I._Criminality and economic conditions

C. LOMBROSO.

In “Crime, Its Causes and Remedies”, [89] one of his last works,

Professor Lombroso treats, among other things, of the influence of

economic conditions upon criminality.

Chapter VI, bearing the title, “Subsistence (famine, price of bread)”,

is the first in which we find any observations especially interesting

to us. By the aid of data from von Oettingen, Starke, Corre, and

Fornasari di Verce, which we treat separately, the author calls

attention to the fact that the course of criminality is very little

influenced by the price of provisions. He closes by drawing the

following conclusion:

“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of

thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and

debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the

variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases

with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the

same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a

constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of

certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price

of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest

difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to

the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account of

the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the

100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater

influence of heredity, climate, and race.” [90]

The circumstance that the thefts of food represent hardly 1% of the

total cases of theft (according to Guerry), that in London bread

occupies only the 43d place among 43 categories of articles stolen, and

that Joly has shown that the cases of theft of money are much more

numerous than those of meal, domestic animals, etc.—all of this leads

the author to the conclusion that the proportion of crimes caused by

lack of food and real misery is not so great as has been supposed.

—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait

until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr.

G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by

Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr.

Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a

preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to

the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that

there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for

pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important

factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this

might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of

things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more

money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first,

that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and

concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity

of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But

this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime.

[91]—

In the second part of the chapter Professor Lombroso tries to show that

the effect of hunger upon revolts is not very great. He cites a number

of cases where there were no revolts although prices were high and work

scarce. Thus, for example, in Strasburg from 1451 to 1500 and from 1601

to 1625, the price of beef rose 134% and that of pork 92%, and during

many years wages fell 10%; and yet there was no insurrection.

—I must vigorously protest against any such argument, which, in my

opinion, has no value. I will leave out of consideration the last

example, which proves but little, since during these periods the price

of bread may have been very low, neutralizing the effect of low wages

(it is quite problematical whether the poorer classes of the population

were great consumers of beef and pork!). But it is inaccurate to

conclude from the fact “that prices were high and there was no

insurrection” an absence of influence of the economic conditions. There

may have been a number of factors working in the opposite direction,

which prevented the manifestation of the economic factor. To cite but

one example, it may be that during those times an excessively severe

penal law was in force, threatening the least attempt at insurrection

with cruel death.—

We shall next sum up Chapter IX, “Influence of Economic

Conditions—Wealth.” After saying that it is difficult to estimate the

wealth of a country at all accurately, the author produces the

following data in the first section of the chapter. He divides the

provinces of Italy into three groups according to the total wealth

(estimated from taxes on consumption, direct taxes, and taxes on

business), and compares the figures thus gained with some of the

principal kinds of crimes, reaching the following results:

==============+=============================++==============================

| Wealth, 1885-86. || Wealth, 1890-93 (Bodio).

|----------+-------+----------++----------+--------+----------

| Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. || Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum.

--------------+----------+-------+----------++----------+--------+----------

Fraud | 70.6 | 66.0 | 43.0 || 55.13 | 39.45 | 37.39

Sexual crimes | 15.6 | 13.4 | 19.4 || 16.15 | 15.28 | 21.49

Thefts | 206.0 | 143.0 | 148.0 || 361.28 | 329.51 | 419.05[92]

Homicides | 11.3 | 17.0 | 23.0 || 8.34 | 13.39 | 15.40

==============+==========+=======+==========++==========+========+==========

Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes

increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true

of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth

is least; and this last is always true of homicides.” [93]

“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their

minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where

there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as

the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of

wealth.” [94]

Another way of estimating the wealth of a country is by means of the

inheritance tax. For different Italian provinces the following results

are thus obtained:

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

===========+=========+=========+=========+============+============+==========

-----------+---------+---------+---------+------------+------------+----------

Latium | 3333 | 639 | 116 | 18 | 25 | 513

Piedmont } | | | | | |

Liguria } | 2746 | 267 | 44 | 7 | 7 | 164

Lombardy | 2400 | 227 | 44 | 3 | 3 | 124

Tuscany | 2164 | 211 | 34 | 6 | 7 | 165

Venice | 1935 | 389 | 43 | 3 | 4 | 98

Reggio | 1870 | 320 | 49 | 7 | 13 | 287

Emilia | 1762 | 250 | 38 | 6 | 6 | 130

Sicily | 1471 | 346 | 65 | 16 | 26 | 410

Naples | 1333 | 435 | 47 | 6 | 21 | 531

Marches } | | | | |

Umbria } | 1227 | 222 | 33 | 3 | 10 | 239

Sardinia | -- | 670 | 113 | 14 | 20 | 277

===========+=========+=========+=========+============+============+==========

This table gives very little information as to the influence of wealth

upon criminality, since we can draw from it the most contradictory

conclusions. Note, for example, that the highest figures for theft are

to be found in the regions of Latium and Sardinia, i.e. in the richest

and the poorest provinces, etc., etc.

—I have more than once had occasion to show that the value of such

researches is fictitious. It is not the total amount of wealth but its

distribution that bears upon criminality. (See, for example, Quetelet

and Colajanni)—

In the 3d section the author treats of the effect of involuntary

unemployment. Wright tells us that in Massachusetts of every 220

persons convicted, 147 are without regular work, and that 68% of

criminals have no occupation. According to Professor Lombroso this is

easily explained by the fact that criminals do not like to work.

According to Bosco there were only 18% of murderers in the United

States without work (—the proportion not being given for non-criminals,

these figures have little value—). Finally, Professor Lombroso mentions

the opinion of Coghlan, who says that unemployment has no influence

upon criminality in New South Wales (—upon what he bases his opinion,

we do not know—).

—Such data as these (to a subject of such high importance as this the

author gives but thirty lines) suffice for the conclusion that the

phenomenon in question has little significance for criminality. I have

only to recall the extensive studies of Mayr, Denis, Müller, Lafargue,

and others, upon this subject, to prove the inaccuracy of this idea.—

=====================================================================================================

| Number of Persons (to the 100,000 Inhabitants) convicted for:

Days of Work Equivalent+------------------+------------------+------------------+--------------------

to a Year's Food. | Homicide. | Assault. | Sexual Offenses. | Theft.

-----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+--------------------

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

-----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+--------------------

England and Wales } |Scotland 0.51|England+Wales 2.67|Spain 1.03|Spain 59.63

Scotland } 127|England+Wales 0.56|Ireland 6.24|Ireland 0.85|Belgium 110.44

Ireland } |Ireland 1.06|Scotland 11.59|Scotland 1.41|France 110.95

Belgium 130|Germany 1.11|Spain 43.17|England+Wales 1.66|Italy 165.89

France 132|Belgium 1.44|France 63.40|Italy 4.01|Ireland 65.81

Germany 148|France 1.53|Germany 126.40|Austria 9.33|England+Wales 165.63

Austria 152|Austria 2.43|Italy 155.35|France 10.26|Scotland 208.39

Italy 153|Spain 8.25|Belgium 175.39|Belgium 13.83|Germany 226.02

Spain 154|Italy 9.53|Austria 230.45|Germany 14.87|

=======================+==================+==================+==================+====================

Note.—Column 1 is taken from Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics (quoted

by Coghlan, op. cit.); and columns 2–5 are figured from the data

published by the Director of Italian Statistics (“Movimento della

Delinquenza secondo le Statistiche degli Anni 1873–83”, Rome, 1886).

In the table on the preceding page the figures for criminality of

different countries are compared with the number of days’ wages

equivalent to the annual cost of food for one individual. These figures

give us a composite picture of the price of food and the wage-scale.

This table shows; first, that excessive labor with a low wage, i.e.

with a lack of proper nutrition, has a certain correspondence with

homicide; second, there is also a certain correspondence with assaults

(Spain and Belgium furnishing exceptions); third, sexual crimes are

most common where we find the fewest days’ work and vice versa (Great

Britain and some other countries being exceptions); fourth, that theft

shows no correspondence. [95]

In another way Lombroso attempts to compare the economic conditions of

different countries and their criminality, namely, by means of the

number of savings-bank books. For Europe the figures are as follows

(taken from Coghlan):

=============+=================+================================

| Persons to Each | Crimes to 100,000 Inhabitants.

| Savings-bank +---------------+----------------

| Book. | Homicide. | Theft.

-------------+-----------------+---------------+----------------

Switzerland | 4.5 | 16 | 114

Denmark | 5 | 13 | 114

Sweden | 7 | 13 | --

England | 10 | 5.6 | 163

Prussia | 10 | 5.7 | 246

France | 12 | 18 | 103

Austria | 14 | 25 | 103

Italy | 25 | 96 | 150

=============+=================+===============+================

These figures show how homicides move in inverse ratio to the number of

savings-bank books, while the contrary is the case with thefts. The

author forgets to point out that there are five exceptions to this

rule.

In Italy the greatest number of accounts corresponds to the smallest

number of homicides, as the following table shows:

=======================================================================

Average Number of Crimes in 20 Provinces in which the Wealth (According

to the Number of Savings-Bank Books) is:

---------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------

| Maximum. | Intermediate. | Minimum.

---------------------+--------------+-------------------+--------------

Fraudulent crimes | 57 | 45 | 45

Sexual crimes | 11 | 12.6 | 20

Thefts | 132 | 133 | 160

Homicides | 10 | 12.6 | 27.4

=====================+==============+===================+==============

There are several exceptions to this rule; for example, the richest,

like Palermo, Rome, Naples, and Leghorn, give very high figures for

homicides. According to Professor Lombroso the explanation in the case

of Palermo and Naples is to be found in the geographical situation; in

the case of Palermo, in race and the abuse of alcohol; and in the case

of Rome, in race, the abuse of alcohol, and in the political situation.

For France we get the following results:

=================================+=====================================

In Departments where the | Average Number of:

Degree of Wealth is: +--------------+-----------+----------

| Homicides. | Thefts. | Rapes.

---------------------------------+--------------+-----------+----------

Minimum | 64 | 83 | 17

Medium | 86 | 99 | 26

Maximum | 89 | 186 | 29

=================================+==============+===========+==========

Here is just the opposite of what we get in Italy. The author explains

this in the following manner: first, the richest districts are those

that are industrial, where the influx of immigrants is greatest (these

latter committing four times as many crimes as the French); second,

because of ethnic and climatic factors; third, because of the greater

wealth of France, which is four times as rich as Italy; and fourth,

because of the demoralizing influence of quickly acquired wealth. [96]

The industrial activity of a country causes a considerable increase of

criminality, especially when it displaces agriculture. Of 42

agricultural departments only 11, or 26%, go beyond the average number

of assassinations in France; while the average is exceeded by 10 out of

the 26 departments of mixed industry, or 38%, and by 7 out of 17

manufacturing departments, or 41%. Rapes upon adults and crimes against

persons show similar results. [97]

Percentage of departments exceeding the average of all France in:

=====================================+============+====================

| Rapes. | Crimes against

| | Persons.

-------------------------------------+------------+--------------------

Agricultural Departments (42) | 33% | 48%

Mixed (26) | 39% | 39%

Manufacturing (17) | 52% | 59%

=====================================+============+====================

Not only poverty, but often wealth as well may cause crime. This is why

some very wealthy districts show a figure for criminality as high as do

the very poor. “The cause of all this is only too clear. On the one

side poverty and the lack of absolute necessities impel toward the

theft of indispensable things for the satisfaction of the individuals’

own needs. This is the first cord binding poverty and assaults upon

property. On the other hand, poverty makes men impulsive through the

cortical irritation following the abuse of wine and alcohol, that

terrible poison to which so many of the poor resort to still the pangs

of hunger. Account must be taken also of the degeneration produced by

scurvy, scrofula, anemia, and alcoholism in the parents, which often

transforms itself into epilepsy and moral insanity. Poverty also drives

men to commit brutal eliminations of individuals who are an unwelcome

burden upon the family, ... Poverty is indirectly a cause of sexual

crimes, on account of the difficulty which the poor have of obtaining

satisfaction through prostitution; on account of precocious promiscuity

in factories and mines; etc., ... On the other hand, when a slight

temptation toward evil is presented to an individual in comfortable

circumstances, he is rendered physically and morally stronger by

sufficient nutrition and a sounder moral training, and is less pressed

by need, so that while he feels the impulsion to do evil, he can more

easily resist it.

“But wealth, in its turn, is a source of degeneration from other

causes, such as syphilis, exhaustion, etc. It drives men to crime

through vanity, in order to surpass others, and from a fatal ambition

to cut a figure in the world.” [98] It may be asked why it happens then

that the inmates of prisons are almost always poor and rarely rich. The

answer, according to the author, is that because of the influence of

his fortune, family, etc., the rich man can more easily extricate

himself from the clutches of the law than the poor man, who knows no

one, cannot employ a famous lawyer, etc. etc.

Professor Lombroso sums up his opinion as follows: “The economic factor

has a great influence upon crime, not, however, that poverty is the

principal cause of it, for excessive wealth, or money too quickly

acquired, plays a large part as well; and poverty and wealth are

frequently neutralized by the effect of race and climate.” [99]

II.

R. GAROFALO.

In Chapter III of his “Criminologie”, and more especially in the first

part, bearing the title “la Misère”, this author treats of the

influence of economic conditions upon criminality. [100] The question

which must be answered with regard to this subject, according to

Garofalo, is the following: “Whether the so-called ‘economic iniquity’,

a condition by which all citizens are either proprietors or

proletarians, is the chief cause or, at least, one of the most

important causes, of criminality.” [101]

It may be that a workman, i.e. a person who can only provide for his

own needs and those of his family by selling his labor, can find no

work, and for that reason falls into theft; but the author is of the

opinion that in our days this almost never happens (leaving aside

periods of crisis), and that if it happens the worker will generally

find some one ready to help him, and that crime is therefore not a

necessity. There is, indeed, absolute poverty, but it is almost always

the result of a lack of courage and energy, and not due to a lack of

work. It is not hunger, but a desire to procure the same pleasures as

those enjoyed by the favored of fortune, that impels the working-man to

commit crime. But this is not only the case with the working class but

with other classes as well. For this desire belongs to every man; the

millionaire envies the multimillionaire, etc. In order that this desire

should lead to crime, it is not necessary that there should be a

particular economic situation, but only a particular psychic

condition—the individual must have his sense of honesty weakened or

wanting. Desire will cease to lead to crime only when there is no

longer any advantage to be gained by it, and since this is

inconceivable, crime will always exist. This explains why the number of

crimes committed by the proletariat is very great, but at the same time

why the cases of forgery, bankruptcy, etc. are very numerous among the

other classes. In 1880 the figure for crimes against property (and

analogous crimes) committed in Italy by proletarians, compared with

those committed by property-owners, was as 88 to 12, while the ratio of

the number of proletarians to that of property-owners was as 90 to 10.

These proportions are nearly the same, which proves that as regards

these crimes the proletarian class is no more criminal than the others.

Some authors are of the opinion that crimes against persons are equally

caused in large measure by bad economic conditions, since bad

education, lack of discretion, etc. are consequences of these

conditions. In Garofalo’s opinion this idea is inaccurate, since the

bad conditions in which the proletariat live lead indeed to roughness,

i.e. make them insensible to the suffering of others, but it does not

follow that the proletarians are totally deprived of moral sentiments.

The criminal statistics of Italy show that 16% of the correctional

criminality was committed by property-owners, though they form but 10%

to 11% of the population. Garofalo attempts to prove the truth of his

thesis also by a classification of criminals by trades. The

agricultural class in Italy, the poorest and most ignorant, form 25.39%

of those brought before the correctional tribunals, while those engaged

in manufacturing, commerce, the army, etc., those with some education,

therefore, who are much less numerous in the population, form 13.58%.

In 1881 the Italian population included 67.25% of illiterates, and in

1880 68.09% of those correctionally convicted were illiterate. Further

it has been proved many times that an improvement in economic

conditions is accompanied by an increase of crime. In France, for

example, wages have risen, the consumption of cereals, like that of

meat, has increased, and the number of children enjoying the advantages

of a primary education is more extensive and yet criminality has grown

greatly in the same period. To the possible objection “that many

authors, like Mayr, have proved that the rise in the price of grain is

accompanied by an increase of crimes against property, and vice versa,

and that economic conditions are consequently an important cause of

crime”, Garofalo responds that crimes against persons increase with the

fall in the price of grain, and that consequently, by the changes in

the economic life there has been brought about a change in the kind,

but not in the extent, of criminality. Exceptional occurrences, such as

famines, commercial crises, etc., increase crime only in appearance. If

the question is probed to the bottom (the author appears not to have

done so himself, at least he does not record any results) it is

probable that it will be discovered that what happens is only that the

form of crime becomes more serious, that the vagrant, for example,

becomes a highway-man, etc.

The conclusions that the author draws are the following:

“First. The present economic order, that is to say, the distribution of

wealth as it exists today, is not a cause of criminality in general.

“Second. The fluctuations which are wont to occur in the economic order

may bring about an increase in one form of criminality, but this

increase is compensated for by the diminution of another form. These

fluctuations are, therefore, possible causes of specific criminality.”

[102]

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

points only.

First. The author dodges the question when he includes under economic

conditions poverty only, and this in the very limited sense of the lack

of the absolute necessities. He who writes upon the connection between

crime and economic conditions must analyze the whole present economic

system, and not stop with one of the consequences of that system, the

poverty in which the proletarians find themselves. Consequently

Garofalo’s whole argument, tending to show that the bourgeoisie have a

great part in the crimes against property, is beside the mark, for

capitalism results in great uncertainty of existence for the

bourgeoisie also. It is then quite comprehensible that this class

should be guilty of crimes of this kind. According to Fornasari di

Verce, however, the Italian statistics show that the well-to-do class

take less part in crime than the poor. According to him 13% of all

those convicted in 1887 were well-to-do, a class which, roughly

speaking, forms 40% of the whole population. (See also Colajanni, “La

Sociologia Criminale”, II, pp. 536 ff.)

In consequence of this arbitrary restriction of the subject the

author’s remarks are of little value. But aside from this there are

still serious charges to be made against his manner of treating the

subject.

Second. The assertion of Garofalo that in general in our present

society he who wishes to work can find work, is not worth combating in

a serious book. To say that machinery does not every day make some

workers unnecessary, that there are no industrial crises causing an

enormous amount of involuntary unemployment, is conclusive proof that

one does not know the present mode of production. The existence of a

group of the population, the so-called lower proletariat

(“bas-prolétariat”, “Lumpen-proletariat”) cannot be a natural

phenomenon, since it has not been always and everywhere present; it is

strictly bound up with certain modes of production.

Third. As I have had occasion to show already in more than one place,

the increase of crimes against persons during periods of prosperity has

a very great, though indirect, connection with economic conditions.

Fourth. That poverty in the strict sense of the word is not the sole

cause of economic criminality, that cupidity plays also an important

rôle, I do not wish to deny. Only, this cupidity is not an innate

quality of man, present everywhere and always, but is awakened only

under certain economic conditions. This is especially the case in our

present society.

Fifth. According to the author there are certain circumstances which

may lead to the commission of a crime, but the true cause of crime is

to be found in the absence or weakness of the instinct of honesty. That

there exists such an “instinct of honesty” is one of numerous

assertions made by Garofalo for which he produces no proof, and, in

accordance with the general opinion of sociologists, I class it among

the most profound errors. A moral disposition is innate in man, and

varies greatly with individuals, but moral concepts—for example, that

it is forbidden to steal—are certainly not innate. The very way in

which Garofalo puts the question is wrong; we must not set the

circumstances that have influenced a man at a certain moment over

against an innate quality of honesty (fictitious besides) but must

examine all the conditions which have influenced his innate moral

disposition through the whole of his life, as well as his environment

at a given moment.

To say that the influence of environment cannot be great, because

persons well brought up sometimes commit crimes, is very superficial.

Upon this point there is something deeper and more important to be

said.—

III.

E. FERRI.

In order to present Professor Ferri’s views, I shall analyze

“Socialismo e criminalità” and a passage connected with our subject,

taken from “Sociologia criminale.” [103] This analysis will be more

detailed than that of most of the other authors, since in reality the

opinion of Professor Ferri is the synthesis of the opinions of many

other authorities. For this reason and others it is of the highest

importance.

“Socialismo e criminalità” is a polemic work directed in part against

“Il delitto e la questione sociale” of Turati, and in part as Professor

Ferri himself says in “Socialismo e scienza positiva”, against

socialism as far as that involves the revolutionary method and the

concomitant “nebulous romanticism.”

In his “Preliminari” the author gives some definitions of socialism;

combats socialism of every kind, declares it to be unscientific, and

sets in opposition to it sociology, which is entirely scientific. [104]

We pass over this part of the work in silence, since it has little

importance for our subject, and turn our attention to the end of the

“Preliminari”, where the author gives an exposition of the ideas which

the socialists, according to him, have about crime:

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

at present constituted.

“II. More especially, the economic disorder of the population caused by

the unjust inequality of individuals and classes, is the cause of every

other disorder, moral or intellectual, and therefore of crime also.

“III. When the social transformation or revolution which the socialists

desire has taken place, the social atmosphere will be most favorable.

“IV. In the socialistic order the individual also will be much superior

to the man corrupted or demoralized by present conditions.

“V. And then crime, like poverty, ignorance, prostitution, and

immorality in general, will have ended its unhappy tyranny over the

human race.”

—It is not certain that an adherent of scientific socialism would agree

that these theses are entirely accurate; for example, the second, that

the bad economic condition of the population is the cause of crime—for

the expression “economic condition” has here too limited a meaning,

namely that of poverty, misery, etc. In place of this he would rather

make use of the expression, “mode of production.” It is this which, in

the last analysis, rules the whole social life, according to the

Marxists.—

The first chapter of Professor Ferri’s work, bearing the title of “la

genesi sociale e individuale del delitto”, begins by remarking that the

socialists blame society as the cause of all evils, including poverty

and crime. On the one hand, they do this because of their “strategy of

propaganda”, on the other hand it is a reaction against the extreme

individualism which sprang from the French Revolution. They generally

pay no attention to individual factors, or perhaps recognize them in

part, but attribute their origin to society also. Between these two

extremes is to be found criminal sociology, which says that the causes

of crime are manifold.

According to the author there are three groups of the factors of crime:

the anthropological or individual factors, the cosmic or physical

factors, and the social factors. Since many authors, wholly or

partially, share this view, which constitutes an attack against the

very foundation of the idea of the social origin of crime, we will

examine it here fully.

We take from “Sociologie criminelle”, where this doctrine is best set

forth, the following statement of it. “Every crime is the resultant of

individual, physical, and social conditions.” [105] The individual

factor is, according to the author, the most important, the primordial

factor, so to speak, for he says: “The social environment gives form to

the crime; but this has its origin in an anti-social biological

constitution (organic or psychic).” [106] The factors pointed out are

the following:

“The anthropological factors, inherent in the person of the criminal,

are the first condition of crime, and divide themselves into three

subclasses, according as the person of the criminal is looked at from

an organic, psychic, or social point of view.

“The organic constitution of the criminal constitutes the first

subclass of anthropological factors and includes all the anomalies of

the skull, brain, viscera, sensibility, reflex activity, and all bodily

characteristics in general, such as physiognomy, tattooing, etc.

“The psychical constitution of the criminal includes anomalies of

intelligence and feeling, especially of the moral sense and the

peculiarities of the criminal dialect and literature.

“The personal characteristics of the criminal include the purely

biological features of his condition, such as race, age, sex; and the

bio-social features, such as civil status, profession, residence,

social class, and education, which have been up to this time the almost

exclusive subject of criminal statistics.

“The physical factors of crime are the climate, nature of the soil,

length of nights and days, the seasons, the annual temperature,

meteorological conditions, and agricultural production.

“The social factors include the density of population; public opinion,

morals, religion; condition of the family; the educational system;

industrial production; alcoholism; economic and political conditions;

public administration, the courts, the police; and in general the

legislative, civil, and penal organization:—that is to say, a medley of

latent causes, which interlace and combine in all parts of the social

organism, and almost always escape the attention of ... criminologists

and legislators.” [107]

ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTORS.

Let us consider first the “personal characteristics of the criminal.”

Professor Ferri draws the following conclusions with regard to the

existence of anthropological factors in general: “In fact, if crime

were the product of the social environment exclusively, how could the

fact be explained, that in the same social environment and in like

circumstances of poverty, abandonment, and lack of education, out of

100 individuals, 60 commit no crime, and of the 40 that remain, 5

prefer suicide to crime, 5 become insane, 5 become beggars or

non-dangerous vagrants, and only the 25 others become real criminals?

And why is it that among these, while some limit themselves to theft

without violence, others commit robberies, and even, before the victim

resists, or threatens, or calls for help, commit a murder with the sole

aim of theft?” [108]

—It seems to me that there are many objections to be made to this

rather carelessly drawn conclusion. In the first place, Professor Ferri

is of the opinion that it may be assumed that it will be easy to find

groups of persons only a quarter of whom become criminal, though they

all live in the same bad environment. Leaving out of account the

individuals who, because of their physical condition are incapable of

crime, I do not believe that there are, for example, 60% who have never

been convicted. However, even admitting that this assertion is

accurate, then, that out of 100 persons living in the same environment,

only one part will fall into crime, I believe that it is impossible to

find even two persons who live, and have lived, in an environment

exactly similar, and whose parents also have always lived in the same

surroundings. In this way only can the question be clearly put. It is

not only present conditions that influence a man; all past conditions

have their part in the motives of present acts. It cannot be denied

that the present includes the past. Nor ought the conditions which have

influenced the parents to be excluded. Let us put the following case:

A, B, and C live in the same very bad surroundings. A commits suicide,

B becomes crazy, C commits a crime. The parents of A were well-to-do,

gave their child a good education, and accustomed him to consider many

things as necessities. Fallen into poverty, then weakened and become

incapable of good work, A believes that it is impossible for him to

restore himself. His moral ideas, acquired in his youth, are opposed to

his engaging in crime. And then the few francs that he would be able to

steal would not be sufficient to maintain him in the life to which he

has been accustomed. Consequently he commits suicide. B is the child of

a father who became an alcoholic from actual poverty. Inferior on this

account, B cannot keep up the struggle for existence and becomes

insane. The parents of C were indigent. He received no education; moral

ideas are totally unknown to him; he has never lived in anything but

poverty, and commits a theft when the opportunity presents itself

without any hesitation. In these three cases, which occur daily,

circumstances are the only factor that enters into consideration.

I have said above that there are no two persons who live in exactly the

same circumstances. This word “exactly” is not used by Professor Ferri,

and in this, in my opinion, he is wrong. In ordinary life we speak of

great and small causes. But in treating of scientific questions this is

surely forbidden. For no one is ignorant that what is apparently the

least important occurrence may have the most extensive consequences.

May I here be permitted to make a quotation from an interesting page of

Professor Manouvrier upon this question: “That the effect of

environment is generally understood in too limited a way, we see proved

every day in the appreciation expressed, of the causes that have

determined certain differences of productive power or moral conduct. It

is a question, perhaps, of two brothers. It is said that they have been

brought up exactly in the same manner, that they have received exactly

the same education, and that the question of environment is thus

settled. Immediately the doctors begin to call in atavism, to feel the

bumps of the head, to study facial asymmetry, etc. Anatomy must be

appealed to, since the influence of environment has been eliminated. It

can be put down to bad luck if some bump, some depression, some

asymmetry is not found that will serve, whether or no, to account for a

solution of the question. There remains always, further, the resource

of invoking invisible, hypothetical vices of the internal constitution.

The phrenologists were in a relatively difficult situation; they had to

find a fixed anatomical character, a bump for a function specified in

advance, or they were obliged to imagine a conflict of bump with bump.

The present method is less exacting; it is enough to find no matter

what deviation from morphological perfection, without its being

necessary to show the connection between this deviation and the

physiological inferiority to be explained. But what am I saying? The

question is often of an inferiority of a sociological order, and

trouble is not even taken to make sure, to begin with, that this

corresponds to a psychological inferiority. Yet however indispensable

this may be as a preliminary, it is not enough; it must be ascertained

that this inferiority implies a functional trouble before calling in

pathological anatomy at all hazards.

“The statement is made that the two brothers have been subjected to the

same environmental influences merely because they have been brought up

in the same house, taught in the same school, fed and clothed alike.

Yet the mere fact of having been born first or second is not without

importance. To have been reared with an older or with a younger brother

constitutes a difference of environment that may contribute powerfully

to differentiate character. Add to this the differences of environment

proceeding from nurses, servants, diseases, games, etc., and you will

have opened headings under which may be classed differences

innumerable. There are no small things in such a matter. Biographies as

now written are no more than outlines when one thinks of what truly

psychological biographies ought to be. To have been taught in the same

college in the case of two brothers is a similarity that may, and

certainly does, conceal the greatest differences. They have not had the

same teachers, the same fellow-pupils, nor, above all, the same

comrades. Between the education given, and that actually received, the

difference may be great....

“The influences that act upon the child outside of the curriculum have

the more chance to be effective, since the curriculum is carried out in

the less agreeable manner.” [109]

In consequence of what has been said, I believe that the conclusion of

Professor Ferri that there are anthropological factors of crime, is too

hasty. But there are still other objections to be urged to it.

Let us suppose that two persons who live, and have lived, in the same

circumstances are in a position to commit a very advantageous crime,

and their morality does not prevent. At the moment when the time comes

to act, one commits the crime and the other does not—he lacks the

courage. Courage, then, is a factor of crime, and the lack of it a

factor of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. In another

case, he who commits a crime is stupid, and does not consider the risk,

and he who does not commit it is a crafty man. Stupidity, then, is a

factor of crime, and craft of virtue! Not so, that depends upon

circumstances. The reverse is also true, probably more true still.

Thousands of great criminals so far from being stupid have had

something of the genius in them.

The famous individual factors are only ordinary human qualities, like

courage, strength, needs, intelligence, etc. etc., [110] which men

possess in differing degrees, and which in like circumstances lead the

one rather than the other to commit a crime. These qualities in

themselves, however, have nothing to do with crime. Professor

Manouvrier expresses my thought on this subject in the following:

“There are, however, certain individuals more moved to crime than

others, in circumstances otherwise equal. Certainly, as man is more

given to crime than woman, as a robust and bold man is more given to

crimes of violence than one who is miserable and timid, etc., yet each

type of character finds some kind of crime practicable, if only arson.

The athlete will be more inclined to strike, the smooth talker to play

the confidence man, but we do not for that reason indict muscular

strength, nor ready speech, nor boldness, nor agility, nor address. No

more do we indict violence or trickery, qualities defined from the

vicious use made of qualities valuable for honest purposes.” [111]

The reasoning of Professor Ferri, that there is in every crime, besides

others, an anthropological factor, is only the statement of the fact,

known long before the rise of modern criminology, that the

predisposition to crime is not the same with all men. This

predisposition, as we have seen, considered by itself, has nothing to

do with crime as such. So much the more is the conclusion of Professor

Ferri and the Italian school in general absolutely false, when they

deduce from the undeniable fact that the predisposition is not the same

for all, the notion that this predisposition is by nature pathological.

Thus we have finally come to two other groups of anthropological

factors: the organic constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the

anomalies of the skull, brain, etc. and the psychical constitution of

the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of intelligence and

feeling. [112] This is the special territory of the Italian school: the

criminal is a being apart—“genus homo criminalis”—with special stigmata

peculiar to him; there is a criminal type, anatomically recognizable;

most criminals are born-criminals, etc. The explanation of this special

character is to be found in atavism, an hypothesis later replaced by

that of epilepsy; finally it has been claimed that the character of the

criminal is in general of a pathological nature.

In our purely sociological work, though it combats in an indirect way

the hypothesis of the Italian school, we do not have to concern

ourselves with the conflict between the different anthropological

schools, with regard to the origin of crime. We demonstrate merely,

what no one who judges fairly will attempt to deny, that the hypothesis

of the Italian school is erroneous. The anthropological authorities

like Manouvrier, Baer, Näcke, and others, have broken this doctrine

down. [113] There are no stigmata belonging to criminals only, nor is

there any criminal type; the atavistic hypothesis is one of the

profoundest errors.

Although the doctrine of Lombroso and his school is in general

abandoned by anthropologists, it still persists in the acceptance of

one fact, to which it is its immortal merit to have called attention,

namely that there are a number of criminals (though a very limited

number) who show a truly pathological nature, and whose criminal

character can only be explained by this pathological nature. For

example, when someone in an epileptic condition commits a murder,

without any motive; or the case in which a well-to-do individual steals

continually useless articles, of little value, etc., etc. Even in most

of these instances, which are a small minority in the colossal mass of

criminality, the social environment plays its part; but it must be

recognized without reserve that here we have to do with true individual

factors, peculiar to certain individuals. The hypothesis of the Italian

school is, then, accurate for the exception, but false as a rule.—

PHYSICAL FACTORS.

It is evident that the nature of the soil, the climate, the physical

environment in a word, must have an important influence upon the mode

of production, and consequently upon society. [114]

It is easily understood why those who inhabit the regions of Siberia

covered with snow have not become agriculturists; and why Holland,

without mines of iron and coal has not become a great manufacturing

country, but instead, situated upon the sea and traversed by great

rivers, has become commercial. But these physical factors have remained

constant or nearly constant during historical periods, while the

organization of society has undergone changes that have great effects.

We cannot explain these changes by a constant factor.

Plechanow formulates this very well in his “Beiträge der Geschichte des

Materialismus.” He says: “The character of man’s natural environment

determines the character of his productive activity, of his means of

production. The means of production, however, determines the reciprocal

relationships of men in the process of production as inevitably as the

equipment of an army determines its entire organization, and all the

relationships of the individuals of which it is made up. Now the

reciprocal relations of men in the social process of production

determine the entire structure of society. The influence of the natural

environment upon this structure is therefore incontestable. The

character of the natural environment determines that of the social

environment. For example: ‘The necessity of computing the time of the

rising of the Nile, created Egyptian astronomy and with it the

domination of the priestly caste as guides in agriculture.’

“But this is only one side of the matter. Another side must also be

considered if one is not to draw entirely false conclusions. The

circumstances of production are the result, the productive forces are

the cause. But the effect becomes a cause in its turn; the

circumstances of production become a new source of the development of

the productive forces. This leads to a double result.

“1. The mutual influence of the circumstances of production and the

productive forces causes a social movement, which has its own logic and

a law of its own, independent of the natural environment. For example:

Private property in the primitive phase of its development is always

the fruit of the labor of the property-holder himself, as may be very

well observed in the Russian villages. There necessarily comes a time,

however, when it becomes the reverse of what it was before: it supposes

the work of another, and becomes capitalistic private property, as we

can likewise see any day in the Russian villages. This phenomenon is

the effect of the immanent law of the evolution of private property.

All that the natural environment can accomplish in this case consists

in accelerating this movement through favoring the development of the

productive forces.

“2. Since the social evolution has its own logic, independent of any

direct influence from the natural environment, it may happen that a

people, though inhabiting the same land and retaining almost the same

physical peculiarities, may have at different epochs of its history

social and political institutions which are very little similar, or

even totally different one from another.” [115]

Crime being a social phenomenon, and society being influenced, as we

have seen, by the physical environment, one might say that this

environment is a factor in criminality. He who reasons thus would have

to grant that the physical environment is only an indirect factor, and

therefore a very remote cause. It would be as fair to say that the

invention of gunpowder was one of the causes of all murders committed

with fire-arms. However, in reasoning thus I believe we forget that

crime is an historic phenomenon, modifying itself according to the

condition of society, and consequently regulated by laws that are

independent of the physical environment. In other words, the

environment is the reason why a people provides for its needs by

working the material that nature has furnished; but the manner in which

this work is done is independent of this environment. And it is upon

this manner of working that criminality depends. An example taken from

practice will make clear what I have been saying.

From the nature of the soil of Sicily it is possible to work sulphur

mines there. The criminality of Sicily is very great, especially in the

parts where the mines are found, and many murders particularly are

committed there. We might be disposed to believe that here the physical

factors came into play. Now it is true that the nature of the soil is

the cause of the exploiting of the mines, but the criminality is

dependent entirely upon the way in which the exploiting is done, and

this has nothing to do with the physical environment. To particularize:

these mines are exploited in the capitalistic fashion, i.e., with the

aim of getting as much profit as possible, which brings it about that

the workers are untaught, demoralized and made degenerate by ill-paid

labor, excessively severe, and carried on in an unwholesome atmosphere.

Hence come the higher figures for criminality. [116]

Most authors who have concerned themselves with the influence of these

physical factors, have only observed their direct influence upon man.

Many of them have paid no attention to the importance that these

factors may have for the character of society, and they have taken no

account of the fact that society develops according to laws independent

of the physical environment. Phenomena have been ascribed to the direct

influence of the physical environment, which have no such relationship.

It is a fact pretty generally recognized, for example, that the number

of violent crimes is greater in the South than in the North. The cause

frequently given is the obvious one that it is the difference of

climate. But this overlooks the fact that the phase of social

development reached in the southern countries is totally different from

that in the northern countries, and this difference explains that of

the criminality against persons. Upon this subject Professor Tarde

says: “Statistics compiled in epochs when, civilization not having

passed from the South to the North, the North was more barbarous, would

certainly have shown that crimes of blood were more numerous in the

northern climates, where now they are more rare, and would have induced

the Quetelets of that day to formulate a law precisely the reverse of

the one now stated. For example, if we divide Italy into three zones,

Lombardy, Central, and Southern Italy, we shall find that at present

there are in the first 3 homicides to the 100,000 inhabitants annually,

in the second nearly 10, and in the third more than 16. But shall we

estimate that in the palmy days of Grecia Major, when Crotona and

Sybaris flourished in the south of a peninsula which, in the North, was

totally peopled with brigands and barbarians, except for the Etruscans,

the proportion of bloody crimes would not have been reversed? At

present there are in Italy, in proportion to the population, sixteen

times as many homicides as in England, nine times as many as in

Belgium, and five times as many as in France. But we could swear that

under the Roman Empire it was quite otherwise, and that the savage

Britons, and even the Belgians and the Gauls surpassed the effeminate

Romans in habitual ferocity of manners, in vindictive fury and bravery.

According to Maine the Scandinavian literature shows that homicide

during the period of barbarism was a ‘daily accident’ with these

peoples of the North, at present the mildest and most inoffensive in

Europe.” [117]

It is plain from what has gone before that I have not wished to deny

the direct influence of the physical environment upon man. Indeed, it

is a fact which the whole world has observed. According to many

persons, then—and a number of scientific researches have proved it—a

high degree of criminality against persons proceeds from a hot

temperature, while a low temperature, on the other hand, leads to many

crimes against property. This implies not only that the kind of crime

is different in hot countries from that in cold, but also that the

change of the seasons with their variations in temperature have the

corresponding effects.

I will not fatigue the reader by citing an unlimited number of examples

to prove that the exceptions to this rule are very numerous. We cannot

find a greater number of crimes against persons and a smaller number of

crimes against property with each degree nearer the equator. If this

were the case dishonesty would be unknown at the equator, and everyone

there would be very violent. There are countries which, though in the

same latitude, are very different as to crime, as there are others,

much alike as to crime though situated far from each other, etc., etc.

[118] The adherents of the theory of the “physical environment” explain

these exceptions by saying that they are caused by the “social

environment.” By so doing they recognize that the latter may entirely

alter and even annihilate the influence of the former. Let us concern

ourselves rather with the different kinds of crime, and investigate the

influence which the physical environment exercises upon it.

In the first place, as to the assertion that cold increases the number

of crimes against property it is unnecessary to speak at length, for

nearly all authors are agreed that not physical but economic causes

come into play here. Cold increases men’s needs; they must have warmer

clothing and a well heated dwelling. But it is clear that all this is

no motive for stealing. For the person of means gets what he wants with

his own money. It is the present social organization that, during the

severe weather, does not permit people to provide for the needs that

are more numerous then, for the opportunity to work is more often

lacking in winter than in summer.

As to crimes against persons Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the

direct influence of temperature is as follows: “The increase of acts of

violence to persons, which is observed in connection with higher

temperatures, must be chiefly dependent upon the direct physiological

effect of heat upon the human organism. For by the greater warmth the

consumption of material for the production of animal heat is cut down,

and hence a surplus of force is stored up capable of being used for

other purposes. But this, in union with the heightened irritability of

temper, may easily degenerate into that criminal activity which shows

itself in acts of violence to persons. With this psychological effect

of the heat, it is true, there is coupled, in the case of the poorer

classes who form the majority of the population, the effect of more

easily obtained and more plentiful food, but this social cause in this

connection is of less importance than the direct biological influence.”

[119]

The first explanation of Professor Ferri is astonishing because

everyone feels that the heat has a different effect upon himself than

the one given. The fact that during hot weather the consumption of

bodily fuel is not so great as in cold weather cannot be considered as

the most important point in treating of the question of crime. Heat

enervates men, weakens their organism, and is the cause of men’s doing

as little as possible. It has, then, just the opposite effect to that

ascribed to it. [120]

More than once I have had occasion to point out that it is unjust to

say that the improved food of the poorer classes in summer can be the

cause of the greater criminality during that season. If this were the

case the persons who are well nourished at all times would furnish the

greatest number of violent criminals. Now we know that just the

contrary is the case. In my opinion the explanation is to be sought in

the fact that in summer people come into contact with one another more,

and consequently there is more opportunity for evil doing. [121] But

this in itself cannot naturally explain the increase of crimes.

Watering-places, where the bourgeoisie attempt to escape from the

effects of the heat, are not places where crimes against persons occur

in great numbers. Yet the concentration of many people in a limited

space is there very great. The degree of cultivation of the people

determines the greater or less ease with which quarrels arise. And what

proves that this degree need not be very high is the fact that acts of

violence are very rare among the bourgeois, the greater number of whom

have only a superficial culture.

The most convincing proof that the increase of violent crimes in spring

has no direct connection with the heat, is found in the fact that this

increase is already very great in the months in which in the North of

Europe there is absolutely no question of heat properly so called (i.e.

in March and April); and in the second place the course of crimes

during the week must be noted, with the maximum on Sunday, when

naturally the heat is no greater than on other days; and in the third

place, the maximum is not to be found at the hottest time of the day.

[122]

The increase of sexual crimes in hot seasons is in part only apparent,

because those who commit these crimes then operate more out of doors,

and a greater number of arrests results. For the rest, it must be

conceded that the sexual instinct in general is quickened a little

during the spring and summer, and as a consequence sexual acts

increase. But this does not mean that these acts are therefore

criminal. The principal reason why sexual crimes increase during the

hot weather is to be found in opportunity, which occurs much more

frequently than in cold weather. The proverb says: “opportunity makes

the thief”, and this is still more applicable to sexual criminals.

[123]

I am therefore of the opinion that the social factors must not be

included in the etiology of crime. They have their influence upon the

structure of society, they have also their influence upon man, but it

depends upon social conditions whether this influence takes a criminal

direction or not. [124]

Before taking up our analysis of “Socialismo e criminalità”, I would

remark that this division of the factors into three groups has to do

exclusively with the individual criminal, and thus loses sight of the

question why such an action in any place whatever, at any time

whatever, is regarded as criminal? Such a query brings out the fact

that we are here concerned with social factors only.

Let us take up now the exposition of Chapter I of “Socialismo e

criminalità.” Turati, in his “Il delitto e la questione sociale” has

made the following objections to Professor Ferri’s theses. Professor

Ferri distinguishes five categories of criminals: insane criminals,

incorrigible born-criminals, habitual criminals, criminals from

passion, and occasional criminals. In the first two categories

individual factors play a very important rôle; however, according to

Professor Ferri’s investigations these two groups include but 20% to

25% of the whole number of criminals, and deducting the insane, only

10% remain. Since criminals form only the minority of the population,

and physical factors have only a slight influence, it follows that

these factors influence rather the form than the cause of the crime.

The three factors work nearly all the time. It is clear, therefore,

that the two other factors alone will not be strong enough to produce

crime at a time when the social factor is eliminated, as has been

proved by the socialistic colony at New Lanark, which preserved an

exemplary morality for four years. Then, without taking account of the

crimes that are the consequence of viciousness of life or of the

abnormal economic condition, the authors of great crimes (except

technical and professional ones) are less numerous among the well-to-do

than among the lower classes, where the anthropological elements are

nearly the same. And if the different classes show anthropological

differences, this is not because these differences are innate in

individuals on account of being born in the lower classes, but because

they are produced and brought about by poverty, bad education, etc. The

true causes of crime are consequently social conditions, and in the

last analysis economic conditions.

Professor Ferri’s argument against what has just been said may be

summed up as follows: Will there be no social atmosphere in a

socialistic state? Or rather, will this atmosphere be so perfect that

the germ of the smallest social factor of crime will be absent? Do we

suppose that when poverty is suppressed, jealousy will disappear at the

same time? If legal marriage is abolished will that prevent an ugly man

from violating or killing a beautiful woman who refuses to accept him?

It may be objected that in this case the man is not an habitual or an

occasional criminal, but a born-criminal, or an insane criminal, or a

criminal from passion. Well and good, but then in this future state we

shall still be far removed from an earthly paradise.

Turati commits the following errors in his reasoning: First, he sets

aside the insane criminals; wrongly, according to Professor Ferri, for,

although insane, they are criminals. Second, 20%, the figure to which

born and insane criminals count up, is a very large number out of

60,000 prisoners. Third, Professor Ferri claims that it is incorrect to

say that the other causes are reduced to zero the moment the social

factors of crime are suppressed. For even with occasional criminals,

where the environment plays a very important part, an individual factor

must make its effect felt, or the individual would not become criminal.

Professor Ferri asks, on the other hand: How does it happen that out of

a hundred working-men living in the same environment, only a very few

fall into crime? This can be explained only by admitting individual and

physical causes. When socialists say that these individual differences

are innate simply in consequence of the poverty in which ancestors of

the persons in question have lived for thousands of years, the author

admits this reasoning in great part, but thinks nevertheless that he is

right in maintaining that these qualities are innate in certain

individuals at the present time.

With regard to the fact that a very high morality was maintained in New

Lanark, the author says: first, that he would very much like to

convince himself with his own eyes, especially since he has read that

in this colony the habit of celebrating Christmas eve with excessive

drinking was kept up; second, that he knows that crimes were committed

in a communistic colony of that time; further we are not to forget that

difficulties are increased in a great city.

The following chapter is entitled: “Benessere e criminalità.” To the

unproved assertion of the socialists that bad economic conditions are

the principal if not the only cause of crime, the author opposes some

facts to prove that this statement is largely incorrect. To this end he

divides crimes into three groups: first, crimes against property,

second, crimes against persons or crimes of blood, and third, crimes

against morals. Besides these three categories there are many crimes

which have neither directly nor indirectly any connection with bad

economic conditions; for example, crimes against honor, insults, or

abuse of power.

First, then, the crimes against property. The author recognizes that

most of these crimes are caused by bad economic conditions. But it is

an exaggeration, he says, to say that all these crimes result from such

conditions. This is to overlook crimes against property committed out

of revenge. However, in a communistic society there would necessarily

be cases of theft still, without taking into account kleptomania, etc.

For the articles of consumption would still remain private property;

and why should one not rob his fellow-citizen from jealousy? Or is it

not probable that someone would prefer to take from his neighbor the

thing he needs rather than make a trip of some miles to get it from a

central store? But if we admit that the bad economic conditions of the

time are the cause of the crimes against property, it remains to find

the causes of the crimes of the other groups. Though he recognizes that

economic conditions occupy a place in the etiology of these last

crimes, as, for example, murder from cupidity, the author does not

believe that this can be made a general rule. When socialists object

that the man of the future will be morally improved, Professor Ferri is

of the opinion that at the present moment we have to do with the men of

today and not with the men of the future.

The study of criminality in France during the years 1825–80 has shown

an extraordinary increase in crimes against persons and against morals

during the years 1848–52. A minute examination shows the author that it

was due to the great increase in the consumption of meat and wine, both

very cheap at this time, and also to a rise in wages. The result of the

betterment in economic conditions was, therefore, an increase in the

crimes mentioned.

Professor Ferri finds another proof in the following table:

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

===============================+==============+===============+=========+==============+===============

-------------------------------+--------------+---------------+---------+--------------+---------------

Thefts | 6.6 | 12.9 | 18.1 | 11.1 | 136.3

Forgery | 0.7 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 8.3

Arson | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 5.2

Infanticide | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 4.1

Serious assaults | 1.0 | 1.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 2.7

Homicide | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 2.4

Murder | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 5.8

Sexual crimes with violence | 0.4 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 1.9

,, ,, against children | 0.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 1.1 | 5.5

-------------------------------+--------------+---------------+---------+--------------+---------------

Average of all crimes | 13.9 | 23.0 | 32.5 | 22.4 | 193.0

===============================+==============+===============+=========+==============+===============

It follows from this table that the farming class, which, if you except

vagabonds, is the class with the least means, shows the figure

relatively lowest, and that the assertion of the socialists, that those

who are brought to the bar of justice are almost all from the

proletariat, is inaccurate.

—I shall not discuss the question, whether the proletariat furnishes a

disproportionately large contingent of criminals. The arguments of

Professor Ferri do not seem very strong to me. “Agricultural class”,

for example, is too vague a distinction. What an enormous distinction

between the rich farmer and the poor day-laborer, who earns only a few

francs a week! Yet both are included in the first group.—

When we examine the course of crime in France during the period

1826–80, we see a considerable increase in the crimes against property,

morals, and persons, while the economic conditions have improved during

these years even for the proletariat. To what cause is this increase to

be ascribed? It is impossible to attribute it to a relaxation of the

strictness of the police and the courts, for the activity of these has

become greater. Further, where it is evident that there are such strong

causes of crime, it would be madness to think that a greater severity

of penalties leads to a diminution of criminality. It is for this

reason that the school to which the author belongs insists not upon the

increase of penalties, but rather upon the elimination of causes. Hence

the doctrine of “penal substitutes.”

The true cause is the following: The more abundantly a man is

nourished, the more his organic forces are developed; there is,

therefore, a greater activity which may express itself in more acts of

honest labor, but may also express itself in an increased number of

unlawful acts. And then we must not lose sight, especially with regard

to sexual crimes, of the existence of a biological and of a

sociological law, namely, first, that the generative force of animals

and of man increases in proportion to the abundance and ease of

nutrition; second, that by a continual development of foresight, the

nations which follow the advice of Malthus are more and more giving the

lie to the law that he formulated, since with them population shows a

tendency to increase less rapidly than the means of existence, and

almost in inverse proportion to wealth. This is why criminality is

increasing in France, where the system of foresight is greatly

developed, and where the population enjoys better nutrition than

formerly.

Professor Ferri is of the opinion that we can derive from the observed

facts the following rules: first, criminality increases in extent but

diminishes in violence; second, scarcity makes crimes against property

increase, and decreases those against persons, while abundance has the

opposite effect; third, civilization decreases the number of homicides,

but increases that of suicides; fourth, a development of foresight with

regard to births prevents an excessive increase of the population, and

consequently an excessive increase of pauperism, but increases the

figures for sexual crimes.

Turati makes the following objections to these statements: In the first

place, in civilized countries, crimes against persons are much less

numerous than crimes against property, and just in proportion to the

degree of civilization. Why is it not likely that in the end the

criminogenous influence of nutrition will disappear in consequence of

the law in accordance with which crimes increase in number, but

decrease in grossness and intensity? Further, it is doubtful whether

this influence is so strong. The true cause is not good nutrition but

the Malthusian check, and it is this last which leads to crime,

precisely in the proletariat, since in this class prostitution cannot

act as a safety valve; and bad economic conditions are the cause of the

“moral restraint.”

Professor Ferri recognizes that there is a partial truth in this

reasoning, but makes the following objections: that crimes of blood are

more numerous than crimes against morals and yet have no relation to

the Malthusian check; that, as regards crimes against morals, it is not

correct to say that the proletariat are driven to them by economic

causes; that it is the proletarians that multiply the fastest, and the

well-to-do classes who do not wish to have many children; and that the

individual and biological factors would always remain, and lead to

crimes against persons, even if the aforesaid cause of sexual crimes

were to disappear. In the following chapters the author treats of the

assertion of Turati that an improvement in education and the new

“social atmosphere” will bring about a change.

—The criticism of the chapter of which I have just been speaking may be

summed up as follows: Like so many other authors, Professor Ferri

understands the expression, “economic conditions”, in a very limited

sense. He includes only direct influences, and in this way it is very

easy to prove that they explain only a part of criminality. But this

interpretation is very incomplete, since all social life is influenced

by economic conditions. In proving, therefore, like many other authors,

that while an improvement in the economic condition of the

working-class is accompanied by a decrease in crimes against property,

it is also accompanied by an increase of sexual crimes and crimes

against persons, Professor Ferri forgets not only that the lack of

education leads to crimes of violence, but also that in our present

society the possibility of satisfying the sexual appetites depends upon

the social position of the individual. The argument, in opposition to

Turati, “that Malthusianism is applied chiefly by persons of some

means” is not a happy one for one who wants to prove that economic

conditions have not a considerable influence. For the reason of this is

just the difficulty of procuring a good position for many children,

and, in the case of landholders, the desire to avoid a too great

division of the land. These are purely economic causes.—

“Educazione e criminalità” is the title of the third chapter. The human

brain is an organic mechanism, similar (but with numerous exceptions)

to an inorganic mechanism in this, that it is subject to the great law

of the conservation of energy, which manifests itself, among other

ways, in inertia. From which it comes that man at all times has had an

irresistible tendency to make use of a general principle as a basis for

his logical structures. Without this he would always be forced to build

each new structure from the ground up, which would involve the waste of

too much cerebral energy. Opposed to this law is another which teaches

us that life is impossible in a state of absolute repose, but that it

requires a perpetual changing of the organic and physio-psychic

materials. Hence it comes that eternal and absolute truths change at

different epochs, and that they seem stable only when compared with the

secondary truths, which are subject to the fashions of the time.

According to the author, then, there are truths that are more general

and nearly inalterable, but there are others which, though general

also, are more secondary, only retain their force during several

generations, and end by being changed. Such, for example, are the views

concerning human life, formulated by the great thinkers, then accepted

by the majority, and finally supplanted by other truths. This is why

science makes progress by dogmas. It is modern science that has made

the great step in recognizing that these dogmas are relative and

alterable.

Against this reasoning two objections can be alleged. First, that

Spencer has given the name “hypothesis” to his doctrine of evolution,

while Professor Ferri calls it a dogma. The author on the other hand

thinks that his opinions and those of Spencer are exactly alike, for he

calls the doctrine in question a relative and alterable dogma, and

Spencer says of it: what I have given is an hypothesis; but so long as

there is nothing better, that will explain a greater number of facts, I

have a right to consider it as the image of the knowable truth, until

the contrary is proved. In the second place, it may be asked: “Does man

always oscillate between truth and error; will he never know an

absolute and eternal truth?” According to Professor Ferri the answer to

this question is not difficult. The origin as well as the aim of faith

is the effort to give to men a relatively stable support, which they

cannot find elsewhere. All discussion with the adherents of a

theological opinion is excluded; and as for the others, ought they not

to recognize that the life of human thought is just the constant proof

of the continual modification of the so-called eternal verities?

After this introduction the author enters upon the subject itself. At

the beginning of the 19th century the dogma was dominant, that

instruction was the panacea for all crimes. Later many of the

publicists, including the socialists, advanced the opinion that the

true remedy for criminality was education. Just as the first theory was

incorrect, Professor Ferri would show that the second is equally so.

The question is, can education lead man to good or to evil; and if it

can, how far can it lead him? The scientific pedagogues have not

treated this question, as far as the author knows. Without furnishing

proofs the socialists admit that education can modify man in many

respects. Owen, for example, says: “every child may be brought up to

have in his later life only good habits, or bad, or a mixture of the

two, according to his education.”

It is necessary to distinguish three kinds of education—physical,

intellectual, and moral. First, a general observation applicable to all

kinds of education. In his physical, intellectual, and moral make-up,

each individual is the product of a countless number of ancestors, to

whom he is bound by unchangeable laws of heredity. From this it is

clear that the power of education, which acts only during a limited

number of years, is small compared to that of the influences to which a

man’s ancestors have been subjected for thousands of years. The

question becomes, then: “what are the limits of such modification?”

Further it is necessary to determine just how far this modification is

due to education, and how far to environment. For education, properly

so called, i.e. the direct and methodical influence of the educator

upon his pupil, differs in many respects from that of the physical and

social environment. This is why the author treats this latter in a

special chapter, and limits himself now to education alone. The

question is therefore reduced to this: “how far can a man (the

educator) modify the constitution of another man (the pupil)?”

One more observation should precede the study of the question, namely

that a force, or a complexus of forces, can be influenced only by other

homogeneous forces. Now when we examine how far physical or biological

education can make its influence felt, we see that this influence may

be very great, though naturally limited, in proportion to the knowledge

we have of the structure and functioning of the organs which it is

attempted to modify. As to intellectual education, the results are much

less, since the knowledge of the organs involved is much smaller. As to

moral education, the following question is one to which pedagogues have

given little attention: “how far do morality or immorality, good or bad

character, depend upon the education received at home and in school?”

Spencer lays down the fundamental rule that the moral conduct of man

can be studied scientifically only on condition of being considered as

forming part of the conduct in general, and also of the activity in

general, of all living beings. Sergi is of the same opinion. And this

is correct, Professor Ferri thinks, if, as these two authors do, one

studies the conduct and character of man in their constituent elements,

in their genesis and development, without taking into consideration the

variability of the character, and consequently of the conduct, of man

because of his education. In our case, in studying the constituent

elements, the genesis, the development, and the variability of the

moral part of the character and conduct of man, it is necessary to

separate these parts, and to limit ourselves to a special study of one

of them.

All psychologists are agreed that the moral conduct of a man (including

criminal conduct) although having naturally a certain relationship with

his muscular and intellectual condition, depends directly and

intimately upon the condition of his feelings, emotions, and passions

in their moral aspect. Hence it is clear that the problem is: “how far

can these feelings be modified by education?”

Let us first of all note that the expression, “a man of good (or bad)

birth”, does not imply that there are persons who are totally good or

totally bad, for these two qualities always appear in combination. It

only indicates whether the good or the bad qualities predominate.

It is certain that some persons have become criminals from lack of

moral education, added to bad surroundings. In this case this lack of

education has favored the greater development of the bad germs, which,

however, gives us no right to conclude that the converse would be true:

that education can improve the moral character, strengthening the good

germs to such a point that they have the mastery over the bad. For we

must not lose sight of two things: first, that the bad germs that show

themselves in our present society are the anti-social instincts,

opposed to the sociability and sympathy upon which life is based, while

the good germs are the social instincts; second, that, since

individuals reproduce morphologically and physiologically during life

the different phases that man and animal have gone through, it is in

the lowest strata of his character that man preserves the savage and

anti-social feelings that are the consequences of the condition in

which the race has lived heretofore, while the germs of the modern

social ideas are to be found in the higher and more recent parts. Hence

it follows that the anti-social instincts, being of a more ancient date

than the social instincts, are stronger than they and are not stifled

by them. And then, the environment, the present civilization, is also

partly the cause. This is why the author agrees with Sergi that in our

present society there are individuals who are constantly driven to

crime by their organic and psychical constitution, made up in great

part of the deeper, anti-social strata (the born-criminals and

incorrigibles), and that there are others whose constitution is formed

primarily of the more recent, social strata, and who become criminal

only under extraordinary impulses, in consequence of a volcanic

eruption, as it were, from the deeper, anti-social strata (criminals

from passion). While Sergi is of the opinion that the anti-social

instincts will little by little become latent, lose their force, and

cease to act, Professor Ferri thinks that this will be the case only

with the minority of men.

Now in order to weaken the anti-social tendencies, it is, according to

the author, necessary to know, first, their seat; second, their

composition. Up to the present, psychology has made no study of the

human passions, emotions, and feelings, and consequently cannot give us

this information. It must therefore be considered as impossible that

education should so stifle the existing bad germs and strengthen the

good ones that these last should finally have the upper hand.

Moral education consists only of a series of auditory and visual

sensations, impressed upon the individual by means of advice and

example, which brings it about that it is more especially a moral

instruction, which makes its mark in the intellect, but leaves intact

the seat of the passions and feelings, which are the true motive forces

of the moral conduct. Moral education becomes little by little more

systematic, bases itself more than formerly upon the biological

principle that each organ and function is developed by exercise, and

consequently is improving. The author believes that we must

nevertheless not deceive ourselves into fancying that too much has been

accomplished, so long as the origin and condition of the moral and

immoral germs are unknown. Further, he is of the opinion that the

product of centuries is not to be destroyed in a few years.

In order to prove what has just been said the author cites the

following example, which, according to him, is not uncommon. A family

includes four or five children; all are reared with the greatest care,

each in a different manner according to his character. The result is

that three or four of them become more or less good and industrious

citizens, while one becomes an incorrigible vagabond. This difference

does not depend upon education.

Now it will be asked: is education, then, always and altogether

useless? Here a distinction must be made. There is one small category

of persons who are good and honorable and remain so under all

circumstances, and this exclusively from their organic condition.

Opposed to this is another group who are always bad and show

anti-social instincts. These last are such from an innate organic and

psychic anomaly. Between these two is to be found the very numerous

class of individuals in whom the good and bad qualities are combined.

For this last class education may be of some importance, but

environment is still more so. Hence, in order to lower the number of

occasional criminals, criminal sociology demands “penal substitutes.”

For it is from this intermediate class that criminals are recruited.

However, environment and education are of less importance for this

category than heredity.

The conclusions drawn by the author are, then: first, that a

development of the physiology and psychology of the human passions is

very desirable, in order to improve the means at the disposal of

education; and second, that the opinion of Owen, that education can

make a bad man good, is incorrect.

—In my criticism I shall limit myself to the principal questions. In

the first place I believe that the argument of Professor Ferri, based

on the supposition that scientific socialists believe that “education

is the omnipotent fact”, is futile. For scientific socialists do not

hold this opinion. Owen (who belongs to the Utopists) might be thought

to hold it, though he does not use the word education in the narrow

sense given by Professor Ferri, but it will be very difficult to find

such an opinion in Marx, or Engels, or any of their followers. Although

holding that circumstances have a very great influence upon the

individual, they do not attribute this to the systematic, conscious

influence of one individual upon another, which is what is commonly

meant by education. For the purposes of Professor Ferri’s argument it

may be very useful to make a nice distinction between education and

atmosphere, but this distinction is not therefore justified. The

impressions gained by a child whether from the atmosphere in which he

lives or deliberately impressed upon him by his teacher, are hardly

distinguishable. Just out of class he plays with his comrades, and this

easily makes him forget the moral lessons he has just received. A

mother forbids her child to do a certain thing, and a little later he

sees an older member of the family do with impunity what has been

forbidden in his own case. It is because of this over-nice distinction

that the argument of the author loses much of its value.

In the second place, as the author himself partly admits, the influence

that education may exert cannot be exactly fixed, no matter what

progress pedagogical science may make, for the following reasons. It is

only in school that the scientific pedagogical method is applied, and

plainly in an incomplete and imperfect manner. In order that children

shall be taught and developed they must be well fed and well clothed.

Without this the results will be very small, but pupils insufficiently

fed and clothed are to be counted by thousands. It is also necessary

that a class include as few pupils as possible, in order that the

instructor may not have to divide his attention too much. Yet how many

cases are there where this is found? For these reasons, to which might

be added others, all of an exclusively economic nature, the school does

not contribute as much as it might to moral education. The advantage of

the education given in school over that furnished by the parents

consists in its practical application, at least in part, according to

pedagogical rules. The parents who set themselves to bring up their

children on scientific principles are so few as to be easily counted.

Almost all are novices in this very difficult trade; little attention

is paid to whether parents are ignorant or educated, good or bad,

patient or irascible, capable or incapable, in short, of bringing up

their children. The present organization of society is based upon the

fiction that the person who gives life to a child is also fitted to

bring it up. Further, existing social conditions put many parents,

however capable they might otherwise be, in a position where they

cannot give their children any care, on account of the long

working-day, the labor of married women, etc. These remarks, it seems

to me, are in themselves enough to show that we cannot just now come to

a definite conclusion, that the influence of education may extend to

such and such a point, but no further.

In the third place, it remains to make valid objections to the

principal thesis that forms the foundation of the chapter. Here it is

in brief. There was a time when men lived in anti-social conditions;

all were enemies one of another. This situation lasted for ages until

the social sentiments grew up and civilization developed. But these

anti-social germs having lasted for ages, while the social germs are

only of recent date, it follows that the former are generally much

stronger than the latter. This is why the tendency to evil has

predominated in man, and why crime has such enormous dimensions.

I am of the opinion that this argument is based upon an error. In Part

II of this work I shall attempt to show that the opinion of Professor

Ferri (and other authors), that in the early ages all men were enemies

and animated by anti-social feelings, is false. I shall endeavor also

to show that the present constitution of society does not give rise to

social feelings, but anti-social. Finally it is very problematical

whether the hypothesis the author uses, namely that acquired

characteristics may be inherited, is defensible; the contrary is coming

more and more to be believed. But we cannot in any case admit the

transmission of morality itself by heredity, as Professor Ferri does,

when he speaks of men who remain good under all circumstances, and

consequently of men who must have been born with innate moral

prescriptions. A child is never born with positive knowledge; he is

born with a brain more or less fitted for the reception and development

of knowledge. There was never a child who, from his birth, knew the

rules “thou shalt not steal”, “thou shalt not kill”, etc. But the

organs destined to become the seat of morality differ with each

individual like other organs. When the author says, then, that there

are men who remain good under all circumstances, he says, in effect,

that there are men whose moral organs are very susceptible, and who

consequently remain better than men whose organs are less susceptible.

Therefore the accumulation of anti-social feelings in man of the

present day, through heredity, is imaginary. Finally, Professor Ferri

neglects to note the difference in nature and intensity between the

needs of different men. For this is the cause of the great inequality

of results obtained from the same education given to persons of equal

capacity for receiving moral impressions. If a man has great needs it

takes a much more intense moral effort to keep him from satisfying them

in an immoral manner, than is the case with a man whose needs are

slight.—

The following chapter, “Ambiente e criminalità”, begins with the

assertion of Professor Ferri that the thesis of the socialists

concerning the influence of the social atmosphere upon all the

manifestations of human activity, and consequently upon criminality, is

in great measure correct. The difference between the views of socialism

and of sociology, therefore, is here only a question of limits.

According to the author here is the thesis in question: as soon as the

social revolution or transformation which the socialists desire has

taken place, the social atmosphere will become excellent, and man will

then be morally higher than he is at present. He then examines the

parts of this statement one by one.

First, Professor Ferri gives the classic formula of historic

materialism, set forth by Marx in his “Zur Kritik der politischen

Oekonomie”, taken by the author, however, from Loria’s criticism of the

work of Puviani in the “Rivista critica delle scienze giuridiche e

sociali.” “In the memorable preface to the Kritik der politischen

Oekonomie, published in 1859, Marx sets forth for the first time the

daring theory that all the manifestations of mankind, in the juridic

order as well as in the religious, philosophical, artistic, criminal,

etc., are exclusively determined by economic relations, so that to each

phase of these there corresponds a different form of human

manifestations, as its necessary product.”

Just as in biology the phenomena of nutrition are related to the other

vital phenomena, so is the economic aspect of human activity related to

the other aspects. Economic conditions have, then, a great influence on

the social life, but the author believes it an exaggeration to say that

economic conditions fix it exclusively. Further, in this statement no

attention is paid to the fact that the other phenomena react in their

turn upon the economic conditions, and therefore become determining

factors.

Then it is said that man will be morally better when he finds himself

in a purified atmosphere. This the author admits in part—how far he

admits it will be easily understood by one who knows his opinion with

regard to the physical, individual, and social factors of crime, and

his ideas about education.

Like most of the statements of the socialists, this has, according to

Professor Ferri, the fault of being too simple and consequently too

absolute. Human life is already so complicated (and social life still

more so) that only very little can be explained by simple formulae. It

is easy to say, “Abolish private property and all the cases of theft

will disappear”; “abolish legal marriage, and adultery, uxoricide,

infanticide, and the other crimes against morality will disappear.” But

it is not therefore true. For, even in a communistic society a

born-vagabond, who has a constitutional aversion to work, will commit

thefts just the same. To all this it may be objected that these cases

are pathological, and that these persons should be shut up in an insane

asylum—but in reasoning thus one admits at the same time that such a

society would not yet be an earthly paradise. Further it is pure

metaphysics to believe that social institutions like property and the

family are the consequences of a caprice of man or of a dominant class,

and can therefore be abolished by a stroke of the pen. Everything that

exists, in nature as in society, is the result of causes that are only

the links in an infinite chain. Hence it is impossible to modify

society at a stroke, in accordance with a plan drawn up by a theorist.

This does not mean that every modification of society is excluded; but

the situation predicted by the socialists is so much more beautiful

than the present that it would not be a step, but a leap, forward. And

by their prediction they deny evolution, for they constantly preach to

the proletariat that the whole will be realized in the very near

future.

We come now to the major premise of the socialistic thesis, namely the

social revolution or transformation. The question which Professor Ferri

puts to the socialists in regard to the matter is this: how long will

it take you to realize your projects? There are two answers to be given

according as one believes this realization possible by revolution or by

evolution.

First, that by revolution. Leaving out of consideration the fact that a

revolution could not take place without cruel acts being committed,

with a consequent upsetting of the moral feelings, it must first of all

be asked whether it is easy to bring about a revolution. The author is

of the opinion that Laveleye is perfectly right when he says: “that a

revolution has become an easy thing; that a social evolution is

inevitable; but that a social revolution is impossible, since one

cannot change by force in a single day the economic constitution of

society.”

Neither the word nor the fact of revolution inspires the author with

fear. He recognizes that it may be in the line of evolution, although

it remains an exception and is in fact a pathological manifestation of

evolution. Nevertheless the question arises, what does the revolution

of a day, a month, or even a year signify in comparison with the

evolution that goes on during thousands of years? Does not a revolution

always lead to a reaction? Suppose, however, that this reaction does

not happen; will the whole people have become more moral at a single

shock? What did the great French Revolution accomplish? Much, in

appearance; in reality, little. It follows from what has gone before

that we can modify the environment in a way and with a rapidity that

will seem great to one generation but not at all great to the whole of

humanity.

Now the solution by evolution. As we have already remarked, Professor

Ferri recognizes that criminality will be diminished by an improvement

of the environment. However, since it is impossible to make all at once

general and substantial changes, it is necessary to make every effort

to obtain partial improvements. This is why the positive penal school

defends the doctrine of “penal substitutes.” In his “Il delitto, etc.”,

Turati calls them palliatives; he says that it is impossible to find a

specific remedy for each crime; that there is only one universal

remedy: the equal distribution of wealth, education, and the happiness

coming from love and knowledge, in so far as this will be socially

possible. Professor Ferri thinks that Turati’s objections are not based

upon good reasons, because, first, the theory of penal substitutes is

not limited to the designation of special means of treating special

crimes, but it gives also universal means for all kinds of crimes;

second, the improvements suggested by the author and his adherents have

the great advantage of having been drawn up according to scientific

researches, and of being immediately practicable. How could the desired

transformation ever be reached if the whole system of penal substitutes

were only a useless palliative?

There are only two roads leading to success; that of a violent

revolution—which Turati rejects—and that of successive improvements.

But it is just this which the positive penal school desires, and this

is why the difference between this school and the scientific socialists

has entirely disappeared. However, the error of the socialists is

always that they want to get everything at one blow, and they attach

too little value to what is within reach. There are many socialists who

fear that the bourgeoisie will never give up their privileges without

force, and who consequently have still much sympathy with revolution.

However, this fear is not well founded. For most social improvements

have been made by the dominant class without being compelled by

revolutionary force.

Professor Ferri draws the conclusion that the social environment is

circumscribed by economic conditions for the most part, and that these

have a very great influence upon criminality. The socialists and the

evolutionary sociologists differ, then, in this, that the first believe

they can make themselves useful by protesting and prophesying, while

the others think that it is more practical and more scientific to apply

themselves to partial improvements.

—One cannot read this chapter without being astonished at the decided

tone with which the author declares himself against a theory which he

only knows from what he has heard said about it. The classic formula of

historic materialism is quoted at second hand from a criticism of

Professor Loria upon a work of Puviani, who says that the economic

evolution is in its turn determined by the constant increase of the

population (a theory entirely opposed to that of Marx).

And how the idea of this theory is treated! Let the reader judge for

himself. In the original we read: “In the social production of their

life men enter into fixed, necessary relationships in production,

independent of their will, relationships which correspond to a definite

stage in the development of their material powers of production. The

sum total of these relationships forms the economic structure of

society, the real basis upon which the juristic and political

superstructure is erected, and to which definite forms of social

consciousness correspond. The form of production of the material life

conditions the social, political, and intellectual life-process in

general. It is not the consciousness of mankind that determines their

being, but their social being that determines their consciousness.”

[125] 3

It is unnecessary for us to linger over this point. Professor Loria has

stated the theory inaccurately, and Professor Ferri, who has depended

upon Loria, combats something that Marx never said, and thinks that he

has discovered the further error that account is not taken of the fact

that each cause is in its turn an effect, and vice versa. This too it

is an injustice to impute to the founders of historic materialism.

Engels says upon this subject: “... according to the materialistic

conception of history, production and reproduction of the material life

are, in the last analysis, the determining factors in history. Marx and

I have never claimed more. When the proposition is distorted thus: the

economic factor is the sole determinant, the proposition is transformed

into one devoid of sense, abstract, absurd. The economic situation is

the basis, but the different factors of the superstructure—political

forms of the struggle of the classes and its results—constitutions

imposed by the victorious class after the battle has been won,

etc.—juridical forms, and also the reflections of all these actual

conflicts in the minds of those who have taken part in them, political,

juridical, and philosophical theories, religious conceptions, and their

ulterior development into systems of dogmas, have also their influence

upon the march of the historic struggles, and especially in many cases

determine the form of it. All these factors act the one upon the other,

and finally the economic movement ends necessarily by dominating over

the infinite crowd of chances.... Without this the application of the

theory to any historic period would be easier than the solution of a

simple equation of the second degree.” [126]

Among the reproaches that Professor Ferri throws at the head of the

socialists there is also that they wrongly believe it possible to

change society at a single stroke. The author adds here some

observations upon revolution and evolution. It is necessary to take up

this question, since again Professor Ferri does not correctly represent

the opinions of the Marxists. There is no question that Marx and his

adherents do not suppose that they can change society at a stroke.

Although evolutionists, Marx and his followers call themselves

revolutionists. Many of their adversaries consider this a

contradiction. I think that they are wrong, and that on the contrary

the opposite is true, that every evolutionist in social matters who is

not a revolutionist, has not the courage to support the consequences of

his doctrine. For he who believes that society constantly undergoes

quantitative changes ought to recognize that these must lead in the

long run to a qualitative difference, in which case a revolution has

taken place. The Marxists are consequently at once evolutionists and

revolutionists, since, recognizing that there are continual

quantitative changes, they strive for the total overturning of society

as based upon the capitalistic system, and consequently for the

foundation of the socialistic order. All this relates, then, only to an

economic and social revolution. It follows, then, logically from what

has gone before that the scientific socialists do not aspire primarily

to a political revolution; on the contrary they wish to attain their

ends as far as possible by legal means; as far as possible, which

means, if the ruling classes do not prevent them from obtaining by

legal means what they want. But in the contrary case they do not dread

undertaking even a political revolution as soon as the proletariat

shall be sufficiently prepared and organized. Professor Ferri is

further of the opinion that there is no longer any difference between

the socialists who are at the same time evolutionists, and the

sociologists, since all reach out toward quantitative changes. However,

Professor Ferri forgets to say that the abolition of the private

ownership of the means of production is not one of his “penal

substitutes”, and that there is consequently a fundamental difference,

since socialists advocate only the modifications which accord with the

tendencies of collectivism.

Finally, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the bourgeoisie will

voluntarily relinquish their privileges, as the ruling classes have

often already done. For this tremendous assertion he does not give any

proofs, and would find it difficult to do so.—

The title of the fifth chapter is: “L’avvenire morale dell’umanità.”

The socialists—so the author begins—believe that there is a great

difference between them and the positivist sociologists, in that the

latter consider crime as an inevitable social evil, while the

socialists see in it only a passing phenomenon. Professor Ferri, on the

contrary, claims that crime, that is, the act which endangers the

conditions of existence, as well as the penalty, the corresponding

reaction, defensive or preventive, both have their roots in the animal

kingdom, and are consequently phenomena more or less inseparable from

humanity. However, this sociological induction is not to be taken in an

absolute, but in this relative sense: first, that in criminality it is

necessary to distinguish two divisions, of which the one is determined

by the normal saturation, and the second by the abnormal

super-saturation; second, that the author and his adherents do not

understand by the “absolute necessity” of crime that crime will always

exist, but only that it will exist in the immediate future (19th and

20th centuries), and that they retain this expression because they

regard it as useless and impossible to make predictions concerning

times more remote than this.

With regard to future morality Professor Ferri considers in this

chapter the two following socialistic theses:

I. The struggle for existence which has hitherto reigned among men,

will find no place in the socialistic society.

II. In the socialistic society, egoism, which has been the basis of the

moral and social life, will have to give place to altruism.

First, then, the question of the permanence of the struggle for

existence. Professor Ferri cites here the opinions of Labusquière

(“Rivista internazionale del socialismo,” 1880) and of Professor Loria

(“Discorso sur Carlo Darwin,” 1882). Abridged, Labusquière says as

follows: Is the struggle for existence, an integral part of the

evolution of animals, also a “conditio sine qua non” of the development

of humanity? No, since it prevents the total development by putting the

majority of men in a most precarious situation. We cannot picture man

as living all alone. He has always lived and will always live in a

society. This demands a certain solidarity, without which a society is

not imaginable. We cannot admit, then, the necessity of a continual

struggle—at least we cannot admit the necessity, on the part of some,

of receiving the fruits of the labor of others. The struggle for

existence is necessary among animals, since they are not able to

produce, and consequently must live upon such fruits as nature gives.

But man can produce, and the productive forces increase just as men

support one another more.

The opinion of Professor Loria is summed up as follows: the thesis that

the Darwinian theory is entirely applicable to political economy is

false. It is said that it justifies social inequality; nature being

aristocratic, in society also the aristocracy occupies the place that

belongs to it. According to Professor Loria this argument is as without

sense as the argument that, since nature is a murderess, murder is

justifiable. The view in question is not a legitimate conclusion from

the theory as advanced by Darwin, but is simply a false interpretation

made by some of his followers. There are no reasons why this struggle

should always exist, but we are quite justified in supposing that it

will disappear, having been but a transitory stage. For as long as

egoism was the sole human motive, the struggle for existence was a

necessary condition of initiative and progress. But altruism is more

and more developing, and it is not Utopian to believe that some day man

will reach out after physical and moral perfection, not with the aim of

conquering his less-favored fellows, but with the higher aim of

self-development. We forget too much how different is the struggle for

existence among animals and among men. While in nature it is the

strongest, hardiest, and most skilful who come out of the contest

victorious, and consequently survive, in the present contest it is not

the best (the workers and the capitalists who introduce improved

methods of work), but those who are enriched by the labor of others,

who are the conquerors. In the social struggle we perceive three

phenomena which do not appear in the struggle in nature: military

selection (which is an obstacle to the perfection of the human race);

sexual selection (in which not strength and beauty, but money and

class-prejudice determine the choice); and the economic system (which

by the accumulation of capital in the hands of a few, forces the

workers to lead a life that exhausts them, and is the reason why the

ill-nourished classes form the majority). This is why the results of

the struggle for existence are so different for man from those of the

combat in nature.

Professor Ferri makes the following objections to what has been said

above: In treating questions like these it is necessary not to confuse

two theories, that of Spencer and that of Darwin. For the latter is

connected with the former as a part with the whole. Darwinism is

expressed in the law of natural selection, while the theory of Spencer

is that of evolution, a law which rules not only the animal and human

world, but also the whole knowable universe.

After this introductory observation he attacks the theses that

Labusquière and Loria have developed. The great error committed by

Labusquière and by most of the socialists is their failing to grasp the

idea of the continuity and naturalness of social phenomena. There

results in such cases an erroneous distinction between societies of man

and those of animals; hence they do not see that the combat, proved as

always existing in the case of animals and men as well, is a natural

law. And then Labusquière and his followers forget that while the

sociologists explain this combat, that is not at all saying that they

justify it. In any case the assertion of the socialists that it will be

possible to make this combat cease at once, after only a very brief

delay, is false. As to the question of knowing whether it will ever

cease, this will be examined later.

Then Professor Ferri remarks that we must not confuse the principle of

a natural law with its manifestations. In the case in question this

would be saying that in recognizing that the struggle for existence is

a law which rules in the animal kingdom and among men, it is necessary

also to think that the forms of the combat have been, and remain, the

same. The author believes, for example, that it would be desirable to

mitigate the present economic combat and to carry it to a higher plane,

without therefore being an adherent of the maxim, “each one according

to his needs”, the application of which would ruin the human race

entirely.

In criticising the law of the struggle for existence, we very often

forget that it does not stand alone, but that there is another beside

it, which in the long run levels all the inequalities produced by this

conflict. We see thus that individuals, families, and races raise

themselves above the general plane, reach the maximum of power, wealth,

and intelligence, to fall again below the average.

We cannot admit that the struggle for existence, which is a principle

of life, and the cause of human and animal evolution, will disappear

some day because men, animated by humanitarian ideas, ardently desire

it. The opinion that in the course of time this struggle is becoming

and will become less and less violent and brutal, is scientifically

more correct and humanitarian as well. It may be that after centuries

and centuries a day will come when every individual will have his

material existence assured. But the struggle for moral existence will

not yet disappear on that account. For every need satisfied causes in

its turn new needs to spring up, and rekindles the conflict. The

socialists evince great one-sidedness in understanding by the struggle

for existence only the struggle for food, forgetting that there is a

struggle in every sphere.

It is claimed that there is a great difference between the struggle for

existence among men and that among animals, and that consequently the

results differ; that in the animal kingdom it is the strongest who

remain victorious, while among men it is only a small minority of the

weaker and less industrious who rule over the majority making up the

ill-nourished classes. According to Professor Ferri this opinion also

is incorrect; otherwise the consequences of the conflict would have a

result entirely contrary to that in the animal kingdom; the human race

would deteriorate instead of advancing. And the facts prove that the

human race has made progress, organic, mental, social, and economic.

The survival of the weaker, the less industrious, is only partial and

apparent. Malon says that in our present society it is not those who

are individually superior who conquer, but those who have the exclusive

disposition of the social forces. But how have these forces fallen into

the hands of these few? Only because in this phase of human evolution,

they were the stronger, the best fitted. It is forgotten that there is

not only a struggle between classes, but also between individuals, and

that, by the greater and greater increase of altruism it is also the

more altruistic workmen and employers who conquer. For an altruistic

workman, who works with zeal and has his employer’s interests at heart,

and an altruistic employer who treats his employes well, will be more

able to maintain themselves than those who act differently. It is only

in appearance, then, that the less strong and industrious

property-owners are the victors; if this were the case it would soon

cease to be so.

The conclusion of the author, then, is that the struggle for existence,

which is a normal aspect of honorable activity, and an abnormal aspect

in criminal activity, is the supreme law of the human race in the past

and in the present, and consequently in the future; but this struggle

will be carried on by means less and less rude and bloody.

The second part of the chapter treats of egoism and altruism. The

individual, considered as such, is only egoistic; but considered as a

member of a community he is also altruistic. We must therefore

interpret the subject in the following manner: that a gradual evolution

is taking place from egoism to altruism, between which, accordingly, is

found ego-altruism.

There are now two questions that must be answered, first, will man ever

come to be purely altruistic? second, if so, how long will it take to

bring it about?

According to the author every evolutionist must answer affirmatively to

the first question (at least if we exclude the absolute form in which

it is put by many socialists, namely that egoism will disappear

entirely), for the slow and continual evolution of morality teaches us

that egoism is always decreasing and altruism increasing. But how much

time is needed to realize this moral paradise? The answers made to this

question by the socialists and by the sociologists differ greatly. The

former are of the opinion that this will be possible almost

immediately, or at least in a little while, while the latter think that

it is impossible that it should take place so quickly. Since the author

has busied himself in the preceding chapters with the influence of

education upon morality he limits himself now to treating the question,

how much time is needed for this moral progress?

According to Professor Ferri we do not properly grasp this question if

we do not recognize that the evolution of morals has progressed but

very slowly during the past centuries. Doubtless much has been

accomplished, but not enough to justify the prediction of the

socialists. Soury is quite right when he says: “we deceive ourselves

greatly if we think that the man of the present day differs much from

the man of antiquity, from the barbarian, and the savage.” When we

examine the period of barbarism we see that homicide, cannibalism, and

theft form the greater part of the criminality, while the first two are

not often punished by the tribe, or are even obligatory. Impetuosity of

the passions, ferocity, insensibility to pain in self or others,

disloyalty, implacable revenge, improvidence, and superstition form the

principal part of the moral life. All these traits still exist, though

less strongly than formerly, in the man of the present, and especially

in the individual born in the lower classes. Except in pathological

cases cannibalism no longer appears in the civilized world, but this

does not make it impossible that it would reappear in time of great

famine. However, the high moral qualities which present-day man can

show, are also to be found among savages, only with gradual

differences. [127] The number of honorable and moral persons has

increased relatively, which makes it certain that in the future

morality will rise higher than at present, but this will not take place

quickly, but very slowly, like all the other changes that have taken

place.

It is therefore impossible that the predictions of the socialists

should come true in a short time, and that crime, poverty, ignorance,

and immorality should disappear as soon as society is transformed and

revolutionized. It will only be the sublime end toward which the human

race must always aspire.

—In order to avoid repetitions I will make no criticism of this

chapter, since I should have to refute almost all the theses here laid

down, but will treat of the questions of the struggle for existence,

and egoism and altruism, in Part II of this work.—

In his “Conclusione” [128] Professor Ferri compares society to a sick

person at whose bedside there meet three friends of his, who all wish

him well. The first declares confidently that the soul dominates the

body and that consequently material remedies are of no avail. The

second says, on the contrary, that it is only a total change of the

environment in which he is living that can cure the invalid. The third

also believes that modifications are necessary, but he contents himself

with partial improvements, though the second friend calls them only

palliatives. The first is the spiritualist, [129] the second the

socialist, and the third the sociologist.

—Having given my opinion after each chapter, a general criticism of

“Socialismo e Criminalità” is superfluous. The impression that the book

makes is strange. The author attacks the socialists as “excessively

anti-scientific and sentimental”, while he vaunts the “great scientific

character of the sociologists.” Yet these last, notwithstanding their

great scientific character, combat a doctrine which they know only in

part or not at all. Scientific socialism is left out of the discussion.

The best proof of the weakness of his attack against socialism is to be

found in the fact that the author has for several years ranked himself

among the socialists, of whom he has become one of the most fervent and

intelligent chiefs.

As regards his opinion on the criminal question Professor Ferri has

made no change, or almost none. [130]—

IV.

H. KURELLA.

This author gives some pages of his “Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”

to the subject we have in hand. What he says may be summed up as

follows.

The attempts to draw parallels between the fluctuations of the price of

grain and those of the figures for criminality, according to the

author, prove nothing, inasmuch as it is impossible to compare them

with the statistics of wages and of forced unemployment. In fact any

one who tries to show in this way the correlation between criminality

and economic conditions, begs the question, that poverty is the

principal cause of crime. Further, the hypothesis that the regularity

with which human acts occur is fixed by the condition of the society in

which they take place, is little by little giving way. From personal

examinations, and from the information given by Ferri and von Oettingen

(this proves that the literature of our subject is little known to the

author) Dr. Kurella thinks he can draw the conclusion that insufficient

food, caused by scarcity or low wages, does not cause the commission of

crimes. Malnutrition may perhaps influence criminality indirectly; that

is it may cause degeneration after some successive generations, which

in its turn predisposes to crime.

A priori it is incontestable that we cannot picture to ourselves a

society, if established by the socialists, [131] in which cupidity,

hatred, and the instinct of the oppressor, the principal motives of

crime, will have been annihilated or deprived of their influence

because of social institutions. Nevertheless it is of importance that

Morrison, Garofalo, and Ferri [132] have, according to the author,

shown that poverty is not a factor of crime. At the International

Congress of Criminal Anthropology at Brussels, the attempt was made to

defend the contrary, but, according to Dr. Kurella, without success.

(According to him it can only be in case of being suddenly thrown out

of work that a person hitherto honest commits a crime from indigence.)

The necessity of the moment being consequently only rarely a cause of

criminality, not only do the present social anomalies produce an

increase of degeneracy, as has been said above, but also there are a

number of persons who live in badly built and unsanitary dwellings, so

that the family life is injured, and the development of feelings of

honesty, modesty, etc., is interfered with. And it is also the social

anomalies that strongly influence alcoholism, which is one of the

important factors of crime.

The author draws the following conclusion: “As little as a change of

environmental conditions can change an individual of one kind

immediately into an individual of another kind, as little as we ever,

under however modified circumstances, see a chimpanzee change himself

into a gorilla, so little do social factors change a normally endowed

man into a criminal. In isolated cases it may appear as if passion or

opportunity had caused a crime; social forces do indeed have their

effect upon the individual, but they do not essentially change his

fundamental attributes—which include his character; the slight

modifications through environment that individuals experience, must

constantly recur, heap themselves up in the course of generations,

until a socially significant change of type has arisen. Accordingly it

is the permanent social distresses, the chronic evils of society which

influence criminality, because by unnoticeable influences they go on

for generations gnawing at the inmost kernel of man; misery and

intellectual and moral neglect must be as long continued as in the

Papal States, in the Kingdom of Naples, in Ireland, and among the

Poles, drained by the territorial nobility for centuries, before an

entire people becomes inoculated with the ‘penchant for crime.’” [133]

—I will refrain from making any criticism. One does not argue with a

man who gives convincing proofs that even the meaning of criminal

sociology is unknown to him. Assertions, for example, that the

character of man is invariable, that the distance between the honest

man and the dishonest man is as great as that between the chimpanzee

and the gorilla, are only absurdities. What author will deny at this

time that the differences between men are, in the last analysis, only

quantitative?

In general, Dr. Kurella still shares the opinions of the Italian school

(cf., for example, “Anthropologie und Strafrecht”, which appeared in

1912); nevertheless he should have recognized, when he wrote “die

Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”, that he was not familiar with the

social factors of crime. He has written the following remarkable words,

which do him honor. “I do not hesitate to confess that deeper

socio-political studies, which became possible to me only after the

publication of that work [“Naturgeschichte des Verbrechers”] show me

today the social factors of crime more plainly and sharply, than I was

able to recognize them ten years ago” (Vorrede, “Zurechnungsfähigkeit,

Kriminalanthropologie”).—

E. FORNASARI DI VERCE. [134]

In the first chapter (on poverty and criminality in Italy) the author

calls attention to the following facts. According to the statistics of

1881 there were in Italy to the thousand (of both sexes over nine years

of age) 390.66 persons who were rich, well-to-do, moderately well-off,

or with enough to live on, and 609.34 who had scarcely the necessities

of life. Out of 100 persons convicted there were:

1887 1888 1889

56.34 57.45 56.00 Necessitous

22.99 30.77 32.15 Having only the bare necessities

11.54 9.98 10.13 Moderately well-off

2.13 1.80 1.72 Well-to-do or rich

Here the favorable influence of means comes out distinctly. For 40% of

the population had some means and 60% were in need; but among those

convicted there were 13% with means and nearly 87% who were poor.

Then the author gives a sketch of the influence of poverty in causing

degeneracy among the proletariat and predisposing them to crime, for

poverty is very destructive to men’s mental faculties. He cites in

support of this many authors of weight.

By comparing the different Italian districts, grouped about the average

figure for wealth per capita, with the number of prisoners to the

100,000 of the population, grouped according to the place from which

they came, the following result is obtained.

Wealth. Prisoners according to the

Place from which they Came.

(3.333) Latium. VII --

-- VI --

-- V --

(2.746) Piedmont-Liguria. IV --

{ Lombardy (43)

(2.400) Lombardy. III { Piedmont-Liguria (51)

{ Venice (53)

-- II Tuscany (76)

(2.164) Tuscany. I Emilia (95)

(1.935) Venice, } {

(1.876) Kingdom. } Average. { Kingdom (118)

(1.762) Emilia. } {

-- 1st Marches-Umbria (137)

(1.471) Sicily. } 2d {

(1.333) Naples } { Sardinia (167)

(1.227) Marches-Umbria 3d Naples (173)

(?) Sardinia 4th --

5th Sicily (212)

6th --

7th Latium (250)

According to the author this table shows that wealth and criminality

present a certain symmetry, to this extent, that the wealthy regions

have in general a lower criminality than the poor ones. It is only

Latium that forms an exception, which is explained, according to Dr.

Fornasari di Verce, first, by the circumstance that the capital is

situated in that district, second, by the climate, and third, chiefly

by the fact that the absolute wealth of a country gives no indication

of the distribution of wealth. We can properly expect to find that

where great wealth is heaped up there will also be considerable

pauperism.

Not only does poverty predispose to crime, but it also furnishes the

motives for it. Leading to alcoholism it is the cause of violent

crimes; it drives persons who cannot find work to vagrancy and

mendicity, which in their turn are the preparatory school for greater

crimes; it puts the great number of those who cannot provide honestly

for their needs to the necessity of stealing. And when these factors

act upon a man already predisposed, they even lead as far as homicide.

In the following table the different Italian districts, as well as the

crimes committed, have been grouped about their average figures.

Wealth. Crimes.

(3.333) Latium VII --

-- VI --

-- V --

(2.747) Piedmont-Liguria IV --

(2.400) Lombardy III --

-- II --

} { Lombardy (649)

} { Tuscany (710)

(2.164) Tuscany } I { Piedmont-Liguria (732)

} { Emilia (749)

} { Marches-Umbria (774)

(1.935) Venice } { Venice (857)

(1.876) Kingdom } Average. { Kingdom (926)

(1.762) Emilia } { Sicily (1021)

-- 1st Naples (1150)

(1.471) Sicily } {

(1.333) Naples } 2d { Sardinia (1440)

(1.227) Marches-Umbria 3d --

Sardinia 4th Latium (1797)

According to the author it appears from this table that, with the

exception of Latium, the districts with wealth above the average have a

number of crimes below the average. Nevertheless the regions with a

figure for wealth above the average, i.e. Piedmont-Liguria, Lombardy,

and Latium, show a greater number of crimes than one would expect,

while Sicily, Naples, Marches-Umbria, and Sardinia show lower figures

for crime than would be supposed. This contradiction is only apparent,

according to the author, and is to be explained as follows: first,

because where there is wealth there is also poverty and frequent

opportunities to steal; second, because dangerous individuals migrate

less to districts where there is less wealth; third, because, as John

Stuart Mill says, it results from the social conditions of our day that

the education of the poor is nil and that of the rich bad.

The second chapter, having as its title, “Il fattore economico e la

delinquenza.—Dinamica”, contains some data upon the trend of

criminality in the period in question. Criminality in general is

increasing; serious crimes remain nearly stationary, while less serious

crimes increase. As Ferri observes, criminality is decreasing, even in

Italy, as to its intensity and violence, but increasing as to its

extent.

Finally, the author considers the influence of emigration. It is

chiefly the crimes against property that feel the favorable effects of

it, as murder does among crimes against persons. The cause of this

favorable influence is easily explained. Emigration removes a number of

persons who, not having the means of existence, would easily become

criminals.

The consequences of agricultural vicissitudes are as follows: the years

of abundant harvests show a decrease in criminality, bad years, on the

contrary, an increase; good vintages, however, lead to the same result.

It is chiefly crimes against property (especially rural thefts) that

yield to the influence of the degree of the abundance of the harvest;

while among crimes against persons it is principally assaults that show

the effect of the character of the crops. It is plain that the

agricultural class is that which especially shows the effect of a bad

harvest. During the years 1887–1889 the proportion of the farming class

among those convicted rose from 35.3% to 37.8% and 38.2%.

The effect of the fluctuation of the price of food is the following:

criminality in general shows the influence of it greatly. When prices

fall crime diminishes, and vice versa. This is more clearly to be seen

in crimes against property. Crimes against persons increase especially

when the price of wine is low, and vice versa. When a fall in the price

of food coincides with a fall in the price of wine, the increase of

crimes against persons is great.

According to Dr. Fornasari di Verce the cause of the increase of crimes

against persons in the case of low food prices is not to be found in

the improved nutrition that results, but in the greater consumption of

alcohol. The other crimes feel the effect of the fluctuations in the

price of provisions less.

The author then takes up manufacturing. (As a consequence of the

defectiveness of the official statistics the data are incomplete.)

During the period of which the author speaks, manufacturing increased

enormously, and crime in general increased also. The serious forms,

however, decreased while the less serious ones increased. Industrial

crises bring an increase chiefly of crimes against persons.

The condition of the working-people. According to the author it would

be of the highest importance to establish for each year the number of

industrial workers. For this has a greater importance for criminality

than the price of food or the rate of wages. In default of official

data such an investigation cannot take place, and he has to limit

himself to an examination of wages. With some few exceptions these

wages increased about 35% during the period 1873–1889. However, to

obtain a clearer picture of the condition of the working-class, the

author has combined the fluctuation of wages with those of the price of

grain; that is, he has made a calculation of the number of hours each

man has had to work to get 100 kilograms of grain.

After having called attention to the fact that the average wage of the

Italian workman is lower than in other industrial countries, the author

gives the following results of his researches: the influence of the

fluctuation of wages upon crime in general is less than, and almost

always subordinated to, that of the fluctuation of food-prices.

However, it must not be forgotten here that wages do not always

represent exactly the condition of the majority of the proletariat.

With some few exceptions, all crimes against property decrease when

wages rise (in combination with the price of grain). This influence is

not noted in commercial crimes and counterfeiting. Crimes against

persons increase a little when wages rise; but when this rise coincides

with a low price of wine, they increase considerably.

The influence of strikes is exclusively limited to the crime of

rebellion.

From the investigation into criminality and commercial occurrences we

learn that fraudulent bankruptcy, and also forgery in great measure,

are almost entirely independent of economic occurrences; and the

fluctuations of the number of commercial crimes, in so far as they are

not influenced by other economic facts, are explained in great part by

commercial occurrences.

Financial occurrences (credit and deposits) do not make themselves felt

in criminality in general, but in crimes against property and

commercial crimes.

The author concludes finally from the increase shown by private

fortunes and the rise in wages, that there is a correlation of these

phenomena with a decrease of certain serious forms of crime.

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

{ { { { a. Thefts of all kinds.

{ { { { b. Embezzlement, cheating, and other frauds.

{ { { Much. { c. Crimes against property (coming before the magistrate).[#]

{ { { { d. Commercial crimes.[#]

{ { {

{ { { { e. Blackmail, extortion, and robbery.

{ { { Moderately. { f. Crimes against the order of the family.

{ Subject to the { Inversely. { { g. Crimes against persons (coming before the magistrate).

{ Influence of { {

CRIMES. { Economic { { { h. Crimes against the public order.

{ Occurrences and { { Little. { i. Crimes against the public administration.[#]

{ varying with Them. { { { j. Forgery and counterfeiting.

{ { {

{ { { Crimes over { I. Assault and extortion (with homicide).

{ { { which the { II. Rebellion, and violence to the public authorities.

{ { { Influence

{ { of

{ { { Alcohol is { III. Homicide of every kind.

{ { Directly. { Predominant.{ IV. Assaults and intentional injuries.

{ { { -- Sexual crimes.

{

{ { Hardly { k. Attacks upon the safety of the state.

{ Outside of the { at All. { l. Perjury, etc.

{ Influence of {

{ Economic { { m. Fraudulent bankruptcy.

{ Occurrences. { Not at All. { n. Insults, and defamation of character.

{ { { o. Crimes against religion.

{ { { p. Arson and malicious mischief.

According to the author it follows from his investigation, that the

economic factors fill a very important place in the etiology of crime,

but that all crime is not to be explained by that means. He is of the

opinion that if we are to combat crime effectively we must make use of

the “penal substitutes” recommended by Professor Ferri.