makes itself felt. It should be remarked that the years 1889–1892 were
years of crisis.
France, 1825–1882.
In his study “De la criminalité en France et en Italie” Dr. Bournet
shows that in the period mentioned the maxima of assassinations
coincide with the years of economic crises, namely: 1839, 1840, 1843,
1844, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881. [926] It should be remarked that
assassinations are committed not simply from economic motives, but for
other reasons, whence it follows that the parallelism cannot be as
great as in the case of economic crimes that are not committed from
other motives.
Italy, 1873–1890.
Dr. Fornasari proves that economic events have a great influence upon
these crimes (see Part One, p. 143).
Prussia, 1854–1896.
Dr. Starke (see Part One, p. 64) and Dr. Müller (see pp. 76–78) have
proved that the changes of economic conditions are here also cause of
an increase or diminution of these crimes.
Although these data are less numerous than we might desire, they show
sufficiently that, in part, violent economic crimes are committed
because of poverty. [927]
Above I have shown how it happens that only some of those who live in
absolute poverty commit crime. We have only, then, to ask ourselves why
one commits a crime with violence and the other without violence. The
causes are of different kinds. Oftenest it is chance, i.e. opportunity,
that is the cause. No one uses violence if it is not necessary, and
since the opportunity of committing a successful theft is much greater
than that of committing an economic crime with violence, it is the
first that is most often practiced. Those who, when driven by abject
poverty, commit an economic crime with violence, when the opportunity
presents itself, are persons who lack neither the force nor the courage
necessary, and in whom the environment in which they live has not
inspired a great aversion to violence. Further, absolute poverty is so
powerful a factor that it often neutralizes the important influences of
education and environment.
From cupidity. The class of criminals who use violence or commit a
homicide from cupidity is very small. They furnish only a minor part of
violent economic crimes, the total number of which is not itself very
great. To show how far the influence of economic environment goes I
will cite some striking cases taken at random.
First. In 1892 a certain Scheffer was convicted at Linz (Austria) of
attempted murder. His crime was the following. He and his wife could
earn their living only by working hard. Chance brought a change. One of
their relatives, a young girl who had lost her father and mother a
short time before, came to live with them. The girl being very rich,
the condition of the Scheffers was entirely changed; from then on they
could live in abundance. Once habituated to this wealth they were
filled with the fear that their relative would marry and the money pass
to someone else. Little by little the idea came to them of persuading
the girl to make a will in their favor, and then killing her, an idea
which they rejected at first, but which nevertheless became stronger
and stronger. From unforeseen circumstances the crime was never
consummated, but stopped in the attempt. [928]
Second. In a little village upon the frontier of Austria and Bavaria
there was committed in 1893 a murder under the following circumstances.
One evening, while returning by himself along a lonely road, a rich
peasant who was in the habit of carrying a considerable sum of money
with him, was killed and robbed. It was proved that his servant was the
author of the crime. This man was a natural child, very poor, and had
had to work very hard all his life. Seeing his strength going he was in
great fear of being no longer able to earn a living. His sole enjoyment
in his monotonous and toilsome life was getting drunk on Sundays. Like
most of the inhabitants of his commune he was an ardent poacher. [929]
Third. In 1892 the wife of an employe of the post office was
assassinated in her dwelling in Berlin, and all her money stolen. The
criminals were two young workmen of 17 and 18 years of age, one of whom
knew by chance that the woman had savings. [930]
These three cases, types of hundreds of others, have in common the
opportunity which had excited, in an unusual degree, the cupidity of
the criminals, and the fact that these were very poor. Whatever other
causes may have entered in, it is certain that without the great
difference of fortune between the authors of the crimes and their
victims, the crimes would never have been committed.
Finally, we come to the influence of the environment upon the authors
of the crimes. As we have seen, the conditions under which criminals
are brought up are in general very unfavorable, and this is especially
the case with dangerous criminals. Consider, for example, the second
case (we know nothing of the environment of the criminals in the
first). What a life this murderer had behind him. The influences which
give most men their aversion to violence were entirely lacking. On the
contrary his environment had brutalized him. A natural child, he had
been brought up in very poor circumstances, and was stupefied by long
and toilsome work, with a weekly intoxication as his sole relaxation.
No one would assert that this same individual would have become an
assassin if he had lived under totally different conditions.
Or look at the third case. One of the guilty parties had been brought
up under unfavorable conditions (of the education of the other we know
nothing), both were forced, quite young, to earn their living and had
been thrown with bad companions, and one of them had already been
sentenced to imprisonment.
It is a mistake to believe that such a case is the exception instead of
being the general rule. He who takes the trouble to read the
biographies of these criminals knows that they have always been brought
up in an unfavorable environment, that they have suffered imprisonment
at an early age, and have fallen lower and lower. As far as I know
there are no statistics upon this subject except those of Dr. Baer in
his study already referred to. Out of 22 young assassins examined by
him 9 (40%) had had a bad education, 11 (50%) a defective education,
and only 2 (10%) a better education; 8 (36%) were orphans; 11 (50%) had
been brought up in very poor circumstances and were obliged while quite
young to contribute to the support of the family; 10 (45%) had grown up
in the streets of a great city and had thus been exposed to
demoralizing influences; and 13 (60%) had received an insufficient
primary education. [931]
The researches of Dr. Baer have to do with Germany, but they hold good
for other countries also. Take, for example, the opinion of Tomel and
Rollet, who are authors of great experience. In speaking of the
“criminal type” they say: “Well, no, this type does not exist, since we
always find the same conditions in the genesis of the criminal
temperament, and if these educational and environmental conditions had
been absent, the destiny of the little assassin might have been quite
different.” [932]
We have still to fix our attention upon one side of the environment in
which the authors of the crimes with which we are concerned at the
moment, have lived. They come generally from an environment where,
First, education often consists simply in the administration of a sound
beating to the child, a fact which habituates him to the idea that
violence is an ordinary act, especially as he sees the members of the
family often strike one another;
Second, the men ordinarily carry a knife, and do not hesitate to
threaten with it, or even to use it in case of a dispute. It is evident
that the influence of this upon character is great at the
impressionable age of childhood. The tendency toward violence, combated
among children of the well-to-do classes, is, on the contrary, often
strengthened among the children of the poor. If later chance places in
their way an opportunity to profit by violence they recoil from it less
than others. [933]
The authors of violent economic crimes spring nearly always from the
lower classes of the population; the exceptions are few in number. We
will take up one of these exceptions which has attained considerable
notoriety, an evident proof of the rarity of these cases.
In 1878 an old woman was murdered in Paris and all her papers of value
were stolen. It was proved that Barré, a business agent, and Lebiez, a
medical student, both of whom had passed their youth in a favorable
environment, were the guilty persons. This is one of those very rare
cases where objection can be made to the environment hypothesis with a
semblance of truth, but a closer examination shows that environment
nevertheless played its part in this frightful tragedy. The two
criminals, sprung from fairly well-to-do provincial families, having
gone to Paris, had been living in straitened circumstances. At the time
of their deciding to commit the crime their pecuniary condition was
very bad. In the second place, both had constant recourse to
prostitutes; and in the third place both were ardent speculators.
Because of his business Barré was in contact with those who gambled at
the bourse, and seeing men enrich themselves without work he entered
feverishly into speculation. He lost, drew his father into a new deal,
and was still unfortunate. In order to go on and retrieve his losses he
used money entrusted to him (his first crime), but still lost. Going
from one malversation to another he finally, in order to extricate
himself, had recourse to the crime narrated above. His accomplice was
found in nearly the same situation. [934]
The effect of environment is to be discerned, then, as easily in this
case as in those that have been referred to before. Limiting ourselves
to the principal influence alone, we see that if these individuals had
not been in contact with the world of speculation, their cupidity would
not have been excited to such a point that they were induced to commit
crime. Here the rôle played by chance in such cases clearly appears; if
they had been fortunate in their speculations they would never have
become criminals.
As with all crimes, the question presents itself as to how far
individual factors were active, in other words, do the individuals who
are guilty of such crimes differ from other men? Certainly, and that to
a considerable extent. But in granting this we do not, however,
recognize a qualitative difference between them and other men such as
would make them biologically abnormal. The motives which have induced
these persons to commit crime, are present, though only in small
measure, in everyone. Those who commit these crimes have by nature very
intense material needs; in the curve A D (see p. 534) they occupy the
places near D. As regards their social sentiments they are ranged near
the other end of the curve, and their repugnance to violence is very
small. Further, they have the necessary courage and strength. [935] If
we consider how little chance there is of finding all this united in
one individual, it will become clear that few individuals are
predisposed to these crimes, and when they are committed the criminal
is found in a special environment. In my opinion there can be no
question of individual factors, then; it is the environment that
decides here. There will be persons always and everywhere who run more
danger than others of committing such a crime; but it is the
environment which will decide whether they will commit it or not.
Professional criminals. The great majority of violent economic crimes
are committed by professional criminals. When an individual has fallen,
from whatever reason, into the world of professional crime, sooner or
later comes the time when he must use violence if he wishes to attain
his end. Joly has very well said in his social study, “Le crime”: “The
man who has formed the habit of breaking into houses and bursting open
safes, is forcibly drawn sooner or later to rid himself of witnesses
who surprise him at this work, or of a victim who might perhaps
recognize him.” [936] It cannot be asserted of these individuals any
more than of others, that they are born with a special tendency toward
assassination, a tendency to be explained by atavism, or something
approaching it. They have been living in an environment in which such
acts are considered as a necessary evil inherent in their trade. Driven
by the tendency to imitate, they do as others do. Certainly there are
those of them who do not commit these crimes, but that proves nothing,
for it may be that chance has favored them and they have never been
under the necessity of using violence, or they have less courage and
force than the average man, or, it may be, have an exceptional innate
aversion to violence.
As Professor Manouvrier remarks, the case would be entirely different
if such criminals killed without plausible motives, if they committed
murder without anything but the act in view. The facts show that this
is not so. Note the opinion of Flynt. “The taking of life is ... [a]
deed that he [the professional criminal] regrets more than he has been
given credit for. One thinks of the criminal as the man who has no
respect for life, as one who takes it without any twitchings of
conscience; but this is not the general rule. The business criminal
never takes a life, if he can help it.” [937]
We need not treat here of the causes which have led to the designating
of these acts as crimes; they are the same as those given above in
connection with economic crimes without violence. The harm done by
these crimes is naturally greater than in the case of crimes without
violence, since they put life as well as property in danger. It is
interesting to note here, once more, the dualism of ethics; many
primitive peoples consider these acts as crimes when they are committed
within the same group, but very honorable when once the act passes
beyond the limits of the group. [938] Further, with modern peoples this
difference still persists; colonial wars often resemble a colossal
robbery.
D. Fraudulent Bankruptcy, Adulteration of Food, and Analogous Crimes.
We reach now the last group of economic crimes, those which are
committed wholly, or in great part, by the bourgeoisie. The motives of
these crimes are not all the same; here too it is necessary to make
distinctions. The categories into which we must distribute the motives
leading to these crimes are analogous to those which lead to theft
etc., poverty and cupidity. And as in the case of theft it is necessary
to add a third category, that of the great criminals, who can be
compared with criminals by profession.
The first category may be compared with that of theft committed from
poverty; those who fall into this class are persons who, for one reason
or another, have seen their business decline, and not knowing any other
way to escape from their difficulties, hope to retrieve their losses
and save themselves by committing a misdeed. I take from Moreau’s “Le
Monde des Prisons” a typical case. After having described how a certain
R. had succeeded in setting himself up in business and had been
successful, the author speaks as follows. “Unhappily the panic caught
him among the first. His business became worse and worse. In a few
months he lost several thousand francs. Two of his traveling salesmen
ran off with their goods. Orders ceased coming in. It was failure,
dishonor. He fought, but was wrecked....” [939] Finally, in order to
escape ruin he committed a breach of trust; he was discovered and
convicted.
We cannot say that it is absolute poverty that drives these persons to
commit a crime, for generally they have enough left to keep them from
dying of hunger. And if not, they are generally members of families who
are in a position to keep them from the worst poverty. Further they can
try to provide for their wants by paid labor. Nevertheless these cases
are somewhat analogous to those of absolute poverty. Picture to
yourself the state of mind of one who has led a more or less
comfortable life, who has been independent, and enjoyed the esteem
granted to a man who is well-to-do, and who sees that the time is
approaching when all this will come to an end, and that there remains
nothing for him to do but accept some minor poorly paid employment, and
lead henceforth an existence that cannot satisfy him in any way.
Imagine also that chance throws in his way an opportunity to commit a
crime with good hope of success. It must be granted that we find here
very powerful determinants to crime.
This cause of crimes of this class is of an entirely social nature.
Under another mode of production, for example, under that of village
communities, the idea of committing such crimes could not arise. For
this reason we cannot say that social causes have often nothing to do
with the matter, but that it is the man’s own fault if his business
goes to pieces. This is certainly true at times; but it is the present
organization of society which makes it possible for a man to be in
charge of an enterprise which he is not fitted to conduct, while
another who is fitted for it cannot find employment for his talents. It
is only in a society where complete anarchy reigns in the economic
life, that it is possible for a man to think he is capable of directing
a business merely because he happens to have capital.
Let us now examine the other side of the question. What are the forces
capable of preventing these projects from being realized? First let us
ask, what is the environment in which many of these individuals who are
guilty of such crimes are brought up? Certainly they have learned that
one must be honest, that it is wrong to pick pockets, etc., and they
will not fail in this regard. But they have learned also that the
principal end in life is to grow rich, to succeed. Too often this is
contrary to the principle of probity. “Be honest, be honest, if
possible, but ... make money!” This is the principal rule imprinted
upon the minds of the children in certain bourgeois environments. It is
an honesty of a special kind that is inculcated, not a moral honesty,
but an honesty for the sake of one’s own interests. “Honesty is the
best policy” says the quasi-moral precept. Those whose probity has this
for a basis have only a weak check to prevent them from becoming
criminal, when the thought of the wrong act arises within them. They
remain honest so long as it is to their advantage, but woe to society
when this is no longer the case.
But further, the environment in which these persons have lived after
their youth has not contributed to reinforce the social sentiments, and
consequently those that are working in an anti-criminal direction.
“Every man for himself” is the principle of success in such an
environment. It is evident that the social sentiments must be strongly
opposed in their development if the maxim just given is that which
dominates. To act morally implies sacrificing one’s own advantage for
the sake of the general good. He who is compelled always to have his
own interests at heart can give very little thought to the interests of
others.
As in the case of all crimes, it is necessary with regard to these also
to put the question, are the individuals who are guilty of them, as
regards their innate qualities, like those who have lived and still
live under the same conditions? And as is the case with all crimes, the
answer here must be in the negative. Those who are guilty of these
crimes are, in general, those who are below the average in the strength
of their moral qualities. They are rather weak than bad; they are
conscious of the harm that they do to others and are ashamed of it, but
they are too weak to resist the pressure of circumstances. As always it
is the environment that is the cause of the crimes’ taking place; it is
the individual differences which explain in part who is the one to
commit them. Adapting the well-known sentence of Quetelet we may say,
“it is society that prepares the crimes, it is the men of inferior
moral caliber who execute them.” If the environment were entirely
different the men of inferior moral caliber would not be guilty of
crime.
It may be observed, perhaps, that if it is true that a special
predisposition on the part of the individual is unnecessary for the
explanation of these crimes, they ought to be more numerous than they
are. This is true enough, but it does not refute the opinion which has
been expressed. For, first, as is the case with all the others, these
crimes are more numerous than the criminal statistics show; second,
there are reasons why some men do not commit crime, although all
circumstances lead to it, and their moral condition does not prevent.
For example, there are those who, as a consequence of the struggle for
existence, have lost all energy and all courage, and give up the fight,
even the fight with dishonest weapons; others, prudent by nature, take
into consideration the fact that, bad as their situation may be, it
would be worse if the crime were discovered, etc.
Statistics prove that it is really the decline of business that is the
cause of a great number of bourgeois crimes. In the first part of this
work I have given some which show this correlation, namely:
Italy, 1873–1890.
For this country the statistics on this question (see p. 144) have been
compiled by Dr. Fornasari di Verce. This author has shown that with the
exception of fraudulent bankruptcy (an astonishing and inexplicable
fact), commercial crimes are strongly influenced by economic
happenings.
Prussia, 1854–1878.
Dr. Starke has proved that the curve of these crimes is parallel with
that of economic events (p. 65).
These statistics, to be sure, are not numerous, since the number of
crimes committed by the bourgeoisie is small, and the other economic
crimes, like theft, for example, are much more important, and hence
draw the attention of statisticians more. [940]
We come now to the second category; bourgeois economic crimes from
cupidity (as is always the case, the line of demarcation between this
group and the preceding one is not distinctly traced, there being many
gradations between the two). They are committed, not, as in the first
category, by those whose business is declining, but by those whose
affairs are more or less flourishing. The only motive, then, is
cupidity; what they get by honest business is not enough for them, they
wish to become richer. After what has been already said about cupidity
it is unnecessary to go into detail here. It has been shown that it is
only under certain special circumstances that this desire for wealth
arises, and that it is unknown under others. It will be necessary only
to point out the fact that although cupidity is a strong motive with
all classes of our present society, it is especially so among the
bourgeoisie, as a consequence of their position in the economic life.
This, then, is the first and most important cause of these crimes, a
cause which is not individual, but entirely of a social nature.
In the second place, the opportunity to commit these offenses
undetected is enormous (I refer especially to the adulteration of
food). In general the consumer cannot judge whether the merchandise is
pure or not, and in most cases there is no inspection by experts, or
else it is worthless, since the experts are named by the producers
themselves.
In the third place, we have to ask ourselves, in what way does the
environment in which these persons live exercise an influence upon
their social sentiments? We have already called attention to this point
some pages above, and can be brief therefore. This environment tends to
weaken the social sentiments which might act as a check upon very
egoistic acts.
Considered from the point of view of the consumer the adulteration of
food products is a grave crime, for it injures the health and may even
endanger the life. But what moral impropriety will be seen in it by a
producer who derives great profits from the exploitation of children,
or who, by a corner in grain, causes a great increase in the price of
bread? Is there, sociologically speaking, a difference between these
two groups of acts? Certainly not; the one is as harmful as the other,
nay, the last two probably more harmful than the first.
This kind of crime must be the despair of those who seek for some
biological anomaly of the criminal as the primary cause of crime, for
here the anomaly forms almost the rule. Dr. Puibaraud, in his
“Malfaiteurs de profession”, rightly says: “The adulteration of food is
carried on under our eyes, at our very doors, and we are so used to it
that we say nothing. They put fuchsine in our wine, margarine in our
butter, chicory in our coffee, tallow in our chocolate, and we swallow
it all in perfect good humor. What is the use of protesting? So things
are, and ‘business could not be carried on’ if they gave us really pure
food. So we swallow it all without gagging or moving a muscle. Provided
we are not poisoned—too quickly—we profess ourselves satisfied.” [941]
Everyone knows that the adulteration of food is enormous. If anyone has
any doubts let him read the reports of the chemists upon a product
whose adulteration is easy, milk, for example. His doubts will
disappear rapidly; at least half of the milk is adulterated. It is only
the adulteration of food products that constitutes a legal offense, but
the adulteration of other articles does not differ from this when
considered from a sociological point of view, and it is unnecessary to
say that there too the adulteration is enormous.
There are, to be sure, manufacturers and merchants who are not guilty
of such acts; first, because certain articles cannot be adulterated;
second, because in certain branches the oversight in the interests of
the consumers is very rigorous; third, because certain producers find
it more advantageous to be honest, knowing that thereby they will
procure a large body of regular customers. These three reasons have
nothing moral in them, though there is a fourth reason which affects
certain producers, namely that they have scruples against such
practices. [942]
Let us consider once more the curve of the individual differences.
Those persons who should be placed between A and B are those who, if
the conditions we have named are present, will commit without scruple
misdeeds of the kind we are considering. The great average class,
between B and C are those who, in general, are not guilty of acts
prohibited by law, but who probably do things which in reality do not
differ much from these, and, in any case, are not permissible by the
moral code of the consumers (for commerce has a morality of its own).
These are the persons who get rid of their merchandise by means of all
sorts of tricks and dodges, are silent about the bad qualities of their
wares and exaggerate the good ones; these are the dairymen who put
water in their milk (“for absolutely pure milk is not wholesome”, they
say); the doctors who make visits when they are no longer necessary;
these are those who.... But let us stop; we could fill pages with the
practices of those whose honesty is not proof against trial. [943]
In going from B to C the moral aversion to such acts, observed in
individuals, becomes gradually greater, and the danger that they will
commit such practices diminishes, and we finally approach those who
should be placed between C and D, those who are in no way guilty of
such acts.
As is always the case with economic crimes, it is, then, the
environment that is the cause of these offenses, while individual
differences explain in part who are the authors of them.
We come now to the last category of the criminals of this group, to the
great criminals, to those who throw themselves into gigantic
enterprises while knowing beforehand that these will certainly or
probably fail, or those who make great purchases of stock, and
afterward cause a rise in price through the dissemination of false
news, etc.
If there is any kind of crime that is the consequence of the economic
environment exclusively, this is the one. Such crimes can arise only in
a time like ours, with its insatiable thirst for gold, with the
unlimited opportunity to deceive the public, greedy for great profits.
A superficial knowledge of economic history is enough to make it plain
that the bourgeois crimes, and especially those which we are now
discussing, can be committed only under an economic system of the kind
that ours is.
This should make those anthropologists reflect who wish always to find
the causes of crime in the man himself and not in his surroundings.
Naturally the originators of such deeds are marked out by
characteristic traits. But there is no reason to admit that persons
with such dispositions could not have been born also under a different
economic system. Yet such crimes do not appear under any other mode of
production.
What is the kind of persons who commit these crimes which society has
prepared for? We note first that chance must have prepared such
individuals in the proper environment, for a crime of this kind. If
they were in the class of agriculturists, for example, the idea of
committing it would not have occurred to them; it is only in a special
environment that such crimes can be committed.
These people are characterized, in the first place, by excessive
cupidity. In this regard they come high in the curve. Their prodigality
is without limits; once they have executed a great coup they buy
splendid palaces, give costly fêtes, support several mistresses, etc.
An individual of this type, Arton, had a mistress who cost him 300,000
francs in one year; he needed a million to cover his annual expenses.
[944] This is why they are not content with the large incomes which
they could obtain honestly; they wish to surpass others in wealth,
being ordinarily very vain. [945]
We have said that such individuals would probably have succeeded in
securing large incomes honestly, for all are of a high order of
intelligence. In following their machinations we are astonished by
their perspicacity and their cleverness. Plans like theirs could never
have been conceived and still less executed by men of mediocre
intelligence. [946]
“I believe,” says Professor Morselli in his preface to Laschi’s work
which we have quoted, “in fact, that no common intelligence is needed
to cover up malversations for a long time, to organize clever swindles,
outrageous frauds and bankruptcies, exploitations of the credulous
public. It needs no more talent, perhaps it needs less, to accomplish a
great number of useful and honest things, to make a so-called discovery
or invention. We have, as I have said elsewhere, a fetishism with
regard to genius, talent, higher intelligence. The effort of mental
energy which is required by the complex planning and execution of a
financial crime does not differ, as far as cerebral dynamics are
concerned, from the effort demanded by an action that is perfectly
regular from a moral point of view.” [947]
In the third place, this class consists of persons who, as to the
intensity of their moral sentiments, take the lowest place. What an
ordinary criminal does in a small way, they do on a gigantic scale;
while the former injures a single person, or only a few, the latter
bring misfortune to great numbers. And they do it with indifference,
for the disapprobation of honest men does not touch them.
As I have already shown elsewhere, brought up in no matter what
environment, such individuals would not excel in the strength of their
social sentiments. But I have added that, nevertheless, the influence
of the environment of these persons is very great. We do not know much
of the circumstances under which they have passed their youth. At least
Laschi makes no mention of them in “Le crime financier”, the principal
work upon this class of misdeeds. It is more than probable that their
moral education is totally lacking, or has been only very superficial.
Theresa Humbert, for example, had already been instructed by her father
in the art of swindling on a large scale.
On the other hand we know the environment in which they have generally
passed the rest of their lives. They belong to the world of
speculation, an environment which has very special ideas upon economic
morals. In most of the cases of this kind, facts are brought out which
show that the moral ideas in these circles differ much from those of
the rest of mankind. It is evident that those who commit these crimes
go farther than the morality of their world permits. But it takes great
moral perspicacity to distinguish in this field the demarcations
between what is permitted and what is not, and it is just this
perspicacity that some persons lack. This is why most criminals of this
kind, when they are brought into court, say with sincere conviction
that they are innocent, that they have done nothing that is
incompatible with morality. [948]
Then, speculation etc. is one of the infallible means for killing all
social sentiments; it is egoism pure and simple. Can we be astonished
that some of these individuals [949] in such an environment enter into
conflict with the penal law? It seems to me not. Nor is there any
reason to grant that they are abnormal from a biological point of view.
So even the Italian school is forced to admit that the stigmata found
elsewhere cannot be pointed out in these individuals. [950]
Furthermore, in this case we can hardly speak of atavism. It may be
that our ancestors were great offenders, but it is not probable that
they ever were guilty of swindles of this kind.
It is not necessary to speak fully of the reasons which cause these
acts to be classed as crimes. They are harmful to the regular progress
of capitalism and consequently are threatened with penalties. The
punishment of the adulteration of food-stuffs, on the contrary, is a
consequence of the opposition of the consumers to one of the harmful
effects of this system.
In this connection it is interesting to note, first, that the penalties
prescribed for these crimes are relatively light as compared with those
for ordinary economic crimes, like theft, for example, especially when
we reflect that the harm done by them is much greater; second, that the
number of punishable acts is very limited as compared with those which
really deserve punishment. As Baccaro observes in his work, “Genesi e
funzione delle leggi penali”, it is these crimes which show clearly the
class character of the penal law. [951]
CHAPTER III.
SEXUAL CRIMES.
Most authors who treat of the correlation between criminality and
economic conditions, have devoted their attention to economic crimes
especially, and have had little or nothing to say about sexual crimes.
Man’s sexual instincts, they say, have nothing to do with the economic
life, they are a factor apart, and accordingly there is no relation
between criminal sexuality and economic conditions.
We flatter ourselves that we shall be able to show that their opinion
is erroneous, that a relation between sexual criminality and economic
conditions does exist, although it is by nature less direct than that
between economic crimes and the mode of production.
Having already remarked that the social forms of the sexual life
(marriage and prostitution) are, in the last analysis, determined by
the mode of production, we will not return to this topic. And it does
not fall within the province of this work to speak of the relation of
the intensity of the sexual life in general to economic conditions.
From history we see that the sexual life plays now a greater, now a
smaller part. It would be hard to admit that the causes of these
changes are within man and not outside of him, particularly when very
evident causes are to be found in the environment. Who does not see
that the intensity of the sexual life of the upper classes of Rome of
the decadence is explained by the exaggerated luxury, the idle
existence of this group, and the dependent position of a part of the
women (slaves).
In our present society the relation between the sexual life and
economic conditions is equally clear. Everyone knows that the sexuality
which occupies a very great place in that part of the bourgeoisie which
passes its life in idleness and prodigality, is the consequence of this
manner of living. On the other hand the low intellectual condition of
the proletariat is the cause of a sexual life much more intense than it
would be if the environment permitted a harmonious development of the
whole nature. Engels, in his “Condition of the Working-class in
England”, says of the English proletarians, what is applicable to the
workers in other countries also. “Next to intemperance in the enjoyment
of intoxicating liquors, one of the principal faults of English
working-men is sexual license. But this, too, follows with relentless
logic, with inevitable necessity out of the position of a class left to
itself, with no means of making use of its freedom. The bourgeoisie has
left the working-class only these two pleasures, while imposing upon it
a multitude of labors and hardships, and the consequence is that the
working-men, in order to get something out of life, concentrate their
whole energy upon these two enjoyments, carry them to excess, surrender
to them in the most unbridled manner.” [952]
Further the dependent economic position of woman in our present society
is also a factor of the increase of the intensity of the sexual life
(especially prostitution).
However, it is not this question but sexual criminality upon which we
must fix our attention. Here also we must divide the crimes into
groups, as they differ too much among themselves to be treated of
together. We shall take up in order, then: A. Adultery; B. Rape and
indecent assault upon adults; C. Rape and indecent assault upon
children.
A. Adultery.
It has been said, “the history of property is also that of theft.” In
the same way we may say that the history of monogamy is also that of
adultery, or in other words, that there is no monogamy without
adultery. There must be, therefore, powerful and constant causes
occasioning this offense. As we have seen above when we were setting
forth briefly the history of marriage, adultery by the man was a
permitted act at different stages of the social development. [953] If
we ask why men committed this permitted act, but one reason can be
alleged; they are not monogamous by nature. On the part of the woman
the same act constituted, on the other hand, most often a very serious
offense, threatened with the most severe penalties, which did not,
however, prevent adultery on her side also. The cause is not different
for the two sexes; women, too, are not monogamous by nature, though
perhaps more nearly so than men.
From what we have just said the etiology of this crime is fixed. The
only difference between the present and the past is that adultery by
the man also is punished in our time—there is no change in the etiology
of the crime. It may be said that the fundamental cause of adultery is
to be found in the nature of man, then, and that it is thus
anthropological and not social. I cannot admit this view of the matter
any more than I can believe that the ultimate cause of theft is the
necessity of eating in order to live. If the fundamental cause of the
offense of which we are treating is to be found in man, it would be
present always and everywhere without reference to the environment.
Sociology shows however, that this is not so. Up to a certain degree of
social development men and women alike have been free in this respect;
in other cases it is only the woman who is forced to remain true to her
husband; and at times both have been compelled to remain faithful.
Consequently, for one who does not consider society as an immovable
body, but sees that everything is in motion, the fundamental cause of
this crime is to be found in the structure of society itself, which in
certain cases, prohibits a man from satisfying his natural
inclinations. When the polygamous tendencies are stronger than the
pressure of society a crime is committed.
If we consulted only the criminal statistics we should hardly ever meet
with adultery. It is unnecessary to add that the penal laws dealing
with this matter are so drawn up that a prosecution for adultery almost
never takes place; it goes without saying, however, that in reality the
offense is very common.
In the first place we must look into the question of the classes of
society in which the offense occurs oftenest. Though there are no
statistics on the matter I believe that we shall not be far wrong in
saying that adultery takes place oftenest in that part of the
bourgeoisie that lives in idleness, often also among the proletariat,
and least often among the intellectual bourgeoisie and the petty
bourgeoisie. In seeking for the causes of this fact we see clearly that
they cannot be found in the man himself, for the individuals forming
these classes do not differ as to their innate characteristics.
Consequently, these causes must be found in the environment; the
following being the principal ones.
First. The more marriage is contracted for convenience the greater the
danger of adultery. This is one reason why adultery is more common
among the “upper ten thousand”, where marriage is often a commercial
affair, and why it is less frequent among the intellectual bourgeoisie,
in which there are more marriages of inclination.
Second. The more frivolous and trifling the life any class leads, the
more frequent will adultery be in it. This is another reason why
adultery is frequent among the idle rich, and less frequent in the
intellectual class and the petty bourgeoisie.
Third. The more the social causes of marriage are felt in a certain
class, the greater the moral aversion to adultery. This is one reason
why this offense is found less often among the petty bourgeoisie than
in the working class.
Fourth. The greater the number of marriages concluded for purely
physical reasons without any intellectual reasons entering in, the more
numerous will be the cases of adultery. This applies especially to the
proletariat, among whom most of the marriages are contracted from
affection, but where, because of lack of culture, there is often no
possibility of intellectual communion. When this harmony is lacking it
comes about that the difficulties of life, so great in this class,
cause an estrangement from which infidelities frequently result.
Finally, let us consider briefly the question of which individuals in
the different classes are guilty of adultery. The predisposition to
polygamy is not the same for all. In the second place, the sexual
instincts are much more intense in some cases than in others. In the
third place the environment in which one has lived is not the same as
that of another, and opportunities do not occur in the same way for
each. The joint action of these causes explains sufficiently why one
commits the offense in question and not another.
In setting forth the etiology of adultery we have been giving the
reasons why it has been designated as a crime. Little by little the
conception of marriage has been modified in consequence of the social
changes that have taken place; there is a growing number of persons who
consider the life in common permissible only when both parties desire
it without being constrained by the law. The partisans of this opinion
disapprove of adultery, but for different reasons from others, who
consider it as the infraction of an acquired right. Professor Ferri
formulates this new morality as follows. “What is vile about adultery
is not that it is an assault upon individual property, it is the
disloyalty of the act, the trickery and hypocrisy of it.” [954]
While finding adultery immoral the adherents of this opinion believe
that the law has no right to interfere. Even the persons who do not
share their point of view believe that the penal code should cease to
concern itself with this crime. Hence it comes, among other things,
that the laws are so drawn that prosecutions are very rare. It is
probable that adultery will disappear from the list of offenses.
B. Rape and Indecent Assault upon Adults.
In his work, “Genèse normale du crime”, Professor Manouvrier expresses
himself as follows upon the crime of rape. “Every normally constituted
man would be a born violator if the sexual appetite could find no other
means of satisfaction than rape. The crime is rare, however, and we
know why; there are women for the ugliest and the poorest. However,
famine may come; there is also opportunity, and many devils capable of
leading into temptation the brute that every man is at his birth. For
the ‘criminologists’ must not delude themselves upon this point if they
wish to make criminal anthropology truly scientific. If we were to take
a well-born child of a distinguished European family, and isolate him
from his birth from all the influences of environment except those
strictly necessary for the preservation of his life, we do not know
what strange beast he would turn into. On the other hand we do know
that behind our acquired polish our natural brutality still persists.”
[955] Here in a few words is the environment theory applied to the
origin of the most serious sexual crimes. Let us consult some facts to
see whether the theory is correct.
First of all it must be remarked that this crime is not the act of a
pervert but of a brute. It is important not to forget this since
perversion does play a part in the crimes which we shall take up under
C. Some authors do not make a distinction between these two kinds of
crimes, which prevents their giving a really fundamental treatment of
the etiology of them.
Let us see what the movement of this crime teaches. Its curve in the
different months shows that it rises towards spring, to reach its
maximum in summer, after which it regularly decreases, reaching its
minimum in winter. An example of this is given in the following table,
which includes also crimes committed against children. [956]
France, 1827–1869.
=========+=============================+==============
|Sexual Crimes Committed Upon | Days of
+--------------+--------------+ Conception
Months. | Adults. | Children. | 1863-1871.
+--------+-----+--------+-----+--------+-----
|Absolute| % |Absolute| % |Absolute| %
|Figures.| |Figures.| |Figures.|
---------+--------+-----+--------+-----+--------+-----
January | 584 | 7.09| 1,106 | 5.57| 2,603 | 7.84
February | 563 | 6.84| 1,041 | 5.23| 2,661 | 8.02
March | 643 | 7.82| 1,366 | 6.88| 2,608 | 7.85
April | 608 | 7.39| 1,700 | 8.56| 2,887 | 8.69
May | 904 |10.98| 2,175 |10.95| 3,000 | 9.21
June | 1,043 |12.67| 2,585 |13.03| 3,018 | 9.08
July | 860 |10.45| 2,459 |12.42| 2,911 | 8.76
August | 794 | 9.64| 2,208 |11.13| 2,742 | 8.25
September| 653 | 7.93| 1,773 | 8.93| 2,810 | 8.46
October | 523 | 6.46| 1,447 | 7.29| 2,625 | 7.91
November | 514 | 6.24| 983 | 4.95| 2,620 | 7.89
December | 534 | 6.49| 939 | 5.05| 2,665 | 8.02
=========+========+=====+========+=====+========+=====
The movement of sexual crimes does not tell us much about their
etiology. It is plain that the opportunity of committing them occurs
much oftener in summer than in winter, and the chance of catching the
criminal “in flagrante delicto” is also much greater during the hot
months. Even without statistics we should know that the temptation to
these acts is greater in warm weather, and further, the rise of
temperature towards spring probably increases the sexual tendencies.
But all this does not explain the origin of this class of crimes, for
if it is true that the sexual tendencies in man are increased by the
rise of the temperature toward spring, this affects the sexual life in
general, and not the sexual criminality alone (as is shown by the
column of the days of conception).
In the same way we learn little of the etiology of these crimes from
their movement in the course of the years. In the first part of this
work we have given some statistics on this question, which we
recapitulate here with additional data.
England.
The author of the English criminal statistics of 1899 fixes attention
upon the fact that the maximum of sexual crimes was reached in 1893 and
1894, when the price of wheat was very low (p. 48).
France, 1825–1878.
As Professor Ferri shows in his study upon the influence of
temperature, [957] the curve of rape committed upon adults presents
some resemblance to that of economic events, the years that were
economically bad coinciding with the minimum figures for the crime in
question. Thus the unfavorable years of 1835–37, 1846–47, 1865–68
brought a diminution of rapes committed upon adults, and the favorable
years of 1832–35, 1847–50, 1857–59 an increase. Although there are some
exceptions, the influence of the economic situation is indubitable.
Italy, 1873–1890.
Dr. Fornasari di Verce says that indecent assaults increase with the
improvement in economic conditions, and vice versa (p. 143). On the
other hand, Dr. Colajanni proved for the different parts of Italy
(1875–1880) that a greater consumption of meat did not lead in most
cases (22 out of 35) to an increase in the number of indecent assaults
(op. cit., pp. 501–504).
New South Wales, 1882–1891.
As we have seen in Part One (p. 144) Dr. Fornasari di Verce has shown
that in this country sexual crimes increase in prosperous years, and
vice versa.
Prussia, 1854–1896.
As to this country, Professor von Oettingen gives, for the years
1854–1859 and 1862–1871, some figures which show a slight connection
between the price of grain and sexual crimes (Part One, pp. 53, 54).
Dr. Müller also shows (see the tables pp. 77, 78 and pp. 80, 81) that
economic conditions exercise an influence upon sexual crimes; thus, for
example, the years 1857–1859 were characterized by cheap grain and high
figures for sexual crimes; the same was true of the years 1863–1866 and
1869. On the contrary the years 1854–1856 and 1861, show a high price
for grain and low figures for the crimes in question. There were,
however, some exceptions; during the crisis of 1873–74 the sexual
crimes did not decrease, and in the following years the correspondence
of the curve of these crimes with that of the economic situation is no
longer to be noted.
The data upon the relation between the economic situation and these
crimes are not as numerous as those upon economic crimes, and there are
also many exceptions. With some reservations, however, we can say that
an improvement in economic conditions tends to increase the crimes in
question. However, this does not teach us much with regard to the
etiology of them; the statistics of births have long since shown us
that the sexual life is more intense during the periods of economic
prosperity, than during those of depression. [958] Better nourishment
renders the sexual instincts stronger, without its being necessary that
they should manifest themselves in a criminal manner. The proof of this
is furnished by those who are sufficiently nourished both in good times
and bad and are yet not guilty of these crimes. (For statistical proofs
see the statistics given later.)
We must then try to discover the true crime-producing factors in other
statistical data. First let us inquire whether married or unmarried
persons are more often guilty? As we have seen above, German criminal
statistics are the only ones which give us absolutely certain
information on this point. These show (see p. 454) that at all ages
bachelors, widowers, and divorced men are more often guilty of sexual
crimes than married men, and at certain ages much more so.
Unfortunately these statistics do not distinguish the rapes committed
upon adults from those committed upon children. The data of Dr. J.
Socquet give us some slight information. [959]
France, 1876–1880.
=============+=================================
|To 1,000,000 of the Population in
Civil Status.| Each Group there were Charged
| with Rape upon Adults
-------------+---------------------------------
Bachelors | 8
Married men | 3
Widowers | 2
=============+=================================
Marriage, then, tends to diminish the number of these crimes. The
economic life having, in its turn an influence upon the number of
marriages the relation between this life and the crimes in question is
clear. If the economic situation of many persons did not prevent their
contracting marriage at the period of life indicated by nature, these
crimes would be much less frequent. As Dr. Augagneur says: “Our laws
and physiological exigencies do not harmonize.”
A second question is, what is the class of the population that commits
these crimes? As we have seen, the statistics of Italy and Austria show
(see pp. 437, 438) that it is almost exclusively the poor who are
guilty of sexual crimes. In Italy 92.1% are indigent or have only the
strict necessaries of life; in Austria 91.2% are without fortune, and
only 0.2% are well-to-do.
The statistics of the professions of convicts in Germany (see p. 441)
show also that those who are arraigned for these crimes are especially
working-men, and particularly unskilled laborers (among whom the
statistics include also white-slave traders, professional criminals,
etc., see p. 442). Unfortunately these statistics do not distinguish
between sexual crimes committed upon adults and those committed upon
children. The following table shows that the number is greater for the
first than for the second of these crimes. [960]
France, 1836–1880.
======================================+=================+=================
| 1836-1840. | 1876-1880.
+-----------------+-----------------
| Percentage of Total Number
| Accused of Rape and Indecent
| Assault Committed Upon
+-------+---------+-------+---------
|Adults.|Children.|Adults.|Children.
--------------------------------------+-------+---------+-------+---------
Engaged in the cultivation of the | | | |
soil, laborers, farm servants, etc. | 38 | 33 | 52 | 39
Workers engaged in handling the | | | |
products of the soil, iron, | | | |
wood, etc. | 30 | 26 | 25 | 25
Bakers, butchers, cabinet-makers, etc.| 5 | 4 | 4 | 4
Tailors, wigmakers, hat-makers | 7 | 8 | 3 | 6
Merchants | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5
Sailors, carters, porters | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3
Domestic servants and keepers of inns,| | | |
lodging houses and cafés | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4
Liberal professions | 5 | 11 | 4.5 | 10
Vagrants | 3 | 4 | 1.5 | 4
+-------+---------+-------+---------
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100
======================================+=======+=========+=======+=========
Although this table by itself has little value, since the comparative
figures for the population in general are lacking, it suffices to show,
by comparison with the preceding tables, that the crime with which we
are concerned is committed by working-people especially. The criminals
in a large number of the cases are rural, as the last table proves to a
certain extent, and as further appears from the following. [961]
France, 1846–1880.
=================+==============+==============
| 1846-1850. | 1876-1880.
Residence. +--------+-----+--------+-----
|Absolute| % |Absolute| %
|Numbers.| |Numbers.|
-----------------+--------+-----+--------+-----
Rural population | 804 | 74 | 412 | 67
Urban population | 264 | 24 | 160 | 27
Residence unknown| 16 | 2 | 38 | 6
+--------+-----+--------+-----
Total | 1,084 | 100 | 610 | 100
=================+========+=====+========+=====
Even when we take account of the fact that the rural population in
France is more numerous than the urban, we still see that the crime in
question is committed in the country especially. [962]
We must further inquire what is the part of the proletariat that is
guilty of rape upon adults? The answer must be that it is that which
forms the lowest stratum of society. As preceding statistics have shown
us (see pp. 427–430, 432), the number of illiterates or of those who
know only how to read and write, is very great among the authors of
sexual crimes. The following table gives us data more detailed and
concerned only with rape upon adults. [963]
France, 1875–1884.
=======================+========+=======+=====================
| | | To 100 Persons
Education. |Absolute| % |upon the Conscription
|Numbers.| | Lists (1880).
-----------------------+--------+-------+---------------------
Unable to read or write| 319 | 28 | 13.8
Able to read and write | 802 | 71 | --
With a higher education| 12 | 1 | --
=======================+========+=======+=====================
Upon the basis of this table we have the right to say, then, that this
crime is almost never committed by persons having more than a primary
education.
This fact destroys the theory that the “human beast” exists independent
of environment; for if such were the case, this crime would be
relatively as frequent among more highly developed persons as among
those that are less so. This table proves what is always forgotten by
criminal anthropologists, that a man becomes a brute only under certain
fixed circumstances, and commits then acts that would be repugnant to
him if he lived in a different environment.
Those who commit these acts come from the strata of society in which,
in consequence of their living conditions, the sexual life is
considered from a purely animal point of view. What is the environment
in which the children of the lowest classes grow up, and what is the
sexual morality that they derive from it? The simple truth is that
there is no sexual morality for them. In consequence of the detestable
housing conditions (compare what was said upon this subject in
connection with prostitution) and of the bad society with which they
are thrown, the children are thoroughly conversant with the sexual life
in its most bestial manifestations. Their attention is fixed upon the
sexual life at an age at which it is still a closed book to children
brought up in a wholesome environment. As Dr. Lux says in his excellent
study upon sexual crimes, “Need, misery, and vice are the natural
surroundings of the children of the proletariat, and especially of the
lower proletariat; they form the environment out of which the child
draws his first and most lasting impressions; they are the school from
which they derive the lessons of a system of ethics which is in marked
contrast with the ethics of progressive humanity. Conceptions of moral
restraints can hardly be awakened in the offspring of the lowest ranks
of the proletariat; on the contrary, so far as the sexual sphere is
concerned, they are suppressed by the undisguised sexual intercourse of
parents, other adults, and prostitutes, with whom the children are
continually coming into contact....” [964]
One of the consequences of the lower position of woman in our present
society is that man considers women as destined to submit to his sexual
will. This is especially the case in the lower strata of the
population, where the woman is often only a means by which the man may
satisfy his desires.
Finally, alcoholism is still to be added as a criminogenous factor.
Above (pp. 509 ff.) we have seen that there are many chronic alcoholics
among the authors of these crimes; in Germany 23.3% and 20.5%, in
France 51.5% and 55.7%, in the Netherlands 10.84%, and in Wurtemberg
36.3%.
There is still another way in which alcoholism figures in the etiology
of these crimes. At a certain stage of intoxication the sexual
instincts are stimulated, while the moral forces are weakened. [965] So
in the cases where a sexual crime has been committed in a state of
drunkenness we may be sure that alcohol has been one of the principal
factors of it. The following figures give us some information on this
point.
England.
In his report to the international penitentiary congress at Brussels,
Dr. M. W. C. Sullivan shows, as the result of an investigation, that
more than 50% of the sexual crimes were caused by alcoholism, and that
acute alcoholism is especially active in the case of rape upon adults.
[966]
Austria, 1896–1897.
Out of 179 cases of rape, etc., there were 46 (25.7%) committed in a
state of drunkenness. [967]
France.
In his report at the Congress mentioned above, Marambat says that 6.6%
of the rapes and indecent assaults have been committed in a state of
intoxication. [968]
Netherlands.
The criminal statistics show that 11.82% of those convicted of sexual
crimes commit them under the influence of alcoholic drinks. [969]
Sweden.
Sigfrid Wieselgren, director general of the penitentiary establishments
of Sweden, in his report to the Brussels Congress gives a table which
shows that about 36% of those guilty of indecent assault were drunk at
the time of the crime. [970]
Switzerland, 1892–1896.
According to the criminal statistics, 21.5% of all the sexual crimes
are due to alcoholism. [971]
To sum up, we see that the causes of these crimes are the economic
condition which prevents some individuals from marrying at the natural
age, the inferior social position of woman, alcoholism, and above all
the sexual demoralization and lack of civilization in the lowest strata
of society.
It is plain that not all the individuals who live in this environment
are guilty of the crimes in question. The sexual instincts do not have
equal force at all ages, nor with all individuals. There are
individuals who have very pronounced sexual propensities, others who
are almost indifferent in this respect, and between the two extremes
lies the great majority. It is only for the first class that the danger
of a crime against morals is great, for the others it is less so. If
the opportunity (rape is almost always an “occasional” crime) presents
itself to persons already predisposed, the moral check to restrain them
is lacking. If they had lived in another environment, this act would be
repugnant to them, as statistics prove; for this crime is not committed
by persons of the other classes, although there are naturally
proportionally more persons with strong sexual instincts among them.
The opportunity to commit these crimes is happily not very frequent. As
Voltaire has expressed it, “Rape is a crime as hard to prove as it is
to commit.”
We must add a few words upon the history of this crime and the causes
that have led to its being classified as such. As Dr. Post (the
principal authority upon this question) has shown, among many primitive
peoples rape is only considered as a detriment to the property of the
man. [972] It is only little by little as the position of woman
improves, and her individuality is recognized, that rape is considered
as a grave encroachment upon the liberty of the woman, and that it is
punished as such.
C. Rape and Indecent Assault upon Children.
An examination of the etiology of these crimes shows that in great part
the individuals who are guilty of them belong to the same category of
criminals as those who commit sexual crimes upon adults. If they seduce
or outrage a child and not a woman it is from accidental reasons
(opportunity, lack of bodily strength, etc.); they are brutes who wish
to satisfy their sexual instincts at any price; they are not, however,
perverts. Although there is a quantitative difference between the man
who violates an adult and one who commits this act upon a child (the
latter being grosser and more egoistic than the former), there is no
qualitative difference between the two so far as the majority of the
criminals of whom we are speaking are concerned. We should only repeat
ourselves if we treated of the etiology of these crimes more fully.
As with the crimes of which we were speaking above, there is with
crimes against children also, a great increase toward spring, the
maximum being reached in the month of June, after which there is a
decrease, with the minimum in winter. [973] The statistics given for
France show also that in this country the periods of economic
prosperity bring an increase of these crimes, and the periods of
depression a decrease. [974] And it is probably the same with other
countries. As has been said also of the crimes against adults, all this
shows us very little of the etiology of these crimes, since the
intensity of the sexual life in general rises and falls in accordance
with the economic situation.
Here also the married men play a smaller part than the unmarried and
divorced; the poor classes show a larger number of crimes than those
that have property (see p. 616); the illiterate, and persons who know
how to read and write simply, show also proportionately higher figures
than persons with a higher education, [975] and alcoholism again takes
its place among the causes of this crime. [976]
A minute comparison of the statistics of sexual crimes committed upon
adults and of those upon children shows that a part of the latter are
of a character quite different from the former. By comparing, for
example, the statistics of the civil status of persons arraigned, we
see that the number of married men and widowers is proportionately much
greater in the case of crimes against children than against adults. The
following table shows this: [977]
France, 1876–1880.
==============+==================================
|To 1,000,000 of the Population of
|Each Group there were Arraigned
Civil Status. | For Rape Upon
+---------------+------------------
| Adults. | Children.
--------------+---------------+------------------
Bachelors | 8 | 37
Married men | 3 | 25
Widowers | 3 | 50
==============+===============+==================
A comparison of the statistics of the occupation of the two groups of
these criminals (see p. 616) shows that in the crimes upon children,
the liberal professions show twice as many as those committed upon
adults. The same is true of merchants. [978]
The figures with regard to education show that the illiterate are about
equally numerous in both groups of criminals, but that the percentage
of those who have a higher education is 5 in the case of crimes upon
children, and barely 1 for those upon adults. [979]
While, as we have seen, sexual crimes upon adults are chiefly committed
in the country, the cities and manufacturing centers occupy a much more
important place in the statistics of those upon children, as the
following table proves. [980]
France, 1876–1880.
===========+================================
| Rape and Indecent Assault Upon
+---------------+----------------
Residence. | Adults. | Children.
+---------------+----------------
| % | %
-----------+---------------+----------------
Rural | 67 | 53
Urban | 27 | 43
Unknown | 6 | 4
===========+===============+================
Contrary to what we find with regard to sexual crimes against adults it
is also the departments with the great cities which, in comparison with
the rural districts, give the highest figures. [981]
It appears from an examination of these data that sexual crimes upon
children and those upon adults have, in part a different etiology. Many
sexual crimes upon children are committed by persons who could also
satisfy their desires with adults, but abuse children instead. These,
then, are cases of sexual perverts.
A thorough examination of the causes of this perversion would be ill
placed in the midst of our investigation of the social etiology of
crime, for they are principally of a pathological nature. However
prostitution should be mentioned as contributing more to sexual
demoralization than any other cause. As Dr. Després says in his work
“La prostitution en France”, “Physicians think that rape [982] is an
aberration of the genetic faculty and that this crime is more often the
result of satiety than of deprivation of the natural exercise of the
genital functions.” [983]
Dr. Ladame expresses himself thus. “All the causes which divert the
genetic faculty from its natural end may lead to crime, and among these
causes prostitution plays, without doubt, the principal part.” [984]
It is plainly difficult to show by figures the degree of importance of
prostitution in the etiology of sexual crimes. The Swiss statistics,
which try, though very imperfectly, to record the causes of crimes, say
that 5.3% of the sexual crimes are caused by prostitution. [985] It is
unnecessary to say that this figure is too low.
We may add in conclusion that it is almost always upon the children of
the poor that these crimes are committed. The children of well-to-do
parents are so well guarded that crimes against them are the rare
exceptions. [986]
CHAPTER IV.
CRIMES FROM VENGEANCE AND OTHER MOTIVES.
Besides economic, sexual, and political criminality, there is still a
fourth category of crimes, the motives of which are quite diverse. We
shall treat, A. Crimes from vengeance, and B. Infanticide. The first
group is important both quantitatively and qualitatively; the second,
especially, qualitatively. The crimes committed from other motives are
either very rare, or very insignificant, or may be explained by the
same causes as those included under A, and hence may be passed over in
silence. [987]
A. Crimes Committed from Vengeance.
In a sociological work like ours we need not consider the psychology of
vengeance. [988] For our subject it is sufficient to show that the
feeling is innate in everyone, although in different degrees. As soon
as one person injures another, whether bodily, or in his interests, or
his honor, the desire to retaliate in one way or another immediately
appears. If this desire transforms itself into act, this act calls
forth a stronger reaction on the part of the opposing party, etc. It is
this that is called the instinct of vengeance. [989]
We must then begin by treating the causes calling forth feelings of
revenge, and by fixing our attention upon the two principal categories
of causes, those which spring from the economic life, and those which
are due to the sexual life.
We shall speak first of the causes that are due to the economic life.
The fundamental principle of the mode of production in which we live is
competition, strife—in other words, doing injury to others. So there
are innumerable cases in which the desire for revenge is excited by the
economic life. Many sociologists extol the beauty of this struggle and
pretend that its effect upon society is excellent. We shall refrain
from examining the truth or falsity of this statement; for the matter
in hand we need not concern ourselves with the fortunate victors, but
simply with the vanquished. After the exposition of the present system
of production it is superfluous to show all the opposing economic
interests and the feelings resulting therefrom; we shall mention a few,
and the others will be easily understood.
Imagine, for example, the state of mind of a small retailer who finds
himself totally ruined by the competition of a large department store
in the neighborhood; of that of working-men suffering great privations
during a strike, who see themselves supplanted by others, who think
only of their immediate interest in acting as strike-breakers. Or
imagine, again, the innumerable cases in which questions of inheritance
awaken vengeful feelings. And side by side with all this, picture the
economic life of village-communities where all the economic interests
were parallel, and where consequently the economic life engendered
neither envy nor jealousy. Anyone who grasps the enormous difference
between these two modes of production, will understand also how the
feelings of revenge are excited by the present economic system. [990]
In the second place, how far are vengeful feelings aroused by
sexuality? [991] As Sutherland remarks in his “Origin and Growth of the
Moral Instinct”, there are no peoples who are not more or less jealous
in sexual matters, [992] but great differences are to be observed in
this respect. While Nansen, for example tells how the Eskimo women are
almost ignorant of sexual jealousy, [993] there are other peoples among
whom the woman is killed by her husband if another man evinces any
regard for her. [994]
The facts show that the greater the power of the man over the woman,
the greater also is the sexual jealousy of the man, a jealousy which,
among other things, manifests itself in the very severe punishment of
adultery. [995] He who has a right to something wishes to keep it for
himself and does not tolerate injury to it on the part of anyone else.
When the man considers the woman as his chattel, or when he has great
power over her, sexual jealousy is strengthened by the feelings
connected with property. These latter feelings were more predominant
among the primitive peoples than true sexual jealousy, a proof of which
is that fact that among many of these peoples the law of hospitality
required putting the wife at the disposal of the guest.
From the present form of marriage (as among many primitive peoples) it
follows that each party has a right with relation to the other. [996]
The violation of this right is considered as a serious injury and gives
rise to a desire for revenge. This phenomenon is not natural, but
historical. If the present state of society did not necessitate an
artificial stability in sexual relationships, if the man and his wife
were economically independent, they would not believe that they had
rights over each other. [997]
Here is the first bond between sexual jealousy and the social
environment, but there is also a second, though a more remote one,
namely, that it is with those who have a gross conception of the
relations of man and wife, that revengeful feelings arise after love
disappears. Those who, because of the environment in which they live,
have formed a different idea of the relation between man and wife,
while feeling the most violent grief, remain strangers to the desire
for revenge. He who knows that neither love nor sympathy can be bidden,
knows also that a right in this matter can bring no change in the
feelings, and must remain only a nominal thing; he sees only the action
of fate, where the brute sees an evil will. This is one reason why the
number of crimes of passion is smaller among civilized people than
among the partly civilized.
We must notice, further, one kind of crime of passion, the revenge of a
woman seduced and then abandoned. Besides sexual jealousy there are, in
these cases, other motives playing their part. Often the woman has not
given herself for love alone, but also with the prospect of a marriage,
or a betterment of her economic position. It is not sexual vengeance
that is the sole motive here then, but also vengeance for economic
reasons. [998] Further the prohibition of inquiring into the question
of paternity may also enter in. [999]
After having pointed out the two principal categories of causes that
awaken revengeful feelings we must now enquire why, with certain
individuals, these feelings are translated into acts. Many
criminologists prefer to find environment of small importance in these
crimes and the individual factors the predominant ones. Let us see
whether the facts will uphold this theory. To begin with let us ask
what the movement of these crimes teaches us.
As statistics show, they increase towards spring, reach their maximum
in summer, after which a decrease follows with the minimum in winter,
as the following table proves. [1000]
Germany, 1883–1892.
=============+======================================
| Crimes.
+--------------------------------------
|On the basis of a supposed Average of
|100 Crimes a Day the Daily Average for
| the Different Months would be
+-------------------+------------------
| Serious assaults | Homicides
-------------+-------------------+------------------
January. | 75 | 88
February. | 78 | 84
March. | 78 | 100
April. | 84 | 95
May. | 102 | 108
June. | 116 | 113
July. | 119 | 118
August. | 116 | 133
September. | 110 | 124
October. | 106 | 106
November. | 93 | 93
December. | 80 | 78
=============+===================+==================
Some authors seek for a remote explanation, when there is one near at
hand: in summer persons are more in contact with each other, a fact
which gives opportunity for disputes, and an increased danger of
consequent crimes.
We may sum up the principal data upon the movement of these crimes in
relation to the economic situation (given in Part One of this work) as
follows.
England, 1840–1890.
Fornasari di Verce draws attention to the fact that crimes against
persons (represented in great part by crimes of vengeance) increase in
times of economic prosperity and vice versa (see p. 144. See also the
data of Mayr, pp. 43 and 44).
Bavaria, 1835–1861.
Mayr shows for this period that crimes against persons increase when
the price of grain falls and vice versa (see pp. 40–42).
Italy, 1873–1890.
According to Fornasari di Verce there is a diminution of homicides and
assaults when economic conditions grow worse, and vice versa (see p.
143).
New South Wales, 1882–1891.
The same author says that homicides and assaults increase, while minor
offenses against persons decrease, when economic conditions grow worse
and vice versa (see p. 144).
Prussia, 1854–1896.
Dr. Starke and Dr. Müller show that the crimes we are considering
increase when economic conditions improve, and decrease when they grow
worse (see pp. 66 and 83). However, they show at the same time that
these phenomena did not take place at the beginning of the period
observed by them. Later they follow the regular course. [1001]
Canton of Zürich, 1853–1892.
For the period mentioned Meyer proves that crimes against persons
increase when economic conditions improve (see p. 69).
Examining these results we observe that the crimes in question increase
in the periods of prosperity, and vice versa; but we see at the same
time that there are also noteworthy exceptions (New South Wales and
France), and that in Germany in the last 20 or 30 years, this tendency
is no longer present. [1002] It is not difficult, it seems to me, to
explain why these crimes increase in periods of prosperity. Men are
thrown then into contact more frequently, they live a little more for
amusement, and consume (and this is certainly one of the principal
reasons) more alcohol than usual. Some authors see in this movement of
crimes against persons a natural law, according to which criminality
would be a fixed quantity, manifesting itself in economic crimes in
periods of depression, and in crimes against the person in periods of
prosperity.
As I have already said more than once this theory is erroneous. If it
were really true that an improvement of the economic situation
inevitably brought about an increase of crimes against persons, the
class of individuals who are always in fairly good circumstances would
also be largely guilty of these crimes. Statistics show us the
contrary.
Thus we arrive at the very important question, what are the classes of
the population which are especially guilty of these crimes? As the
statistics already given show they are the poorest classes (see pp. 437
ff.). In Italy, for example, 89.8% of those who commit homicide, and
91.1% of those guilty of assault, were indigent or had only the bare
necessities of life, though these form but 60% of the population. The
same is true of Austria, and the statistics of occupations gives a
similar result for Germany (see pp. 441 and 442).
The statistics that give information upon the degree of education of
these criminals are more interesting still. As we have seen above, only
0.1% of those guilty of assault had a higher education, while 40.5% of
these criminals were illiterate, and 59.4% knew only how to read, or to
read and write. In France from 1896 to 1900 the completely illiterate
constituted 16% of those guilty of assault, and 15% of the assassins,
while in the general population there were only 4.5% who did not know
how to sign their names. In Italy only 1% of the assassins and only
0.6% of those guilty of assault had a higher education, 99% and 99.4%
respectively were illiterate or knew only how to read and write. These
are striking figures.
In this connection let us stop for a moment to consider the geography
of these crimes, and place beside the figures on this point those of
illiteracy. We will begin with a table of figures for homicide and
assaults followed by death, for some of the countries of Europe. [1003]
==============+========+==================+=======+===========
| | Homicides and | |
| | Assaults followed| |
Country.[1004]| Years. | by Death to |Years. |Illiteracy
| | 100,000 | | %.
| | Inhabitants. | |
--------------+--------+------------------+-------+-----------
Italy | 1880-84| 70.0 | 1882 | 57.43
Spain | 1883-84| 64.9 | 1889 | 68.10
Hungary | 1876-80| 56.2 | 1880 | 59.70
Austria | 1877-81| 10.8 | ,, | 40.10
Belgium | 1876-80| 8.5 | ,, | 21.66
Ireland | 1880-84| 8.1 | 1882 | 30.00
France | ,, | 6.4 | ,, | 13.10
Scotland | ,, | 4.4 | ,, | 11.00
England | ,, | 3.9 | 1883 | 14.00
Germany | 1882-84| 3.4 |1881-82| 1.54
Holland | 1880-81| 3.1 | 1880 | 11.50
==============+========+==================+=======+==========
No one will deny the striking parallelism between these columns, the
highest figures for homicide being found where there are also the
largest figures for illiteracy. As we have seen already, however,
international statistics have inherent defects. The following figures
are better in this regard: [1005]
United States.
========================+====================+==========
| Number of Homicides| Illiteracy
Birthplace. | to 100,000 | %.
| Inhabitants. |
------------------------+--------------------+-----------
Sweden, Norway, Denmark | 5.8 | 0.42
Germany | 9.7 | 0.57
England and Scotland | 10.4 | 2.50
Austria | 12.2 | 16.73
Ireland | 17.5 | 41.65
France | 27.4 | 43.60
Italy | 58.1 | 51.77
========================+====================+===========
We have here also, then, a striking parallelism. We will now take up
the geography of homicide, etc., in different parts of one country;
some of the faults inherent in the geography of crime are thus
eliminated.
Germany, 1893–1897. [1006]
======================+======================+==============+========================
| Number of Persons | Percentage of|
| Convicted for Serious| Illiterates | Percentage of Votes
States and Provinces.| Assaults to 100,000 | among the | Given to the Socialist
| Inhabitants over 12 | Recruits | in the Election
| Years of Age.[1007] | 1892-1893. | of 1898.[1008]
----------------------+----------------------+--------------+-----------------------
Bavaria | 391 | 0.03 | 18.0
West Prussia | 334 | 4.01 | 4.9
Posen | 326 | 1.72 | 1.7
East Prussia | 265 | 0.98 | 18.3
Silesia | 252 | 0.57 | 22.3
Baden (Grand Duchy) | 250 | 0.02 | 19.1
Hesse | 248 | 0.03 | 33.9
Alsace-Lorraine | 237 | 0.30 | 22.7
Pomerania | 227 | 0.22 | 17.2
Westphalia | 223 | 0.08 | 17.7
Germany | 219 | 0.38 | 27.1
Prussia | 211 | 0.59 | 24.1
Rhine Province | 201 | 0.08 | 15.0
Wurtemberg | 197 | 0.04 | 20.3
Saxony (Province) | 185 | 0.07 | 34.0
Brandenburg | 184 | 0.15 | 35.6
Hesse-Nassau | 161 | 0.14 | 30.9
Hanover | 146 | 0.04 | 25.6
Sleswick-Holstein | 106 | 0.10 | 38.9
Saxony (Kingdom) | 82 | 0.01 | 49.4
======================+======================+==============+========================
The parallelism between the first two columns is undeniable; the states
and provinces with low figures for illiteracy show also a small number
of assaults, and vice versa, with some exceptions—notably Bavaria. The
reason why Bavaria is at the head of the list is undoubtedly because of
the alcoholism that prevails there.
United States, 1890–1900. [1009]
=============+===========+=============
| Number of | Percentage
|Inhabitants| of
| in 1900 to| Illiteracy
|Each Murder| in
States. | (Annual | Population
| Average | Over 10
| from 1890 | Years of
| to 1900). |Age (1900).
-------------+-----------+-----------
Nevada | 1,086 | 12.8
Colorado | 2,141 | 5.2
Montana | 2,704 | 5.5
Texas | 2,986 | 19.7
Mississippi | 3,001 | 40.0
Florida | 3,367 | 27.8
California | 3,519 | 7.7
Delaware | 3,849 | 14.3
Louisiana | 3,859 | 45.8
Alabama | 3,966 | 41.0
Wyoming | 4,206 | 3.4
Maryland | 4,250 | 15.7
Arkansas | 4,300 | 26.6
Utah | 4,855 | 5.6
Tennessee | 4,957 | 26.6
Washington | 5,079 | 4.3
Oregon | 5,235 | 4.1
Kentucky | 5,394 | 21.6
Georgia | 5,817 | 39.8
Idaho | 5,992 | 5.1
S. Carolina | 6,064 | 45.0
Virginia | 6,079 | 30.2
Kansas | 6,253 | 4.0
Nebraska | 6,360 | 3.1
N. Carolina | 6,645 | 35.7
United States| 7,649 | 13.3
Rhode Island | 8,241 | 9.8
Missouri | 8,582 | 9.1
S. Dakota | 8,924 | 4.2
N. Dakota | 11,005 | 6.0
W. Virginia | 11,021 | 14.4
Indiana | 11,037 | 6.3
Minnesota | 11,105 | 6.0
Iowa | 11,147 | 3.6
Michigan | 11,810 | 5.9
Connecticut | 12,443 | 5.3
Ohio | 12,523 | 5.2
Wisconsin | 13,435 | 6.7
New York | 14,195 | 5.5
Illinois | 15,306 | 5.2
New Jersey | 15,697 | 6.5
Pennsylvania | 20,169 | 6.8
Massachusetts| 29,222 | 6.2
Maine | 38,581 | 3.3
New Hampshire| 45,732 | 6.8
Vermont | 57,274 | 6.7
=============+===========+==============
Although less complete than in the preceding table, the parallelism
here is nevertheless striking; all the states below the average for
illiteracy, except one, rank low also in the number of murders. There
are however some very remarkable exceptions to the general tendency,
some states with small figures for illiteracy having nevertheless high
figures for homicide. It is not possible for me to explain the cause of
this, the details with regard to this country being lacking (it is very
remarkable that the newest states are those that constitute the
exceptions). The relation between these crimes and illiteracy is
undeniable however.
Italy, 1880–1883. [1010]
=================+========================+==================
| Simple Homicides | Illiteracy among
| and Assaults Followed | the Conscripts
Provinces. | by Death | (1896).
| to 100,000 Inhabitants.| %[1011]
-----------------+------------------------+------------------
Girgenti | 36.5 | 65.15
Campobasso | 29.5 | 56.35
Avellino | 29.5 | 56.07
Caltanissetta | 29.0 | 58.02
Cantanzaro | 27.3 | 65.76
Trapani | 26.1 | 58.49
Cosenza | 25.7 | 44.17
Palermo | 22.3 | 45.21
Naples | 22.2 | 45.15
Potenza | 21.4 | 55.63
Caserte | 21.3 | 43.11
Aquila | 20.7 | 38.56
Calabria | 19.5 | 43.95
Rome | 17.7 | 35.33
Salerno | 17.4 | 60.37
Catania | 16.7 | 64.04
Chieti | 16.6 | 57.44
Sassari | 16.1 | 53.09
Leghorn | 14.0 | 15.68
Teramo | 13.8 | 61.37
Arezzo | 13.4 | 38.60
Ancona | 13.1 | 36.24
Lucca | 11.9 | 18.49
Messina | 10.9 | 49.52
Forli | 10.2 | 49.63
Grosseto | 10.2 | 61.42
Bari | 10.1 | 64.60
Ravenna | 10.1 | 43.23
Perugia | 10.0 | 48.99
Cagliari | 9.7 | 68.08
Pesaro e Urbino | 9.4 | 53.94
Massa e Carrara | 8.3 | 34.46
Macerata | 7.5 | 43.43
Italy | 7.0 | 36.65
Lecce | 6.9 | 58.57
Ascoli Piceno | 6.7 | 53.81
Pisa | 6.0 | 35.86
Treviso | 5.9 | 24.95
Cueno | 5.5 | 18.68
Alessandria | 5.2 | 9.86
Turin | 4.9 | 19.71
Florence | 4.3 | 35.16
Genoa | 4.2 | 24.16
Mantua | 4.0 | 25.06
Udine | 4.0 | 11.08
Venice | 3.9 | 31.92
Bologna | 3.9 | 24.68
Sienna | 3.9 | 48.56
Piacenza | 3.5 | 37.82
Padua | 3.0 | 34.32
Porto Maurizio | 3.0 | 13.64
Novara | 2.9 | 12.18
Bergama | 2.8 | 27.00
Vicenza | 2.5 | 31.41
Brescia | 2.5 | 20.72
Emilia | 2.4 | 33.08
Como | 2.3 | 8.89
Pavia | 2.3 | 21.39
Verona | 2.3 | 31.86
Ferrara | 2.2 | 36.97
Modena | 1.8 | 35.41
Belluno | 1.7 | 25.62
Cremona | 1.6 | 12.71
Milan | 1.4 | 18.85
Parma | 1.1 | 31.68
=================+========================+===================
In this country also the parallelism is undeniable; almost all the
provinces with low figures for illiteracy have also low figures for
criminality, and vice versa.
To conclude, here are some figures with regard to
The Netherlands, 1901. [1012]
==============+======================+==================
| Assaults to | Illiteracy among
Provinces. | 100,000 Inhabitants. | the Conscripts.
| | %
--------------+----------------------+------------------
Drenthe | 15.9 | 7.2
Limburg | 13.7 | 3.6
North Brabant | 12.9 | 4.1
Groningen | 12.6 | 2.8
Zeeland | 8.3 | 2.3
Overijssel | 8.2 | 3.3
Gelderland | 8.2 | 1.7
Netherlands | 7.6 | 2.3
Friesland | 7.3 | 2.3
Utrecht | 6.9 | 1.1
South Holland | 4.2 | 1.1
North Holland | 3.8 | 1.2
==============+======================+==================
We have here then a confirmation in a general way of the rule proved
for other countries.
In view of all the preceding data we must conclude that it is the less
civilized persons who commit crimes of this class. How is this to be
explained? This is what we shall proceed to examine.
The first reason is that the more civilized a person is the less
revengeful feelings arise when some one injures him. The more the
motives of actions are appreciated, the less the desire for revenge
springs up. A child wants to revenge himself even upon an inanimate
object that has hurt him; it is almost the same with uncivilized
peoples, who so rarely take account of the motives of human action. It
is not so long ago that men took vengeance upon maniacs, a thing which
could not happen today.
In the second place, when the idea of revenge arises in a civilized man
he is more in a position to restrain himself than the uncivilized; he
is less impulsive; he knows that later he will repent of his act, and
that it may have disagreeable consequences for him.
In the third place civilization inspires a great aversion to acts of
violence.
Thus we come to the correlation between these crimes and the education
of the poor. The child is often moved to revenge, there is no inner
check to restrain his passions. When his education has been neglected
he runs, as his age advances, more danger than others of being guilty
of these crimes. And then children are very imitative. If we had good
statistics with regard to violent criminals we should see that they
almost always spring from surroundings in which violence is common. All
authors who are especially concerned with this matter are in agreement
on this point. [1013] The fact that parents among the lower classes use
blows as a means of instruction has for its national consequence that
when the children are grown they themselves have no fear of making use
of violence. [1014]
One further observation must be made here. Many persons think it quite
natural that one should not have the right to avenge himself for an
injury. Sociology, however, teaches us quite otherwise. Among primitive
peoples revenge, instead of being a thing prohibited, is a sacred duty.
Little by little vengeance, at first unlimited, became confined to “an
eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; this in turn was replaced by the
so called “compensation”; and this in its turn yielded to penalties
inflicted by an authority superior to both parties. [1015]
If we enquire which are the countries where homicides and assaults are
committed most frequently we find that they are the most backward, and
thus give a picture of time past. Here we have in mind especially
Sicily (see the table with regard to Italy some pages higher) and
Corsica (while between 1880 and 1884 there was an annual average of 6.4
homicides to the million inhabitants, the figure for homicides in
Corsica was 110.2). Nothing is more mistaken than to believe that we
have here a question of race. As Professor Tarde remarks (see the
quotation on pp. 109–110), there have been times when the people of
these countries were much less violent than the northern peoples, now
so little given to this kind of crime. These two islands have so high a
figure because the “vendetta” is still universal there, and because it
is considered as a duty. [1016]
Although in less degree, the case is almost the same with the lower
classes of other countries as regards this type of crime. There are
those who from their manner of life most resemble our distant
ancestors. They are not, at least so much as other classes of society,
instilled with the idea that they have no right to avenge themselves
personally. On the contrary it is often considered an act of cowardice
to allow an insult or an injury to pass without taking revenge. This is
why the police are often resisted and their interference considered as
an intrusive meddling with matters with which they have no concern.
Such, in my opinion, are the principal reasons why the less civilized
classes are guilty of these crimes, and thus we are given an idea of
their etiology.
In the first table upon the relation between illiteracy and serious
assaults (Germany) we added also the percentage of votes given to the
socialists. As the table shows the percentage of these votes is in
general smaller in the localities where the kind of crime of which we
have been treating is most frequent; and vice versa. It is, then,
evident that there is a correlation between the two phenomena, and this
is easily explained. In the working circles in which socialism is
beginning to make its way, there is growing little by little, an
interest in things other than those which formerly occupied the
working-men in their leisure hours. They begin to become civilized and
to have an aversion to the coarser amusements. At the same time the
feeling of solidarity is awakened in them, and thus a powerful moral
check is created.
It was especially the figures for the crimes of vengeance that we
placed beside those for the votes given to the socialists, since the
relation between the two phenomena stands out very distinctly. This
correlation, however, holds for criminality in general, for almost all
the countries with a large number of socialist voters show also fairly
low figures for criminality, and vice versa. Nevertheless this
correlation is not as great for other crimes as for those which we are
at present considering, which is explained by the fact that most of the
criminals who are guilty of them are not much like other criminals,
especially those who have no respect for property (criminals from
poverty excepted). These last, greedy of pleasure, and always looking
out for their own interests, are those who, as regards the intensity of
their social instincts, occupy the last place. All this is inapplicable
to criminals by violence; they are not always really wicked, and after
their crime they often show a sincere repentance. Socialism exercises
no influence upon the category of individuals from whom the economic
criminals (from cupidity) are recruited, persons, that is to say, who
think only of their own interest, and show themselves insensible to a
movement for the well-being of the whole working class.
We have still to speak of one question which is sometimes put in
treating of this subject. If it is true, says some one, that it is
principally in consequence of their ignorance and their lack of
civilization that the lower classes commit the crimes in question,
these crimes must little by little present themselves less often, for
the development of these classes is improving, even if only gradually.
Now criminal statistics do show a gradual diminution in these crimes.
Homicide, the gravest form, has continually decreased in England,
Switzerland, France, and Sweden (where it has been reduced to a very
small figure), and in Italy (where a considerable diminution has been
shown). [1017] If we had criminal statistics much more ancient than the
existing ones it would be shown that this crime has decreased
enormously compared with remote epochs. The progress of civilization in
the lower strata of society is very slow, and criminal statistics are
all of relatively recent date.
Germany is, as far as I know, the only country where there has been any
considerable increase in these crimes (except those against life) in
the last twenty years. This exception does not, in my opinion,
invalidate the rule. The lack of civilization among the lower orders is
not the sole cause of these crimes; the innumerable conflicts
engendered by the present social system are also a cause. Besides, the
impulse given by the economic development in Germany during this period
has hardly been equalled in other countries; it has seen its population
grow and become congested, and conflicts increase in like proportion,
[1018] a cause sufficient to neutralize the civilization which brings
it about. Further there is the possibility that the police and the
courts have been more efficient during this period, so as to make the
increase of crime seem greater than it really is. [1019] Finally,
alcoholism is increasing, and may also neutralize the effect of
civilization. [1020]
We come, then, to one of the most important causes of this kind of
crime, namely alcoholism. Not only is chronic alcoholism demoralizing
(as we have seen on pp. 509 ff.), but drunkenness at the acute stage
makes a person more disposed to commit acts of violence, and at the
same time less able to control his instincts and passions. Further, the
degree of civilization reached by the individual has a great influence
upon his conduct when he is intoxicated; the civilized man is then much
less dangerous than the man without education. Dr. Grotjahn puts it as
follows: “The development of the moral consciousness is not without
influence upon the harmlessness or danger of intoxication. Persons in
whom the sense of responsibility for the consequences of their actions
has been sharpened by education, whether they owe this to their
teachers or their parents or to their own experience, in case they
become intoxicated to the point of having their minds clouded, will
still always keep a remnant of their power of judgment, which will hold
them back from violent and disastrous actions. On the other hand, in
the case of persons who lack all moral training, the scanty moral
restraints which check their native impulses most quickly disappear.”
[1021]
An examination of the physiological process caused by large doses of
alcohol not coming properly within the scope of a sociological work
like this, it is sufficient to show that great quantities of alcohol
undoubtedly do have this effect. [1022] We shall accordingly pass on to
the question of the correlation between violent crime and the acute
stage of alcoholism.
There are different ways of attempting to settle this question. In Part
One we have seen that some authors have tried the dynamic method,
Fornasari di Verce, for example, showing that in Italy, Great Britain,
Ireland, and New South Wales, these crimes increase and diminish with
the consumption of alcohol. Professor Ferri shows that during the years
1849–1880 the increase and diminution of cases of assault in France
coincide with the success and failure of the vintage. [1023]
Another method consists in inquiring what day of the week assaults are
most frequent. If the abuse of alcohol is really an important factor in
the etiology of these crimes more of them must be committed upon
Sunday, Saturday, and Monday, for the abuse of alcohol is greatest on
these days. The following table throws some light on the matter. [1024]
Number of Assaults Committed on Different Days.
=========+==========+==========+=========+===========+==========
| | |Canton of| |
| Vienna |Korneuburg| Zürich |Düsseldorf.| Worms
|(1896-97).|(1896-97).| (1890). | |(1896-98).
---------+----------+----------+---------+-----------+----------
Sunday | 68 | 72 | 60 | 121 | 142
Monday | 49 | 12 | 22 | 32 | 57
Tuesday | 27 | 11 | } | 9 | 34
Wednesday| 19 | 14 | }41 | 9 | 34
Thursday | 19 | 15 | } | 5 | 35
Friday | 18 | 4 | } | 4 | 27
Saturday | 28 | 11 | 18 | 35 | 37
=========+==========+==========+=========+===========+==========
The figures and the thesis agree, then, perfectly. It is plain, to be
sure, that we cannot charge all the cases falling on Sunday to alcohol,
since people come together more on that day, and hence the danger of a
conflict is greater, but most of the Sunday cases are certainly due to
alcohol.
Other authors compare the geography of these crimes with the
consumption of alcohol. Professor Aschaffenburg, for example, in the
study already quoted, points out the fact that in Germany the countries
with the greatest number of assaults are also those where there is the
largest consumption of alcohol. [1025]
However, although these indirect methods are not without value, it
seems to me that since they contain so many elements of uncertainty
they yield to the direct method. [1026] It is for this reason that I
shall follow here especially the direct method and shall indicate the
percentage of those who have committed these crimes when they were in a
state of intoxication. Though making use of this direct method I do not
think it infallible, but it is less liable to error than the others.
The especial weakness of it is that the persons who are accused pretend
in extenuation that they committed their crimes in a state of
drunkenness. Good statistics do not rely solely upon the statements of
the prisoners, but also upon the facts brought out at the trial. And
then, as Professor Löffler remarks, all those arraigned are not acute
enough to simulate a state of drunkenness, and there are even those
who, although addicted to overindulgence in alcohol, will deny that
they were intoxicated, either from shame, or for fear of a more severe
punishment.
Most criminal statistics do not concern themselves with this subject,
and even those that do are less detailed than we might wish.
Nevertheless they are sufficient, I believe, to prove the correlation
in question.
Austria, 1896–1897. [1027]
==================+====================================
|Percentage of Convicts who Committed
| their Crimes in a State
Crimes. | of Drunkenness.
+------------------+-----------------
| Vienna. | Korneuburg.
------------------+------------------+-----------------
Rebellion | 77.7 | 70.0
Malicious mischief| 63.4 | 43.5
Threats | 56.8 | 46.7
Serious assaults | 54.1 | 56.4
==================+==================+=================
Baden (Grand Duchy), 1895.
In 1895 64% of the cases of rebellion and 46% of the assaults were
committed in a state of inebriety. [1028]
Belgium, 1872–1895.
Out of the 2,045 convicts who entered the central prison at Louvain
from 1874 to 1895, 344 or 16.8% were drunk at the time of committing
the crime; of the 130 sentenced to hard labor for life 53, or 40.7%; of
the 88 condemned to death 38, or 43.1%. [1029] If we consider that a
very great number of these criminals were guilty of economic crimes,
and doubtless did not commit these in a state of intoxication, the
percentage of those who must have committed crimes of vengeance in such
a condition becomes very large.
France.
At the penitentiary congress at Brussels Marambat reported that out of
a total of 787 convicted of homicide, assault, etc., studied by him,
there were 260 or 33% who committed their crimes in a state of
drunkenness. [1030]
Hungary, 1897.
At the same congress Dr. J. Fekete stated that in 1897, 75% of the
25,000 street brawls, 66% of the 1,574 cases of resistance to the
authorities, 50% of the 13,564 serious assaults, and most of the
homicides were committed in a state of intoxication. [1031]
Massachusetts, 1894–1895. [1032]
Crimes. Percentage of Crimes
Committed in a State
of Intoxication.
Malicious mischief 70.0
Homicide 64.7
Threats and violence 59.6
Murder 25.0
Resistance to officers 19.0
Norway, 1886–1889. [1033]
Crimes. Percentage of Prisoners
who had Committed their
Crimes in a State
of Intoxication.
Resistance to officers 81.8
Homicide 66.6
Assault 55.0
Threats 40.0
Netherlands, 1901.
The criminal statistics of the Netherlands being among the few that
give any information upon this point, the following table is of real
importance: [1034]
Crimes. Percentage of Convicts
who Committed their
Crimes in a State
of Intoxication.
Serious assaults 51.88
Resistance to officers 58.04
Malicious mischief 41.69
Threats 39.77
Assaults 31.27
Sweden, 1887–1897.
During this period, out of 2,020 convicted of crimes against the
authorities, 1,648, or 81.5%, had committed their crimes in a state of
intoxication, and 4,358, or 67.4% out of 6,464 convicted of murder,
homicide, and other crimes of violence. [1035]
Switzerland, 1892–1896.
The official statistics for these years tell us that 34.8% of the
assaults and homicides were caused by alcohol. [1036]
It cannot be claimed, of course, that none of these crimes would have
been committed if their authors had not been drunk, but everyone will
agree with me that these high percentages show that acute alcoholism is
a very important cause.
We have now reached the end of our remarks upon the etiology of these
crimes, and have shown that the principal causes are, first, the
present structure of society, which brings about innumerable conflicts;
second, the lack of civilization and education among the poorer
classes; and third, alcoholism, which is in turn a consequence of the
social environment. [1037]
What part is played in these crimes by the so-called individual
factors? It seems to me that it is like that which the individual
factors play in other crimes—they explain in part which are the
individuals that commit the crimes, but they do not explain why the
crimes are committed.
This is totally contrary to what many criminologists claim, namely that
it is especially the effect of individual factors that is seen in these
crimes. Statistics prove the inaccuracy of this. If it were true these
crimes ought to appear equally in all classes of society, which, as we
have seen, is not the case. A choleric person naturally runs more
danger of committing such a crime than one who is phlegmatic; but no
one will deny that in all classes the proportion of the persons born
with a choleric disposition is the same. However, the influence of
environment brings it about that in the well-to-do classes even the
choleric run little danger of such a crime. Superficial civilization
(for a veneer is all that a great part of the bourgeoisie possesses) is
sufficient to limit these crimes to an insignificant minimum.
The obviousness of the reasons which have caused these acts to be
classed as crimes is such that it is needless to speak of them. In a
society like ours, with its numerous conflicts and its dense
population, life would be impossible if the individual were not
forbidden to avenge himself personally. Sociology teaches us that
vengeance, at first permitted, and even obligatory, has become a
prohibited act, because of the great harm it does to society. [1038]
B. Infanticide.
There are two chief motives for infanticide, which operate separately
or together, namely, fear of dishonor, and poverty. We shall speak
first of the former and put the question to begin with, what sort of
persons are guilty of this crime? Criminal statistics answer that—
First, they are, almost without exception, women.
Second, they are unmarried women much oftener than married.
Third, the guilty are almost exclusively very poor. According to
Italian statistics 88.1% of them are indigent; in Austria, 90.8%; and
there are no rich or well-to-do women among them.
Fourth, the women of the working class are much more often guilty than
those of the independent class, and the class of domestics furnishes
especially a very high figure (Germany). These results are confirmed by
the data of other countries. In Austria 80% of those convicted between
1880 and 1882 were domestics, [1039] and in France the same was true of
35% of those convicted between 1876 and 1880. [1040]
Fifth, the women working in the fields are especially likely to fall
into this crime (Germany); the data of other countries also show that
it is especially in the country that infanticide is committed. Dr.
Socquet shows that in France between 1871 and 1875 there were, to the
million inhabitants, 35 persons arraigned out of the rural population,
and 22 to the urban. [1041]
Sixth, illiteracy is very frequent among those convicted of
infanticide. We have seen that in Austria 39.5%, in France 20.0%, and
in Italy 92.9% were illiterate. Women knowing more than how to read and
write were not found among these criminals.
Most of the cases of infanticide are identical; it generally is, as
Fournier says, “a girl who has allowed herself to have a child without
the permission of the municipality”, and who has been abandoned by her
lover.
The ruling moral ideas place before her a frightful dilemma; if her
pregnancy is known by those about her and the child remains alive, she
is covered with ignominy, and a painful life awaits her. On the other
hand if she makes the child disappear, the others ignore everything,
and she avoids dishonor and its consequences. She therefore attempts to
conceal her pregnancy as long as possible, in the hope of a
miscarriage. But when she finds herself disappointed, when not only
terrible physical pains, but also mental tortures are making her almost
mad [1042]—then it happens that she kills her child.
Statistics show that most of these crimes are committed by women of the
lower classes. The number of unmarried mothers is here relatively
great; infanticide is quite rare (though a little more frequent than
one would suppose from the criminal statistics). There must be special
circumstances, therefore, to lead some of these women to this crime. As
we have seen in treating of marriage, the ideas of intimate relations
between persons who are not married are much less severe in the
proletariat, than in the bourgeoisie (a consequence of the fact that
the social causes of marriage are much less strong in the latter than
in the former), so that among the proletariat these relations are
pretty common. If they have consequences, the father and mother
generally marry. In this case the idea of killing the child does not
come to the woman. The unmarried mothers (very often domestics), who
are guilty of this crime are especially those who, seduced and then
abandoned by men of a higher class, have no family that can receive
them.
Besides women of the working class, there are also among the
infanticides some of the petty bourgeoisie, where the moral disapproval
of extra-matrimonial sexual commerce is very severe.
Not all women who find themselves in the situation described commit the
crime in question, of course. One will reason more than another, and
will prefer dishonor to the danger of a criminal trial; one woman has
the maternal instinct more fully developed than another, etc. In
relation to the social sentiments we see here a situation contrary to
what occurs in the case of most crimes. Crime is an egoistic act, that
is to say an act which injures the interests of others. This is true of
infanticide, but this differs from most of the other crimes in being
committed to escape moral disapproval, while they are committed only to
obtain a personal profit or to satisfy the passions. This is why those
guilty of infanticide are not generally those whose social sentiments
have little intensity, as is mostly the case with those who are guilty
of economic or sexual crimes. Infanticides are persons sensitive to the
opinion of others, while those who have little social feeling easily
bear shame. [1043]
These individual differences explain in part which are the individuals
who become guilty of the crime in question, but not the cause of its
existence. There are only a few crimes whose social origin is as clear
as that of infanticide. If the present structure of society did not
make the present form of marriage necessary, and thus bring about moral
disapprobation of extra-matrimonial sexual relations, there would be no
infanticide caused by fear of dishonor. [1044]
The repression of some of the strongest natural desires, required by
our present society, is so great that these requirements are bound to
be violated by some individuals in whom these desires are very
pronounced. This is true not only in the sphere of the economic life,
but also in that of the sexual life. As long as cupidity is awakened in
many, while only a few can satisfy it, theft will exist; as long as the
satisfaction of the sexual desires is permitted only after certain
economic conditions have been complied with, the prohibition will be
violated, and some persons will try to destroy the evidence of their
acts. [1045]
Besides the fear of shame, poverty also plays a part in the etiology of
infanticide. Again, it is the two motives combined that are
responsible. The great number of infanticides among domestics are not
committed simply from fear of shame, but also because the mother,
abandoned by everyone (especially in a country where inquiry into
paternity is prohibited) does not know how to support her child.
Besides these cases there are some committed from poverty alone, for
example when married women commit this crime (something, it should be
added, which happens very rarely).
Some statistical data will show that poverty is a fairly important
factor in the etiology of infanticide. Dr. Weiss shows that in Belgium
infanticide increased greatly in the years that were bad economically
(see p. 63 of Pt. I), and Dr. Starke does the same for Prussia (see p.
66). [1046]
As we have pointed out above, infanticide for the cause of poverty was
quite general among primitive peoples, since they were not in a
position to support a large population. It was for this reason that the
act was not considered immoral, and that it was even required in some
cases. In consequence of the continually increasing productivity of
labor, infanticide fell more and more into desuetude, and at the same
time was considered more and more reprehensible. [1047]
CHAPTER V.
POLITICAL CRIMES.
Finally we have still to treat of political offenses, offenses which,
in comparison with others, occur very rarely, and which by their nature
are totally different. [1048]
The origin of the state, and the possibility of political crimes, are
bound up with a certain phase of the development of the economic life,
that is to say with the origin of marked contrasts of fortune. Those
who had monopolized the power in the state defended their position by
laws whose infraction was threatened with severe penalties. Economic
conditions, however, undergo considerable changes, and when these have
reached a certain degree, the oppressed class, having become the more
powerful, breaks the political power of the ruling class and seizes it
for itself. If the dominant class does all that it can to maintain its
position unimpaired to the last moment, it will necessarily happen that
this development will lead to political crimes. This kind of political
crime may be called great political criminality. In western Europe the
last great struggle of this nature was that of the feudal classes and
the bourgeoisie. The former, once necessary, had become superfluous and
harmful; the bourgeoisie on the other hand, from an insignificant class
had become the most important. It overturned the whole political system
which embarrassed it, seized the power, and transformed the state
according to the exigencies of the economic system. A repetition of the
same process in eastern Europe we are now witnessing in the changes
going on in Russia. The economic development no longer corresponds to
the political system, which sooner or later will inevitably be replaced
by the modern system.