking up the kind of articles that are most frequently stolen. Out of 1000 cases of theft (assizes, 1830–1860) there were 395 cases of theft of money, next came thefts of personal property, then clothing, etc., then successively, different kinds of merchandise, jewelry and table-ware, food, grain, etc., and living domestic animals. This information does not teach us much about the relationship in question. For the articles stolen can be sold, which prevents our discovering the motives of the crime.

The analysis of the value of the objects stolen also gives us little information. During a period of 25 years the cases of theft of 10 to 50 francs were the most numerous (about 30%), next those of 100 to 1000 francs, then those of less than 10 francs. Ten years later the most numerous were those of 100 to 1000 francs (33%).

However, on the strength of the statements of an old police officer, Joly thinks he can draw the conclusion that poverty enters only to a small extent into the etiology of crime. Nevertheless the established fact that a rise in the price of grain is associated with an increase of criminality, contradicts this. But according to Joly the contradiction is only apparent. “Famines are exceptional; theft is constant and while famines are always decreasing, theft is always increasing. Suppose that in ordinary years people did not steal or stole very little; the difficult moments would find them more patient, more resolute to have recourse to legal and permissible means; we should not see them so prompt to extricate themselves from their difficulties by simply taking the property of others. But what resistance can we count on from those who have long had the habit of stealing from fancy, cupidity, or a desire to gormandize? What resistance can be hoped for, especially when the habit has begun in youth? Now, we have seen that a third of the thefts are committed by minor children.” [213]

The weakness of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality is, according to Joly, further proved by the fact that times of prosperity are not accompanied by a decrease in the number but by a change in the kind of crime committed (as Prins and Garofalo have shown). Cheap wine makes most crimes against persons increase. But the low price of grain has the same effect, since the working-man, when his condition has improved even a little, spends his additional earnings in all kinds of amusements, which, in their turn, may be the source of crime. This is proved, for example, by the fact that in Marseilles suicides are most numerous on Sunday and Monday, and fewest on Friday and Saturday, a fact explained by the pay-days of the working people. This is also applicable to crimes against persons.

To prove his thesis the author reminds us of the fact that domestics, although not subject to privations, furnish a large percentage of the thefts; that the percentage of thefts committed by unmarried persons continually increases; and finally, that the investigation (of 107 cases tried in 10 years before the assizes at Rheims), made by a magistrate (Ch. Vuébat), has proved that economic factors have little importance for criminality, and moral factors much. “To sum up, it is not the increase of poverty that is the cause of the increase of crime; it is not property in general that leads to crime against property. This is not saying that poverty, and innocent poverty, does not exist, nor that it is not a bad counselor, nor that it is not the duty of the upper classes and of the government to concern themselves with the lot of the poor. It does mean that a man is less led into evil-doing by the faults of others or by the fault of destiny than by his personal faults.” [214]

—If one considers the study of the question by Joly from a critical point of view, the thing that most strikes the attention is this; that he puts economic causes by the side of the moral causes of criminality. As I have already more than once remarked, this is not sound. Every crime finds its origin in moral causes, or better, in the lack of moral ideas dominant at a certain period. But one of the principal questions to be answered is this; how far do these moral ideas find their origin in definite economic conditions? Joly, being a spiritualist, has not succeeded in formulating this problem well, still less in solving it.

His entire treatment of the relation between criminality and economic conditions is characterized by a striking narrowness. He speaks of poverty and wealth as if they were the most natural things in the world, and had no need to be explained. Then he makes a distinction between voluntary and involuntary poverty, and excludes the former from the discussion as having nothing to do with the problem in question. This manner of reasoning has rather the air of a penitential sermon than of a scientific investigation. “Voluntary poverty” [215] is a contradiction in terms. For a man tries as far as possible to spare himself suffering and to gain happiness. There can never be any such thing then as voluntary poverty.

Though his terms are unhappily chosen, Joly only wishes to point out that poverty may originate in circumstances or in the person himself. But in treating this problem he should not have been silent on a very important, and very difficult point, namely how far these individual causes of poverty are based upon the present economic system.

If the question treated by Joly is incomplete, what he says neither has any great value, nor does it prove at all his statement that the influence of economic conditions is small. He gives but a few pages to the very difficult question of whether the standard of living of the working class has been raised. He brings out the universally observed fact that the wants of all classes have increased, but he seems not to have noted that this is intimately bound up with the present mode of production. He cites the testimony of an old police officer, and the investigations of a magistrate (investigations, it may be said in passing, that reached the colossal number of 107 cases) in order to prove that most crimes are not committed as a consequence of immediate privations—as if this were enough to solve the question of how far economic conditions enter into the causes of crime.— [216]

II.

L. PROAL. [217]

In his ninth chapter, entitled “Le crime et la misère,” this author gives some pages to our subject. It is incontestable, according to him, that poverty exerts an influence upon criminality. The number of crimes increases in the years of poor crops, or when there is a lack of work owing to industrial or agricultural crises. Thus, criminality reached high figures in 1840, 1847, and 1854, when the price of grain was high.

In consequence of this and of his personal experience (the author is a magistrate) he thinks the opinion of Garofalo is incorrect, that poverty only gives crime its form and is not a cause of it. For indigence not only puts morality in danger by depriving some persons of the bare necessities, but it also causes the children of the poor in the great cities to be brought up in a pitiable manner.

Although the author is of this opinion, however, he does not subscribe to the view that “the poor man is dedicated to crime.” On the contrary, a great proportion of the poor are as honest as possible, and have honorable toil as their only means of support. Judicial statistics show that the rich are as guilty of crime as the poor.

“We see, then, that even if all the citizens had means and education, there would always be criminals; the number of them would be a little less, but not much. There would always be traders practising deception with regard to the quantity and quality of their goods, merchants adulterating food, employes abusing the confidence of their employers, notaries embezzling the funds entrusted to them; there would always be wives poisoning their husbands, and husbands killing their wives, and teachers of lay and denominational schools committing sexual crimes.” [218]

Most crimes are not committed to escape from want, but rather to procure luxury and pleasure. Hence the rich as well as the poor commit them. “To sum up, I do not believe that the rich are less tempted to take the property of others than the poor. The more wealth one has the more he wants; further, the more wealth increases, the more factitious wants increase, and if one’s wealth becomes insufficient to satisfy these wants, the thought of increasing it by any means is not slow in coming. Admitting that some day all men may be rich and educated, though that seems to me to be an impossible dream, cupidity will always make thieves, rogues, and forgers; hatred and revenge will always inspire homicide, murder, and arson; debauchery will always lead to sexual crimes. Material and intellectual progress will never suppress the passions and will not free men from the struggle that must be maintained against them. It will always be necessary to repress anger and sensuality, to put a bridle upon cupidity, and, in a word, to set the soul free from its passions. The increase of well-being and education will never make the police and the penal code unnecessary.” [219]

—It will be superfluous to give a criticism of this discussion. We have already met several authors who took this point of view. Proal is like the others who do not even know how to put the question of the influence of economic conditions clearly, who do not comprehend that poverty and riches are both the inevitable consequences of the same system.—

III.

M. DE BAETS. [220]

“It is an incontestable fact that the influence of poverty upon criminality is immense.” It is thus that the author expresses himself in the introduction to his work. I shall set forth his manner of defending this thesis in the following lines.

The most disastrous consequence of poverty is the temptation to procure illicitly what is needed for one’s well-being. We can see this in the crimes of crowds as well as in individual crimes. At the 3d Congress of Criminal Anthropology, Professor H. Denis gave certain facts with regard to the correlation between crime and the economic status. [221] During the years from 1845 to 1849 the curve of criminality coincides exactly with that of the price of wheat. But at the close of 1850 the two curves diverge, when the curve of wheat is replaced by that of staple foods in general. If we follow the trend of wages attentively we shall note that they also are higher in the last years. The increase of criminality is no longer to be explained, therefore, by this rise. To what, then, is it due?

In the author’s opinion we must note, first, that forced unemployment is increasing; second, that poverty and wealth have force only by comparison.

The well-being of the working man has increased, but that of men in general much more so. This explains only a part of the phenomena given above. The rest of his explanation is as follows: “There are, in fact, other elements, which may neutralize the influence of the environment. To all the solicitations of vice and crime man can offer resistance, finding his refuge and support in moral force.

“Now, go to the poor and unhappy, and ask them what prevents them from quickly slipping downhill into crime, and you will find in their mouths the expression, naïve, but strong, of the idea of duty; and this idea of duty you will find precisely and clearly only in that of submission to an absolute, incontestable, unconditioned authority, that of God. A man whom no one would suspect of any extraordinary good-will toward religion, M. Jules Simon, said a few months ago, ‘The peoples must be brought to God if we want justice and order to reign.’

“Must not even those who do not themselves believe, recognize in this idea of duty, of law imposed by a God, the creator, an ‘idée-force,’ a source in itself of energy and activity against evil and for good?

“It is in the diminution of this energy, in the efforts that have been made to tear out of the hearts of the poor this root, whose flower is hope, and whose fruit is virtue, that I am inclined to see one of the causes of the frightful increase of crime, which all concede, some with surprise and all with dismay.” [222]

In the second part of his discussion the author brings up the degenerating influence of poverty. Although a man has a free will at his disposal, it is necessary that he should also have an organism capable of putting the will into action. Hence it is that degeneracy makes its effect felt upon man.

“Now, misery is just the totality of the most imperious desires remaining unsatisfied; it is the love of life, the love of well-being left without gratification; it is the suffering of the wife one would like to see happy, the hunger of the children to whom one would like to give bread. And if crime can give this bread that one cannot find, if crime can satisfy all these appetites, all these desires, it will present itself with the most powerful attractions, with the charm of fascination. Will the unfortunate man have the supreme energy to prefer duty to enjoyment?” [223]

Poverty is a bad preparatory school for this contest; a weakened organism will succumb more easily to temptation. And generally this is accompanied by a lack of education and of the development of the higher faculties.

In following the course of life of a proletarian we see that the child of the proletariat carries, often from his birth, the signs of degeneracy, since his mother was forced to work hard during her pregnancy. From his childhood he is ill nourished, and grows up in an unhealthful environment. There can hardly be any question of education, for his father and mother work in the shop, which prevents any family life. The child is not attached to the dwelling of his parents and wanders in the street, where he picks up bad habits. Arrived at adolescence, he enters the factory to pass the greater part of his time in monotonous occupations. And once full grown, life for him consists only in routine labor, monotonous and without end. “However, this man has a soul, he has a mind! But it slumbers in a perpetual inertia. Nothing in his life has awakened what is grand, noble, and divine in this reasonable being. How can we hope to have the moral energy and the sublime ambition for good survive in him?” [224]

However unhappy this manner of life may be, there is still lacking the greatest misfortune that can befall the proletarian; forced inaction. This is one of the chief causes that can drive him to commit crime! And then there is another scourge of the working class, alcoholism. “Source of poverty without any doubt, but fruit of poverty incontestably.” Finally, of all the proletarians the most unhappy are the women. Low wages and the monotony of tiresome work too often make prostitutes of them.

To all these criminogenous causes the Christian must oppose the moral sentiments which are drawn from his religion. His motto must be, “rather death than dishonor.” But for that he must have heroic courage, which most people lack. Perhaps before God these sinners will find grace.

But all this cannot be a reason for society to allow to exist these scandalous conditions, which, in a few words, are as follows: “Insufficiency of the means of subsistence; work too long continued, as measured by the exhaustion resulting from it; work demanded of mothers of families; excessive and unsuitable labor expected of children; improper conditions in certain industries.” [225]

This must be changed, and it is possible to do so. Not, however, with the aid of the state, for then industry would lose the elasticity so necessary to it. But the change must be brought about by association of the proletarians. “In the forced individualism of the laborers is to be found the cause of their ruin; the salvation must be found in association.” The author closes by referring to the encyclical, “Rerum novarum”, in which it is said that Christian workmen must band together, and by encouraging the rich to help their less privileged brothers. [226]

IV.

CRITICISM.

The authors of whom I have just been speaking, together with others, like von Oettingen and Stursberg, of whom I have spoken in Chap. II, have this idea in common, that the continually growing irreligion is a cause of the increase in criminality; in other words, that irreligion is a powerful factor of crime and that the irreligious are predisposed to crime.

What proofs have been given by these authors in support of their thesis, their very serious accusation against those who are no longer religious? Most of them have not even tried to prove it. It is a dogma, with which, therefore, we have nothing to do. An increase of irreligion had been shown, also an increase in criminality, therefore there is a causal connection. Protest must be made against any such methods of reasoning. If there is a parallelism upon the chart between two curves that do not undulate, we must be very careful about drawing the conclusion that there is a connection, much more a causal one. That irreligion has increased is certain; is the same thing true of criminality? Certainly not. The trend of criminality as a whole is very rarely uniform, there is almost always a divergence; for example, economic criminality and violent criminality very rarely keep pace with each other. If we wish to give a general idea of the trend of criminality, we can only say that it is decreasing rather than increasing. The spiritualist authors often cite Germany in support of their thesis. This is no longer possible, for, after an increase in the total figures up to the end of the nineteenth century, there is now a fluctuating decrease.

In the Netherlands we can estimate the increase of irreligion; [227] according to the censuses of 1879 and 1909, the percentage of those who are not members of any church has increased enormously, from 0.31 to 4.97, an increase of 1500% in 30 years! What an increase of crime must we look for! The reality is very different. The curve of crime has fallen without any doubt. [228] The facts and the thesis do not agree.

Another way of examining the question is to be found in “criminal geography.” Since irreligion shows enormous differences in the different parts of a country, we ought to find considerable criminality in the provinces where the lack of religion is most in evidence. For the Netherlands, in my study already referred to, I have given detailed tables with the result that there is no connection between the phenomena in question. In general we have even the right to say that the provinces with the lowest figures for irreligion show a high criminality, and vice versa!

The best means of settling the question is by a direct statistical study. I have made calculations, based upon the criminal statistics, of more than 126,000 individuals sentenced during the period from 1901 to 1909, in the Netherlands. Here are the results:

Netherlands, 1901–1909.

====================================+=========================================================== | Number Sentenced to 100,000 of the Population | Over 10 Years Old. +-------------+-----------+-------+-----------+------------- | | | | Not | Offenses. | | | | Members | Total | Protestant. | Catholic. | Jew. | of Any |Population. | | | | Religion. | ------------------------------------+-------------+-----------+-------+-----------+------------- All offenses | 308.6 | 416.5 | 212.7 | 84.2 | 337.3 Theft | 40.0 | 54.8 | 25.5 | 9.6 | 43.9 Aggravated theft | 19.9 | 24.0 | 12.7 | 5.2 | 20.7 Receiving stolen goods | 2.6 | 3.5 | 9.2 | 0.7 | 3.0 Embezzlement | 8.6 | 9.3 | 13.1 | 1.9 | 8.7 Fraud | 2.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 2.4 Offenses against public decency | 1.9 | 3.4 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 2.4 Minor sexual offenses | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 1.0 Rape | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 1.8 Sexual crimes with persons under 16 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 All sexual crimes | 5.1 | 7.1 | 4.1 | 1.6 | 5.7 Rebellion | 25.9 | 37.0 | 13.2 | 12.2 | 29.0 Assaults | 74.4 | 98.2 | 43.2 | 20.1 | 80.1 Serious assaults | 8.5 | 11.0 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 9.1 Homicide and murder | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 ====================================+=============+===========+=======+===========+=============

The results are the following, then: the first place is almost always occupied by the Catholics, the second by the Protestants, and then come the Jews (except in cases of receiving stolen goods, embezzlement, and fraud), and the minimum of criminality (in all crimes without exception) is shown by the irreligious!

Here we have not the task of explaining this fact, we only bring it out; and we have the right to declare that the thesis: “irreligion leads to crime”, is not correct.

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

VII. THE THIRD SCHOOL [229] AND THE SOCIALISTS

I.

F. TURATI.

In the first chapter of his “Il delitto e la questione sociale”, the author shows that among the numerous misfortunes from which the proletariat suffers, this must be reckoned, that it is almost exclusively from its ranks that criminals are recruited. “The criminal tribute is the almost exclusive privilege of one social class. And as the bourgeoisie has so far thought out no better plan than to oppose the degradation of crime with another degradation called punishment, it has come about that to the monopoly of the criminal tribute is added, for the poor, the monopoly of the penal tribute.” [230]

After having spoken, in the following chapter, of “free will”, Dr. Turati gives his attention to an opinion of Dr. Lelorrain, who says that we must modify man if we wish to make criminality disappear or decrease. Dr. Turati objects that it is exceedingly difficult to change man, and that there is an easier and more effective way, namely to change society. In a society where everything is bad, where the exploitation of one by the other is the rule, where the enjoyment of some goes on at the detriment of others, and this under the protection of the law—in such a society there is a perpetual incitement to crime. It is the ideal of socialism to create a society in which crime shall be neither necessary nor advantageous. However short its duration, the colony of New Lanark founded by Owen, is one of the best proofs of the correctness of this idea. In a society formed in accordance with this socialistic ideal, crime would appear only exceptionally, by atavism, for example, and would cease to be a general and always threatening danger.

“The social penal question is a question above all of social transformation.” Many objections have been made to this statement. The school of Lombroso and Ferri sets up in opposition its theory of the triplex character of the factors of crime; cosmic, individual, and social. When society is so modified that the interests of the individual are identical with those of the community, it would be only one part of crime that would disappear; one could not, for example, prevent an extraordinary heat from causing crimes against morals.

According to Dr. Turati it is not impossible to refute this objection, though it may be difficult to do so. In the first place Ferri recognizes the social causes as more important than the other two put together. He estimates that the number of persons driven to crime by social reasons (passion and occasion) is more than 60%; the others (insane or half-insane criminals, born-incorrigibles, and habituals) form a minority, then. But among these there are many criminals by habit, who were not born as such, but have become such from force of circumstances. Dr. Turati estimates that from 70% to 75% of criminals have come to commit their crimes from social causes. When we take account further of the fact that about 18% of the prisoners are insane, the number of real criminals who have become such from other than social causes is reduced to 10% at the most.

According to Dr. Turati the physical and anthropological factors exert an influence upon the form, but not upon the nature, of the crime. Further, these three causes are present in every crime, but almost no crime would be committed without the social cause. It is this last that is always the predominant factor. When it is removed, then, the other two are reduced to zero. The facts have proved this. Owen’s colony was not made up of peculiar material, and the physical surroundings were neither better nor “more honest” than any other. Nevertheless, crime was unknown there. But the author furnishes still further proofs in support of his thesis that physical and anthropological causes amount to nothing in comparison with social causes, which in turn are dependent upon economic conditions. With the exception of crimes committed by the propertied class, which are in general the result of excessive cupidity, or a commercial uneasiness, and which will “ipso facto” disappear without any doubt when once society is otherwise organized, the greatest contingent of criminals is furnished by the class of non-possessors. Now all the physical influences, such as climate, act upon the two classes in the same way, nor are there anthropological differences between the two classes, yet the difference between them as regards criminal tendencies is great. It is the social factors, then, that explain the difference.

However, another observation must be made here. Ferri cites in a mass, as social factors, the increase of population, emigration, public opinion, customs, etc. But when we examine and classify these factors minutely, it becomes clear that in reality they are based upon economic conditions alone.

However, this observation is not applicable to “criminals by passion”, since in their case the influence of the environment appears to be but weak. Lombroso estimates that they form 5% of all criminals, and Ferri is of the opinion that it is only 5% of those who commit crimes against persons who are criminals by passion.

One of the anthropological causes of crime is “man”, and one of the cosmic causes is “the universe.” But neither has anything to do with crime as such. Otherwise the air we breathe and the food that we eat would be causes of crime. On the contrary, it is the organization of society that is the cause of crime, and physical and anthropological influences are only conditions. (Speaking scientifically we do not separate causes and conditions, but this is the common usage.) If the causes ceased to exist the conditions would have no further importance.

Next, Dr. Turati treats of certain kinds of crime. First, crimes against property. As almost every criminologist will admit, these crimes are intimately connected with the unequal division of property. “But,” an opponent will object, “it is not possible, by means of social institutions, to change cosmic influences, such as a low temperature, or the failure of the crops, both of which cause an increase of the crimes against property.” Those who are of this opinion forget, however, that a man does not become criminal because he is cold, but he who is cold becomes criminal only if society neglects to provide for the needs born of the cold.

The influence of society is not seen so distinctly when crimes against persons are in question. Nevertheless it is very great; the economic conditions of our day work in two ways, through poverty on the one side, and injustice on the other. Poverty injures not only the physique but also the morals of a man, since it leaves him in ignorance and grossness, and does not develop his moral sentiments. And then it is harder to bear the evils caused by society than those caused by nature. In the second place, economic inequality stifles the sense of justice in man, since it accustoms him to this inequality. “The law is equal for all”, is only a phrase, for all are not socially equal.

One of the most wide-spread objections to the proposition that crimes spring from social conditions is that if an improvement in these conditions leads to a decrease of the crimes against property, the crimes against persons increase. This is urged by Ferri, among others, as one of the most effective arguments against Turati and his partisans. But against this may be urged another fact brought out by Ferri, namely that while crime is increasing, it is becoming less intense and less brutal. We see clearly, then, that it is possible to have a powerful counter-determinant to the tendency to commit crimes against persons, i.e. education.

As to sexual crimes, they increase when the food supply increases. This is the cause: sexual needs have a direct relation to nutrition. An increase of the sexual needs, however, has nothing to do with criminality. It is only the social organization that changes these needs that have become more intense, into crimes, by subordinating the satisfaction of them to economic considerations. There are, besides, other social causes, like bad housing etc., that lead the proletariat to commit the crimes in question.

The author then points out the enormous influence of the abuse of alcohol upon criminality, the causes of this abuse being also found in the social organization.

Another argument of Ferri’s must be refuted, i.e. that Turati and his followers attach too much weight to education. Notwithstanding the equality in the education of two brothers, says Ferri, one becomes a scamp and the other a hero. To which the author replies that we can say with just as good right, thanks to education the brother of a scamp becomes a hero.

But in speaking of education Ferri has in mind that of the bourgeoisie, which is in opposition to morality, and can consequently have but little influence. From the day when the state of society shall have become sound, and the interests of all taken to heart, morality can be in harmony with reality.

“The true, all-inclusive penal substitute is the equal diffusion, so far as is socially possible, of well-being and education, of the joys of love and thought.”

II.

B. BATTAGLIA.

Before speaking of the influence of economic factors upon criminality, I feel obliged to point out, by the following quotation, what the author of “La dinamica del delitto” understands by crime: “Primarily it must be noted that crime is not, in itself, a phenomenon that assumes the criminal character from its own nature; but the criminal character is affirmed or denied according to certain purely accessory circumstances that accompany the act; and in all cases the crime is such with reference to social relations.” [231]

“From the human point of view a crime represents the satisfaction of a need of the criminal, like the satisfaction of any other need, and comes under the law of the struggle for existence. In fact, a need not satisfied constitutes a pain, and pain, whatever its nature be, first excites and then depresses and exhausts the functional power of the organism. The organism, under the influence of pain, loses a quantity of phosphates proportional to the intensity of the pain; the physiological equilibrium is broken, and some functions important for the internal economy are neutralized. The organism, because of the law of conservation, is called upon to relieve the pain. Often it can do this without injury to others; at other times it comes into collision with social interests, and in such a case falls into crime.” [232]

After having spoken of the anatomical and physiological characteristics that have been observed in criminals, Dr. Battaglia comes to the investigation into the causes that produce crime. In examining the factors of crime we see, according to the author, that they consist of two great groups, first, criminogenous factors, and second, occasional factors. These last are important only when they are present with the first. Among the occasional factors are to be classed in the first place, age, meteorological occurrences, etc., in short, the influences to which the whole population are subjected. In the second place, sex, economic conditions, education, etc. i.e. influences which have a less universal sphere. However, none of the occasional factors can, by itself, cause a crime to arise. Otherwise a whole population would be criminal in the same way, since some factors, climate for instance, exercise their influence upon the whole population. In order to lead to crime these factors must exert their influence upon intellectual faculties especially disposed toward crime.

The factors really criminogenous, are those which create certain physico-psychical conditions, from the complexus of which results the personal capacity for crime, such as the diseases and defects of development and nutrition, cranial and intracranial; improper education; psychical heredity; and atavistic reversions.

“When these factors have prepared the mental condition, by making it different from that of all others, any opportunity whatever is a sufficient psychical factor, and a crime is committed. Therefore the criminogenous factors are those that have the real social importance, because they prepare inevitably for delinquency.

“It is true, on the other hand, that any of the occasional factors, acting in a certain way, and with a certain intensity and persistency, can produce criminogenous factors, like education or alimentation.” [233]

The author then treats some of the so-called “occasional factors”, such as age, sex, and religion. I shall speak only of what Dr. Battaglia says upon the influence of alcoholism and poverty upon criminality, since this is pertinent to my work.

Alcoholism is a cause of crime in two ways, first, direct, i.e. when crimes are committed under the actual influence of intoxication; second, indirect, since chronic alcoholism causes demoralization and degeneracy. As evidence in support of this the author cites the opinions of Baer, Virgilio, and others.

As to poverty, Dr. Battaglia remarks that the opinion of Professor Lombroso on this subject cannot be correct. The latter believes that the importance of the fact that crimes against property decrease when prices fall, is weakened by the circumstance that, according to Guerry, the theft of food holds only the hundredth place in the table of articles stolen. According to Dr. Battaglia this has no weight in a critical examination of the influence of poverty. For anyone who is driven to crime by hunger tries by preference to seize articles that are of great value and little volume, since he can at once exchange them for other articles that are directly consumable. Further it must not be forgotten that alcoholism and bad education are intimately connected with poverty, and lead in their turn to crime. Not only does acute hunger incite to theft indirectly, it may lead to it directly, for it may (according to Professor Follet) bring on a delirium. Chronic hunger and malnutrition may cause pellagra, rachitis, tuberculosis, scrofula, etc., or predispose to these diseases, which may cause crime in their turn.

In the second part of “La dinamica del delitto” the author makes an examination of what he has called the “criminogenous factors.” Crime is a phenomenon that develops itself in society in accordance with certain constant laws. Consequently the criminogenous factors must be found in society. To discover them, then, it is necessary to examine the different social institutions.

The family. In nature and in primitive society there rules a natural selection by which the weak and sickly are prevented from reproducing themselves, or from reproducing themselves as freely as those who are stronger. But at present this selection is no longer felt; even the most wretched, the most diseased can procreate, since it happens constantly that marriages take place with a secondary object. Hence transmission of degeneracy may go on from one generation to another, and consequently, the indirect propagation of crime.

The social position of woman. The inferior position in which woman finds herself in general (the cause of this is in social conditions, since the position of woman varies among different people) occasions crimes in different ways. First, since woman takes no part in the public life, she is circumscribed in intellect, and consequently, vain, egoistic, and ignorant. It follows that her influence upon her children is often very bad. Then, because of her inferior position she easily becomes the victim of unscrupulous men, who seduce her, so that she is often driven to prostitution. In consequence of her ignorance she often marries a man who has asked for her in marriage with an interested motive. Further, her manner of living (lack of healthful work, etc.) may bring on neuroses that are transmissible to her children.

Human reproduction. As an animal, man must satisfy two predominant necessities, that of feeding himself, and that of procreating. Though this last is not as strong as the other, it must nevertheless be satisfied, and without this the human organism would experience very painful consequences. Celibacy is very harmful to morality; it leads to prostitution (with its consequences, like syphilis), to misconduct, and hence to the abuse of alcohol, etc.—in short, it favors the birth of anti-social sentiments.

The present laws governing the relations between man and woman are also harmful to morality. The author here refers to the indissolubility of marriage. When the motive for a marriage has ceased to exist, namely when mutual love no longer exists, the marriage ought to be dissolved. The harmful consequences of this indissolubility are numerous. Adultery and many homicides flow from it; the education of children suffers from it enormously; and finally if the mother expects a child, the vexation consequent upon discord may exercise an unfavorable influence upon the newly born.

Education. The development of the intellect and especially of the feelings is of the highest importance to morality. For example, where a disagreement will be settled in an amicable manner among persons who are well brought up, the same disagreement among persons ill-trained will often lead to brawls. Education is a very complex and difficult task, requiring much tact and knowledge. It is not astonishing that as practised it leaves much to be desired. And the consequences of this absence of a good education are exceedingly favorable to the development of criminality. However, it must not be forgotten that some persons, in consequence of qualities transmitted by heredity, become immoral despite the best imaginable education. The answer to the question “should education be left to the parents, i.e. to private persons, who can consequently corrupt their pupils entirely, and not be under public control?” must, according to Dr. Battaglia, be absolutely negative. In order that education may be effective in the family it must be supplemented by the moral influence of the environment, which also plays an important part in the education of the child. The great congestion of persons in the cities, for example, should disappear, because of its bad influence.

Instruction. The double end of instruction is in the first place to strengthen the intellect by exercising it, from which it will result that it will have a greater power over the feelings; and in the second place to furnish a certain amount of positive knowledge, by which the individual is put into a position to adapt himself to his environment and to foresee the consequences of his acts. From this it follows that instruction is of great importance in dealing with criminality. Those who deny this mean by the “instructed man” one who has learned to read and write; but it is evident that such instruction is not enough to exercise an influence of any real importance. It is undeniable that persons well reared may also become criminals, but in every case their crimes have a less ferocious character than those of persons without education.

Religion and State. Religion is opposed to progress, to the development of the faculties, and to the general dissemination of knowledge that improves men and increases solidarity; and it incites to intolerance. Further, the confessional instruction is harmful to the intellectual faculties of children. The state puts obstacles in the way of the free movements of individuals; maintains civil marriage; prevents free discussion, one of the primary requirements for progress; it sets up compulsory education, but does not prevent the population’s being brought up in error; by drafting great armies, it withdraws the best forces from agriculture and manufacturing, so that the vigorous individuals marry late, and prostitution is thereby encouraged; it tolerates stock exchanges and lotteries; it favors crowding into great cities, something that is very favorable, directly and indirectly, to crime (bad housing conditions, alcoholism, etc.).

In the chapter that follows, Professor Battaglia reduces the factors that he has just named “criminogenous”, to economic elements. “All the inconveniences, the anomalies, the errors, the disorders, found in the family, in the state, in social and religious relationships, etc., are provoked by the economic situation in which society finds itself....” [234]

Civil Status. In the communistic villages of Russia it is advantageous for the father of a family to have many children, for the work in the common fields is then performed more easily. Hence the marriages of persons less than 20 years old are numerous. In the rest of Europe the situation is entirely different. By marrying, a man makes himself worse off, and at the birth of each child his cares increase. Hence marriages are put off (especially among professional men) when the man cannot provide for the needs of his family. For analogous reasons some deny their sexual desires and contract a marriage to better their position. In both cases economic conditions exercise an unfavorable influence. When his income is not sufficient to support himself and his family properly, the workman is obliged to labor longer than his strength permits; he and his family are not well enough fed, their dwelling is bad; consequently their physical condition deteriorates. The effects are not only diseases, like scrofula, pellagra, phthisis, anemia, etc., but also a great predisposition to contract them. Poverty undermines the organism and exhausts its strength.

In consequence of present economic conditions it is possible to amass enormous wealth; but wants are still further increased relatively, which brings it about that frauds, embezzlements, etc., are often committed by persons of means, especially since the moral sentiments are lost when one thinks only of gaining money. But wealth is inconstant; he who has plenty today may be very poor tomorrow. This is what causes the disquiet and agitation that characterizes the bourgeoisie, and the neuroses that often follow. Finally the author dwells upon the work of women and children, so harmful to morality and to health.

Alcoholism. The inevitable consequence of poverty is the abuse of alcoholic drinks. One who works too much and eats too little, who is badly housed and ill-clad, and has no intellectual occupation, finds in alcohol a means of forgetting his poverty. The life led by a great part of the bourgeoisie leads also to alcoholism. The harmful consequences of alcoholism are numerous, especially as regards criminality, because, first, it leads directly to violent crimes, and, secondly, it indirectly favors degeneracy.

Fatherhood. It is only for economic reasons that legal marriage, its indissolubility, and all that belongs to it, are maintained. If each of the parents kept his or her economic independence, there would be no reason to take up the matter of legal regulation, and thus the question of whether the father of the child is or is not the legal husband of the mother would no longer concern the State.

Prostitution. Most prostitutes come from the lower strata of society. Like the criminals they present signs of degeneracy, and from the sole fact of degeneracy have taken on larger proportions in the proletariat than in the other classes, though the chance that these women will recruit themselves in this class is already greater. The other causes of prostitution are of an economic nature, such as exploitation by parents, bad housing, etc. In consequence of prostitution syphilis spreads and in its turn favors degeneracy. Further, from the weakening of their moral sentiments prostitutes are more easily led to commit crimes.

Ignorance. The cause of the great ignorance of the working-people—an important factor in criminality—is of an economic nature. The workers have to exhaust their strength, and have neither the leisure nor the means, for mental development.

Laxity of morals. In indigent families all the members sleep in one room, often even in one bed. Hence it comes that sexual morality is lacking. The parents, often absent on account of their work, leave their children to their fate. These latter do not know how to look after themselves, and easily learn bad habits from other children. The education of the children of the bourgeoisie is no more favorable. Often they learn only that they must make money, or acquire a social position, or make a “good” marriage, a thing which leads them to all sorts of deceits and intrigues to arrive at their end.

Plutocracy. The great armaments and wars of European powers are the consequence of the present system of competition, which obliges the constant search for new outlets for commerce.

Plutocracy of the Church. It is only upon its economic resources that the great power of the Church rests.

Corollary. Poverty alone causes many moral situations from which crime must logically result. The majority of criminals are in fact recruited among the less privileged classes.

But the bourgeoisie is not happy simply because the proletariat is unhappy. The cause of the unhappiness of both is in the present economic conditions, by which the great majority of the population vegetate in the blackest misery, while the others are immersed in idle luxury. There is only one remedy for this injustice; it is to divide the total product of labor among the workers, and not among the capitalists.

III.

N. COLAJANNI.

The whole of the first volume and the first chapters of the second volume of “La sociologia criminale” [235] contain a criticism of the theses of the Italian school. The author denies the correctness of these, since he believes that we must consider the anthropological and physical causes as having little or no importance. This he demonstrates in detail. In his last chapters Dr. Colajanni treats of social and economic factors.

While admitting that economic conditions are of the highest importance in the development of the whole social life, and consequently in the matter of criminality, the author does not agree with Marx and Loria, who consider every social occurrence, whether political, or religious, or æsthetic, or moral, as the unique and direct product of an economic phenomenon. [236]

According to the author, this assertion is carried too far, since the feelings and passions of superior people, who do not think of material profits, influence the masses at certain moments.

A great number of philosophers, moralists, poets, statisticians, and economists have seen in economic conditions the “causa causarum” of morality, and consequently also of crime. Pietro Ellero, among others, says very decisively: “From private property are derived all crimes, or almost all. Property engenders cupidity and haughtiness on the one side and depravity on the other, even when it does not produce the perfect tyranny of the one class and the degradation of the other. It is the cause of most of the evil passions, faults, and crimes that are committed, of the troubles, anxieties, sadness, and rancor from which both rich and poor suffer alike. The immoral influence of property is continued afterwards, and that terribly, in the present organization of the family, constructed, as it is, almost always upon the basis of calculation!” [237]

It is incontestable that economic conditions have a direct influence upon the origin of crime. The lack of the means of satisfying the numerous wants of a man is already a goad to incite him to procure these means in any way whatever, honest or dishonest. And it is the dishonest way that one will choose by preference when society makes it difficult or impossible to act otherwise. A London pickpocket gets $1500 a year on the average; on the other hand, the misery of those who wish to earn their living honestly is indescribable. Further, the honest man’s chance of being killed or becoming incapable of working is greater than the thief’s chance of being punished. Honest work results in fewer advantages and more dangers than dishonest work.

The indirect influence is not less important than the direct. War, our present industry, the family, marriage, political institutions, revolutions, vagrancy, prostitution, education, etc. are important causes of crime, but they can all be reduced to economic causes. According to many persons education is the one means of preventing moral evils, but John Stuart Mill has already said: in our present society the poor have no education, and that of the rich is bad. There is no possibility of a good education if a certain material well-being is lacking. Hence those who expect everything from education under the present conditions are wrong.

But where does well-being cease and poverty begin? Both are only relative conceptions; consequently we cannot fix their limits. In order to attain the minimum of criminality in any given society there must be the certainty of the means of subsistence, stability of economic conditions, and equality in the distribution of wealth.

Some authors deny that political revolutions have their causes in economic conditions. Lombroso and Laschi, for example, attempt to explain them chiefly by physical influences; which is the more astonishing, because in the general opinion it is from economic causes that they are derived. They adduce, among other things, to support their opinion, the fact that out of 147 revolts that took place in Europe between 1793 and 1880, only a third were attributable to economic conditions. It goes without saying that this does not at all prove the correctness of their thesis, since in all these cases the authors are speaking only of direct causes, while most military revolutions, revolts against the royal power, etc., spring from economic conditions, even if indirectly. It is true that in the 19th century the direct revolutionary influence of crises and famines has decreased, because of the measures taken by the governments. This does not however prevent there having been revolts occasioned by such conditions (Lyons in 1831, etc.). The frequent revolts in Belgium and France, rich countries, do not furnish any proof against the thesis of Dr. Colajanni; for notwithstanding the great wealth of these countries, nothing proves that it is equally divided. As soon as the poverty of a people has passed certain limits, we see in that country neither crimes, revolutions, nor suicides, since all energy is then extinct.

Another question is this: how far is there a correlation between the progress made by socialism and the increase of criminality. [238] Several authors, like Garofalo, are of the opinion that there is an intimate connection between the two. But they do not furnish any facts as proofs in support of their assertion, to which, on the contrary, the facts give the lie.

The countries where socialism is most widely spread do not show the greatest criminality; rather the contrary. The German and Italian districts where there are the most socialists are no longer the most criminal. How could it be otherwise? While socialism is the conscious and collective reaction against the existing order, crime is the unconscious and individual reaction against that order.

Next, Dr. Colajanni turns his attention to idleness and vagrancy, which are both causes of crime. Out of 32,943 thefts in Paris in 1882, 57% were committed by vagrants.

But are idleness and vagrancy considered in themselves also offenses? Any man is harmful to his species, says Féré, when he does not collaborate, either materially or intellectually, in production. According to Dr. Colajanni, idleness and vagrancy, viewed from such a high social point of view, are really offenses. But then the idle rich are also guilty of these offenses. Finally, what are the causes of these crimes? Spencer, Féré, and Sergi say: the vagrants are the weak, the degenerate, the parasites of society. The question is this, then: do these phenomena find their origin inside or outside of the human organism? Romagnosi says that vagrancy and idleness ought to be punished only when they are not excusable. To make them inexcusable it would be necessary to procure employment for every man who was willing to work. Spencer, Sergi, and Garofalo, on the contrary, are of the opinion that these crimes are almost always to be imputed to the same persons. However, Spencer should not have forgotten that in his own country, aside from industrial crises, numerous occurrences have forced a great number of persons to become idlers and vagrants through no fault of their own, as for example, the Irish and Scotch farmers driven from their lands by the landlords.

And Garofalo should have known that it is capitalism that has made the work of men superfluous by employing women and children, and that the cause does not rest with those who suffer from it; on the contrary, the cause of economic crises is not in their victims, but in the system that is in force.

An examination of the causes of these two phenomena obliges us to distinguish between habitual and accidental, or forced, vagrancy. However—and this is too often forgotten—the latter transforms itself into the former, for the taste for work is, like morality, an acquired social product. This is why this quality is lost when one is long without work.

One of the most important causes of the possible transformation of a worker into a vagrant is a long illness. Having lost the habit of work, and being enfeebled, a man will find great difficulty in going to work again. If he does not succeed he descends step by step until he comes finally to mendicity. But it is chiefly the economic transformations, inventions, overproduction, that must be called the “causa causarum” of the phenomena cited above. [239]

Prostitution, which occupies so important a place in the etiology of crime, in almost every case finds its origin in poverty, in a bad education, in a corrupting environment, as is proved by the official investigations and the writings of specialists, like Parent-Duchatelet, Fiaux, Augagneur, and many others. [240]

The correlation that exists between crimes against property and economic conditions is very evident, and is direct. This causality appears also with regard to crimes against persons. Only it is then indirect. The influence of poverty upon criminality is especially great when it has been of long duration. Proudhon is quite right when he says: “Hunger that is every instant present, during the whole year, during the whole life, hunger which does not kill in a day, but is composed of all deprivations and all griefs, and unceasingly consumes the body, ruins the spirit, demoralizes the conscience, corrupts the race, generates all vices and diseases (drunkenness, among others), and an aversion towards work and thrift, baseness of spirit, callousness of conscience, laziness, and prostitution together with theft.” [241]

The fact that the number of thefts of provisions is relatively small has little importance, since the thief always tries to steal some article of small bulk and great value. Also it must not be forgotten that little thefts of food often pass unnoticed, or without complaint being made, because the party injured does not consider the act a crime, since committed from necessity.

Another convincing proof of the influence of economic conditions is the incontestable fact that it continually happens that a person will declare himself guilty of a crime that has not been committed, with the sole purpose of obtaining a lodging in jail. The great percentage made up of crimes committed from cupidity, as well as the fact that the number of recidivists is greater for crimes against property than for others, shows the great influence of economic conditions.

The study of the morality of primitive peoples shows us that the crimes of abortion, for example, of infanticide, and homicide upon the aged, have their origin in economic conditions exclusively, the means of subsistence not being sufficient to support a large population. When these crimes occur among civilized peoples they have the same causes. For example, cases of infanticide are very common in Trevise, one of the poorest provinces in Italy. The lack of education or the influence of other factors opposed to education are the reason why the corrupting influence of which we have been speaking often rages in the lower classes with all its force.

To prove the assertion that economic conditions have little influence upon criminality, some authors cite the fact that England, with its great wealth, shows a greater number of crimes against property than Italy, which is much poorer. He who reasons in this way forgets that the absolute wealth of a country may be very great, but the distribution of that wealth not proportional. England gives us the proof of this; in no other country is the difference between rich and poor more pronounced, and without the presence of other important and opposing factors, the criminality would be much greater than it is now.

One might also bring up the difference between the criminality of Ireland, which is smaller despite the proverbial poverty there, and the great criminality of Italy. However, when we study conditions in the two countries we find that those in Italy are still more undesirable than those in Ireland, which explains the greater criminality against property in Italy. The mysterious assassinations of large landholders and their agents in Ireland have also their cause in the bad distribution of the land. In Belgium criminality is greatest where well-being is least (in Flanders). According to the researches of Liszt and Starcke, the poorest districts of Germany are also those that are most criminal, etc.

Upon the economic condition of criminals the author gives the following data: In 1870–71 there were among the prisoners at Neufchâtel 10% who had some property, and 89% who had only their work for their support (in the non-criminal population the percentage of these is much smaller). According to the data of Stevens the prisoners in Belgium were divided as follows: 1% of well-to-do persons, 11% of persons with some income, and 88% of indigent persons.

The statistics of recidivists in Sweden from 1870 to 1872 give the following information:

Well-to-do 0.64 % With sufficient means of subsistence 10.08 ,, ,, insufficient ,, ,, ,, 43.54 ,, ,, miserable ,, ,, ,, 45.63 ,,

Marro, in his “I caratteri dei delinquenti”, gives us the following:

=====================================+============+================ | Criminals. | Non-criminals. -------------------------------------+------------+---------------- Without property | 79.6 % | 43.4 % Minor children of well-to-do parents | 4.1 ,, | 10.5 ,, With a little property | 6.7 ,, | 18.4 ,, With considerable property | 9.4 ,, | 27.6 ,, =====================================+============+================

At the time that they committed their crimes 43% of these criminals in general, and more than 50% of the criminals against property were without work.

All that has been given above has to do with statics; what follows has to do with dynamics. The rule universally observed is this: modifications in economic conditions are followed by modifications in criminality. When the former grow worse, the number of crimes (and especially of those against property) increases, and vice versa. It is especially the proletariat, who have no means of resisting the unfavorable influence of crises, a rise in the price of food, etc., who are hardest hit in these cases.

The author gives some data. In Italy in 1880 a great increase of crime coincided with a lack of work and with a rise in the price of provisions. The gradual diminution in criminality must be attributed to the good harvest and the large emigration. In Belgium the number of prisoners rose during the crisis of 1846 from 6750 to 9884. In Norway, in consequence of the depression of 1869, crimes against property reached the maximum. The number of prisoners in Sweden rose from 1835 to 1839, chiefly because of poverty, from 12,799 to 18,357. A great increase in crime took place in England in consequence of the crises of 1826, 1830, 1847, and others. In the United States there were in 1884 not less than 400,000 working-men without work, which explains the following figures:

===================+=========+========= | 1883 | 1884 -------------------+---------+--------- Homicides | 1,494 | 3,377 Cases of lynching | 92 | 219 Suicides | 910 | 1,897 ===================+=========+=========

In consequence of the economic crises of 1839, 1840, 1843, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881, the number of murders increased in France. [242]

The maximum stability and the minimum lack of proportion in the distribution of wealth is the best preservative against crime. The correctness of this rule is proved by the facts. The small number of crimes among the Irish is explained by their altruistic sentiments, which are the consequence of their social institutions from before the conquest of their country by the English. Among Mohammedans crime is rare. Also there may be remarked among them a true democracy, based upon equality and fraternity. The Yorubas (in Eastern Africa) have a mild character, and they are benevolent and true to their word; with them the land is considered as common property, etc., etc.

“These are facts which speak clearly: the collectivism of the Javanese dessa, of the Berber diema, the Russian mir, the Slav zadrouga, and the village community of the early Aryans and North American Indians, produces everywhere, with all climates, among all races, identically the same results—morality and solidarity.

“It is to be noted also, that everywhere and at all times, whether in the temperate or the frigid zone, in the North, in the South, or at the equator, laws and institutions which aim to insure certainty of subsistence and to maintain a certain equality, go far to cut down crime; and they do it in such a way as to make those who live under them more moral than those who are subject to different institutions and laws. We have clear examples of this among the Hebrews, Iroquois, Peruvians, Chinese, Berbers, etc., although they differ greatly as to the grade of civilization they have reached.” [243]

IV.

A. BEBEL.

In “Die Frau und der Sozialismus” the author gives the following pages to the relation between the present social organization and crime: “The increase of crime of every description is intimately connected with the social conditions of the community, little as the latter is inclined to believe it. Society hides its head in the sand, like the ostrich, in order not to be forced to recognize a state of things that bears witness against it, and silences its own conscience and others’ with the lying pretense that laziness and love of pleasure on the part of the workmen and their want of religion is accountable for everything. This is hypocrisy of the most revolting kind. The more unfavorable and depressed the condition of society, the more numerous and grave do crimes become. The struggle for existence then assumes its most brutal and violent shape, it throws man back into his primæval state, in which each regarded the other as his deadly enemy. The ties of solidarity, not too firm at the best of times, become daily looser.

“The ruling classes, who do not and will not recognize the causes of things, attempt to effect a change by employing force against the products of these conditions, and even men whom we should expect to be enlightened and free from prejudice, are ready to support the system. Professor Haeckel, for instance, regards the stringent application of capital punishment as desirable, and harmonizes in this point with the reactionaries of every shade, who on all other subjects are his bitterest enemies. According to his theory, hopeless criminals and ne’er-do-wells must be rooted out like weeds, which deprive the more valuable plants of light, air, and soil. If Professor Haeckel had occupied himself even to a slight degree with the study of social science, instead of limiting himself to natural science, he would have discovered that all these criminals could be transformed into useful, valuable members of society, if society offered them more favorable means of existence. He would have found that the annihilation of the criminal has just as little effect on crime, i.e. on the development of fresh crimes, as if on a number of farms the ground were superficially cleared of weeds while the roots and seeds remained undestroyed. Man will never be able absolutely to prevent the development of noxious organisms in nature, but it is unquestionably within his power so to improve the social organism created by himself, that it may afford equally favorable conditions of existence and an equal freedom of growth to all; that no one may be forced to gratify his hunger or his desire of possession or his ambition at the expense of someone else. People only need to investigate the causes of crime and to remove them, and they will abolish crime itself.

“Naturally those who seek to abolish crime by abolishing its causes cannot take kindly to measures of brutal suppression. They cannot prevent society from protecting itself against crime in its own way, but they demand all the more urgently the radical reformation of society, i.e. the removal of causes.” [244]

“The relationship between social conditions and crime has often been pointed out by statisticians and sociologists. One of the offenses that comes closest to us—for our society, in spite of all the Christian teaching about charity, regards it as a crime—in times of business depression, is mendicity. We learn from the statistics of the kingdom of Saxony, that in measure as the last great commercial crisis grew worse, beginning in Germany in 1890 with the end not yet in sight, the number of persons sentenced for mendicity also increased. In 1889, in the Kingdom of Saxony 8566 persons were punished for this offense, 8815 in 1890, 10,075 in 1891, and in 1892 as many as 13,120, a very great increase. The impoverishment of the masses on the one hand, with increasing wealth on the other, is the chief mark of our period. In 1874 there was one poor man to 724 persons, while in 1882 the number had reached 1 to 622. [245] Crimes and misdemeanors show a similar tendency. In 1874, there were 308,605 persons sentenced in Austria-Hungary, and 600,000 in 1892. In the German Empire in 1882 there were 329,968 persons sentenced for crimes and misdemeanors against the laws, i.e. 103.2 persons to 10,000 of the population over 12 years old; in 1892 the number of those sentenced reached 422,327, or 143.3 to the 10,000, an increase of 39%. Those convicted of crimes and misdemeanors against property were:

1882 169,334 persons, or 53.0 to the 10,000 over 12 1891 196,437 ,, or 55.8 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,,

“We think that these figures speak volumes, that they show how the deterioration of social conditions increases and multiplies poverty, need, misdemeanors and crimes.” [246]

V.

P. LAFARGUE.

The first part of the study, “Die Kriminalität in Frankreich von 1840–1886”, is taken up with an examination of the trend of criminality during these years. The author comes to the conclusion that during this period crime has increased, and that the line that shows this increase is made up of a succession of curves, alternately concave and convex.

In the second part, he treats of the causes of crime. He first points out that the belief that the proclamation of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the French Revolution would be speedily followed by a diminution in crime, was not borne out by the facts. Then he takes up the idea, so widespread in the first half of the 19th century, that one of the most important causes of criminality is the lack of education. This hypothesis has been generally recognized as false, in consequence of an examination of the facts. According to Lafargue, who is entirely in agreement with Quetelet on this point, it is necessary not only to examine the qualities of the individual, but also especially to analyze society, and to try thus to discover the sources of crime. Next the author shows the results of the researches of Quetelet with regard to the influence of the season, age, and sex upon criminality, and sets forth and criticises briefly the theories of Lombroso and his partisans with regard to the criminal man. We should run to too great length if we gave more fully his refutation which is as brilliant as it is accurate.

Some statisticians connect the returns of the harvests and vintages with criminality. An investigation upon this point as regards France, gives the following results: the years 1847, 1854, 1868, and 1874, which are characterized by a great increase of crime, were preceded by years of bad harvests.

The average of the crops of grain was:

from 1840 to 1853 about 80 million hectolitres ,, 1856 ,, 1885 ,, 100 ,, ,,

the crop rose:

in 1846 to 61 million hectolitres ,, 1853 ,, 63 ,, ,, ,, 1867 ,, 83 ,, ,, ,, 1873 ,, 84 ,, ,,

However, the bad harvests of 1855, 1861, and 1879 did not have these results, and with the good crops of 1847 to 1852 crime increased. Here there were, therefore, other factors. Consequently, although the price of grain can partially explain the fluctuations of criminality, it does not account for the general increase from 1840 to 1886.

The author combats further the opinion of Professor Lacassagne that crimes against persons are especially under the influence of the production and consumption of wine. If this were the case the wine-growing departments ought to furnish the highest figure for crimes against persons, which is not the case. On the contrary, Lafargue is of the opinion that in this respect, the consumption of brandy is of more importance. The continually increasing abuse of alcohol (i.e. of spirituous drinks like brandy) which in its turn is due to the miserable condition of the proletariat, is one of the causes of the increasing criminality.

Quantity of alcohol consumed:

=======+======================+====================== Year. | Total (Hectolitres). | Per Capita (Litres). -------+----------------------+---------------------- 1850 | 585,200 | 1.46 1855 | 714,813 | 2.00 1860 | 851,825 | 2.27 1865 | 873,007 | 2.34 1875 | 1,010,052 | 2.82 1880 | 1,313,849 | 3.64 1885 | 1,444,342 | 3.86 =======+======================+======================

In the third part Lafargue makes special investigations with regard to the correlation between economic conditions and criminality. If the theory of Lombroso were correct, criminality ought to decrease; bad harvests no longer explain the increase, and the climate has not changed. However, the increase of criminality coincided with the enormous increase in the productive forces in France.

=======================================+===========+=============+=============+============ | 1840 | 1860 | 1880 | 1884 ---------------------------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+------------ Horse-power of steam engines used | | | | in manufacturing and agriculture | 34,350 | 177,652 | 544,152 | 683,090 Consumption of coal (in tons) | 4,256,000 | 14,270,000 | 28,846,000 | 30,941,000 Production of iron (in tons) | 585,000 | 1,430,000 | 2,790,000 | 2,747,000 Production of steel (in tons) | 8,262 | 30,000 | 389,000 | 503,000 Exports and imports (in millions | | | | of francs) | 1,442 | 4,174 | 8,501 | 7,575 Increase of inheritances (in millions | | | | of francs) | 1,608 | 2,724 | 5,265 | 5,244 National wealth (in millions of | | | | francs) | 64,320 | 108,960 | 210,600 | 209,760 =======================================+===========+=============+=============+============

There is a close correspondence, then, between the development of the economic forces and the increase of criminality. Must we regard this as simply chance, or is there causality between the two? Quetelet has already pointed out that the poorest districts, i.e. those in which the absolute wealth is not great, but where the contrasts are not very marked, furnish fewer criminals than the wealthier provinces. According to Lafargue this has become still more striking with the development of capitalism.

“The colossal development of the productive forces and the national wealth does not lead to the increase of the well-being of all the members of society, but to enormous fortunes on the one hand, and on the other to misery and need, for the great majority of the population.” [247] If the multiplying, grading, and perfecting of punishments have been incapable of checking the upward progress of crime, this proves that crimes and misdemeanors against the common law are the necessary products of conditions, and are closely bound up with the form and fashion of the creation of social wealth in capitalistic society.

“The development of the capitalistic mode of production is not uniform; at times it is over-rapid, and then slows up again and undergoes crises that destroy the living of thousands and millions of individuals. If it is correct that modern criminality is a necessary consequence of the method of the production of wealth in capitalistic society, then the fluctuations of crime must correspond with the variations in production. The number of offenses must increase in times of crisis, and decrease when economic conditions improve; in other words, criminality is determined by the flourishing or depression of the capitalistic mode of production.” [248]

As a means of measuring comparative economic conditions, Lafargue has taken the annual number of failures. He has also traced a curve for the price of flour. [249]

Examining the first plate we see that lines I and II, although not entirely parallel with V, follow it in general. According to Lafargue there are three counter-determinants that caused the deviations: first, changes in the price of flour; second, political events; third, extraordinary industrial activity. Thus, for example, it was the political events of 1848–52 that prevented the decrease of crime during those years, though the failures and the price of flour went down; and at the close of 1854 a feverish economic development recommenced, which, with the fall of the price of flour in 1856–59, caused a decrease of criminality during those years. At the same time the failures rose a little; but the line would doubtless show a different course if it were drawn with reference to the ratio of failures to the total number of commercial and industrial enterprises in this period. The low price of flour in 1869 neutralized the increase of failures and even diminished the criminality. From 1874 to 1878 a new industrial revival kept crime stationary or reduced it. Since 1876 the failures have increased greatly and crime follows at a little interval; the falling price of grain (1881–1885) certainly exerted an influence.

[PLATE I.

I. Crimes against Persons and Property, tried at the Assizes. II. General Criminality (Crimes and Misdemeanors). III. Offenses against the Common Law, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. IV. Price of a Sack of Flour in the Markets of Paris. V. Number of Failures.]

[PLATE II.

I. Thefts with Aggravating Circumstances, tried by the Assizes, and Simple Thefts, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. II. Theft, Fraud, Embezzlement, tried by the Correctional Tribunals. III. Number of Failures and the Price of Flour Combined.]

The curves are almost constantly parallel; the deviations are caused by political events and by the industrial revival. [250]

Vagrancy and mendicity take the same course as failures; they increase, however, from 1848 to 1852 in consequence of the political troubles of those years. From 1878 on, failures, and vagrancy and mendicity increase and are parallel. In the periods of industrial revival (1854–59 and 1874–76) vagrancy and mendicity decline sharply. In examining the curve of recidivism it must be remembered that since 1884 many recidivists have been transported.

[PLATE III.

I. Vagrancy and Mendicity. II. Failures. III. Recidivists sentenced by the Assizes or the Correctional Tribunals.]

Here we see a result contrary to that on the preceding charts: If the failures increase the rapes generally decrease, and vice versa. According to this plate the consumption of alcohol has no relation to crimes against morals.

[PLATE IV.

I. Rape. II. Consumption of Alcohol. III. Failures.]

At the end of his study the author comes to the following conclusion: “The effect of bankruptcy upon criminality and politics is undeniable; it furnishes one of the most striking proofs of the correctness of the historical theory of Karl Marx, that the phenomena of literature and art, of morality and religion, of philosophy and politics, in human society, lead back to the phenomena of economic development.” [251]

VI.

H. DENIS.

Professor Denis begins his report to the 3d Congress of Criminal Anthropology, entitled “La criminalité et la crise économique”, by calling attention to the effect that the crisis of 1846–47 had upon criminality. The crops of wheat, rye, and especially potatoes had been bad, and the price of these articles of food had accordingly risen. The breaking up of household labor and the introduction of machines brought about a revolution in the linen industry at the same time. So the figures for crime indicate an enormous increase during these years, and at the close of the period a continuous decrease.

=======+=========================== | Numbers of Delinquents Years. | to the 10,000 Inhabitants. -------+--------------------------- 1845 | 28.8 1846 | 47.9 1847 | 65.3 1848 | 42.4 1849 | 25.- 1850 | 19.8 1851 | 19.8 1852 | 19.2 1853 | 19.7 =======+===========================

Then the author treats of the effect produced upon criminality by the crises of 1874 and the years following. The price of grain no longer giving, in consequence of importation, an exact picture of the economic conditions, he adds to the chart which he uses, the “nombres indicateurs” (of 28 of the more important articles of commerce). The curve of these numbers shows a fluctuating rise during the period from 1850 to 1865, and a fluctuating decline during the period following the years 1874–75. During the first period, in which the economic conditions were favorable (the years 1870 to 1873 being characterized by an economic development that was even feverish), criminality remained fairly stationary. Only during the years 1856–57 and 1861–62 was there an increase, and this is probably to be ascribed to the high price of grain. The economic depression that commenced after 1874 was severely felt, and crime continually increased without the low price of grain being able to prevent it.

Professor Denis closes his report with the following words: “The solution of the problem of criminality must be in part sought in economic conditions; and the more regular and constant the social movement of wealth, the more we approach a normal equilibrium of collective functions, the more we instil justice into our economic institutions, the more shall we be able to gain the mastery over criminality.

“An Italian criminologist, Ferri, studying the evolution of criminality in France in relation to the income of the most numerous class, has shown that with a general rise in wages we see a decrease in certain kinds of crime. The general increase of prosperity is a sure pledge of a decrease in criminality. But there is another, and that is a decrease in those more or less marked oscillations, in the economic world, whose periodic return is certainly one of the gravest aspects of the modern state.

“In the second place, the economic causes that affect the tendency to crime reveal an immense solidarity, which continues to extend itself into space, as heredity plunges its roots into time. The great fluctuations in prices are common to the whole world, and the individual whom these perturbations drive to crime by a series of shocks, comes into conflict with a great number of other individuals, without being conscious of this infinite solidarity. But science must endeavor to collect the evidence of it. Finally these great economic influences tend, on the one hand, to reduce the field of the individual responsibility, and on the other, to give a precise character to the responsibility of society in this connection. It is responsible, in fact, within the limits within which it might have restrained the economic fluctuations and corrected their effects, but has not done so. Here the terrible saying of Quetelet is still true: society herself has put the weapon into the hand of the criminal.” [252]

VII.

H. LUX. [253]

In the chapter, “Die degenerirenden Einwirkungen des Kapitalismus”, this author treats of the question of criminality and its relation with present economic conditions.

“The property-holders, those who enjoy the benefits of all the political and social institutions, alone have the right to exist. Those without possessions do not have this right, despite the fiction of the Prussian code with regard to the matter. The simple instinct of self-preservation causes them to engage in a continual attack upon a legal system that protects only the stronger. It is this attack which those who are in possession of power, those who have drawn up the laws for the purpose of protecting their power, characterize as a breach of the law, as crime.... This is the simplest relationship between the form of society and crime. Naturally, complications come in.... The stronger those without property, the outlawed, themselves become through some chance, the more do they modify the law that was set up by those who were formerly stronger, the more do complications arise in the primitively simple right of property, the right to the protection of social institutions, and the law of marriage, and the greater and more complicated becomes the circle of crimes.” [254]

After having next spoken briefly of free will, and having shown that it is incorrect to connect criminality with a single social phenomenon alone, since the social mechanism is too complicated, the author begins to treat of the crimes against property. In the first place he gives the following tables:

Germany. [255]

========+========================================================++========================= | Prices. || +----------------------------------+---------------------++ To 10,000 Inhabitants | In Marks per 1,000 Kilogr. | In Pf. per Kilogr. || Over 10 Years Old. Years. +-----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------++----------------+-------- | Of Bread. | Of Peas. | Of | Of Beef. | Of Pork. || Crimes Against | Theft. | | | Potatoes. | | || Property. | --------+-----------+----------+-----------+----------+----------++----------------+-------- 1881 | 198 | 251 | 43.5 | 114 | 128 || -- | -- 1882 | 171 | 236 | 56.5 | 116 | 128 || 52.9 | 32.6 1883 | 155 | 241 | 45.5 | 120 | 128 || 51.0 | 31.6 1884 | 145 | 229 | 47.0 | 120 | 120 || 50.7 | 30.1 1885 | 147 | 212 | 38.0 | 119 | 120 || 48.6 | 27.9 1886 | 130 | 209 | 39.5 | 117 | 119 || 48.1 | 27.2 1887 | 135 | 198 | 41.5 | 113 | 115 || 47.1 | 26.0 1888 | 144 | 219 | 59.0 | 112 | 114 || 45.9 | 25.4 1889 | 162 | 209 | 42.0 | 117 | 128 || 49.3 | 28.1 ========+===========+==========+===========+==========+==========++================+========

Hungary.

============================+======+=======+=======+======+======+======+======+====== | 1881 | 1882 | 1883 | 1884 | 1885 | 1886 | 1887 | 1888 ----------------------------+------+-------+-------+------+------+------+------+------ Convicted of theft | 19. | 26.7 | 25.7 | 23.4 | 32.2 | 22.0 | 21.7 | 22.3 Crop of maize per hectare | 16.1 | 20.0 | 16.8 | 17.2 | 20.5 | 15.5 | 14.2 | 18.0 ,, ,, potatoes per hectare| 81.8 | 110.7 | 109.9 | 80.1 | 92.0 | 77.2 | 79.0 | 85.4 ============================+======+=======+=======+======+======+======+======+======

Finally, Dr. Lux cites some statistics from Kolb’s “Handbuch der vergleichenden Statistik”, which show the close connection between crimes against property and economic conditions.

Political crimes. “In the case of crimes against the State, public order, and religion, the dependence upon the form of society is immediately apparent. The ‘classes’, i.e. the property-owners as a whole, see in the institutions that they have set up, the strongest support of the capitalistic system, which must be maintained at any cost. The property-owners have the power to uphold their unique position by laws directed against those who would break down that power. And if the laws are no longer sufficient, their place is taken by judicial interpretations in the interests of the classes. This is only the logical consequence of the whole spirit and aim of legislation. The greater become the rights founded upon property, the more do those without property feel themselves to be deprived of their rights,—in the fullest sense of the word—in jeopardy as to their existence, their full life; the more energetic is the reaction against the laws, which are felt as despotism; and the more serious is the attack upon those laws,—a characteristic phenomenon of all periods of transition as to the form of society.” [256]

The question which presents itself now is this: how far are these factors connected with existing economic conditions? But before entering upon this the author calls attention to the environment in which the children of the proletariat live, and especially of the lower proletariat, an environment in which misery and vice contend for the preëminence. There it is nearly out of the question to learn ethical conceptions. Whence it comes also that in our days criminality among the young has greatly increased. However, alcoholism must also be named as one of the most important causes of psychical perturbations.

It is not only the non-possessors, but also the possessors who are driven to commit crimes as a consequence of existing economic conditions. “But not only for those without property, for the proletariat, does capitalism furnish the psychically prerequisite conditions for crime ... but for the property-holders themselves. Entirely aside from business practices and tricks of the trade, which stand upon the hairline between right and wrong, apart from the frauds, forgeries, etc. that are evoked by too tempting opportunity, there are more general effects of the capitalistic system. The hurried chase for gain, the accelerating of commerce by railroad, steamship, telegraph, and telephone, the multiplication of commercial crises, which earlier came at intervals, but now are a permanent accompaniment of the social life, bring about a nervousness running through all circles of society, that is continually increasing, and is the forerunner of more serious psychoses. The terrible increase of cases of insanity (in Prussia, to the 10,000 of the population, in 1871, 5.94 cases; in 1875, 7.28; in 1880, 9.87), appears to be thus directly caused by capitalistic society.” [257]

However, there act in man as counter-determinants, combating the factors called criminogenous, the ethical factors (“ethische Hemmungsvorstellungen”), which are determined by education, character, the fear of punishment, etc. Those who do not wish to investigate the deepest causes of criminality, are of the opinion that the best way to combat crime is by increasing the penalties. The persons who speak thus forget that the so-called ethical factors have no longer any effect when the conditions have reached a certain degree of seriousness.

Crimes against persons. It is the industrial workers who form the greatest contingent of criminals against persons. “The continually changing conditions of earning a living, the desire for drink, the slight influence of the family, the being crowded together with persons of defective education and little training ... these all necessarily breed crimes of violence; entirely aside from the habitual rowdyism of the bully [“Zuhälter”], which is to be regarded as the consequence of prostitution. [258]

Besides the external conditions named above, the person of the criminal is also to be noticed. We may consider it as proved that in some cases of crime one of the causes is a mental perturbation (for example, that caused by drunkenness). These perturbations play a great part in sexual crimes (perverted instincts). What characterizes most of these mental anomalies is that they blunt the social instincts. But there is another cause of psychic degeneracy. “It is a universally valid psycho-physical law that man, ‘the more he depends upon an agreeable stimulation for the satisfaction of his senses, demands ever stronger stimuli, even to secure the same degree of pleasure.’ Pleasures, especially sensual pleasures, must always become more intense, more titillating, in order to afford satisfaction, but the more their intensity increases, the more do the nerves become irritated and exhausted, and the more quickly is the ground prepared for mental diseases either in the individual himself or in his descendants.—It must be emphasized, however, that such an increase in the stimulus is only possible to the rich, and accordingly it is with reference to them chiefly that these sources of mental disturbances are to be taken into consideration.” [259]

After having called attention to the great amount of recidivism among female delinquents, to the great increase of crime in our own day, and to the great percentage of young people among the criminals, the author closes with the following words: “Crime belongs in a society founded upon capitalism just as necessarily as do prostitution, the destruction of countless human lives through economic exploitation, etc.”

VIII.

P. HIRSCH.

After having shown in the first chapter of his work, “Verbrechen und Prostitution”, [260] the relation between criminality and prostitution, and the increase of the two at the same time, the author gives, in his second chapter, a short exposition of the doctrine of criminal anthropology, and in the third chapter he takes up the doctrine of the social environment.

Here he treats first of the encouragement of prostitution and crime by the marriage restrictions. Marriages increase or decrease as economic conditions grow better or worse. So, for example, in Prussia there were, from 1866 to 1870, 1605 marriages to 100,000 of the population; this number rose to 1896 in the period of prosperity between the years 1870 and 1875, only to fall, in 1888, to 1624. In bad times the number of illegitimate births makes a consequent increase. It is very comprehensible that natural children furnish a greater number of criminals than legitimate children, since they have more difficulty in enduring the combat of life than the others.

Then he sets forth as a cause of crime the influence of domestic relations. When the parents belong already to the class of criminals, it is almost inevitable that their children should fall into the hands of justice while still young. And the present system of production brings it about that the education of the children of the proletariat is almost nil, since it obliges the father, and very often the mother also, to work away from home during a great part of the day and often of the night. The situation is still more unfavorable for the children who have lost their parents when they were still quite young. Starke says that about 57% of the legitimate children among the juvenile prisoners in Plötzensee were orphans or had been abandoned by their parents.

The third part has to do with the housing conditions of the proletariat. “A lodging fit for a human being is the first requirement for the bodily and mental welfare of the family; it is the prerequisite for a well-regulated family life, and for the rearing of the children to be moral men and women. The improprieties resulting from the exigencies of insufficient lodgings are innumerable, and this condition is an inexhaustible source of crime, prostitution, and vice of every kind.” All the data prove that the proletariat, who, of all classes, pay the highest rent, are the most miserably housed. In Berlin, for example, the poorest classes have been shown to spend on an average a quarter of their income for rent. In Hamburg the part of the income that had to go for rent among the class whose income was from 600 to 1200 marks, in 1868 was 18.77%, in 1874 20.90%, in 1882 23.51%, and in 1892 24.71%, while the percentage remained the same or decreased for all other classes. In order to make up the resulting deficit, resort is often had to night-lodgings. “The disadvantages of subletting are obvious. ‘Children of both sexes have to sleep with their parents, and often with strangers, in the same room, often even in the same bed; the advantages of domesticity are lost; the tavern offers more pleasant entertainment than being crowded together with wife and children in one room that must be shared with strangers, and in which the opportunity for quarreling and fighting, in consequence of the narrow quarters, is constant. It is the bad housing conditions that are the cause of the increasing alcoholism, of the break-up of the family life, and of the lack of education for the youth.’ (Braun).” [261]

The chapter that concerns us next treats of the subsidiary businesses engaged in by school children. It goes without saying that in the cases where the wages of the father of the family must be increased by the labor of the mother, the children also must be put to work at an age at which they ought to have their leisure time for play. For though child-labor in factories is a little limited by legislation, it is still commonly practiced in household industry. Further most of the children of the proletariat must, in their free hours, do all kinds of work harmful to their physique and their morals. “It is plain to be seen how greatly the school-children are injured by engaging in additional work. Entirely aside from the harm they suffer in the matter of health, and from the fact that the tired children cannot give sufficient attention to the words of the teacher and that for many of them their instruction is as good as lost, is the great fact that their morals are in the highest degree endangered. Under the pressure of necessity, these children learn to grasp every advantage, whether allowable or not, and—not through their own fault, but through that of society—are precociously familiar with vice.” [262] “Any one who examines these conditions will not be surprised that according to the statement of Superintendent Schönberger, out of 100 juvenile prisoners in the Plötzensee prison near Berlin, 70 had been employed during school days as breakfast-carriers, newsboys, messengers, bowling-alley-boys, etc., early in the morning, from half past four on, and in some cases still earlier, until school time, and in the afternoon either the whole time, or from four till half past seven or half past eight at night.” [263]

Next, Hirsch examines the influence of economic crises. He quotes, among other things, the following from the researches of J. S(chmidt). During the economic depression from 1875 to 1878 the number of punishments inflicted by the “Ordnungspolizei” in the country of Baden rose from 16,218 to 22,264, and that of the penalties inflicted by the “Sittenpolizei” (having surveillance of prostitution) from 1995 to 4485. There were increases, therefore, of 40% and 125%. In the period of prosperity from 1882 to 1885 these figures fell from 22,765 to 18,856 (16%), and from 4106 to 4007 (3%). During the critical years from 1889 to 1892 the number of recidivists convicted of theft rose 18%, and the number of other thieves convicted 6%. In the period from 1875 to 1878 (years of crisis) the number of offenses against property rose 17.4%, and decreased 13% in the years 1882 to 1885 (a period of prosperity).

In conclusion the author points out the fact that there are also criminals who are predisposed to crime by their physical constitution (mental disorders), and treats of “the repression of crime and prostitution.” [264]

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

VIII. CONCLUSIONS

Having come to the end of my exposition, I have still to sum up the different chapters. As we have seen, a very small proportion of the authors who have taken up the subject, deny the existence of the relation between criminality and economic conditions, and in my opinion they have not proved the correctness of their position.

The great majority of authors are of the opinion that economic conditions occupy a more or less important position, but that other factors besides these are also at work. I have tried to show that as far as these factors are of a cosmic or religious nature, this thesis cannot be correct; that as far as they are of an anthropological nature, they play a rôle only with regard to a part of criminality.

Finally, we have seen that a small number of authors are of the opinion that the influence of economic factors is sovereign. I have been able to find no inaccuracies in the foundations of their theses.

Nearly all the authors—later I shall speak of the exceptions—have this in common, that they give a very limited meaning to the words “economic factors”, under which they include only poverty and wealth, and that they do not inquire whether these phenomena do not themselves need explanation, and whether economic conditions have not a great influence upon the whole social organization. They consider them as being phenomena of the same value as the other sides of the social life. In other words, most authors have omitted to explain the present mode of production and its consequences.

However, economic conditions, in my opinion, occupy an entirely different place; they are the foundation upon which the social structure rests. To make my thought clear I will once more call attention to the classic formula of this doctrine, originated by Marx and Engels, taken from the preface to the work, “Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie”, which I have already quoted in treating of the theories of Professor Ferri.

“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.” [265]

In the second part of this work I will try to sketch a treatment of the question according to this theory. As regards economic conditions I shall limit myself, for different reasons, to the present system, i.e. modern capitalism.

These reasons are the following:

First. A really scientific examination of the causes of criminality is only possible since the existence of criminal statistics, i.e. since the beginning of the 19th century. [266]

Second. Criminality has increased greatly under capitalism, and is of the greatest importance to the whole social life.

Third. An examination of historic criminality is very interesting; that of our own day is still more so. However, social science is not simply a means of solving interesting problems, but also, and chiefly, a means of pointing out to society the way to protect itself from scourges like criminality, or if possible, to get rid of them entirely. Here the saying of Marx applies: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world differently; the important thing is to alter it.”

Above I have already remarked that some authors have an opinion that differs from that of the majority, and are in agreement with the theory cited. Among these must be cited Engels, one of the two founders of this theory, and most of the authors of whom I spoke in the last chapter. However, Engels has only made, in passing, some observations upon the influence of capitalism on crime among the workers in factories; Hirsch, in his interesting brochure, has pointed out only certain sides of the economic life; and although the studies concerning this question published by Lafargue and by Lux are more complete than those of the first two authors, there are nevertheless important points which these last have not examined, or to the bottom of which they have not gone, as it seems to me. And it is quite comprehensible that it should be so; for the work of Lafargue is only a magazine article, and that of Dr. Lux is one of the subdivisions of a social-political manual, in which he treats of crime among other social phenomena. The works of the other authors noticed in Chapter VII, do not make the study of the question in the manner noted, useless.

I am of the opinion, then, that while the works quoted have made considerable progress, there is still much to be done. It therefore appears to me that it will not be without profit to take up the subject.

The theory of Marx and Engels results in our having a method of investigation already marked out. While most authors who have published studies upon the question, have thought it unnecessary to give an exposition of the economic system in which we live, or perhaps have given a little attention to it along with other social conditions, I shall begin by setting forth the present economic system as that upon which the other parts of the social life rest. These I shall treat in their turn, in so far as they are connected with criminality. It is obvious that this will be only a sketch, for if one wished all the details, it would be enough to refer to the special literature upon the subject. Then I shall investigate the question of how far criminality, under its different forms, is the consequence of the conditions we have found.

[Note to the American Edition: According to some criticisms of my book it should have been my task not only to give a sketch of the economic theory of Marx, but also to prove it “in extenso” and to refute the criticisms of it, since it is not universally accepted.

It is true that this theory has not been generally accepted—a thing that would be impossible from the social consequences of such acceptation—but I claim that of all the economic theories, that of Marx is the only one that daily wins more adherents, and more and more interpenetrates all social science—even in the case of authors who are the bitterest opponents of this theory.

To require that a book like mine should once more set forth and defend the theory of Marx “in extenso”, is as impossible as to require that a modern biologist, who proceeds upon the basis of the Darwinian theory, should prove over again that his basis is sound. That there may be more or less error in detail in the theory of Marx, as in that of Darwin, is possible, but in general they have resisted, like a wall of bronze, all attacks in the most pitiless of contests, that of opinions.

Let the adversaries of Marx’s theory judge without prejudice whether that theory does not constitute a great step in advance in criminology!]

PART TWO.

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

I. THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM. [267]

In order to provide for his needs man has always been obliged to work, and this work has always depended upon the physical environment and especially upon the means of production. It is not our province to enquire how or why the means of production were developed. It is enough to show that because of their development the products which man had at his disposal were multiplied. Now when these products become too abundant for one group of producers, a surplus results, which may be exchanged for products of a different sort of which the first group of producers are deprived by reason of their circumstances. These products, which are not destined for personal use but for exchange are called commodities. Consequently it is its social qualities and not its natural qualities that make a commodity of any given product. That an exchange may be made, then, two conditions must be satisfied:

First, There must have been a division of labor; for there would be no point in the exchange of identical products. The objects to be exchanged are those which have no immediate usefulness for the person who possesses them, while they are useful to those who do not possess them.

Second, The persons who are exchanging must have full power to dispose of their products—in other words, they must be the possessors of the product which they wish to exchange.

In the beginning the relative quantities of the products exchanged for each other must have varied greatly. But in course of time the exchange of commodities took place in a ratio fixed for any one place and time; ten hatchets, for example, being equivalent to five bows, etc. These commodities must have a common quality which makes a comparison possible; and it is this common quality which we call their value. The first problem to be solved, then, is this: “What constitutes the value of commodities?”

To become a commodity anything must provide for some need of man; it must have the value of usefulness. Without this value a product can never be a commodity. However, it is impossible that the quality which different commodities have in common, and on the basis of which they are compared, should be their usefulness, that is to say, their natural qualities. For it is just because of their difference in usefulness [to their possessors] that goods are exchanged.

“As regards their use-value goods are primarily of different quality; as regards their exchange-value they can only be of different quantity, without including a particle of use-value.” [268]

Since usefulness does not count in exchange there is only one quality of the commodity that remains, that of being the product of labor. And as we have withdrawn the consideration of usefulness in estimating exchange-value, we must do the same for different kinds of work, so that the only quality which remains to a commodity is that of being the product of the labor of man in general. Any commodity, then, derives its value only from the circumstance that it represents a certain amount of labor of man in general.

The value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor it represents, measured by the time required. Naturally by “work” is to be understood here not individual work, but social work; or as Marx says: “It is ... the quantity of work socially necessary, or the time socially necessary for the production of a commodity, which determines its value.” [269]

In measure as the division of labor is developed, production for personal use diminishes, and the production of commodities increases, until it finally becomes the universal form of production, and one commodity (money) is developed as a universal equivalent. As a consequence of the development of the production of merchandise, the purchase and sale of goods becomes a special profession. The merchant buys for a different reason from that which influences his customers. While the latter buy for consumption, the former buys to sell again and make a profit out of the transaction. The commodity which serves for this purpose is called capital.

Consequently capital comes into existence at the moment when the production of commodities has attained a certain degree of development. Private property, the basis of the production of commodities, begins from that point to show its capitalistic character, at first in an imperceptible manner, which nevertheless becomes more and more developed. The income of the artisan depends primarily upon his personal qualities; that of the capitalist—as such—depends in the first place upon the amount of his capital. The working power and capacity of an individual are limited, so that the quantity that he can produce is also limited; while money can be heaped up without limit. The larger the sum of money anyone uses as capital, the more the money can produce. But the reverse of the medal is not so pretty. Side by side with the possibility of accumulating a fortune there is that of becoming poor. This fact was not prominent at the entrance of capitalism into the field, when poverty was not yet a general phenomenon, but it increased more and more, so that at present we live in a society in which the greater part of the population is poor.

In the Middle Ages the trades were developed in Europe; the division of labor increased; tools were perfected; and commerce was developed, chiefly as a consequence of the improvement of the means of communication. The maritime route to India was discovered as well as the American continent. Enormous sums of money, acquired by means of commerce and pillage, flowed into Europe. With the discovery of these countries the outlets for trade correspondingly increased. The trades, however, not being in a position to furnish the great quantity of commodities required, the merchants determined themselves to undertake the wholesale production of articles intended exclusively for sale.

There was no lack of money to procure the raw materials and the tools, to establish workshops and to hire workmen. The only difficulty to be overcome was that of procuring these last. The workman who has in his own possession the means of production will not sell his labor. To attain their end the capitalists had to seek for persons who, having no means of production, were obliged to sell their productive energy or die of hunger.

For certain reasons it was possible for the needs of the capitalists to be satisfied. On account of the development of the market in the cities the demand for food, and for raw materials of every kind, such as wood, wool, etc., increased, and agricultural production for the purpose of sale increased, so that the peasants began to have money. This latter fact complicated the relation between them and the feudal lords. So long as the rent was paid in kind the lord demanded only as much as he could consume; but from the day that the rent began to be paid in money the landowner began to press the peasant more and more, since money can always be used, and no one ever has enough. From this fact arose so severe an exploitation that many peasants left the country to take refuge in the towns.

The second reason why a large number of workmen were obtainable was that the lords themselves began to produce commodities for city markets, especially wool and wood. This took fewer laborers than agriculture, but required more land, so that many peasants were driven from their farms and, like the others, went to swell the population of the cities.

Thus there was no further obstacle to wholesale production, and from then on raw materials were purchased, workshops established, and the labor of the proletariat procured. Human labor thus has become a commodity, corresponding exactly to definition: first, it has no use-value for the possessor if he has not the means of production, and, on the other hand, has such a value for the person possessing these means; second, the possessor of labor has the free disposition of it.

The contract is made; the proletariat on the one side furnishes the commodity—labor—and the capitalist on the other gives the equivalent of it. Now how much must be given for this commodity? In other words what is the value of the labor delivered? The value of a commodity is determined by the labor-time socially necessary for its production, in this case necessary for the proletarian and his family to live; for the workman being mortal, and capital having need of new forces, the wage must be sufficient to raise a new generation of workers. The standard of the workman’s needs is subject to variation according to time and place (the causes of which variation we need not examine here), but it is fixed for a certain country, time, and category of workers.

Let us suppose now that the process of production has a normal course, that is to say, that it comes out as the capitalist wishes. He has begun with a sum, A, and ends by possessing A + a. We must now explain this surplus a, which, in the terminology of capitalistic production, is called surplus-value. The surplus obtained from the labor of slaves is easily explained. The owner leaves the slaves a part of the product of their own labor to live on. The rest is his. His surplus springs from the labor of others. The relation of the serf and his lord is, if possible, even clearer. The serf works part of the week for himself and on the remaining days for his master. The explanation of the surplus produced by capital employed at usury or in primitive commerce (the most ancient forms under which capital was employed) no longer offer any great difficulties. The usurer appropriated to himself the possessions of the borrower little by little and so ruined him completely. The primitive merchant made himself a surplus by selling dear something that he had bought at a trivial price, a transaction which involved no increase in value. Now it is just this increase in value that is to be explained upon the basis of the law that things of equal value are exchanged, and not, as in the cases cited above, upon the exceptions to the law.

If we represent the transaction of one who buys, not to make a profit, but to exchange something which has no use-value for him for something which has such a value (the simple circulation of commodities), by the formula C—M—C, in which C stands for commodities and M for money, we can represent the transaction of the capitalist by M—C—(M + m). In this formula m stands for the surplus-value accruing to the capitalist at the end of a successful operation. The latter formula is composed of the factors M—C, the purchase of the commodity, and C—(M + m), the sale. According to the law of the circulation of commodities the value of M ought to be equal to C, but C in turn must be equal to M + m, a thing which is possible only if C is a commodity which, while it is being consumed, produces a value greater than what it has. However, there is no value without labor; consequently the formula cited can harmonize with reality only if labor is itself a commodity. And, as we have seen above, it is such from the moment that the economic development has reached a certain point.

What is now the course of the production of the surplus-value? The capitalist has fitted up a factory, has procured tools and raw material, has hired labor, and the process of production commences. Suppose that the necessaries of life for the workman and his family may be produced by six hours of work socially necessary; by making him work, then, six hours the capitalist will have a product equal to that of the raw material used, increased by that which is given it by the tools and by the labor which the workman has put upon it. This value, however, has been entirely paid out by the capitalist; he has no surplus left; the transaction has failed. But ordinarily the process succeeds in procuring profits for the capitalist, since in the contract between him and the laborer it is not stipulated that the latter shall work only the number of hours necessary to produce enough for his own needs. On the contrary the workman is compelled to labor as long as his strength will permit. The value produced by the workman after the time necessary for the production of the equivalent of his needs falls to the capitalist, and this it is which constitutes the surplus-value, the value derived from work not paid for.

The aim of the capitalist is to procure for himself as large a surplus-value as possible. He can attain his end at once by forcing the laborer to work as long a time as it is possible for him to work. From this springs the irreconcilable conflict between the interests of the proletariat and those of capital, the combat over the length of the working-day. The day has its natural limits (it is necessary that certain hours be left to the workman for food and rest), its legal limits (decreed too late by the state, driven on one side by the workers themselves, and on the other by the plain certainty that without this protection the working class would become enfeebled), and finally its limits fixed by the pressure of the labor unions.

However, there is still one other way in which the surplus-value is increased, as I shall explain by what follows. Let us suppose the length of the working day to be twelve hours, and the time necessary for the production of the equivalent of the workman’s needs to be six hours. We can then represent the day as follows:

A----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----B C

CB is consequently the time in which the surplus-value is produced. The aim of the capitalist, then, is to protract the period CB as much as possible, and this he can accomplish in two ways: first, that of which we have just spoken, the prolongation of AB; second, the shortening of AC in order that CB may be as long as possible, or in other words, the shortening of the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life for the workman and his family. When the productivity of labor rises, the value of the commodities falls; and when the value of the commodities which the workman needs for his support falls, the value of labor falls also. However, the increase of the productivity of labor is only possible through the improvement of the means of production and the methods of working, so that capitalism modifies its manner of production unceasingly. In general the capitalist does not take account of the fact that the more cheaply commodities are produced for sale, the more the value of labor falls, and, other things being equal, the more the surplus-value increases. The capitalist strives constantly to make improvements in his methods of production in order to surpass his competitors. Supposing that, by the employment of a new method of working, he succeeds in producing in half an hour an article up to that time generally made in an hour, he will then obtain an extra profit as long as his competitors do not employ this method. But as soon as the latter have improved their production in the same way, the time socially necessary falls from an hour to half an hour, and the extra profit of the man who first introduced the method ceases. The result that remains is this: the value of labor has decreased, and the relative surplus-value has consequently increased, in so far as the commodities whose value has declined are destined to provide for the needs of the workmen.

Before entering upon the consideration of some of the methods for shortening the necessary hours of labor, attention must be fixed upon the fact that, aside from this method, the capitalist tries above all to lower the price of labor below its value, while the workers, for their part, oppose this tendency and try to obtain the contrary; whence there results a new cause for an inexorable struggle between labor and capital, side by side with that over the length of the working-day.

Let us now examine the methods of abridging the labor-time necessary, beginning with coöperation. As we have seen above the capitalistic method of production begins when the capitalist has in his service a sufficiently large number of workmen. In the days of the guilds the master had also paid workers, but the surplus-value which he procured from them was not great, since their number was small, a fact which obliged him to work with them, since without this his income would have been too small. The true capitalist is he who is permitted by the amount of the surplus-value which he receives to live according to his rank, without working with his laborers, reserving to himself only the direction of affairs.

The difference, therefore, between capitalistic production and that at the time of the guilds is in the first place only quantitative, but there come in qualitative differences as well. In the first place the differences in the individual capacities of the workmen disappear; the ability of one neutralizes the smaller ability of the other, so that the capitalist can count upon an average amount of labor. Next there is economy in the new arrangement; because a structure to hold twenty-five workmen working together costs less than twenty-five structures with one workman in each. Finally, and most important of all, by having a number of men working together, each doing his own share toward the common end, we bring about a systematic working together, that is to say, coöperation, which brings into being a new collective force greater than the sum of the individual forces. Not only does coöperation permit the accomplishment of work requiring a greater expenditure of energy, but it also raises the productivity of labor. The direction necessary for this joint labor falls to the capitalist as such. Submission of the workman to the capitalist is, then, an indispensable condition of the capitalistic method of production.

We come now to another method for increasing the relative amount of the surplus-value, the manufactory proper, a more developed form of coöperation, which became general between the middle of the sixteenth century and the end of the eighteenth. This comes from two causes. On the one side it is due to the combination of different trades, up to that point independent of each other. The manufacture of a carriage, for example, requires the work of a wheelwright, a harness-maker, a painter, etc., who all exercise their trades independently of each other. The capitalist unites them all in one trade, that of carriage-maker, in which the occupation of each becomes more limited, more specialized. The painter, for example, becomes especially a painter of carriages. On the other side the manufactory is due to the bringing together of workmen of the same trade into a single workshop, and to the division of labor made possible in this way. Thus, for instance, in the manufacture of pins, each pin is no longer made by a single workman but by several, each of whom does only a special part of the work.

It is clear that through the introduction of manufactory methods the productivity of labor has been enormously increased, so that the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life for the workmen has become shorter, and the surplus-value correspondingly augmented. The part taken by the workman in the process of production is quite different from what it was in the time of the guilds. The different operations that he performed in making the complete product are now replaced by the monotonous and repeated production of a single one of the parts. From this point dates the division of workmen into skilled and unskilled laborers. The latter are those whose work is such as to require little or no apprenticeship, and they are the cause of a new lowering of the price of labor.

We have still to take up the question of the introduction of machinery and of manufacturing on a large scale. Although at the period of the early manufactories the workman was obliged to perform a monotonous task, which in so far may be called “mechanical”, yet this task was performed, though with the aid of tools, by his own hands. But in the eighteenth century the machine was invented, that is to say, a mechanism which took the place both of the workman and of his tools. Machines were introduced because they saved hand-work, and consequently lowered the price of the product and relatively increased the surplus-value.

Each developed mechanism is composed of three parts: the motor, the transmission, and the operating part. It is to the development of this last that the economic revolution of the eighteenth century is due. However, there was needed a motive power greater and more regular than those then available. The steam-engine, invented by James Watt, provided for this need and, in its turn, led to new developments of operating machinery. The steam-engine was capable of running many operating machines at the same time, and thus the modern factory was established. In branches in which the product requires a series of different manipulations, a system of machines has been contrived of which one furnishes the material to the next without the intervention of hands, so that a system of automatic mechanism has been produced.

The revolution caused by the introduction of machines in one branch of industry necessitated its introduction into another, etc. The means of communication and of transportation were extended. The steamboat, the railroad, and the telegraph were invented. Because of important inventions in the manufacture of machines it finally became possible to produce the necessary quantity of machines of all kinds.

What are the most important consequences of the new system of production? In the first place stands the introduction of the labor of women and children, since tending machines generally does not require great muscular strength. The advantages which accrue to the capitalist from the employment of women and children are obvious. Since the price of the workman’s labor is determined by the time necessary for the production of the necessities of life not only for himself, but also for his family, as soon as the whole family are compelled to sell their labor, the price of that labor will simply equal that of the labor of the workman alone. Ordinarily the income of the family will rise a little under these circumstances, but, because of the absence of the wife from the household, expenses will increase also. The increase of the surplus-value, obtained by the labor of women and children, is therefore important. Besides, the women and children have less power to resist the capitalist than men have, while the men, in their turn, are weakened by the competition of women and children.

In the second place the introduction of machines produces in the mind of the capitalist a desire to prolong the working day as much as possible, for the following reasons among others. The greater the number of hours each day in which the machine is in operation, the more quickly it will return its cost through the product, and, other things being equal, the shorter will be the time required for the capitalist to gain the same amount of surplus-value. Suppose A works his machines for 8 hours a day, and B works as many machines for 16 hours; B’s machines will return their cost through the product in half the time needed by A’s. Consequently B will gain double the surplus-value in the same time, so that A also will be driven to work his machines for 16 hours. And since a machine deteriorates even when it is not in use, there is, when the machines are stopped, a loss of value which the capitalist cannot retrieve. Hence the tendency to prolong the working-day. In the third place every capitalist runs the danger of seeing his competitors introduce new machines which save still more work and so diminish the value of his own. The more quickly a machine returns its cost, the less the danger just mentioned becomes.

Finally, I have still to notice the following cause for the prolongation of the working-day. The object of the employment of machines is the increase of the surplus-value through their use. This increase, however, is possible only through the diminution in the number of workmen employed by the capitalist. But since the surplus-value is created only by the workmen, any diminution in their number is to the disadvantage of the capitalist. In order to overcome this he attempts to prolong the day.

The more machinery is developed, the more the attention which the workman must give to his work increases; in other words, the more intense the labor becomes. The tendency of the capitalist to increase the intensity of labor reaches its apogee as soon as the working time is limited, for different reasons. In order that the surplus-value may be equal to what it was formerly, the workman, for example, must produce as much in eleven hours as he formerly produced in thirteen hours. The means by which the intensity of labor is increased (not to enter into unnecessary details) are; first, the manner of fixing wages—piece-work, and second, the practice of making the workmen tend more machines than formerly, and of driving the machines faster, so as to force the workmen to a greater intensity of labor.

The contest between the large manufacturing establishments and the small factories and workshops has led gradually but infallibly to the destruction of the latter. They are forced to maintain the competitive struggle by incredibly long hours of labor, by an unlimited exploitation of the labor of women and children, etc. In this way it is often possible to resist competition for some time, but finally the large manufactory triumphs all along the line.

Agriculture also, though to a less degree than manufacturing, has been revolutionized by the introduction of machines. Rural workers who have become superfluous have betaken themselves to the cities, and there go to swell the population already enormously increased by industrialism.

The exposition which I have just given of the origin of the surplus-value is sufficient for this work. It is not necessary for our subject to stop to consider the fact that a part of the surplus-value is destined to become capital, while the other part is consumed by those who have appropriated the whole. As has been shown above, the employment of machines, etc., has increased in every branch of industry, and this has brought it about that the capital necessary to any manufacturing establishment increases continually under the pressure of competition. Hence it follows that capitalism itself forces the capitalist to invest as new capital part of the surplus-value acquired by him. But aside from this, it is capitalism also that produces the capitalist’s penchant for always investing more capital, which, in its turn, produces a greater surplus-value than the original capital, etc. And since the accumulation of capital has no limits, the greediness of the capitalist has none, and he is driven to increase his capital incessantly, even when his income is so great that it permits him to satisfy every possible need.

However, the group of capitalists of which we have been speaking is not the only one that gains surplus-value. Industrial capital is obliged to share the total surplus-value with commercial capital, the capital consisting of money, and that consisting of real estate. In the first place, a part of the surplus-value is claimed by commercial capital. For the economic system in force would not be able to operate without commerce. The development of capitalism has led to an extensive division of labor in the class of capitalists (banks, insurance companies, etc.), and the capital invested in these enterprises must equally have its share of the total surplus-value. Capital in the form of money plays an increasingly important part in modern capitalism, and so must have its share of the surplus-value.

The owners of the soil also appropriate a considerable part. The land is the most indispensable means of production, and is incapable of being increased at will. As capitalism increases, the demand for territory becomes greater and greater. This causes the ground rents in general to rise, which means that the share of the total surplus-value which the land-owners appropriate becomes greater and greater. It is especially in the cities, which are highly developed under capitalism, and in which, consequently, the demand for land is great and the supply relatively small, that ground rents have risen to an unheard of degree, and this to the prejudice of the health and happiness of the less privileged classes.

Up to this point we have been necessarily supposing that the capitalist succeeds in making a profit. But, as we know, it often happens that he does not attain his end, that his capital produces no added value, that he even loses it entirely or in part. This case being important for the subject in hand we must stop to consider it for a moment. As has been shown above, the capitalist begins by purchasing labor and the means of production in order to set in motion the process of production. For him the difficulty then consists of selling the manufactured product at its value and of thus realizing the added value which is a part of this. At times, aided by circumstances, he succeeds in selling the product above its value, and so makes an extra profit. On the other hand, he runs the risk of having to sell the product below its value, or of not being able to sell it at all.

The causes of the poor success of the process are of different kinds. In the first place, the capitalist may not have the ability necessary for the direction of the process of production. For example, the product made under his management may be inferior to that of his competitor, though the cost of production is the same; the means of production may be purchased at too high a price; he may not have been in touch with the tastes of consumers, etc.; reasons all of which render his product unsalable, or salable at a loss.

In the second place, circumstances independent of his own act may present themselves which have the same result. Let us look at some of them. To begin with, the unforeseen cessation of payment on the part of one of his important debtors may oblige him to sell his goods at a sacrifice in order to satisfy his creditors. Again, he may lack the capital necessary to meet competition. For the amount of capital necessary in every branch of industry or commerce becomes greater and greater, and the man who cannot procure this capital is forced little by little to give ground to his competitors and finally to give up business altogether.

In the third place, it very often happens that, as a result of competition, there is an oversupply of commodities, which from this very fact are unsalable, or must be sold for less than their value. In the periods of prosperity this case is not general. But it is the rule in crises. Because of their great importance to the relation between criminality and economic conditions, it is necessary to pause here to examine the cause and origin of these crises.

Economic crises, that is to say periods in which the economic life is greatly disturbed, are due to various circumstances; for example, to a war which puts obstacles in the way of the regular continuance of international commerce. But aside from such causes there are others which are natural to the present economic system itself, and which bring on these crises periodically. It is these causes, which are the more important, of which it is necessary to treat here.

A crisis is the result of overproduction. This does not imply that in every case overproduction will bring about a crisis. If one who is producing for his own consumption happens to produce more than he can consume, the result will be that during a certain period he will proceed to produce less, and the equilibrium will be reëstablished. But when one manufactures not for himself but for the market the situation is entirely different. Each manufacturer of commodities produces separately, that is to say without any understanding with his fellow-manufacturers, articles of which he himself has no need, but which he attempts to exchange for money in order to obtain what he does need. If he does not succeed in selling his commodities he is left without money to buy the commodities that are necessary to him. Overproduction can thus have very harmful results for those who hold commodities.

Now how does it happen that the capitalistic mode of production causes periodically a production greater than the possible consumption? (It goes without saying that this phrase is not to be taken to mean that the consumers are physically incapable of using the product, but merely that there are not enough buyers.) As has been shown above, capitalistic production is carried on for the sake of the added value, that is to say, the value of the unpaid labor. In other words, the working class produces more than it consumes. In feudal society the surplus was entirely consumed by the class which appropriated it; at present, on the contrary, the owning class use part of the surplus to form new capital. For this comes a continually increasing accumulation of capital, and consequently a greater and greater quantity of products which in the end find no buyer. For the extension of production increases the number of workmen necessary, and consequently increases the demand also, but these workmen produce in their turn more than they consume. The overproduction is not, then, neutralized by a greater consumption. On the contrary it furnishes the material for an overproduction still greater. Hence capitalism causes crises periodically as the result of an overproduction caused by too small a consumption on the part of the working class.

Since the mass of capital increases without cessation it is indispensable to find new investments, and to broaden the market. From this it results, among other things, that the capitalist class is forced to take up the policy of political expansion and to conquer countries where capitalism has not yet become rooted. If it succeeds in finding a new outlet, then, production increases enormously, existing factories are enlarged, new ones are established, etc., and the new market is inundated with goods. But in the end this market ceases to be able to absorb the continually increasing mass of products, so much the more since the production of the country itself also increases as capitalism gains foothold there. The commodities remain, then, unsold, and a crisis is begun. Production must be stopped or decreased; the stock of commodities being thus made smaller the equilibrium begins little by little to reëstablish itself; after which the movement is repeated. But since the capitalistic method of production little by little spreads itself over the whole earth, it becomes increasingly difficult to find countries where capitalism has not been implanted. Hence overproduction tends to become chronic.

Besides the cause already set forth there is still another circumstance which can produce a crisis or aggravate one already existing; I refer to the lack of order in the present mode of production. Suppose that the demand for iron is great at any given moment. The production will then increase so quickly, and in such a degree (each manufacturer ignoring what his competitors are doing), that the supply will far exceed the demand. As a result manufacturing will be checked. As soon as overproduction occurs in as important a branch of industry as the manufacture of iron, there will follow also a stoppage of production in other branches, and a general crisis will ensue.

The consequences of a crisis for the capitalist class are well known. Many are forced to stop producing, are no longer able to pay their creditors, and draw many of their debtors in their train. Because of the complexity of the present system of production the consequences of a crisis are very far reaching. It is naturally the small capitalists who are stricken first, whence it follows that during crises there is a great concentration of capital.

Just as in the first part of this discussion I proceeded on the assumption that the capitalist always attains his end, i.e. gains the surplus-value, just so I have also been speaking as if the workman always sold his labor. Let us look now at the case of the man who does not succeed in selling it. In order that a contract be entered into between capitalist and workman it is necessary that labor be desired and offered. If the workman for his part cannot deliver the labor contracted for, or not enough of it, whether from sickness or from weakness, it is perhaps but a question of exchange, and the workman is abandoned to his fate. Capitalism rests upon this fact that there is a class of men, much more numerous than any other, who are deprived of everything and consequently are forced to sell their labor; otherwise no workman would care to close a contract.

Let us look at the other side of the question, when the supply of labor exceeds the demand. Those who do not succeed in selling their labor are then equally abandoned to their own resources. From what causes in the capitalistic method of production does it happen that the supply of labor is in excess of the demand? Are these causes to be found in too great an increase in the population, or in the method of production itself?

It has been shown above that the composition of capital changes incessantly. Machinery becomes more and more developed and a great part of capital is composed of machines. The introduction of machines has taken place because they economize labor. Thus a certain number of workmen find themselves without occupation. It is true that there is a mitigating circumstance, namely that there is an increased demand for labor in other branches (manufacture of machines), but this demand can never be as great as the amount of labor rendered superfluous by machinery, for otherwise machines would never have been introduced. However short the apprenticeship required by modern industry, it is nevertheless impossible for a workman to change from one branch to another at short notice. Thus the consequences for workmen thrown out of employment continue to be serious notwithstanding the increased demand in another branch. The only case in which the introduction of machines will occasion no unemployment will be when the demand for commodities increases extraordinarily, as, for example, when a new market is opened up.

However there are still other causes of forced unemployment. Such are the introduction of the labor of women and children, the migration of rural workers to the cities, immigration from backward countries, and the supplanting of small businesses, by which members of the lower middle class are forced down into the proletariat.

The causes of overpopulation are found, then, in the system of production itself, and not in a too great increase of the population; a conclusion to be drawn also from the fact that as far as actual productivity of labor is concerned each produces more than enough for his needs. There are, then, always a number of persons who desire to work but cannot find employment. In periods of crisis the number of these increases enormously. The so-called “reserve army of labor” is a condition indispensable to capitalism. Without it sudden development in periods of prosperity would be impossible. Without it also the power of organized labor would become so great that the surplus-value would run serious danger. It is just because the supply of labor exceeds the demand that the power of the capitalists over the workmen is so great, and also that it happens so often that the interests of the workmen are thwarted.

We come now to the end of my exposition. For our subject it is unnecessary to continue it further. I should like, however, to draw attention to two more points. The continually increasing concentration of capital has as a consequence that the conduct of the business under the direction of the capitalist himself more and more gives place to the stock company, which combines the capital of numerous persons, and gives the direction to a salaried employe. Following this, concentration drives the owners in one branch of industry to combine for the purpose of eliminating competition, and thus of increasing profits; in this way the “trusts” come into being. Competition, the fundamental principle of capitalism, is changed into its opposite, monopoly.

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