In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the abuse of alcohol had

reached a high degree of development among the rich. The cause of this

was the birth of capitalism, by which great wealth was accumulated in

the hands of a few without their having occasion to place a great part

of it as new capital. To this fact was joined a low degree of culture,

and it thus came about that the wealthy of the period spent enormous

sums for eating and drinking. [482]

The discovery in the middle of the sixteenth century of the

distillation of spirits from grain brought about a considerable

cheapening in the price of strong drink, which thus came within the

reach of the poor. (Arab physicians had long before discovered how to

extract brandy from wine, but this in the beginning was only used

medicinally.) The great poverty occasioned by the Thirty Years’ War

increased the use of liquor enormously, and the birth of the industrial

proletariat contributed equally to the same result. Mention is made for

the first time of the regular use of liquor to increase the amount of

work done, in 1550 among the Hungarian miners, the first category of

workmen who lived under conditions almost identical with those of the

modern industrial proletariat. With the continually increasing

development of capitalism King Alcohol began his triumphal march, which

has continued without any great obstacle to the present day. Alcoholism

has its deeper causes in the material intellectual and moral poverty

created by the economic system now in force. It is with reason that

Professor Gruber has said: “We cannot shut our eyes to the truth that

alcohol is not without basis in our present order of society. Without

it life would long ago have become unendurable for the suffering part

of the population.”

CHAPTER V.

MILITARISM.

We may be very brief upon the correlation of militarism and the present

economic system. This correlation is so clear that there are few

persons who deny it. The motives which, under all earlier modes of

production, have engendered wars are principally of an economic nature.

But besides these there have been at times others; but we have not to

enquire here what was in the last analysis their correlation with the

mode of production of that day. The relation between capitalism and war

is always so close that we can find in the economic life the direct

causes of the wars waged under the empire of capitalism.

As we have seen above in our exposition of the present economic system,

a part of the surplus-value that comes to the moneyed class is invested

as new capital. The continually increasing amount of capital does not

readily find investment in full in a country where capitalism is

already in force. This is why the moneyed class desires to invest a

part of the surplus-value in countries whither capitalism has not yet

penetrated. If the inhabitants of the country chosen as field of

operation are opposed to this, or if the same country is coveted by

other capitalistic powers, the resulting antagonism generally leads to

war.

In the second place, the producers can sell in their own country only a

part of the increasing quantity of their products; whence come their

efforts to find an outlet into other countries. But as capitalism

expands with increasing rapidity over the whole world, the difficulty

of finding a country in a position to buy, or to which capitalism has

not yet penetrated, becomes greater and greater. Encounters with other

capitalistic powers pursuing the same end are the inevitable

consequence.

It is upon the State that the task is imposed of finding new

territories where capital may be invested, or new outlets for goods

which do not find purchasers in the country where they are produced.

Beside the duty of the State to maintain a certain order in a society

confused and complicated through the nature of our economic life (civil

and criminal jurisprudence), there is its more important duty of

warding off other groups of competitors, or even at need attacking them

by force of arms.

But the army serves not only to act against the foreigner, it has

equally a domestic duty to fulfil. In the cases where the police cannot

maintain order the army reinforces them. The army must especially then

be active at the time of great strikes, when so-called free labor is to

be protected, that is when employers are trying to replace the striking

workmen with others who, in consequence of their poverty, or their lack

of organization, put their personal interests above those of their

comrades. Also it has its part to play in connection with great

political movements, like that to obtain universal suffrage, for

example.

Our present militarism is, therefore, a consequence of capitalism. The

double duty of the army proves it; for its function is to furnish the

bourgeoisie with the means of restraining the proletariat at home, and

of repulsing or attacking the forces of foreign countries.

BOOK II.

CRIMINALITY.

CHAPTER I.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. [483]

A. DEFINITION OF CRIME. [484]

Crime belongs to the category of punishable acts. However, as the term

is applicable to only a part of such acts, it is necessary to be more

exact. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to exclude

successively all the groups of acts which are punishable without being

crimes.

The first exclusion is in connection with the question, “Who is it that

punishes?” You cannot call that a crime against which one or several

individuals take action of their own motion, and where the social group

to which they belong does not move as such. In this case the word

“punish” is an improper term, for the act in question is one of

personal vengeance. Nor can you apply the name of crime to the act of a

group of persons forming a social entity, against an analogous group.

The reaction of the second group called forth by such act is not

properly punishment, but “blood-” or “group-vengeance”, and is in

reality nothing but a kind of war. [485]

The second exclusion concerns the nature of the punishment. Acts which

bring no other punishment than moral disapprobation are not reckoned as

crimes. They are not so called unless they are threatened with

something more severe than this.

The provisional result is, then, as follows: A crime is an act

committed within a group of persons that form a social unit, and whose

author is punished by the group (or a part of it) as such, or by organs

designated for this purpose, and this by a penalty whose nature is

considered to be more severe than that of moral disapprobation. This

definition, however, considers only the formal side of the conception

of crime; it says nothing as to its essence. It is proper, then, to

consider next the material side.

Crime is an act. [486] The question which presents itself first of all

is this: Is crime considered from a biological point of view an

abnormal act? The answer to this, which is of the highest importance

for the etiology of crime, must be negative. From a biological point of

view almost all crimes must be ranked as normal acts. The process which

takes place in the brain of the gendarme when he kills a poacher who

resists arrest is identical with that which takes place in the brain of

the poacher killing the gendarme who pursues him. It is only the social

environment which classes the second act rather than the first as a

crime. From the biological point of view homicide is not an abnormal

act. Sociology and history prove that men have always killed when they

thought it necessary. No one would maintain, for example, that those

who take part in a war are biologically abnormal.

The same observation may be applied to assaults. No anthropologist

would maintain that a policeman clubbing a mob of strikers was

performing a biologically abnormal act, or that the strikers were

abnormal because they did not choose to let themselves be maltreated

without defending themselves. It is only the social circumstances which

class this defense as a crime, and cause the action of the policeman to

be considered otherwise.

The same thing is true with regard to theft. For centuries it was

considered the right of the soldiers to pillage the country of the

conquered (and in colonial wars it is still done at times). Soldiers

are not, however, from this fact considered to be biologically abnormal

individuals. And yet there is no biological difference between these

acts and those of the ordinary thief; for anthropology does not ask

whether one steals on a large scale or on a small. [487]

Continuing our researches into the essence of crime, it is obvious that

it is an immoral act, and one of a serious character. Why do we find

any act immoral? This question cannot be answered by asking of each

individual separately, Why do you think such and such an act immoral?

Moral disapprobation is primarily a question of feeling; ordinarily we

take no account of why any given act is approved or disapproved by us.

Sociology alone can solve the problem by taking the acts considered as

immoral in relation with the social organization in which they take

place. And in treating the matter thus we observe that the acts called

immoral are those which are harmful to the interests of a group of

persons united by the same interests. Since the social structure is

changing continually, the ideas of what is immoral (and consequently of

what is or is not criminal) change with these modifications. [488]

Considered in this way from the material side, a crime is an

anti-social act, an act which is harmful in a considerable degree to

the interests of a certain group of persons. This definition is not yet

complete, however, for many acts of this nature are not crimes.

The best thing to do in order to find what is lacking in this

definition is to examine a concrete case. A short time ago there was

added to the Dutch penal code a new article threatening with a penal

term of some years the railroad employe who went out on a strike. The

proposal of this law, presented after a partial strike of the railroad

employes, aroused great indignation on the part of organized labor,

while the bourgeoisie in general regarded a strike as an immoral act

which would henceforth be followed by a severe penalty. Notwithstanding

the violent opposition on the part of the deputies of the labor party

the plan was accepted.

It is clear that what must be added to our definition (already

contained implicitly in the formal definition) is that the act must be

prejudicial to the interests of those who have the power at their

command. If, in the case cited above, the deputies of the proletariat

had had the majority the Dutch penal code would contain no penalties

against railroad employes on a strike. Power then is the necessary

condition for those who wish to class a certain act as a crime.

It follows that in every society which is divided into a ruling class

and a class ruled penal law has been principally constituted according

to the will of the former. We must at once add that the present legal

prescriptions are not always directed against the class of those ruled,

but that most of them are directed against acts that are prejudicial to

the interests of both classes equally (for example, homicide, rape,

etc.). These acts would without doubt continue to be considered

criminal if the power were to pass into the hands of those who are at

present the governed. However, in every existing penal code hardly any

act is punished if it does not injure the interests of the dominant

class as well as the other, and the law touching it protects only the

interests of the class dominated. The rare exceptions are explained by

the fact that the lower classes are not wholly without power.

Before closing our observations we must put the question, What is the

object of punishment? It seems to me that there are elements of

different nature in punishment as prescribed in our present penal

codes. To begin with the object of punishment is to be found in the

feelings of vengeance excited by the crime, for which satisfaction is

desired. But after this punishment has three things in view:

First, To put the criminal where he can do no further harm, either

permanently or for a certain period.

Second, To inspire the criminal, and other persons as well, with a fear

of committing crime.

Third, To reform the criminal as far as possible.

Most criminologists do not admit that punishment is still in great part

a manifestation of the desire for vengeance (although regulated).

Nevertheless it is indubitable that he who desires that some one shall

be punished solely because he has committed a misdeed, and without his

punishment’s being of any use to the criminal or to others, wishes

simply to satisfy his feelings of revenge. The most subtle theories

cannot refute this fact. Those who from the height of their knowledge

disdain the primitive peoples who practice the rule of “eye for eye,

tooth for tooth”, are nevertheless on the same plane in this matter, as

those they scorn. [489]

It is unnecessary to say that the minority that wishes to exclude all

idea of vengeance from the penal code, and sees in it only a means of

securing the safety of society, and, if possible, of reforming the

criminal, is at present still very small, so that the ideas of this

group are almost never realized in our present penalties. [490]

This is our conclusion, then, that a crime is an act committed within a

group of persons forming a social unit; that it prejudices the

interests of all, or of those of the group who are powerful; that, for

this reason, the author of the crime is punished by the group (or a

part of the group) as such or by specially ordained instruments, and

this by a penalty more severe than moral disapprobation.

To find the causes of crime we must, then, first solve the question:

“Why does an individual do acts injurious to the interests of those

with whom he forms a social unit?”, or in other words: “Why does a man

act egoistically?”

B. THE ORIGIN OF EGOISTIC ACTS IN GENERAL. [491]

What are the causes of egoistic acts? How does it happen that one man

does harm to another? The answers that have been given to this primeval

question may be divided into two groups. The first group attributes the

cause to the man himself, the second to his environment.

The great majority of persons who treat of this question settle it in

favor of innate egoism. They are of the opinion that man is egoistic by

nature and that environment can produce no change in this (this is

implied in the Christian doctrine of original sin). This opinion, in

order to be accepted as true, needs facts to prove that egoism has

always and everywhere been the same among men.

Others, among whom are most of the well-known sociologists, also

consider egoism as a fundamental trait of man, but are at the same time

of the opinion that little by little egoism has decreased, that

altruism has developed, and that this process continues. [492] For this

hypothesis to be correct it must be shown by the facts:

First. That the peoples of a much lower degree of social evolution than

ours show much more egoistic traits of character. [493]

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

egoists.

This theory is naturally of the highest importance for criminal

science, and it becomes still more so from the fact that, according to

Professor Lombroso, crime is a manifestation of atavism, that is, that

some individuals present anew traits of character belonging to their

very remote ancestors. The criminal would thus be a savage in our

present society. We must therefore examine to see whether the said

theory is correct.

We have only to consult one of the standard works on zoölogy to

perceive that there is no basis in this science to uphold the theory.

There are some animals that are complete egoists. Two harpies (South

American birds of prey) for example, upon meeting will attack each

other at once and will fight till one is conquered. Other animals, on

the contrary, show very altruistic traits of character. The following

extract from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”, is one of many proofs which

might be adduced: “Animals of many kinds are social;... We will confine

our attention to the higher social animals; and pass over insects,

although some of these are social, and aid one another in many

important ways. The most common mutual service in the higher animals is

to warn one another of danger by means of the united senses of all.

Every sportsman knows, as Dr. Jaeger remarks, how difficult it is to

approach animals in a herd or troop. Wild horses and cattle do not, I

believe, make any danger-signal; but the attitude of any one of them

who first discovers an enemy, warns the others. Rabbits stamp loudly on

the ground with their hind-feet as a signal; sheep and chamois do the

same with their fore-feet, uttering likewise a whistle. Many birds, and

some mammals, post sentinels, which in the case of seals are said

generally to be the females. The leader of a troop of monkeys acts as

the sentinel, and utters cries expressive both of danger and of safety.

Social animals perform many little services for each other: horses

nibble, and cows lick each other, on any spot which itches; monkeys

search each other for external parasites; and Brehm states that after a

troop of the Cercopithecus griseo-viridis has rushed through a thorny

brake, each monkey stretches itself on a branch, and another monkey

sitting by, ‘conscientiously’ examines its fur, and extracts every

thorn or burr.

“Animals also render more important services to one another: thus

wolves and some other beasts of prey hunt in packs, and aid one another

in attacking their victims. Pelicans fish in concert. The Hamádryas

baboons turn over stones to find insects, etc.; and when they come to a

large one, as many as can stand round, turn it over together and share

the booty. Social animals mutually defend each other. Bull bisons in

North America, when there is danger, drive the cows and calves to the

middle of the herd, whilst they defend the outside.... In Abyssinia,

Brehm encountered a great troop of baboons, who were crossing a valley:

some had already ascended the opposite mountain, and some were still in

the valley: the latter were attacked by the dogs, but the old males

immediately hurried down from the rocks, and with mouths widely opened

roared so fearfully, that the dogs quickly drew back. They were again

encouraged to the attack; but by this time all the baboons had

reascended the heights, excepted a young one, about six months old,

who, loudly calling for aid, climbed on a block of rock, and was

surrounded. Now one of the largest males, a true hero, came down again

from the mountain, slowly went to the young one, coaxed him, and

triumphantly led him away—the dogs being too much astonished to make an

attack. I cannot resist giving another scene which was witnessed by

this same naturalist; an eagle seized a young Cercopithecus, which, by

clinging to a branch, was not at once carried off; it cried loudly for

assistance, upon which the other members of the troop, with much

uproar, rushed to the rescue, surrounded the eagle, and pulled out so

many feathers, that he no longer thought of his prey, but only how to

escape....

“It is certain that associated animals have a feeling of love for each

other, which is not felt by non-social adult animals.” [494]

Later I shall treat of the question why some species of animals show

altruistic proclivities while others do not. At present I wish to

inquire whether peoples showing a much lower degree of civilization

than our own are much more egoistic.

Nansen, the celebrated explorer, in speaking of the Eskimos, among whom

he sojourned for some time, says: “The Greenlander is of all God’s

creatures gifted with the best disposition. Good-humor, peaceableness,

and evenness of temper are the most prominent features in his

character. He is eager to live on as good a footing as possible with

his fellow-men and therefore refrains from offending them and much more

from using coarse terms of abuse. He is very loth to contradict another

even should he be saying what he knows to be false. If he does so, he

takes care to word his remonstrance in the mildest possible form, and

it would be very hard indeed for him to say right out that the other

was lying. He is chary of telling other people truths that he thinks

will be unpleasant to them; in such cases he chooses the vaguest

expressions, even with reference to such indifferent things as wind and

weather. His peaceableness even goes so far that when anything is

stolen from him, which seldom happens, he does not as a rule reclaim it

even if he knows who has taken it. The result is that there is seldom

or never any quarreling among them. [495]

“The only thing that makes him [the Eskimo] really unhappy is to see

others in want, and therefore he shares with them whenever he has

anything to share.”

“The Greenlander is, on the whole, like a sympathetic child with

respect to the needs of others; his first social law is to help his

neighbor.” [496]

“One of the most prominent and attractive traits in the Eskimo’s moral

character is certainly his integrity.... It is of special importance

for the Eskimo that he should be able to rely with confidence upon his

neighbors and his fellow-men; and it is the first condition of this

mutual confidence, on which depends all united action in the battle for

life, that every man should be upright in his dealings with his

neighbors. The Eskimo therefore regards it as in the highest degree

dishonorable to steal from his house-mates or from his

fellow-villagers, and it is very seldom that anything of the sort

occurs.” [497]

“The worst thing that can happen to a Greenlander is to be made

ridiculous in the eyes of his fellows, and to be scoffed at by them.”

[498]

With regard to the American Indians living in the region of the

Columbia river, Dr. Waitz makes the following statement: “The qualities

regarded as virtues by these peoples are honesty and love of truth,

courage, obedience to parents and chiefs, and love of wife and child;

and the Salish, whose moral ideals are here especially indicated, in

general come up to these requirements very well. With them and with

their cousins, the ‘Pends-d’Oreilles’ and Spokane, crimes are very

rare, and a mere rebuke, administered by the chief, is of great

effectiveness. Old age, too, finds among the Salish benevolent support

and care, though children who have the misfortune to lose their fathers

have often a sad lot, their property being frequently taken from them.

Most of these peoples are upright and honest, live together in the most

peaceable fashion, and have friendly intercourse with the whites.”

[499]

G. Catlin, one of the authors who are best informed upon everything

concerning the North American Indians, says of their character:

“I have roamed about from time to time during seven or eight years,

visiting and associating with, some three or four hundred thousand of

these people, under an almost infinite variety of circumstances; and

from the very many and decided voluntary acts of their hospitality and

kindness I feel bound to pronounce them, by nature, a kind and

hospitable people. I have been welcomed generally in their country, and

treated to the best that they could give me, without any charges made

for my board; they have often escorted me through their enemies’

country at some hazard to their own lives, and aided me in passing

mountains and rivers with my awkward baggage; and under all of these

circumstances of exposure, no Indian ever betrayed me, struck me a

blow, or stole from me a shilling’s worth of my property that I am

aware of.

“This is saying a great deal, (and proving it too, if the reader

believe me) in favour of the virtues of these people; when it is borne

in mind, as it should be, that there is no law in their land to punish

a man for theft—that locks and keys are not known in their country—that

the commandments have never been divulged amongst them; nor can any

human retribution fall upon the head of thief, save the disgrace which

attaches as a stigma to his character, in the eyes of his people about

him.

“And thus in these little communities, strange as it may seem, in the

absence of all systems of jurisprudence, I have often beheld peace and

happiness, and quiet, reigning supreme, for which even kings and

emperors might envy them. I have seen rights and virtue protected, and

wrongs redressed; and I have seen conjugal, filial and paternal

affection in the simplicity and contentedness of nature. I have

unavoidably, formed warm and enduring attachments to some of these men

which I do not wish to forget—who have brought me near to their hearts,

and in our final separation have embraced me in their arms, commended

me and my affairs to the keeping of the great Spirit.” [500]

In treating of the question of which of the two are the happier, the

civilized nations or the peoples he visited, the same author says:

“I have long looked with the eye of a critic, into the jovial faces of

these sons of the forest, unfurrowed with cares—where the agonizing

feeling of poverty had never stamped distress upon the brow. I have

watched the bold, intrepid step—the proud, yet dignified deportment of

Nature’s man, in fearless freedom, with a soul unalloyed by mercenary

lusts, too great to yield to laws or power except from God. As these

independent fellows are all joint-tenants of the soil, they are all

rich, and none of the steepings of comparative poverty can strangle

their just claims to renown. Who (I could ask) can look without

admiring, into a society where peace and harmony prevail—where virtue

is cherished—where rights are protected and wrongs are redressed—with

no laws, but the laws of honour, which are the supreme laws of their

land. Trust the boasted virtues of civilized society for awhile, with

all its intellectual refinements, to such a tribunal, and then write

down the degradation of the ‘lawless savage’ and our transcendent

virtues.”

Lewis H. Morgan, after passing a great part of his life among the

Iroquois, says with regard to them: “All the members of an Iroquois

gens were personally free, and they were bound to defend each other’s

freedom; they were equal in privileges and in personal rights, the

sachem and chiefs claiming no superiority; and they were a brotherhood

bound together by the ties of kin. Liberty, equality, and fraternity,

though never formulated, were cardinal principles of the gens. These

facts are material, because the gens was the unit of a social and

governmental system, the foundation upon which Indian society was

organized. A structure composed of such units would of necessity bear

the impress of their character, for as the unit so the compound. It

serves to explain that sense of independence and personal dignity

universally an attribute of Indian character.” [501]

He describes the hospitality of the peoples mentioned as follows:

“Among the Iroquois hospitality was an established usage. If a man

entered an Indian house in any of their villages, whether a villager,

or a stranger, it was the duty of the women therein to set food before

him. An omission to do this would have been a discourtesy amounting to

an affront. If hungry, he ate; if not hungry, courtesy required that he

should taste the food and thank the giver. This would be repeated at

every house he entered, and at whatever hour in the day. As a custom it

was upheld by a rigorous public sentiment. The same hospitality was

extended to strangers from their own and from other tribes. Upon the

advent of the European race among them it was also extended to them.

This characteristic of barbarous society, wherein food was the

principal concern of life, is a remarkable fact. The law of

hospitality, as administered by the American aborigines, tended to the

final equalization of subsistence. Hunger and destitution could not

exist at one end of an Indian village or in one section of an

encampment while plenty prevailed elsewhere in the same village or

encampment. [502]

A. R. Wallace speaks as follows of the primitive population of South

America and the Indian Archipelago: “I have lived with communities of

savages in South America and in the East, who have no laws or law

courts but the public opinion of the village freely expressed. Each man

scrupulously respects the rights of his fellow, and any infraction of

these rights rarely or never takes place. In such a community, all are

nearly equal. There are none of those wide distinctions, of education

and ignorance, wealth and poverty, master and servant, which are the

product of our civilization; there is none of the wide-spreading

division of labor, which, while it increases wealth, produces also

conflicting interests; there is not that severe competition and

struggle for existence, or for wealth, which the dense population of

civilized countries inevitably creates. All incitements to great crimes

are thus wanting, and petty ones are repressed, partly by the influence

of public opinion, but chiefly by that natural sense of justice and of

his neighbor’s right, which seems to be, in some degree, inherent in

every race of man.” [503]

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

says:

“Whenever a corner is lifted up of the veil which hides from us the

primitive condition of mankind, even of such parts of it as we know to

have been destined to civilisation, there are two positions, now very

familiar to us, which seem to be signally falsified by all we are

permitted to see—All men are brothers, and all men are equal. The scene

before us is rather that which the animal world presents to the mental

eye of those who have the courage to bring home to themselves the facts

answering to the memorable theory of Natural Selection. Each fierce

little community is perpetually at war with its neighbour, tribe with

tribe, village with village. The never-ceasing attacks of the strong on

the weak end in the manner expressed by the monotonous formula which so

often recurs in the pages of Thucydides, ‘they put the men to the

sword, the women and children they sold into slavery.’ Yet, even amid

all this cruelty and carnage, we find the germs of ideas, which have

spread over the world. There is still a place and a sense in which men

are brothers and equals. The universal belligerency is the belligerency

of one total group, tribe, or village, with another; but in the

interior of the groups the regimen is one not of conflict and confusion

but rather of ultra-legality. The men who composed the primitive

communities believed themselves to be kinsmen in the most literal sense

of the word; and surprising as it may seem, there are a multitude of

indications that in one stage of thought they must have regarded

themselves as equals.” [504]

Scores of pages might be filled with facts proving that the primitive

peoples of all races and in all parts of the world were not only not

egoistic in their relations with the people they lived among, but

rather the contrary. In conclusion I wish to note the opinions of two

distinguished sociologists, Steinmetz and Kovalewsky, opinions which

derive significance from the great ethnological knowledge of these

authors.

At the Fifth Congress of Criminal Anthropology Dr. Steinmetz, in

speaking upon the explanation of crime by the hypothesis of atavism,

says: “It is not at all probable that our true born-criminal resembles

the normal savage. The former is characterized by his ferocious egoism,

while the latter is nothing if not a devoted member of the group whose

customs he respects and whose interests he defends; the savage is very

tender toward the children whom the criminal abandons; the savage is

only cruel toward the enemy, the criminal toward all the world.” [505]

After having cited different altruistic traits of primitive peoples

Kovalewsky says: “The enumeration would wear out your patience if one

were to cite all the proofs that travelers give of the care that

savages and barbarians have for their mutual welfare, and the fulness

of their charity. To these facts, which indicate the prolonged

existence of a sort of communism, others correspond....” [506]

I am of the opinion that no one, taking the above facts into

consideration, will maintain that man has always and everywhere shown

the same egoistic traits, or that there has been a gradual evolution

from egoism towards altruism.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that primitive peoples

present under all circumstances the altruistic characteristics that I

have mentioned. I have already remarked that the position of woman is

in general very dependent. In general the primitive peoples are very

fond of their children and give them very tender care. Nevertheless

infanticide is not uncommon among those who are at a low stage of

civilization. And I have already remarked that among nomadic peoples

the sick and aged were often abandoned. Here are then contradictions

which it is necessary to explain.

Apparently—but only apparently—an evolution from egoism towards

altruism has really taken place and has not yet ceased. This appearance

is the effect of the alteration in the character of the egoism under

the present economic system; it has become less violent than at earlier

periods. The fight is no longer carried on with fire-arms or cold

steel, but with other weapons no less dangerous, and this is what is

generally lost sight of. We note that in ancient times the prisoners

were killed; that later they were sold into slavery; that slavery was

superseded by serfdom, which in its turn gave place to free labor.

But it is not always a growing altruistic sentiment that has been the

motive in these changes. The life of prisoners of war has not been

spared from reasons of humanity, but because the extension of the

productivity of labor made it more profitable to make a prisoner work

than to kill him. And slavery was not abolished because slave-owners

had become less egoistic, but because it was more profitable to make

free laborers work than to make slaves do so. [507] We cannot speak of

the diminution of egoism, but of the moderating of violence in the

course of time. It cannot be maintained that a capitalist who tries by

a lock-out to force his workmen to break with their union, in order

that he may escape the danger of a decrease in his profits through a

strike, and who in this way condemns them and their families to hunger,

is less egoistic than the slave-owner driving his slaves to harder

labor. The former does not use force—it is useless—he has a surer

weapon at his command, the suffering with which he can strike his

workmen; he seems less egoistic, but in reality is as egoistic as the

latter. The great speculator who, by manipulating the market, forces

thousands of persons to pay more for the necessaries of life, and to

become his tributaries as it were, is not less egoistic than the

robber-baron of the middle ages who, arms in hand, forced the traveling

merchants to pay him tribute. The difference is merely that the former

attains his end without using violence like the latter. Capitalism is a

system of exploitation in which, in place of the exploited person’s

being robbed he is compelled by poverty to use all his powers for the

benefit of the exploiter. [508]

The same thing is true of colonial history. At first the aborigines of

the countries explored by the Europeans were often pillaged and

massacred. This system has long been abandoned, not from altruism

however, but because it is more profitable to make a conquered people

work than to pillage and exterminate them. When they do not submit

voluntarily, force is used as heretofore.

The apparent improvement has yet another cause. Christianity preaches

“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self.” And since this maxim has

been often preached and many Christians have it always in their mouths,

men come to believe that it is really put into practice. The contrary

is true. The fact that the duty of altruism is so much insisted upon is

the most convincing proof that it is not generally practiced or it

would not be so much spoken and preached about. There are many persons

in our days who ask nothing better than to see men act altruistically,

but they preach in the wilderness; their wish has not come true.

Present society is moulded by egoism. The egoism is less violent,

however, and more disguised.

Before speaking of the real causes of egoism and altruism it may be

well to attempt to answer the question, Whence come these inexact

ideas? It is not difficult, in my opinion, to explain how it comes

about that many men believe that the “homo homini lupus” of Hobbes has

been true always and everywhere. The adherents of this opinion have

studied principally men who live under capitalism, or under

civilization; their correct conclusion has been that egoism is the

predominant characteristic of these men, and they have adopted the

simplest explanation of the phenomenon and say that this trait is

inborn.

If they had known the periods anterior to civilization, they would have

noted that the “homo homini lupus” is an historical phenomenon

applicable during a relatively short period, [509] and that

consequently it is impossible that egoism should be innate in man.

However great have been the social modifications during the period of

civilization, the principal aim of men has always been, and still is,

to acquire personal wealth, and men still remain divided into classes,

that is into groups whose economic interests are contrary. This is why

an examination of the earlier periods is of such high importance for

sociology.

An erroneous interpretation of the Darwinian theory has also

contributed to bring about the strange notion of the eternal character

of the struggle of all against all. Darwin himself maintains nothing of

the sort. In his “Origin of Species” he says in the clearest terms that

the struggle between the individuals of the same species does not at

all happen in every species: “There must in every case be a struggle

for existence, either one individual with another of the same species,

or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical

conditions of life.” [510]

The explanation of the second hypothesis, that of the evolution from

egoism towards altruism, is more complicated. In the first place the

facts adduced in support of it are not numerous, and they serve rather

to illustrate a theory than to furnish the materials by which it may be

justified. In the second place a part of the ethnological materials in

relation to the question it has been impossible to utilize. They have

been collected partly by persons convinced beforehand of the

superiority of Christian morality to every other system, and who

consequently disapprove of everything opposed to it, and partly by

persons whose own conduct has caused the enmity manifested by the

peoples with whom they have come into contact. No part of the history

of civilization offers a more hideous spectacle than that of

colonization. [511] In the third place it is necessary to exclude

peoples that have had much contact with Europeans or other civilized

peoples. In the fourth place we often lose sight of the fact that

primitive peoples show great differences of development, and

consequently cannot be placed in the same rank. [512] For example, if

peoples despotically governed show strong egoistic tendencies, we have

no right to declare that all primitive peoples are egoistic.

Finally it is of the highest importance in studying primitive peoples

to make the distinction between the acts which have to do with persons

of the same social group, and those which have to do with strangers.

One of the principal causes of the charge of egoism made against

primitive peoples is to be found in the fact that this dualism of

ethics is forgotten. In the passages I have cited (those from Maine and

Steinmetz, for instance) the great difference between acts committed

within and without the group is brought out. We have seen that the

Indians of North America, although very altruistic toward those who

form the same group with them, as also toward their guests, are the

most pitiless enemies of those who attack their independence or their

hunting ground. Now it has been by these last acts that these peoples

have been generally judged, a wholly wrong method, since the “dualism

of ethics” has always existed. Great would be the astonishment if any

one were to maintain that the South African war proved that the English

were a nation of murderers and incendiaries. Yet this is just the sort

of reasoning that is applied to primitive peoples. [513]

How does it happen that some animal species are social while others are

not? It is impossible to maintain with some authors that sociability

increases according to the degree of development attained by the

animal. [514] Certain insects, for example, are endowed with pronounced

social feelings, while the cat tribe and some kinds of birds are on the

contrary unsocial. Nevertheless the latter occupy a higher place in the

scale than the former. The explanation, then, must be sought elsewhere.

[515]

There are divers reasons that draw a more or less considerable number

of animals to one place—the fact of being born in the same locality,

for example. Most animals are social when they are young, even those

which are no longer so when full-grown, like the arachnids. Another

cause that brings animals together is emigration towards a country

because of great changes of temperature. A third cause, probably the

most important, that unites animals of the same species is the

abundance of the food-supply of certain countries.

However, the occasional assembling of animals does not explain why

certain animals are social while others are not. Lions, for example,

often meet in places where they come to drink, and yet do not become

social. It is not probable that there are animals who have remained

together because they have comprehended the advantages of a life in

common, for this would suppose an intelligence on their part which it

is difficult to attribute to them. In order that these animals should

remain together they must find it agreeable, and disagreeable to be

isolated.

When we study the social species of animals we notice that the life in

common is in general one of their most powerful weapons in the struggle

for existence, a weapon without which it would be nearly or quite

impossible for them to maintain the fight. Consequently the animals for

which the life in common is advantageous and which possess social

instincts stronger than others, have, when brought together by any

cause whatever, a greater chance to survive. [516] Per contra the

animals who have to stalk their prey have more chance of surviving when

life in common is disagreeable to them. It is therefore by survival

that social feelings are developed in some species of animals and not

in others. [517] Habit, and the tendency to imitate increase these

feelings considerably.

The advantages to certain species of animals resulting from life in

common are of two kinds; in the first place a better defense against

their enemies, and in the second place greater ease in procuring

subsistence. Wild cattle give us an example of the first case; while

the wolves who in winter gather into packs for purposes of the chase,

because food has become scarce, furnish us an example of the second.

For other animals (like the simians) social sentiments are helpful in

both ways.

It is unnecessary to amplify further upon the two ways in which life in

groups is of advantage to certain species of animals. We have yet to

turn our attention to the qualities developed by the group struggle for

existence.

One of the principal characteristics of social animals is the pleasure

they experience in living in common, so that a social animal is unhappy

if he is separate from those of the group in which he lives. Further it

is necessary that the animal that cannot live alone, and is happy with

his group, should also feel a sympathy with that group. Pleasure or its

opposite felt by any individual reacts upon the whole group. A social

being will try then to favor the interests of his fellows as far as he

can, and in so far as he comprehends these interests. This sympathy

will not extend to the whole species but only to the group. The general

interest of the group does not permit the sympathy to embrace the whole

species, but on the contrary requires one group to fight the other if,

for example, the latter interferes with its food-supply. And even

within the limits of the group the general interest may demand that a

sick or wounded individual be abandoned, when by its presence it would

for example, attract beasts of prey, and thus put the existence of all

in danger.

Highly developed sympathy produces the spirit of sacrifice, which

impels the individual to assist his companions sometimes even at the

risk of his life. [518] This quality is reinforced by the desire of

gaining the praise and avoiding the blame of companions, which desire

in its turn is brought about only by the life in common. For the one

that lives in conjunction with others, and takes pleasure in doing so,

whose interests are those of the members of the group, must be sensible

of the approval or disapproval of his acts felt by others, since their

feelings of pleasure or displeasure react upon himself. The lack of the

power of speech among animals, however, limits the force of praise or

blame among them.

We come now to the question: what are the causes of altruism among men?

[519] It must be considered as certain that man has always lived in

groups more or less large, and it is even very probable that he is

descended from animals equally social. [520] A study of the means man

has of sustaining the struggle for existence proves that they are of

such a nature that he would have succumbed if he had lived in

isolation. Kautsky puts it thus: “... man ... whose mightiest and most

effective, almost whose only weapon, indeed, in the struggle for

existence, is association. He is, to be sure, distinguished above other

animals by his intelligence, but this too is to the fruit of society,

for in isolation he becomes dull and stupid. All man’s other weapons in

the struggle for existence are less efficient than those of the beasts.

He has no weapons of attack like the beasts of prey, nor is he

protected by his size like the elephant, hippopotamus and rhinoceros.

He lacks the quickness of the squirrel and deer, and cannot repair his

losses through superabundant fertility.” [521]

It is therefore on account of his constitution and of the struggle that

he has had to sustain for his existence that man is a social being; in

other words, those who showed social instincts stronger than the others

ran less danger of succumbing in the contest for life, and had more

chance of transmitting their leanings to their posterity. As man has

greater intellectual capacities than the animals he is more capable of

understanding the joys and sorrows of his fellows, and so is better

able to assist the one and avoid the other. In the second place he has

a developed language at his command, through which a great influence

can be exercised upon conduct by blame and praise. [522]

The fact that man is born with social instincts does not, however,

explain altruism sufficiently, for among animal species there is not

one whose individuals have done so much harm to one another as men,

who, though they are social beings, are capable of committing the most

egoistic acts. How shall we explain these contradictions?

We have seen above that primitive peoples, to whom we have referred

showed very altruistic traits of character. The members of a group

extend mutual aid, and, in their relations with one another, are

benevolent, honest, truthful, and very susceptible to the opinions of

others, [523] etc.

It is impossible to explain this either by the race to which these

peoples belong or by the climate in which they live, for they are of

different races (for example North American Indians and the Hindoos of

the delta of the Ganges) and live under different climates (as the

Eskimos and the South American Indians). Besides this some of these

peoples show towards strangers, qualities directly contrary to those

they display toward members of their own group. Thus, as we have

already remarked, the North American Indians are most cruel enemies,

most pitiless toward those who are not of their group, while they are

quite the reverse toward their own fellow-tribesmen. It is plain, then,

that their altruistic sentiments have nothing to do with race or

climate.

Consequently the cause can only be found in the social environment,

which is determined in its turn by the mode of production. What follows

will show that in the last instance it is the mode of production that

is able to develop the social predisposition innate in man (not in the

same measure for each individual, which is a question that I shall

return to) or prevent this disposition from being developed, or may

even destroy it entirely. Upon examining the modes of production in

force among the peoples cited we see that they are characterized by the

following traits, very different from those of the present system.

The first of these characteristic traits is this: production takes

place among these peoples for personal consumption and not for exchange

as with us. It has often been claimed that the primitive peoples lived

in a state of communism. Taken in the sense of a communism in

production this assertion is true only in part; except for hunts

undertaken in common, production was not carried on in common but was

individual. The weapons and utensils of the hunt were private property,

while the hunting-ground was held in common. Just so as soon as

architectural technique made some progress the houses often became

common property. At its inception agriculture was not practiced in

common. It was only when it had attained a certain development that

this was sometimes the case. [524] But if we take communism in the

sense of consumption in common, then the assertion becomes much more

exact. I do not mean to say that consumption always took place in

common (though several primitive peoples took their food in common),

but when from whatever cause some members of the group had failed to

produce, the other members who had been more fortunate provided for

them. The productivity of labor was still small; there was not

generally any surplus of labor. Even if there had been there could not

have been any possibility of exchange, since the division of labor was

very slight, and consequently each one was capable of making for

himself what others would have been able to offer in exchange.

The second characteristic of the modes of production of the peoples in

question is bound up with the first, namely that there was neither

wealth nor poverty. If there was privation (through scarcity of game,

for example), all suffered; if there was abundance, all profited by it.

[525]

The third fact to be noted is that the subordination of man to nature

was very great, so great that we, who have so largely subjugated the

forces of nature, can have no idea of it. If primitive men were very

weak in their contest with nature even when joined together in a single

group, individually they were absolutely unable to maintain the

struggle, and were thus forced to unite.

If we consider the characteristics of the primitive modes of production

it becomes clear, it seems to me, why the primitive peoples were not

more egoistic. They had neither rich nor poor; their economic interests

were either parallel or equal (the latter in the case of production in

common); the economic life, therefore, did not arouse egoistic

ideas—they were not led into temptation. Where the economic system does

not produce egoistic ideas it accustoms men to being unegoistic, and if

their interests do happen occasionally to conflict, the matter is

looked at altruistically and not egoistically. And since the economic

life is the “conditio sine qua non” of life in general, and thus

occupies the important place in human existence, it stamps the whole

life with its non-egoistic character. Since the struggle for existence

must be sustained in common against nature, if it is to be efficacious

it binds human interests so closely together that they are inseparable;

the interest of one is the same as that of his comrade.

We shall now understand why primitive men feel themselves to be first

of all the members of a unit; why they not only abstain from acts

harmful to their companions, but come to their aid whenever they can;

why they are honest, benevolent, and truthful towards the members of

their group, and why public opinion has so great an influence among

them—characteristics which the quotations that I have already made have

established. The cause of these facts is to be found in the mode of

production, which brought about a uniformity of interest in the persons

united in a single group, obliged them to aid one another in the

difficult and uninterrupted struggle for existence, and made men free

and equal, since there was neither poverty nor riches, and consequently

no possibility of oppression.

It is only in such an environment that the social instincts innate in

man can be developed, and the more the mode of production binds men’s

interests together the greater will this development be. It is a truth

as old as the world that one respects the interests of others and does

not deceive them, only when these others do not make life more

difficult, but aid in supporting it. If not, social instincts will be

suppressed and the contrary instincts formed. The development of the

social feelings is based upon reciprocity. When this is lacking these

feelings lie dormant, but when reciprocity exists they grow stronger by

constantly reacting from one to the other. [526]

There is still another reason which helped strengthen the solidarity

among the members of the same group. The primitive peoples, who

practiced agriculture little or not at all, needed an immense territory

to provide for their needs. Lands whose population would seem small to

the Europeans of our day, had in reality as dense a population as the

mode of production would permit. From this there sprang continual wars

between groups disputing the possession of a certain territory. The

necessity of defending as a body the territory acquired, or of

conquering it anew, resulted in drawing always tighter the bonds

uniting the members of the same group.

The same mode of production which drew the members of a group into an

altruistic solidarity, forced these same persons into a position of

excessive egoism toward those who did not belong to their group and

opposed them in obtaining what they needed. The same act, killing an

enemy for example, is the most egoistic act possible from the point of

view of the enemy but a very altruistic act from the point of view of

the slayer, since he has increased the security of his group. The

development of the social feelings is, then, only determined by the

form of the struggle for existence.

How then shall we explain certain egoistic acts directed against

members of the same group? How, for example, can the infanticide so

common among primitive peoples be explained? In seeking for a solution

we shall see that this egoistic act does not result from innate

insensibility toward children (the contrary is true, as we have seen

above), but from the fact that the limited control over nature makes a

great increase in the population impossible. The children were killed

immediately after birth; no one dreamed of ridding himself of a child

of greater age. Further, the nomadic life prevented the carrying along

of a great number of children. [527]

It is for the same reason that the sick and the aged were sometimes

abandoned by the primitive peoples. They were driven to this because

these feeble persons were unable to make long journeys, and because

their economic means did not allow them to support those who could no

longer work. Here again there could be no question of innate

insensibility. [528] In these cases then, there was an opposition of

interests; the act that was egoistic toward the individual was

altruistic toward the group. If different action had been taken in such

cases all would have succumbed. Thus these acts have fallen into

desuetude as the productivity of labor has developed.

The continual development of the productivity of labor has modified the

structure of society greatly. As soon as productivity has increased to

such an extent that the producer can regularly produce more than he

needs, and the division of labor puts him in a position to exchange the

surplus for things that he could not produce himself, at this moment

there arises in man the notion of no longer giving to his comrades what

they need, but of keeping for himself the surplus of what his labor

produces, and exchanging it. Then it is that the mode of production

begins to run counter to the social instincts of man instead of

favoring it as heretofore.

In his work already quoted Nansen has described the influence exercised

by exchange upon the character of the Eskimos studied by him. (The fact

that this commerce has been developed by the coming of the Europeans

makes no difference. Among primitive peoples exchange must have

developed in the same way, only more slowly.) He says: “How baneful to

them has been the introduction of money! Formerly they had no means of

saving up work or accumulating riches; for the products of their labor

did not last indefinitely, and therefore they gave away their

superfluity. But then they learned the use of money; so that now, when

they have more than they need for the moment, the temptation to sell

the overplus to Europeans, instead of giving it to their needy

neighbors, is often too great for them; for with the money they thus

acquire they can supply themselves with the much coveted European

commodities. Thus we Christians help more and more to destroy instead

of to develop their old self-sacrificing love of their neighbors. And

money does still more to undermine the Greenland community. Their ideas

of inheritance were formerly very vague, for, as before mentioned, the

clothes and weapons of a dead man were consigned with him to the grave.

Now, on the other hand, the introduction of money has enabled the

survivors to sell the effects of the deceased, and they are no longer

ashamed to accept as an inheritance what they can obtain in this way.

This may seem an advantage; but, here, too, their old habit of mind is

upset. Greed and covetousness—vices which they formerly abhorred above

everything—have taken possession of them. Their minds are warped and

enthralled by money.” [529] Thus are born avarice and rapacity, which,

opposed in the beginning by altruistic sentiments developed earlier,

become stronger from one generation to another. [530]

However, this is only one side of the question. Through the development

of exchange not only does man become egoistic towards those who for any

reason are unable to provide for their needs, but exchange itself is an

entirely egoistic act for the two parties who enter into it. Each tries

to get as much profit for himself as possible, and consequently to make

the other lose. The existence of economic laws which in many, and even

in most cases prevent the two parties from injuring each other, does

not change the fact at all. Commerce weakens the social instincts of

man; the loss of one becomes the gain of another. When two persons are

trading there springs up a tendency on the part of each to overvalue

his own property and to disparage that of the other; commerce is one of

the important causes of lying. In addition to this tendency another

arises, that of giving goods of quality inferior to that agreed upon;

the constant attention to one’s own interests produces and develops

fraud.

The more production for one’s own use decreases, and the greater

becomes the production for exchange, the more do habit and tradition

produce in men the characteristics mentioned. As soon as exchange has

developed to a certain point commerce begins to be a special trade. The

merchant is much more exposed to the conditions named than those who

trade only occasionally. Not only does he pass a great part of his life

in exchanging but he is by profession egoistic in two directions;

toward the producer from whom he buys, and toward the consumer to whom

he sells. [531]

When it reaches a certain height the continually increasing

productivity of labor brings a further important modification in the

social structure, namely slavery. For this springs up when production

is so advanced that man can regularly produce more than he actually

needs for himself, and when it is possible for him to exchange the

overplus for things which he can use but cannot make. Prisoners of war

are no longer killed as formerly, but are obliged to work for the

profit of the conquerors. In this way is formed a considerable

opposition of interest between two classes of individuals who together

form a social unit: on the one hand those who, deprived of one of the

most important factors of human happiness, liberty, are obliged to

exhaust themselves for the benefit of others, and have only the strict

necessaries of life; and on the other hand those who profit by the

enslavement and excessive labor of the first.

Slavery (with the other forms of forced service, serfdom and

wage-labor) is one of the most important factors that undermine the

social instincts in man. Slavery, runs the saying, demoralizes the

master as well as the slave. It arouses in the master the notion that

the slave is not a thinking and feeling man like himself, but an

instrument destined exclusively to be useful to him. In the slave

himself it kills the feeling of independence; lacking the arms which

the free man has at his disposal, the slave has recourse to

dissimulation to defend himself against his master.

The overplus which one person can obtain by his own labor must always

remain limited. Without the rise of slavery the great wealth of a

single individual would not have been possible. To the difference

between master and slave is now added that between rich and poor, and

the envy and hatred of the poor for the rich, and the pride of the rich

and their desire to dominate over the poor. Since the division of

society into rich and poor the aristocracy has been formed, which does

not owe its origin to the excellence of its members, as one might

imagine from this inaccurate name, but to their wealth.

The period of civilization during which the social modification

mentioned above has taken place is generally lauded to the skies, as

compared with preceding epochs. In certain relations this is

justifiable. Technique has made immense progress and especially during

the last phase of civilization, capitalism; the power of man over

nature has advanced greatly; the productivity of labor has been so

increased that one class of men, exempted by this from permanent care

for their daily bread, are able to devote themselves to the arts and

sciences. All this is indisputable. But the development of the arts and

sciences and of technique has only an indirect importance for the

etiology of crime. The question first of all to be asked is this: What

influence has this modification in the economic and social structure

had upon the character of man? And the answer to this question can only

be the following: this modification has engendered cupidity and

ambition, has made man less sensitive to the happiness and misery of

his fellows, and has decreased the influence exercised upon men’s acts

by the opinions of others. In short, it has developed egoism at the

expense of altruism.

C. EGOISTIC TENDENCIES RESULTING FROM THE PRESENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM

AND FROM ITS CONSEQUENCES.

The etiology of crime includes the three following problems:

First. Whence does the criminal thought in man arise?

Second. What forces are there in man which can prevent the execution of

this criminal thought, and what is their origin?

Third. What is the occasion for the commission of criminal acts? (As

the occasion may be one of the causes of the criminal thought, problems

one and three at times form but one.)

For the moment we are still occupied with general considerations with

regard to crime; it is clear then that the first and third questions

will be examined only when we are treating of crimes according to the

groups into which they must be divided because of the great differences

which their nature presents.

It is otherwise with the second question. As we have seen in the

preceding pages, it is certain that man is born with social instincts,

which, when influenced by a favorable environment can exert a force

great enough to prevent egoistic thoughts from leading to egoistic

acts. And since crime constitutes a part of the egoistic acts, it is of

importance, for the etiology of crime in general, to inquire whether

the present method of production and its social consequences are an

obstacle to the development of the social instincts, and in what

measure. We shall try in the following pages to show the influence of

the economic system and of these consequences upon the social instincts

of man.

After what we have just said it is almost superfluous to remark that

the egoistic tendency does not by itself make a man criminal. For this

something else is necessary. It is possible for the environment to

create a great egoist, but this does not imply that the egoist will

necessarily become criminal. For example, a man who is enriched by the

exploitation of children may nevertheless remain all his life an honest

man from the legal point of view. He does not think of stealing,

because he has a surer and more lucrative means of getting wealth,

although he lacks the moral sense which would prevent him from

committing a crime if the thought of it occurred to him. We shall show

that, as a consequence of the present environment, man has become very

egoistic and hence more capable of crime, than if the environment had

developed the germs of altruism.

a. The present economic system is based upon exchange. As we saw at the

end of the preceding section such a mode of production cannot fail to

have an egoistic character. A society based upon exchange isolates the

individuals by weakening the bond that unites them. When it is a

question of exchange the two parties interested think only of their own

advantage even to the detriment of the other party. In the second place

the possibility of exchange arouses in a man the thought of the

possibility of converting the surplus of his labor into things which

increase his well-being in place of giving the benefit of it to those

who are deprived of the necessaries of life. Hence the possibility of

exchange gives birth to cupidity.

The exchange called simple circulation of commodities is practiced by

all men as consumers, and by the workers besides as vendors of their

labor power. However, the influence of this simple circulation of

commodities is weak compared with that exercised by capitalistic

exchange. It is only the exchange of the surplus of labor, by the

producer, for other commodities, and hence is for him a secondary

matter. As a result he does not exchange with a view to profit, (though

he tries to make as advantageous a trade as possible) but to get things

which he cannot produce himself.

Capitalistic exchange, on the other hand, has another aim—that of

making a profit. A merchant, for example, does not buy goods for his

own use, but to sell them to advantage. He will, then, always try, on

the one hand, to buy the best commodities as cheaply as possible, by

depreciating them as much as he can; on the other hand, to make the

purchaser pay as high a price as possible, by exaggerating the value of

his wares. By the nature of the mode of production itself the merchant

is therefore forced to make war upon two sides, must maintain his own

interests against the interests of those with whom he does business. If

he does not injure too greatly the interests of those from whom he

buys, and those to whom he sells, it is for the simple reason that

these would otherwise do business with those of his competitors who do

not find their interest in fleecing their customers. Wherever

competition is eliminated for whatever cause the tactics of the

merchant are shown in their true light; he thinks only of his own

advantage even to the detriment of those with whom he does business.

“No commerce without trickery” is a proverbial expression (among

consumers), and with the ancients Mercury, the god of commerce, was

also the god of thieves. This is true, that the merchant and the thief

are alike in taking account exclusively of their own interest to the

detriment of those with whom they have to do.

The fact that in our present society production does not take place

generally to provide for the needs of men, but for many other reasons,

has important effects upon the character of those who possess the means

of production. Production is carried on for profit exclusively; if

greater profits can be made by stopping production it will be

stopped—this is the point of view of the capitalists. The consumers, on

the other hand, see in production the means of creating what man has

need of. The world likes to be deceived, and does not care to recognize

the fact that the producer has only his own profit in view. The latter

encourages this notion and poses as a disinterested person. If he

reduces the price of his wares, he claims to do it in the interest of

the public, and takes care not to admit that it is for the purpose of

increasing his own profits. This is the falsity that belongs inevitably

to capitalism.

In general this characteristic of capitalism has no importance for the

morality of the consumer, who is merely duped, but it is far otherwise

with the press, which is almost entirely in the power of the

capitalists. The press, which ought to be a guide for the masses, and

is so in some few cases, in the main is in the hands of capitalists who

use it only as a means of making money. In place of being edited by men

who, by their ability and firmness, are capable of enlightening the

public, newspapers are carried on by persons who see in their calling

only a livelihood, and consider only the proprietor of the sheet. In

great part the press is the opposite of what it ought to be; it

represents the interests of those who pay for advertisements or for

articles; it increases the ignorance and the prejudices of the crowd;

in a word, it poisons public opinion. [532]

Besides this general influence upon the public the press has further a

special place in the etiology of crime, from the fact that most

newspapers, in order to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the public,

relate all great crimes in extenso, give portraits of the victims,

etc., and are often one of the causes of new crimes, by arousing the

imitative instinct to be found in man. [533]

As we have seen above the merchant capitalist makes war in two

directions; his interests are against those of the man who sells to

him, and of the man who buys from him. This is also true of the

industrial capitalist. He buys raw materials and sells what he

produces. But to arrive at his product he must buy labor, and this

purchase is “sui generis.”

Deprived as he is of the means of production the working-man sells his

labor only in order not to die of hunger. The capitalist takes

advantage of this necessitous condition of the worker and exploits him.

We have already indicated that capitalism has this trait in common with

the earlier methods of production. Little by little one class of men

has become accustomed to think that the others are destined to amass

wealth for them and to be subservient to them in every way. Slavery,

like the wage system, demoralizes the servant as well as the master.

With the master it develops cupidity and the imperious character which

sees in a fellow man only a being fit to satisfy his desires. It is

true that the capitalist has not the power over the proletarian that

the master has over his slave; he has neither the right of service nor

the power of life and death, yet it is none the less true that he has

another weapon against the proletarian, a weapon whose effect is no

less terrible, namely enforced idleness. The fact that the supply of

manual labor always greatly exceeds the demand puts this weapon into

the hands of every capitalist. It is not only the capitalists who carry

on any business that are subjected to this influence, but also all who

are salaried in their service.

Capitalism exercises in still a third manner an egoistic influence upon

the capitalistic “entrepreneur.” Each branch has more producers than

are necessary. The interests of the capitalists are, then, opposed not

only to those of the men from whom they buy or to whom they sell, but

also to those of their fellow producers. It is indeed claimed that

competition has the effect simply of making the product better and

cheaper, but this is looking at the question from only one point of

view. The fact which alone affects criminality is that competition

forces the participants, under penalty of succumbing, to be as egoistic

as possible. Even the producers who have the means of applying all the

technical improvements to perfect their product and make it cheaper,

are obliged to have recourse to gross deceits in advertising, etc., in

order to injure their competitors. Rejoicing at the evil which befalls

another, envy at his good fortune, these forms of egoism are the

inevitable consequence of competition.

Following the same classification that we employed in the preceding

chapter we come now to that part of the bourgeoisie which, without

having any occupation, consumes what has been made by others. Not to

feel obliged to contribute to the material well-being of humanity in

proportion to one’s ability must necessarily have a demoralizing

influence. A parasite, one who lives without working, does not feel

bound by any moral tie to his fellows, but regards them simply as

things, instruments meant to serve and amuse him. Their example is a

source of demoralization for those about them, and excites the envy of

those who see this easy life without the power of enjoying it

themselves, and awakes in them the desire to exchange their painful

existence for this “dolce far niente.”

The egoistic tendencies work less strongly in the third group of the

bourgeoisie, those who practice the liberal professions. However, the

products of the arts and sciences having become commodities, the

egoistic influence of exchange here too is not to be neglected. Then

competition arising from overproduction is a great cause of

demoralization, for where there is competition men become egoistic. So

in the domain of the liberal professions competition often forces those

who do not find a field of activity in accordance with their ideas, to

work that is contrary to those ideas. Thus it is quite right to speak

of a prostitution of the intellect.

Before concluding these observations upon the bourgeoisie there is

still something to be said about politics. As we have seen above the

state owes its origin to the formation of opposition of interests in

society; the first task of the state being, therefore, the maintenance

of a certain amount of order. This requires above all the holding of

the great mass in subjection. As long as this mass is weak the dominant

class has no need to resort to trickery; but as soon as the oppressed

class can oppose the domination of the others, as soon as brutal power

no longer gives the desired result, the dominant class changes its

tactics. It attempts to create the impression that the concessions it

has been forced to make are acts of charity; and presuming upon the

ignorance of the oppressed, it pretends that their condition is not so

bad, etc. Many of those engaged in politics play this part without

being conscious of their duplicity. However, the contest between the

classes exercises its baleful influence upon them also, for they

involuntarily distort the facts, whereas the evolution of society has

reached such a point that a new social order is necessary.

The power in the State sometimes passes from one party of the ruling

class to another. All profit by the temporary opportunity not only for

the realization of their political program, but also to procure

advantages for their partisans. This struggle for power is carried on

partly by means prejudicial to the character of those interested, while

the end aimed at by some parties can be frankly avowed. It is for the

same reason that international politics is such a source of lying and

hypocrisy, the states not being able to avow their real intention—the

weakening of their neighbors.

The proletariat. To be thorough we begin by making mention of one of

the consequences of the economic position of the proletariat, of which

we have already treated briefly, namely the dependence in which persons

of this class find themselves in consequence of their lacking the means

of production, a state which has a prejudicial influence upon

character. The oppressed resort to means which they would otherwise

scorn. As we have seen above, the basis of the social feelings is

reciprocity. As soon as this is trodden under foot by the ruling class

the social sentiments of the oppressed become weak towards them.

We come now (following the order adopted in the first chapter of Part

II) first to the consequences of the labor of the young. The paid labor

of the young has a bad influence in several ways. First, it forces

them, while they are still very young, to think only of their own

interests; then, brought into contact with persons who are rough and

indifferent to their well-being, they follow these only too quickly,

because of their imitative tendencies, in their bad habits, grossness

of speech, etc. Finally, the paid labor of the young makes them more or

less independent at an age where they have the greatest need of

guidance. Even if the statistical proof of the influence of the labor

of children and young people upon criminality were totally wanting, no

one could deny that influence. Child labor is entirely a capitalistic

phenomenon, being found especially in the great manufacturing countries

like England and Germany. And then one of the most salient facts of

criminality is the amount of juvenile crime, which is so enormous that

England, followed by other countries, has established a special system

to combat this form of criminality. Certainly this increase of juvenile

crime is chiefly due to the influence of bad domestic conditions

(wage-labor of married women, etc.), but the labor of the young people

themselves also plays its part.

Although figures upon the relation in question are not totally lacking,

they are, as far as I know, quite rare. In the first part of this work

I have given the figures furnished by P. Hirsch, to which I refer the

reader. [534] The director of the “Erziehungsheim am Urban” at

Zehlendorf near Berlin, mentions that 80% of his pupils had formerly

practiced a trade. [535]

The following figures are given for the Netherlands: [536]

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

| Total Sentenced | Practicing | Percentage Sentenced | Percentage of Children

Years. | 10 to 16 | a Trade. | who | in General 10 to 16

| Years Old. | [537] | Practiced a Trade. | who Practiced a Trade.

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

1899 | 791 | 363 | 45.8 | 18.5

1900 | 671 | 347 | 51.7 | --

1901 | 674 | 344 | 51.0 | --

1902 | 712 | 331 | 46.4 | --

1903 | 671 | 344 | 51.2 | --

1904 | 702 | 347 | 49.4 | --

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

These figures are very significant. Among the young delinquents there

are two or three times as many persons following a trade as among

non-delinquents.

I do not know of any other statistics giving information upon this

point directly. [538]

As to statics (the geography of crime) we encounter great difficulties

of a technical nature. The statistics in which we can compare juvenile

delinquency with the local extent of child labor are rare, often taking

no account of the figures for the non-criminal population. [539] On

this point the statistics of Germany, Italy, and Austria are the best.

[540]

Since the work of young people has increased enormously, and in general

is still increasing, we may expect an increase in juvenile crime also,

unless there are other determining factors, such as special laws, which

work in the opposite direction.

In order to give an example of the extent of child labor we take from

one of the best sets of statistics of occupations the following

figures.

In the census of occupations in the German Empire in 1895 it was shown

that whereas in 1882 16.46% of the population under 20 had some

occupation (other than that of domestic servant), in 1895 there were

17.97% so employed, an increase of 9.1%. [541] The absolute figures are

the following. In 1882 the number of persons below the age of 20 at

work was 3,333,791; in 1895 it was 4,161,600, an increase of 827,809.

In 1895 the number of persons at work below the age of 20 was divided

among the different ages as follows: [542]

Below 12 having paid occupation 32,687

From 12 to 14 ,, ,, ,, 148,766

,, 14 ,, 16 ,, ,, ,, 1,131,723

,, 16 ,, 18 ,, ,, ,, 1,397,161

,, 18 ,, 20 ,, ,, ,, 1,451,263

If the paid labor of young people has really an influence, then, upon

juvenile criminality, statistics must necessarily show an increase in

this criminality, unless other factors exercise an influence in the

other direction.

The following figures have a bearing on this subject: [543]

Germany, 1882–1896.

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

| Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the

Offenses. | Population of the Same Age, in the Years:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arson | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3

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

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

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

Consequently, in Germany there is a great and constant increase in

juvenile criminality, both as to crime in general and also in each

crime separately. [544]

The following table gives a comparison between the criminality of the

young and that of adults. [545]

Germany, 1882–1896.

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

| Number Convicted at 12 to 18 Years of Age to 100,000 of the

Offenses. | Hundred, Convicted in the Years:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we remember that in 1890 persons from 12 to 18 years of age formed

12.75% of the population, [546] the study of this table will show how

large a part the young play in certain crimes, and in crime in general.

Still it must not be forgotten that criminal statistics include only a

part of the crimes really committed, and that this affects particularly

the figures for juvenile crime, since the persons injured make

complaint against the young less readily, on account of pity. [547]

According to the figures given below (which, it is true, only cover a

short period) juvenile delinquency in England has remained almost

stationary. [548] Here we must remember: first, the great number of

acquittals; second, that the criminality of the young is nowhere better

combated than in England with its system of Industrial and Reformatory

Schools; third, that industrialism has been prevalent in England longer

than elsewhere, and that the increase of criminality during the period

designated cannot be as great as in other less industrial countries.

England, 1893–1899. [549]

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

Convicted under 21 Years of Age. | 1893. | 1894. | 1895. | 1896. | 1897. | 1898. | 1899.

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

Convicted | 42,926 | 43,950 | 38,994 | 38,637 | 39,821 | 43,538 | 39,111

Sent to the Industrial schools | 3,180 | 3,703 | 3,311 | 4,658 | 4,289 | 4,635 | 4,981

Correction made for those discharged | | | | | | |

under the S. J. A.[550] | 4,255 | 4,543 | 5,125 | 5,955 | 6,640 | 7,114 | 7,547

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

Total | 50,361 | 52,196 | 47,430 | 49,260 | 50,750 | 55,287 | 51,639

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

To the 100,000 | 169.39 | 173.63 | 156.05 | 160.26 | 163.33 | 175.98 | 162.57

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

Finally, the following table shows of what crimes the young are guilty

in England: [551]

England, 1893–1899.

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

| Number of Persons under 21 to the 100 Convictions.

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

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

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

Simple theft | 45.51 | 47.31 | 44.73 | 44.54 | 44.14 | 45.27 | 43.19 | 44.95

Theft by domestics | 41.07 | 43.17 | 40.26 | 43.12 | 42.60 | 42.71 | 40.70 | 41.80

House-breaking | 41.27 | 40.65 | 36.83 | 36.67 | 38.83 | 38.30 | 39.86 | 38.91

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

Malicious mischief | 21.51 | 25.95 | 22.89 | 19.98 | 27.22 | 29.29 | 26.82 | 24.80

Extortion | 26.61 | 28.99 | 25.35 | 27.22 | 16.42 | 23.26 | 21.60 | 23.92

Crimes against morals | 25.44 | 23.73 | 23.57 | 23.07 | 23.22 | 22.23 | 21.96 | 23.32

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

Forgery | 14.01 | 15.56 | 18.62 | 14.34 | 10.63 | 16.74 | 14.64 | 14.93

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

Counterfeiting | 24.39 | 10.10 | 11.53 | 11.76 | 9.19 | 20.17 | 7.61 | 13.53

Assaults | 14.74 | 14.20 | 13.22 | 12.93 | 12.39 | 13.44 | 11.57 | 13.21

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

If we take into consideration the fact that generally about 23% of the

population are between the ages of 10 and 21, this table shows that

persons at this age have a large part in certain of the crimes.

Austria, 1881–1899 (Crimes). [552]

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

| Number of Young Persons Convicted.

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

Years. | 11 to 14 | 14 to 20. | Total. | To the 1000

| Years. | | | Convicted.

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

1881 | 460 | 5405 | 5865 | 17.5

1882 | 525 | 5258 | 5783 | 18.0

1883 | 525 | 5256 | 5781 | 19.0

1884 | 579 | 5538 | 6117 | 19.9

1885 | 566 | 5249 | 5815 | 18.8

1886 | 546 | 5287 | 5833 | 19.6

1887 | 625 | 5358 | 5983 | 20.8

1888 | 593 | 5241 | 5834 | 20.8

1889 | 614 | 5617 | 6231 | 21.8

1890 | 578 | 6001 | 6579 | 22.6

1891 | 650 | 5779 | 6429 | 22.2

1892 | 803 | 6238 | 7041 | 22.8

1893 | 842 | 5959 | 6801 | 23.2

1894 | 826 | 6378 | 7204 | 23.9

1895 | 766 | 5976 | 6742 | 23.5

1896 | 818 | 5945 | 6763 | 23.5

1897 | 812 | 6473 | 7285 | 24.5

1898 | 1026 | 7569 | 8595 | 24.9

1899 | 1015 | 6665 | 7680 | 22.8

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

Consequently there is here, too, both in absolute numbers and in

proportion to adult crime, an increase in juvenile criminality (about

23% in 18 years). Estimates of the number of non-criminal minors are

wanting to give us a complete picture. It must not be forgotten that

Austrian law ranks simple theft, fraud, assault, and the like as

“contraventions”, and that these do not figure in these statistics. The

total figures for young criminals are consequently much higher. [553]

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

Austria, 1882–1899. [554]

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

| Convicted from 1882 to 1899.

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

Crimes. | | Persons from 14 to 20 Years of Age.

| Total. +-------------------+-----------------------

| | Absolute Numbers. | To the 1000 Convicted.

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

Rape etc. | 17,187 | 5,534 | 32.2

Aggravated theft | 208,686 | 67,106 | 25.0

Extortion | 2,257 | 547 | 24.2

Counterfeiting | 642 | 113 | 17.6

Infanticide | 1,734 | 302 | 17.4

Assassination | 4,209 | 611 | 14.5

Serious assaults | 85,055 | 12,202 | 14.3

Defamation | 3,139 | 410 | 13.0

Homicide | 2,478 | 312 | 12.6

Fraud | 51,487 | 5,651 | 10.9

Leze-majesty | 5,369 | 380 | 7.0

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

Belgium, 1861–1885. [555]

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

Years. | Persons | Under 16. | 16 to 21. | Under 21. | Percentage of Accused

| Accused. | | | | Persons under 21.

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

1861 | 24,673 | 1,043 | 2,429 | 3,472 | 14.1

1862 | 25,357 | 1,224 | 2,355 | 2,579 | 14.1

1863 | 24,133 | 1,206 | 2,456 | 3,662 | 15.1

1864 | 24,185 | 1,245 | 2,307 | 3,552 | 14.6

1865 | 24,236 | 1,115 | 2,483 | 3,598 | 14.8

1866 | 24,608 | 1,141 | 2,396 | 3,537 | 14.3

1867 | 25,041 | 1,220 | 2,750 | 3,970 | 15.8

1868 | 27,469 | 1,500 | 3,064 | 4,565 | 16.6

1869 | 27,883 | 1,107 | 2,923 | 4,030 | 14.9

1870 | 26,507 | 1,298 | 3,075 | 4,373 | 16.4

1871 | 28,819 | 1,550 | 3,344 | 4,894 | 16.9

1872 | 28,047 | 1,336 | 3,255 | 4,597 | 16.3

1873 | 29,569 | 1,448 | 3,451 | 4,899 | 16.5

1874 | 31,653 | 1,261 | 3,408 | 4,669 | 14.7

1875 | 30,867 | 1,371 | 3,767 | 5,138 | 16.6

1876 | 33,366 | 1,445 | 4,363 | 5,808 | 17.4

1877 | 37,964 | 2,183 | 5,096 | 7,279 | 19.1

1878 | 37,348 | 1,994 | 5,245 | 7,239 | 19.3

1879 | 36,614 | 1,873 | 5,074 | 6,947 | 18.9

1880 | 41,653 | 2,546 | 5,680 | 8,226 | 19.7

1881 | 44,361 | 2,634 | 6,271 | 8,905 | 20.0

1882 | 45,895 | 2,695 | 6,487 | 9,182 | 20.0

1883 | 45,325 | 2,681 | 6,942 | 9,623 | 21.2

1884 | 45,665 | 3,325 | 7,063 | 9,388 | 20.5

1885 | 46,479 | 2,398 | 7,279 | 9,677 | 20.8

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

In Belgium, therefore, a great increase in the criminality of the young

has taken place.

For France we take the following figures showing the trend of

criminality from 1881 to 1900: [556]

France, 1881–1900.

Court of Assizes. Accused.

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

| 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896-1900.

Age. +----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+-------

| Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | %

| Number. | | Number. | | Number. | | Number. |

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

Under 16 | 32 | 0.7 | 31 | 0.7 | 31 | 0.7 | 26 | 0.7

16 to 21 | 750 | 17.1 | 618 | 14.5 | 631 | 15.6 | 574 | 16.8

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

Under 21 | 782 | 17.8 | 649 | 15.2 | 662 | 16.3 | 600 | 17.5

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

When we take into consideration the fact that the population of France

has increased a little during the period in question, this table shows

a slight diminution in juvenile criminality. Nevertheless, this

diminution is smaller than that of criminality in general.

France, 1881–1900. [557]

Correctional Tribunals. Accused of Misdemeanors.

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

| 1881-1885. | 1886-1890. | 1891-1895. | 1896-1900.

Age. +----------+------+----------+------+----------+------+----------+-------

| Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | % | Absolute | %

| Number. | | Number. | | Number. | | Number. |

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here, then, we have once more a slight diminution in juvenile

criminality, but less great than that of criminality in general.

We should deceive ourselves if we saw in these figures the conclusive

proof that criminality on the part of the young was decreasing. We must

not overlook the fact that these figures do not include those

delinquents whose prosecution was not pushed, whether because they were

thought not to have understood the nature of their acts, or because the

offense was considered as too light. It is well known that judges

incline more and more to the opinion that it is better not to convict

youthful delinquents, but to send them to a house of correction, or to

place them under the care of a guardian. [558] What the figures given

above show is that the increase of juvenile criminality has not been as

great in France as it has been in Germany. (I have not the figures for

child labor in France, but probably the increase is not as great as it

has been in Germany, which is more of an industrial country. The

difference, then, in the juvenile crime of the two countries would be

explained, at least in part.) [559]

Finally, the following figures will show of what crimes and

misdemeanors the young delinquents are guilty:

France, 1900. [560]

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

Crimes. | Total | Number | Percentage

| Accused. | under 21. | under 21.

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

Aggravated theft | 1300 | 367 | 28.2

Rape and indecent assault upon adults | 65 | 18 | 27.6

Counterfeiting | 120 | 27 | 22.5

Infanticide | 95 | 21 | 22.1

Assaults | 203 | 33 | 16.2

Homicide | 620 | 100 | 16.1

Arson | 157 | 19 | 12.1

Rape etc., upon children | 383 | 42 | 10.9

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

France, 1900. [561]

Correctional Tribunals. Persons Arraigned.

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

Misdemeanors. | Total | Number | Percentage

| Arraigned. | under 21. | under 21.

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

Thefts | 42,127 | 12,483 | 29.6

Sexual offenses | 2,939 | 643 | 21.8

Rebellion | 3,315 | 676 | 20.3

Assaults | 36,592 | 6,600 | 18.0

Vagrancy | 11,804 | 1,914 | 16.2

Obtaining money under false pretenses | 3,179 | 376 | 11.8

Mendicity | 9,057 | 778 | 8.5

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

As in most countries it is theft, violence, and sexual offenses of

which the young delinquents are most often guilty in France.

Italy, 1887–1889. [562]

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

| Persons Convicted Under the Age of 21.

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

Years. | Up to the Age of 14. || From 14 to 18. || From 18 to 21. || Total.

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

| A | B | D || A | C | E || A | C | E || A | C | F

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

1887 | 4,566 | 1.48 | 1.60 || 22,361 | 7.24 | 10.55 ||36,871 | 11.93 | 24.52 ||63,798 | 20.65 | 9.85

1888 | 5,743 | 1.72 | 2.01 || 22,991 | 6.90 | 10.84 ||42,436 | 12.73 | 28.23 ||71,171 | 21.35 | 10.99

1889 | 6,426 | 1.88 | 2.25 || 24,229 | 7.08 | 11.43 ||38,697 | 11.30 | 25.24 ||69,352 | 20.26 | 10.71

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

KEY TO COLUMN HEADINGS:

A = Absolute Number.

B = To the 100 Persons Convicted.

C = To the 100 Convicted.

D = To the 1000 of the Population from 9 to 14.

E = To the 1000 of the Population of this Age.

F = To the 1000 of the Population under 21.

This table shows that the increase of delinquents under 18 is quite

large, and that there is an increase followed by a decrease of

criminality among those between the ages of 18 and 21. However, the

period is too short for conclusions of much significance.

Italy, 1890–1895. [563]

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

| Persons Convicted.

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

Years.|From 9 to 14.|| 14 to 18. || 18 to 21. || 9 to 21.

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

|Number.| % ||Number.| % ||Number.| % ||Number.| %

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

1890 | 2,920 | 2.23|| 12,208| 9.31|| 14,980|11.42|| 30,108|22.96

1891 | 3,605 | 2.50|| 14,287| 9.95|| 16,166|11.25|| 34,058|23.70

1892 | 3,354 | 2.25|| 13,952| 9.36|| 16,896|11.34|| 34,202|22.95

1893 | 3,008 | 2.12|| 12,998| 9.18|| 15,800|11.16|| 31,806|22.46

1894 | 3,838 | 2.54|| 13,948| 9.21|| 17,826|11.77|| 35,612|23.52

1895 | 4,026 | 2.40|| 15,468| 9.21|| 19,615|11.67|| 39,109|23.28

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

This table shows (except for 1893) an increase in the number of young

delinquents (about 30% in 6 years), a phenomenon by no means accounted

for by the increase in the population.

The following figures show the crimes of which the young delinquents

are especially guilty.

Italy, 1891–1895. [564]

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

|To 100,000 of Each Age Group.

Crimes. +----------+---------+---------

| 9 to 14. |14 to 18.|18 to 21.

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

Simple theft | 59.50 | 278.89 | 302.86

Minor assaults | 14.64 | 83.40 | 215.04

Aggravated theft | 30.95 | 128.96 | 157.28

Rebellion | 1.25 | 24.94 | 83.58

Serious assaults | 5.22 | 28.56 | 82.07

Threats | 1.11 | 15.10 | 47.71

Obtaining money under false pretenses etc.| 1.54 | 13.96 | 30.00

Homicide | 0.49 | 3.97 | 15.78

Rape | 1.02 | 6.36 | 9.62

Extortion, blackmail | 0.41 | 3.55 | 9.07

Offenses against chastity of minors and | | |

against public decency | 0.38 | 2.93 | 5.70

Offenses against public order | 1.01 | 2.14 | 4.95

Assassination | 0.07 | 0.75 | 3.55

Infanticide | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.36

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

We will close the series of statistics concerning juvenile criminality

with some figures from the Netherlands. [565]

Netherlands, 1896–1900. [566]

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

| Convicted.

Years.+-------+---------+---------+---------+-----------

|Total. |Under 16.|16 to 21.|Under 21.|% under 21.

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

1896 |15,567 | 683 | 2,941 | 3,624 | 23.2

1897 |16,086 | 666 | 3,024 | 3,690 | 22.9

1898 |15,662 | 712 | 2,967 | 3,679 | 23.4

1899 |15,390 | 619 | 2,895 | 3,514 | 22.4

1900 |14,488 | 537 | 2,670 | 3,207 | 22.8

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

Netherlands, 1901–1910. [567]

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

| Convicted.

Years.+------+--------------+----------

|Total.|Under 16 Years|Percentage

| | of Age. |Under 16.

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

1901 |13,917| 651 | 4.7

1902 |14,205| 683 | 4.8

1903 |13,673| 645 | 4.7

1904 |14,056| 667 | 4.7

1905 |13,310| 592 | 4.4

1906 |12,311| 589 | 4.7

1907 |12,182| 588 | 4.8

1908 |13,563| 544 | 4.1

1909 |13,361| 649 | 4.8

1910 |13,790| 800 | 5.8

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

Juvenile criminality has not changed much, then, as compared with the

criminality of adults. As I have already observed above, there is

reason to suppose that the real facts are different, especially after

1905, when the new law with regard to juvenile crime was put into

effect.

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

young delinquents.

Netherlands, 1896–1901.

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

|Average for the Period 1896–1901.

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

Crimes. | Number Convicted. |Percentage

+----------+-----------+under 21.

| Total. | Under 21. |

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

Aggravated theft | 894 | 416 | 46.4

Sexual offenses | 202 | 63 | 31.1

Theft | 1,713 | 526 | 30.7

Malicious mischief | 756 | 226 | 29.9

Assault | 3,927 | 1,030 | 26.2

Domiciliary trespass| 318 | 72 | 22.6

Rebellion | 1,056 | 216 | 20.4

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

Keeping constantly in mind that in our days juvenile criminals are less

often sentenced than formerly, we shall find that the foregoing

statistics show:

First. That juvenile crime is increasing.

Second. That this increase is considerable in the countries like

Germany, Austria, and Belgium, where there is a continuous industrial

development; while in countries less developed industrially the

increase is less.

Third. That England, where the capitalism is very intense, shows a

great amount of juvenile crime.

The figures we have given have in general, in my opinion, gone to

support the incontestable truth, that there is a relation between child

labor and juvenile criminality. Although it is of smaller importance

than the lack of care of the children among the proletariat, it is

still one of the factors in the etiology of crime. [568]

Following the order adopted in Part II, chapter I, we come now to the

influence of long hours of labor. It has rightly been said that work

has a strong moral influence. But it is also true that immoderate labor

has the contrary effect. It brutalizes a man, makes him incapable of

elevated sentiments, kills as Key says (in “das Jahrhundert des

Kindes”), the man in the beast, while moderate labor ennobles the beast

in the man. [569]

The housing conditions of the proletariat have also a significance as

regards criminality, and for the special group of sexual offenses their

importance is very great. We shall speak of this more fully when we

treat especially of these offenses, and will, for the moment, note

simply their general consequences.

The disorder and squalor of the home communicate themselves to the

inmates; the lack of room obliges the children to live, during a great

part of the day, on the streets, with the result that they are brought

into contact with all sorts of demoralizing companions. Finally, the

living together of a great number of uneducated persons in one small

dwelling is the cause of constant quarrels and fights. The situation of

those who are merely night-lodgers is especially unfortunate, as we

have already seen.

In Part I we have quoted from authors who have laid stress upon the

importance of the question of housing conditions in the study of

criminality (Hirsch, for example), and we have indicated the gravity of

this cause in speaking of prostitution and alcoholism.

It would be possible to quote a number of authors who have taken up the

effect of housing conditions upon morals. [570] However, it is

naturally very difficult to express this influence in figures. As far

as I know it is Dr. E. Laspeyres who (in “Der Einfluss der Wohnung auf

die Sittlichkeit”) gives the most significant data upon this subject. I

borrow from him the following figures: summarizing part of the results

of a study of “Furnished Rooms” in 2,360 dwellings: [571]

Paris, 1849.

Table I.

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

| | Conduct of the Inmates.

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

Arrondissements. | Good | Men. | Women.

|Dwellings.+---------------+---------------

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

| | % | % | % | %

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

The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | |

smallest number of good | | | | |

dwellings | 35 | 46 | 10 | 20.4| 19

| | | | |

The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | |

largest number of good | 44.5 | 50 | 2.5 | 21.7| 14

dwellings | | | | |

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

The 12 arrondissements together | 39 | 48 | 6.4 | 21.0| 16.6

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

The figures cited above in |} 89 | 96 | 156 | 97 | 114

proportion to all Paris = 100 |} 114 | 104 | 39 |103 | 86

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

| 100 | 100 | 100 |100 | 100

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

Table II. [572]

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

| | Conduct of the Inmates.

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

Arrondissements. | Very Bad | Men. | Women.

|Dwellings.+---------+-----+---------+-----

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

| | % | % | % | %

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

The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | |

greatest number of very bad | | | | |

dwellings | 13.6 | 9 | 45 | 20.2 | 21.3

| | | | |

The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | |

smallest number of very bad | | | | |

dwellings | 6.0 | 2.2 | 52 | 11.7 | 21.0

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

The 12 arrondissements together | 11 | 6.4 | 48 | 16.6 | 21.0

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

The figures cited above in |} 124 | 141 | 94 | 122 |101

proportion to all Paris = 100 |} 55 | 34 |108 | 70 |100

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

| 100 | 100 |100 | 100 |100

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

Table III. [573]

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

| | Conduct of the Inmates.

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

| Good and | Men. | Women.

|Rather Good+----------------------+------------+-----------

Arrondissements. | Dwellings.| Good and | Bad and | Good and | Bad and

| |Rather Good.|Very Bad.|Rather Good.| Very Bad.

| % | % | % | % | %

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

The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | |

smallest number of good and | | | | |

rather good dwellings | 75 | 70 | 30 | 50 | 50

| | | | |

The 6 arrondissements with the | | | | |

greatest number of good and | | | | |

rather good dwellings | 86 | 81 | 19 | 58 | 42

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

The 12 arrondissements together | 80 | 74.5 | 25.5 | 53 | 47

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

The figures cited above in proportion| } 94 | 94 | 118 | 96 | 106

to all Paris = 100 | } 107 | 109 | 71 | 109 | 91

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

| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100

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

Although the division according to good and bad conduct is somewhat

arbitrary, and although it is impossible to separate the effect of bad

housing from other influences operative at the same time, yet these

figures say plainly: there is a relationship between housing and

conduct. It is evident that there is a reciprocal effect between the

condition of the dwelling and the conduct of the inmates, but this fact

does not diminish the influence of the dwelling. [574]

Finally, we add some figures upon the influence of furnished rooms as

residence, summarizing the results of an inquiry into industries in

Paris, made in 1860 and including 400,000 persons: [575]

Paris, 1860.

I. Men.

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

Occupations. | In Furnished Rooms. | Conduct Doubtful

| | or Bad.

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

| % | %

90 occupations | 5 | 3

90 ,, | 14 | 9

90 ,, | 28 | 12

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

270 occupations | 20 | 9

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

Proportion to all the occupations = 100.

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

90 occupations | 25 | 13

90 ,, | 70 | 100

90 ,, | 140 | 133

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

270 occupations | 100 | 100

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

II. Women.

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

Occupations. | In Furnished Rooms. | Conduct Doubtful

| | or Bad.

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

| % | %

110 occupations | -- | 3

60 ,, | 4 | 6

60 ,, | 14 | 15

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

230 occupations | 7 | 9

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

Proportion to the Average of the 230 occupations = 100.

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

110 occupations | 0 | 33

60 ,, | 59 | 68

60 ,, | 206 | 169

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

230 occupations | 100 | 100

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

The evil influence of living in furnished rooms comes out plainly in

these figures.

As has already been said at the beginning of these observations as to

the influence of the economic life upon the development of social

feelings on the part of the proletariat, the egoistic side of the human

character is developed by the fact that the individual is dependent,

that he lives in a subordinate position, and that he feels himself poor

and deprived of everything. However, in so far as the proletarian sells

his labor he is guaranteed against famine, however miserable his

condition, and conscious of the utility of his rôle in society, he

feels himself, notwithstanding his poverty, a man who, except for his

employer, is independent of all men. But if work is not to be found, or

if the proletarian, sick and infirm, is not able to work, it goes

without saying that the resulting unemployment is very demoralizing.

The lack of steady work, the horrors of the penury into which he and

his fall, and the long train of evils which result from both, kill the

social feelings in a man, for, as we have seen above, these feelings

depend upon reciprocity. Let one familiarize himself with the thought

of the condition of the man who lives in the greatest poverty, i.e. the

man who is abandoned by all, and he will understand how egoistic must

be the feelings of such.

From the position in which the proletarians find themselves it follows

that, towards each other, it is rather the altruistic than the egoistic

feelings that develop; living less isolated than the bourgeois, they

see the misfortune that strikes their neighbor, and have felt the same

themselves, and above all, their economic interests are not opposed.

Forced idleness—at present chronic, and acute in times of

panic—modifies these conditions at times; it makes competitors of the

workers, who take the bread out of each other’s mouths. [576]

The proletarian is never sure of his existence: like the sword of

Damocles unemployment is constantly hanging over his head. Upon this

subject Engels says:

“But far more demoralizing than his poverty in its influence upon the

English working man is the insecurity of his position, the necessity of

living upon wages from hand to mouth, that in short which makes a

proletarian of him. The smaller peasants in Germany are usually poor,

and often suffer want, but they are less at the mercy of accident, they

have at least something secure. The proletarian, who has nothing but

his two hands, who consumes today what he earned yesterday, who is

subject to every chance, and has not the slightest guarantee for being

able to earn the barest necessities of life, whom every crisis, every

whim of his employer may deprive of bread, this proletarian is placed

in the most revolting, inhuman position conceivable for a human being.”

[577]

This uncertainty of existence is one of the reasons which explain why,

in relatively prosperous times the working-man often spends his wages

as soon as he receives them, for he knows that the economies possible

to him are so small that he could never be saved from misery in case of

unemployment.

Finally we must speak of ignorance and lack of training on the part of

the proletariat, as a factor of criminality. As we know, this question

of education is one of those which are most debated in criminal

sociology. Certain authors have prophesied that each new school would

make a prison superfluous, while on the other hand it has been claimed

that ignorance and the lack of civilization have nothing to do with the

etiology of crime, but that on the contrary knowledge and civilization

are even factors of crime. Although these extreme opinions are hardly

ever expressed nowadays, the ideas upon the point in question still

differ widely. [578]

In my opinion, no really decisive arguments have ever been adduced for

the opinion that the intellectual condition of men has no influence

upon criminality. In general the reasoning is as follows: ignorance is

decreasing; crime on the contrary increases; ignorance cannot therefore

be a factor. Such a line of argument is very superficial, for ignorance

is surely not the only cause of crime. Its influence may therefore be

neutralized by other factors. And further, from the point of view of

statistics it is not permissible to use the indirect method when the

direct method is practicable. In most criminal and prison statistics

the percentage of the illiterate among the criminals is given, and we

have only to put beside these figures those for the illiterate among

the non-criminal population to be convinced of the existence or absence

of the connection in dispute.

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

United States, 1890. [579]

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

To 82,329 Prisoners there were | To 100 of the

------------+------------------+---------+ Population over

| Absolute Number. | % | Age of 10 Years.

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

Illiterate | 19,631 | 23.83 | 13.3

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

Austria, 1881–1899. [580]

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

| To 100 Persons Convicted of Crimes.

Years. +-------------------+------------------+----------------

| Unable to Read or | Able to Read and | Having a Higher

| Write. | Write. | Education.

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

1881-1885 | 46.2 | 53.5 | 0.2

1886-1890 | 41.0 | 58.7 | 0.3

1891-1895 | 37.5 | 62.2 | 0.2

1896 | 33.0 | 60.3 | 0.7

1897 | 34.9 | 64.4 | 0.7

1898 | 33.2 | 66.1 | 0.7

1899 | 33.0 | 66.2 | 0.8

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

England and Wales, 1894–1900. [581]

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

Years. | Prisoners Found Guilty. || Percentage

| || of Persons

+---------------------------------------------------++---------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++ Wishing to

| Unable to Read or Write. || Able to Read, or to Read Poorly || Able to Read and Write Well. || Having a Higher Education. || Marry who

| || and Write. || || || were Unable

+---------------------------------------------------++---------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++-------------------------------------------------++ to Sign

| Men. | Women. || Men. | Women. || Men. | Women. || Men. | Women. || their Names.

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

| Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Absolute Number. | % | Absolute Number. | % || Men. | Women.

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

1893 | -- | -- | -- | -- || -- | -- | -- | -- || -- | -- | -- | -- || -- | -- | -- | -- || 5.0 | 5.7

1894 | 20,760 | 18.4 | 11,457 | 27.4 || 86,639 | 76.6 | 29,620 | 70.7 || 5,554 | 4.9 | 797 | 1.9 || 102 | 0.1 | 3 | 0.0 || 0.0 | --

1895 | 18,840 | 18.2 | 11,143 | 27.8 || 80,409 | 77.9 | 28,511 | 71.2 || 3,879 | 3.8 | 386 | 1.0 || 89 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.0 || 0.0 | --

1896 | 19,377 | 18.1 | 11,844 | 28.5 || 85,199 | 79.2 | 29,261 | 70.6 || 2,806 | 2.6 | 307 | 0.7 || 52 | 0.1 | 2 | 0.0 || 0.0 | --

1897 | 18,588 | 17.4 | 11,783 | 27.8 || 84,777 | 79.7 | 30,290 | 71.4 || 2,980 | 2.8 | 344 | 0.8 || 68 | 0.1 | 4 | 0.0 || 0.0 | --

1898 | 18,591 | 16.6 | 12,092 | 26.8 || 86,675 | 77.3 | 32,350 | 71.6 || 6,680 | 6.0 | 726 | 1.6 || 158 | 0.1 | 7 | 0.0 || 0.0 | --

1899 | 17,703 | 16.3 | 11,483 | 25.3 || 84,854 | 78.4 | 35,114 | 73.0 || 5,658 | 5.2 | 740 | 1.6 || 84 | 0.1 | 6 | 0.0 || 0.0 | --

1900 | 16,583 | 16.6 | 11,519 | 25.3 || 77,967 | 77.8 | 33,169 | 73.5 || 5,460 | 5.5 | 420 | 0.9 || 81 | 0.1 | 5 | 0.6 || 2.9 | 3.4

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

The following table gives the figures for the different crimes:

Austria, 1899. [582]

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

| To 100 Persons Convicted.

Crimes. +-------------+---------------+--------------+------------

| Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read | Higher

| | | and Write. | Education.

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

Arson | 44.2 | 2.6 | 53.2 | 0.0

Libel | 41.7 | 0.8 | 57.1 | 0.4

Assault | 40.5 | 1.4 | 58.0 | 0.1

Infanticide | 39.5 | 2.6 | 57.9 | 0.0

Homicide | 39.3 | 3.1 | 57.4 | 0.2

Robbery | 35.0 | 1.6 | 63.4 | 0.0

Theft | 32.6 | 1.2 | 65.7 | 0.5

All crimes | 31.7 | 1.3 | 66.2 | 0.8

Fraud | 30.8 | 1.3 | 66.2 | 2.7

Extortion | 27.3 | 1.5 | 70.4 | 0.8

Malicious mischief | 21.6 | 1.1 | 77.3 | 0.0

Threats | 21.0 | 1.7 | 76.9 | 0.4

Leze majesty | 19.7 | 1.6 | 76.2 | 2.5

Rape, etc. | 17.2 | 1.7 | 79.3 | 1.8

Criminal breach of trust | 6.0 | 0.2 | 86.4 | 7.4

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

Belgium, 1899–1901.

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

| Persons Convicted.

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

Years. | Illiterate. | Able to Read | Able to Read | Having a | Total.

| | or Write | and Write. | Higher |

| | Imperfectly. | | Education. |

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

1899 | 588 | 1389 | 424 | 144 | 2545

1900 | 626 | 1444 | 521 | 176 | 2767

1901 | 619 | 1581 | 604 | 218 | 3022

1899-1901 | 1833 | 4414 | 1549 | 538 | 8334

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

% | 22.-- | 53.-- | 18.6 | 6.4 | 100.0

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

According to the census of 1900, 18% of the total male population over

15 years old were completely illiterate. [583]

In 1907 1.32% of the men and 1.75% of the women out of the total

population could not sign their names. [584]

France, 1882–1898. [585]

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

| To the 100 Prisoners there were on Entering Prison | Number of

| | Persons to the

+----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+--------------------+-------------------+ 100, who could

Years. | Illiterate. | Able to Read. | Able to Read | Able to Read, | Having a Complete | Having an | not sign their

| | | and Write. | Write and | Primary Education. | Education Higher | Names when

| | | | Cipher. | | than Primary. | they Married.

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

| Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women. | Men. | Women.

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

1882 | 27.60 | 38.04 | 12.62 | 15.41 | 30.56 | 32.36 | 21.17 | 13.01 | 6.24 | 0.87 | 1.81 | 0.31 | 14.4 | 22.6

1883 | 30.08 | 36.11 | 11.91 | 16.78 | 30.48 | 30.60 | 19.00 | 15.28 | 6.60 | 0.87 | 1.93 | 0.36 | 14.2 | 22.4

1884 | 27.54 | 42.61 | 10.14 | 15.02 | 31.71 | 30.57 | 21.67 | 9.93 | 5.72 | 1.39 | 2.18 | 0.46 | 13.6 | 22.2

1885 | 28.44 | 40.25 | 10.19 | 16.15 | 30.02 | 33.53 | 23.55 | 9.17 | 5.33 | 0.69 | 2.47 | 0.21 | 12.7 | 20.2

1886 | 26.63 | 39.93 | 11.20 | 14.52 | 31.19 | 36.64 | 22.81 | 8.06 | 5.63 | 0.85 | 2.54 | --[#] | 11.6 | 18.7

1887 | 26.51 | 37.49 | 12.49 | 14.31 | 33.89 | 38.90 | 21.04 | 8.38 | 4.05 | 0.92 | 2.02 | -- | 10.7 | 17.0

1888 | 24.90 | 32.29 | 14.05 | 12.92 | 32.50 | 42.43 | 22.50 | 10.77 | 4.18 | 1.59 | 2.17 | -- | 10.6 | 16.2

1889 | 22.50 | 35.13 | 14.18 | 27.22 | 30.06 | 27.78 | 24.99 | 7.70 | 5.80 | 2.17 | 2.47 | -- | 9.8 | 15.2

1890 | 20.12 | 34.94 | 14.19 | 26.34 | 30.76 | 29.71 | 25.97 | 6.47 | 6.34 | 2.54 | 2.52 | -- | 8.8 | 13.6

1891 | 20.05 | 33.32 | 12.79 | 22.44 | 31.14 | 33.39 | 26.52 | 8.37 | 6.57 | 2.06 | 2.93 | 0.42 | 8.4 | 12.6

1892 | 20.38 | 33.80 | 13.24 | 24.89 | 28.29 | 30.60 | 28.30 | 7.34 | 6.33 | 2.64 | 3.46 | 0.73 | 8.1 | 12.1

1893 | 22.08 | 29.78 | 11.19 | 24.75 | 28.03 | 32.75 | 27.33 | 9.22 | 7.51 | 2.82 | 3.86 | 0.68 | -- | --

1894 | 20.89 | 31.14 | 13.15 | 22.57 | 27.64 | 35.86 | 27.84 | 7.42 | 6.70 | 2.47 | 3.78 | 0.54 | 6.8 | 10.4

1895 | 20.50 | 30.43 | 13.80 | 18.82 | 26.66 | 38.39 | 30.15 | 9.80 | 6.41 | 2.32 | 2.48 | 0.24 | -- | --

1896 | 20.91 | 28.58 | 11.97 | 17.09 | 31.00 | 38.70 | 23.78 | 12.04 | 10.40 | 3.22 | 1.94 | 0.37 | -- | --

1897 | 21.09 | 28.57 | 10.59 | 15.67 | 27.77 | 40.48 | 30.40 | 12.10 | 8.15 | 2.48 | 2.00 | 0.69 | -- | --

1898 | 23.70 | 31.65 | 9.11 | 8.70 | 31.05 | 46.67 | 27.77 | 8.69 | 6.81 | 3.65 | 1.56 | 0.69 | 4.5 | 7.2

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

Scotland. [587]

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

| Prisoners.

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

| Men. | Women.

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

| Absolute | % | Absolute | %

| Numbers. | | Numbers. |

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

Illiterate | 3,807 | 12.0 | 2,635 | 20.5

Able to read and write | 27,849 | 87.9 | 10,245 | 79.5

With a higher education | 46 | 0.1 | 1 | 0.0

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

Total | 31,702 | 100.0 | 12,881 | 100.0

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

France, 1896–1900. [588]

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

| Percentage

| of Accused

Crimes. | Persons

| Completely

| Illiterate.

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

Arson | 26

Infanticide | 21

Poisoning | 20

Rape and indecent assault |

upon children | 20

Serious assaults | 16

Murder | 16

Homicide | 15

Rape, etc. upon adults | 14

All crimes | 14

Aggravated theft | 12

Parricide | 10

Assaults upon parents, etc. | 10

Fraudulent bankruptcy | 10

Highway robbery | 8

Counterfeiting | 7

Forgery, etc. | 2

Breach of trust | 2

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

Ireland, 1905.