Part 2 / Book 2 — CRIMINALITY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third, To reform the criminal as far as possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Egoistic Tendencies Resulting from the Present Economic System and from its Consequences.

The etiology of crime includes the three following problems:

First. Whence does the criminal thought in man arise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below 12 having paid occupation 32,687

From 12 to 14 having,, paid,, occupation,, 148,766

From,, 14 to,, 16 having,, paid,, occupation,, 1,131,723

From,, 16 to,, 18 having,, paid,, occupation,, 1,397,161

From,, 18 to,, 20 having,, paid,, occupation,, 1,451,263

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

Germany, 1882–1896.

Offenses. Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the Population of the Same Age, in the Years:

1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896.

Crimes in general 568 549 578 560 565 576 563 614 663 672 729 686 716 702 702

Theft and embezzlement 370 353 358 335 337 337 334 369 391 392 430 376 393 380 373

Assaults 63 65 78 81 84 86 82 88 99 101 108 118 121 126 130

Malicious mischief 31 27 31 33 30 34 32 34 40 38 40 41 45 41 46

Fraud 20 20 21 20 21 22 22 26 27 28 31 26 28 28 26

Insults 10 10 12 13 13 13 13 13 16 15 17 19 20 19 19

Rape, etc. 12 10 11 11 11 12 11 12 12 13 14 14 16 15 15

Domiciliary trespass 7 6 9 7 9 8 8 8 11 11 12 12 14 14 14

Forgery 5 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 9 9 9 10

Rebellion 4 5 5 5 4 6 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 8

Arson 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3

Crimes against life 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Counterfeiting 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3

Germany, 1882–1896.

Offenses. Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the Hundred, Convicted in the Years:

1882. 1883. 1884. 1885. 1886. 1887. 1888. 1889. 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1882 to 1896.

Arson 24 21 22 26 26 27 29 32 30 37 31 37 29 28 35 28

Offenses against morals 23 19 22 20 18 21 21 22 23 24 25 24 24 22 21 21

Theft and embezzlement 17 16 17 17 18 19 19 20 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 19

Malicious mischief 14 13 13 13 12 14 15 15 17 17 17 16 17 15 16 15

Forgery 8 10 10 10 11 10 12 12 13 14 13 13 12 11 12 11

Fraud 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 8 6 9 8 9

Counterfeiting 6 6 8 8 7 9 12 6 10 14 10 6 15 10 8 9

Crimes in general 9 9 9 8 8 9 9 9 10 11 11 10 10 9 9 9

Assaults 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6

Crimes against life 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 5

Domiciliary trespass 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

Rebellion 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.6

Insults 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1.4

England, 1893–1899.

Number of Persons under 21 to the 100 Convictions.

Years 1893. 1894. 1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899. 1893 to 1899.

Simple theft 45.51 47.31 44.73 44.54 44.14 45.27 43.19 44.95

Theft by domestics 41.07 43.17 40.26 43.12 42.60 42.71 40.70 41.80

House-breaking 41.27 40.65 36.83 36.67 38.83 38.30 39.86 38.91

Theft upon the person 32.93 29.73 27.53 28.77 28.95 26.85 27.68 28.93

Malicious mischief 21.51 25.95 22.89 19.98 27.22 29.29 26.82 24.80

Extortion 26.61 28.99 25.35 27.22 16.42 23.26 21.60 23.92

Crimes against morals 25.44 23.73 23.57 23.07 23.22 22.23 21.96 23.32

Crimes committed with violence 20.48 22.33 22.76 25.82 24.69 23.82 22.77 23.23

Forgery 14.01 15.56 18.62 14.34 10.63 16.74 14.64 14.93

Obtaining money by false pretenses 14.12 13.98 14.75 13.80 14.04 11.56 12.02 13.46

Counterfeiting 24.39 10.10 11.53 11.76 9.19 20.17 7.61 13.53

Assaults 14.74 14.20 13.22 12.93 12.39 13.44 11.57 13.21

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

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

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

France, 1881–1900.

Court of Assizes. Accused.

Age. 1881–1885. 1886–1890. 1891–1895. 1896–1900.

Absolute Number. % Absolute Number. % Absolute Number. % Absolute Number. %

Under 16 32 0.7 31 0.7 31 0.7 26 0.7

16 to 21 750 17.1 618 14.5 631 15.6 574 16.8

Under 21 782 17.8 649 15.2 662 16.3 600 17.5

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

Correctional Tribunals. Accused of Misdemeanors.

Age. 1881–1885. 1886–1890. 1891–1895. 1896–1900.

Absolute Number. % Absolute Number. % Absolute Number. % Absolute Number. %

Under 16 5,846 3.0 6,980 3.4 6,903 3.2 5,776 2.9

16 to 21 28,688 15.1 27,309 13.6 31,119 14.8 30,415 15.7

Under 21 34,534 18.1 34,289 17.0 38,022 18.0 36,261 18.6

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

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

Correctional Tribunals. Persons Arraigned.

Misdemeanors. Total Arraigned. Number under 21. Percentage under 21.

Thefts 42,127 12,483 29.6

Sexual offenses 2,939 643 21.8

Rebellion 3,315 676 20.3

Assaults 36,592 6,600 18.0

Vagrancy 11,804 1,914 16.2

Obtaining money under false pretenses 3,179 376 11.8

Mendicity 9,057 778 8.5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netherlands, 1896–1901.

Crimes. Average for the Period 1896–1901.

Number Convicted. Percentage under 21.

Total. Under 21.

Aggravated theft 894 416 46.4

Sexual offenses 202 63 31.1

Theft 1,713 526 30.7

Malicious mischief 756 226 29.9

Assault 3,927 1,030 26.2

Domiciliary trespass 318 72 22.6

Rebellion 1,056 216 20.4

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

First. That juvenile crime is increasing.

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

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

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

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

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

Paris, 1849.

Table I.

Arrondissements. Good Dwellings. % Conduct of the Inmates.

Men. Women.

Good. % Very Bad. % Good. % Very Bad. %

The 6 arrondissements with the smallest number of good dwellings 35 46 10 20.4 19

The 6 arrondissements with the largest number of good dwellings 44.5 50 2.5 21.7 14

The 12 arrondissements together 39 48 6.4 21.0 16.6

The figures cited above in proportion to all Paris = 100 89 96 156 97 114

114 104 39 103 86

100 100 100 100 100

Paris, 1860.

I. Men.

Occupations. In Furnished Rooms. Conduct Doubtful or Bad.

% %

90 occupations 5 3

90 occupations,, 14 9

90 occupations,, 28 12

270 occupations 20 9

Proportion to all the occupations = 100.

90 occupations 25 13

90 occupations,, 70 100

90 occupations,, 140 133

270 occupations 100 100

II. Women.

Occupations. In Furnished Rooms. Conduct Doubtful or Bad.

% %

110 occupations — 3

60 occupations,, 4 6

60 occupations,, 14 15

230 occupations 7 9

Proportion to the Average of the 230 occupations = 100.

110 occupations 0 33

60 occupations,, 59 68

60 occupations,, 206 169

230 occupations 100 100

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following table gives the figures for the different crimes:

Belgium, 1899–1901.

Years. Persons Convicted.

Illiterate. Able to Read or Write Imperfectly. Able to Read and Write. Having a Higher Education. Total.

1899 588 1389 424 144 2545

1900 626 1444 521 176 2767

1901 619 1581 604 218 3022

1899–1901 1833 4414 1549 538 8334

% 22.— 53.— 18.6 6.4 100.0

Ireland, 1905.

Prisoners.

Men. Women. Total.

Absolute Numbers. % Absolute Numbers. % Absolute Numbers. %

Illiterate 4,321 22.5 3,264 32.5 7,585 25.9

Able to read, or read and write imperfectly 3,804 19.8 1,983 19.8 5,787 19.8

Able to read and write well 11,003 57.2 4,757 47.4 15,760 53.9

With a higher education 93 0.5 32 0.3 125 0.4

Unknown 2 0.0 — — 2 0.0

Total 19,223 100.0 10,036 100.0 29,259 100.0

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

Netherlands, 1901.

Crimes. To 100 Convicts Unable to Read or Write.

Marauding 16.6

Vagrancy 10.0

Simple theft 9.9

Malicious mischief, etc. 9.4

Aggravated theft 9.1

All crimes 8.6

Assaults 7.9

Domiciliary trespass 7.5

Receiving stolen goods 7.4

Defamation and kindred offenses 6.9

Offenses against public decency 6.5

Embezzlement 5.8

Rebellion 5.7

Rape and other sexual crimes 4.3

Obtaining money under false pretenses 1.7

State of Education Men. Women.

Number. % Number. %

Good 4,394 51 764 48

Mediocre 4,125 47 750 48

Reading only 146 2 66 4

Total 8,665 100 1,580 100

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon this question we have the following figures:

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

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

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

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

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

The following table is more detailed for certain occupations:

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

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

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

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

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

We shall commence with:

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

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

In these respects the following figures are better:

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

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

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

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

Crimes in General.

Age. Number of Convicts to 100,000 Persons of Each Category.

Unmarried. Married. Wid. and Div. Total.

18–21 2,994.5 5,413.0 3,009.2

21–25 3,107.0 3,566.3 3,163.8

25–30 2,950.9 2,504.7 4,273.7 2,746.7

30–40 2,880.9 1,961.2 3,797.2 2,171.5

40–50 2,205.7 1,487.8 2,626.3 1,599.8

50–60 1,241.9 1,009.8 1,267.8 1,052.5

Over 60 494.6 490.1 342.7 450.5

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

Simple Theft.

Age. Unmarried. Married. Widowers, Widows and Divorced. Total.

18–21 551.7 1,418.3 555.3

21–25 427.7 685.9 627.2 457.7

25–30 382.6 412.6 572.1 398.5

30–40 411.9 296.9 550.0 323.0

40–50 365.0 216.2 420.0 237.4

50–60 233.1 151.6 231.1 164.6

Over 60 109.2 84.0 67.2 81.2

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

Fraudulent Bankruptcy.

Age. Unmarried. Married. Widowers, Widows and Divorced. Total.

18–21 0.3 33.9 0.3

21–25 3.3 21.3 4.5

25–30 3.9 14.8 9.8

30–40 4.3 9.9 15.9 9.0

40–50 2.2 6.6 7.2 6.2

50–60 1.1 4.0 4.1 3.7

Over 60 0.4 1.7 1.4 1.5

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

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

Age. Incest. Debauching through Abuse of Confidence.

Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorced. Total. Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorced. Total.

18–21 0.7 0.7 0.03 0.03

21–25 0.8 1.4 0.9 0.20 0.4 0.20

25–30 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.30 0.3 0.30

30–40 1.0 1.4 22.7 1.7 0.20 1.5 2.3 0.40

40–50 0.9 1.7 26.3 2.5 0.40 0.4 1.2 0.50

50–60 0.8 1.2 12.4 2.1 0.20 0.3 0.7 0.30

Over 60 0.2 0.4 1.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crimes in General.

Age. To 100,000 Persons of Each Age Group there were Sentenced:

Unmarried. Married. Widowed and Divorced.

18–21 415.2 602.5

21–25 417.5 469.9 1339.3

25–30 440.7 454.5 1149.2

30–40 446.2 500.0 1029.9

40–50 334.7 468.2 709.9

50–60 221.5 299.5 369.2

Over 60 102.2 133.4 111.2

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

Simple Theft.

Age. Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorcées. Total.

18–21 210.6 209.3 210.6

21–25 177.1 147.8 385.7 169.3

25–30 158.5 132.0 318.5 144.0

30–40 136.6 127.1 265.9 135.1

40–50 92.2 104.0 175.9 111.6

50–60 61.2 64.4 88.6 70.3

Over 60 32.0 31.1 28.0 29.5

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

Age. Embezzlement. Receiving Stolen Goods.

Unmar. Mar. Wid. and Div. Total. Unmar. Mar. Wid. and Div. Total.

18–21 25.3 35.2 25.8 9.2 33.7 10.7

21–25 25.9 23.4 92.8 25.4 10.6 26.3 48.2 15.3

25–30 26.0 20.3 80.7 23.2 12.6 23.9 52.4 20.2

30–40 25.3 21.6 63.4 24.2 17.2 32.6 61.3 31.4

40–50 18.6 18.3 40.3 21.1 16.1 36.4 56.4 36.6

50–60 11.0 10.3 17.2 12.2 11.4 22.6 29.6 23.3

Over 60 4.4 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.5 8.8 7.4 7.6

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

Procuration.

Age. Unmarried. Married. Wid. and Div. Total.

18–21 0.6 5.2 0.9

21–25 2.1 8.2 33.8 3.9

25–30 6.4 10.1 47.5 9.2

30–40 10.9 11.7 47.3 13.2

40–50 7.6 9.7 28.4 11.7

50–60 3.5 4.5 10.4 5.9

Over 60 1.1 1.8 2.5 2.2

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

As to sexual crime we have the following:

Age. Incest.

Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorcées. Total.

18–21 2.7 1.4 2.6

21–25 2.1 0.6 1.7

25–30 2.3 0.2 8.0 1.1

30–40 2.5 0.2 6.2 0.8

40–50 0.6 0.1 1.2 0.3

50–60 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.2

Over 60 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.07

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

Certain of the crimes which remain show the following figures:

Age. Insults.

Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorcées. Total.

18–21 24.3 88.5 27.9

21–25 34.9 85.7 157.1 50.0

25–30 44.2 99.8 137.1 76.7

30–40 57.3 116.8 138.4 108.1

40–50 58.4 121.4 121.7 114.5

50–60 43.6 84.8 77.1 78.5

Over 60 22.4 38.3 26.7 30.2

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

Age. Domiciliary Trespass.

Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorcées. Total.

18–21 5.4 16.9 6.0

21–25 6.9 13.3 28.6 8.9

25–30 8.6 15.2 28.2 13.0

30–40 11.1 21.2 32.7 20.1

40–50 10.6 23.9 27.2 22.8

50–60 6.2 15.3 15.9 14.4

Over 60 3.0 6.0 4.2 4.7

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

Age. Assaults.

Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorcées. Total.

18–21 20.4 67.5 23.0

21–25 24.9 61.1 96.4 35.7

25–30 29.8 58.7 88.9 48.3

30–40 29.9 61.0 70.2 56.4

40–50 21.3 55.3 46.8 50.4

50–60 13.9 33.9 25.7 29.5

Over 60 7.0 14.2 8.6 10.4

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

Age. Crimes against the Life of a Child.

Unmarried. Married. Widows and Divorcées. Total.

18–21 5.6 4.3 5.5

21–25 9.8 1.7 7.1 7.4

25–30 9.3 1.4 16.1 4.5

30–40 5.4 1.1 12.5 2.4

40–50 1.3 0.8 3.4 1.2

50–60 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6

Over 60 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the correctional tribunals the figures are as follows:

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

We turn now to Italy:

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

Finally some figures for the Netherlands:

Women participate in the different crimes in the following proportions:

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

In France the differences are still greater:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are the figures for Germany and Austria:

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

Percentage of Persons Convicted who were Women.

1881–1885. 1886–1890. 1891–1895. 1896. 1897. 1898. 1899.

14.8 14.6 14.7 14.1 14.4 13.5 13.9

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

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

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

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

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