Part 1 — CHAPTER VI. THE SPIRITUALISTS.1

I.

H. Joly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV.

Criticism.

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

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

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

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

Netherlands, 1901–1909.

Offenses. Number Sentenced to 100,000 of the Population Over 10 Years Old.

Protestant. Catholic. Jew. Not Members of Any Religion. Total

All offenses 308.6 416.5 212.7 84.2 337.3

Theft 40.0 54.8 25.5 9.6 43.9

Aggravated theft 19.9 24.0 12.7 5.2 20.7

Receiving stolen goods 2.6 3.5 9.2 0.7 3.0

Embezzlement 8.6 9.3 13.1 1.9 8.7

Fraud 2.4 2.5 3.9 0.4 2.4

Offenses against public decency 1.9 3.4 2.0 0.5 2.4

Minor sexual offenses 1.2 1.0 0.3 0.2 1.0

Rape 1.5 2.2 1.5 0.7 1.8

Sexual crimes with persons under 16 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3

All sexual crimes 5.1 7.1 4.1 1.6 5.7

Rebellion 25.9 37.0 13.2 12.2 29.0

Assaults 74.4 98.2 43.2 20.1 80.1

Serious assaults 8.5 11.0 3.9 1.9 9.1

Homicide and murder 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.5

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

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