Chapter VI: , bearing the title, “Subsistence (famine, price of bread)”, (1)

is the first in which we find any observations especially interesting to us. By the aid of data from von Oettingen, Starke, Corre, and Fornasari di Verce, which we treat separately, the author calls attention to the fact that the course of criminality is very little influenced by the price of provisions. He closes by drawing the following conclusion:

“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account of the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the 100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater influence of heredity, climate, and race.” [90]

The circumstance that the thefts of food represent hardly 1% of the total cases of theft (according to Guerry), that in London bread occupies only the 43d place among 43 categories of articles stolen, and that Joly has shown that the cases of theft of money are much more numerous than those of meal, domestic animals, etc.—all of this leads the author to the conclusion that the proportion of crimes caused by lack of food and real misery is not so great as has been supposed.

—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr. G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr. Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first, that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime. [91]—

In the second part of the chapter Professor Lombroso tries to show that the effect of hunger upon revolts is not very great. He cites a number of cases where there were no revolts although prices were high and work scarce. Thus, for example, in Strasburg from 1451 to 1500 and from 1601 to 1625, the price of beef rose 134% and that of pork 92%, and during many years wages fell 10%; and yet there was no insurrection.

—I must vigorously protest against any such argument, which, in my opinion, has no value. I will leave out of consideration the last example, which proves but little, since during these periods the price of bread may have been very low, neutralizing the effect of low wages (it is quite problematical whether the poorer classes of the population were great consumers of beef and pork!). But it is inaccurate to conclude from the fact “that prices were high and there was no insurrection” an absence of influence of the economic conditions. There may have been a number of factors working in the opposite direction, which prevented the manifestation of the economic factor. To cite but one example, it may be that during those times an excessively severe penal law was in force, threatening the least attempt at insurrection with cruel death.—

We shall next sum up Chapter IX, “Influence of Economic Conditions—Wealth.” After saying that it is difficult to estimate the wealth of a country at all accurately, the author produces the following data in the first section of the chapter. He divides the provinces of Italy into three groups according to the total wealth (estimated from taxes on consumption, direct taxes, and taxes on business), and compares the figures thus gained with some of the principal kinds of crimes, reaching the following results:

==============+=============================++============================== | Wealth, 1885-86. || Wealth, 1890-93 (Bodio). |----------+-------+----------++----------+--------+---------- | Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. || Maximum. | Mean. | Minimum. --------------+----------+-------+----------++----------+--------+---------- Fraud | 70.6 | 66.0 | 43.0 || 55.13 | 39.45 | 37.39 Sexual crimes | 15.6 | 13.4 | 19.4 || 16.15 | 15.28 | 21.49 Thefts | 206.0 | 143.0 | 148.0 || 361.28 | 329.51 | 419.05[92] Homicides | 11.3 | 17.0 | 23.0 || 8.34 | 13.39 | 15.40 ==============+==========+=======+==========++==========+========+==========

Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth is least; and this last is always true of homicides.” [93]

“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of wealth.” [94]

Another way of estimating the wealth of a country is by means of the inheritance tax. For different Italian provinces the following results are thus obtained:

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

===========+=========+=========+=========+============+============+========== | Average | Thefts. | Frauds. | Highway | Homicides. | Assaults. | Wealth. | | | Robberies. | | -----------+---------+---------+---------+------------+------------+---------- Latium | 3333 | 639 | 116 | 18 | 25 | 513 Piedmont } | | | | | | Liguria } | 2746 | 267 | 44 | 7 | 7 | 164 Lombardy | 2400 | 227 | 44 | 3 | 3 | 124 Tuscany | 2164 | 211 | 34 | 6 | 7 | 165 Venice | 1935 | 389 | 43 | 3 | 4 | 98 Reggio | 1870 | 320 | 49 | 7 | 13 | 287 Emilia | 1762 | 250 | 38 | 6 | 6 | 130 Sicily | 1471 | 346 | 65 | 16 | 26 | 410 Naples | 1333 | 435 | 47 | 6 | 21 | 531 Marches } | | | | | Umbria } | 1227 | 222 | 33 | 3 | 10 | 239 Sardinia | -- | 670 | 113 | 14 | 20 | 277 ===========+=========+=========+=========+============+============+==========

This table gives very little information as to the influence of wealth upon criminality, since we can draw from it the most contradictory conclusions. Note, for example, that the highest figures for theft are to be found in the regions of Latium and Sardinia, i.e. in the richest and the poorest provinces, etc., etc.

—I have more than once had occasion to show that the value of such researches is fictitious. It is not the total amount of wealth but its distribution that bears upon criminality. (See, for example, Quetelet and Colajanni)—

In the 3d section the author treats of the effect of involuntary unemployment. Wright tells us that in Massachusetts of every 220 persons convicted, 147 are without regular work, and that 68% of criminals have no occupation. According to Professor Lombroso this is easily explained by the fact that criminals do not like to work. According to Bosco there were only 18% of murderers in the United States without work (—the proportion not being given for non-criminals, these figures have little value—). Finally, Professor Lombroso mentions the opinion of Coghlan, who says that unemployment has no influence upon criminality in New South Wales (—upon what he bases his opinion, we do not know—).

—Such data as these (to a subject of such high importance as this the author gives but thirty lines) suffice for the conclusion that the phenomenon in question has little significance for criminality. I have only to recall the extensive studies of Mayr, Denis, Müller, Lafargue, and others, upon this subject, to prove the inaccuracy of this idea.—

===================================================================================================== | Number of Persons (to the 100,000 Inhabitants) convicted for: Days of Work Equivalent+------------------+------------------+------------------+-------------------- to a Year's Food. | Homicide. | Assault. | Sexual Offenses. | Theft. -----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+-------------------- 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 -----------------------+------------------+------------------+------------------+-------------------- England and Wales } |Scotland 0.51|England+Wales 2.67|Spain 1.03|Spain 59.63 Scotland } 127|England+Wales 0.56|Ireland 6.24|Ireland 0.85|Belgium 110.44 Ireland } |Ireland 1.06|Scotland 11.59|Scotland 1.41|France 110.95 Belgium 130|Germany 1.11|Spain 43.17|England+Wales 1.66|Italy 165.89 France 132|Belgium 1.44|France 63.40|Italy 4.01|Ireland 65.81 Germany 148|France 1.53|Germany 126.40|Austria 9.33|England+Wales 165.63 Austria 152|Austria 2.43|Italy 155.35|France 10.26|Scotland 208.39 Italy 153|Spain 8.25|Belgium 175.39|Belgium 13.83|Germany 226.02 Spain 154|Italy 9.53|Austria 230.45|Germany 14.87| =======================+==================+==================+==================+====================

Note.—Column 1 is taken from Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics (quoted by Coghlan, op. cit.); and columns 2–5 are figured from the data published by the Director of Italian Statistics (“Movimento della Delinquenza secondo le Statistiche degli Anni 1873–83”, Rome, 1886).

In the table on the preceding page the figures for criminality of different countries are compared with the number of days’ wages equivalent to the annual cost of food for one individual. These figures give us a composite picture of the price of food and the wage-scale.

This table shows; first, that excessive labor with a low wage, i.e. with a lack of proper nutrition, has a certain correspondence with homicide; second, there is also a certain correspondence with assaults (Spain and Belgium furnishing exceptions); third, sexual crimes are most common where we find the fewest days’ work and vice versa (Great Britain and some other countries being exceptions); fourth, that theft shows no correspondence. [95]

In another way Lombroso attempts to compare the economic conditions of different countries and their criminality, namely, by means of the number of savings-bank books. For Europe the figures are as follows (taken from Coghlan):

=============+=================+================================ | Persons to Each | Crimes to 100,000 Inhabitants. | Savings-bank +---------------+---------------- | Book. | Homicide. | Theft. -------------+-----------------+---------------+---------------- Switzerland | 4.5 | 16 | 114 Denmark | 5 | 13 | 114 Sweden | 7 | 13 | -- England | 10 | 5.6 | 163 Prussia | 10 | 5.7 | 246 France | 12 | 18 | 103 Austria | 14 | 25 | 103 Italy | 25 | 96 | 150 =============+=================+===============+================

These figures show how homicides move in inverse ratio to the number of savings-bank books, while the contrary is the case with thefts. The author forgets to point out that there are five exceptions to this rule.

In Italy the greatest number of accounts corresponds to the smallest number of homicides, as the following table shows:

======================================================================= Average Number of Crimes in 20 Provinces in which the Wealth (According to the Number of Savings-Bank Books) is: ---------------------+--------------+-------------------+-------------- | Maximum. | Intermediate. | Minimum. ---------------------+--------------+-------------------+-------------- Fraudulent crimes | 57 | 45 | 45 Sexual crimes | 11 | 12.6 | 20 Thefts | 132 | 133 | 160 Homicides | 10 | 12.6 | 27.4 =====================+==============+===================+==============

There are several exceptions to this rule; for example, the richest, like Palermo, Rome, Naples, and Leghorn, give very high figures for homicides. According to Professor Lombroso the explanation in the case of Palermo and Naples is to be found in the geographical situation; in the case of Palermo, in race and the abuse of alcohol; and in the case of Rome, in race, the abuse of alcohol, and in the political situation.

For France we get the following results:

=================================+===================================== In Departments where the | Average Number of: Degree of Wealth is: +--------------+-----------+---------- | Homicides. | Thefts. | Rapes. ---------------------------------+--------------+-----------+---------- Minimum | 64 | 83 | 17 Medium | 86 | 99 | 26 Maximum | 89 | 186 | 29 =================================+==============+===========+==========

Here is just the opposite of what we get in Italy. The author explains this in the following manner: first, the richest districts are those that are industrial, where the influx of immigrants is greatest (these latter committing four times as many crimes as the French); second, because of ethnic and climatic factors; third, because of the greater wealth of France, which is four times as rich as Italy; and fourth, because of the demoralizing influence of quickly acquired wealth. [96]

The industrial activity of a country causes a considerable increase of criminality, especially when it displaces agriculture. Of 42 agricultural departments only 11, or 26%, go beyond the average number of assassinations in France; while the average is exceeded by 10 out of the 26 departments of mixed industry, or 38%, and by 7 out of 17 manufacturing departments, or 41%. Rapes upon adults and crimes against persons show similar results. [97]

Percentage of departments exceeding the average of all France in:

=====================================+============+==================== | Rapes. | Crimes against | | Persons. -------------------------------------+------------+-------------------- Agricultural Departments (42) | 33% | 48% Mixed (26) | 39% | 39% Manufacturing (17) | 52% | 59% =====================================+============+====================

Not only poverty, but often wealth as well may cause crime. This is why some very wealthy districts show a figure for criminality as high as do the very poor. “The cause of all this is only too clear. On the one side poverty and the lack of absolute necessities impel toward the theft of indispensable things for the satisfaction of the individuals’ own needs. This is the first cord binding poverty and assaults upon property. On the other hand, poverty makes men impulsive through the cortical irritation following the abuse of wine and alcohol, that terrible poison to which so many of the poor resort to still the pangs of hunger. Account must be taken also of the degeneration produced by scurvy, scrofula, anemia, and alcoholism in the parents, which often transforms itself into epilepsy and moral insanity. Poverty also drives men to commit brutal eliminations of individuals who are an unwelcome burden upon the family, ... Poverty is indirectly a cause of sexual crimes, on account of the difficulty which the poor have of obtaining satisfaction through prostitution; on account of precocious promiscuity in factories and mines; etc., ... On the other hand, when a slight temptation toward evil is presented to an individual in comfortable circumstances, he is rendered physically and morally stronger by sufficient nutrition and a sounder moral training, and is less pressed by need, so that while he feels the impulsion to do evil, he can more easily resist it.

“But wealth, in its turn, is a source of degeneration from other causes, such as syphilis, exhaustion, etc. It drives men to crime through vanity, in order to surpass others, and from a fatal ambition to cut a figure in the world.” [98] It may be asked why it happens then that the inmates of prisons are almost always poor and rarely rich. The answer, according to the author, is that because of the influence of his fortune, family, etc., the rich man can more easily extricate himself from the clutches of the law than the poor man, who knows no one, cannot employ a famous lawyer, etc. etc.

Professor Lombroso sums up his opinion as follows: “The economic factor has a great influence upon crime, not, however, that poverty is the principal cause of it, for excessive wealth, or money too quickly acquired, plays a large part as well; and poverty and wealth are frequently neutralized by the effect of race and climate.” [99]

II.

R. GAROFALO.

In Chapter III of his “Criminologie”, and more especially in the first part, bearing the title “la Misère”, this author treats of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality. [100] The question which must be answered with regard to this subject, according to Garofalo, is the following: “Whether the so-called ‘economic iniquity’, a condition by which all citizens are either proprietors or proletarians, is the chief cause or, at least, one of the most important causes, of criminality.” [101]

It may be that a workman, i.e. a person who can only provide for his own needs and those of his family by selling his labor, can find no work, and for that reason falls into theft; but the author is of the opinion that in our days this almost never happens (leaving aside periods of crisis), and that if it happens the worker will generally find some one ready to help him, and that crime is therefore not a necessity. There is, indeed, absolute poverty, but it is almost always the result of a lack of courage and energy, and not due to a lack of work. It is not hunger, but a desire to procure the same pleasures as those enjoyed by the favored of fortune, that impels the working-man to commit crime. But this is not only the case with the working class but with other classes as well. For this desire belongs to every man; the millionaire envies the multimillionaire, etc. In order that this desire should lead to crime, it is not necessary that there should be a particular economic situation, but only a particular psychic condition—the individual must have his sense of honesty weakened or wanting. Desire will cease to lead to crime only when there is no longer any advantage to be gained by it, and since this is inconceivable, crime will always exist. This explains why the number of crimes committed by the proletariat is very great, but at the same time why the cases of forgery, bankruptcy, etc. are very numerous among the other classes. In 1880 the figure for crimes against property (and analogous crimes) committed in Italy by proletarians, compared with those committed by property-owners, was as 88 to 12, while the ratio of the number of proletarians to that of property-owners was as 90 to 10. These proportions are nearly the same, which proves that as regards these crimes the proletarian class is no more criminal than the others.

Some authors are of the opinion that crimes against persons are equally caused in large measure by bad economic conditions, since bad education, lack of discretion, etc. are consequences of these conditions. In Garofalo’s opinion this idea is inaccurate, since the bad conditions in which the proletariat live lead indeed to roughness, i.e. make them insensible to the suffering of others, but it does not follow that the proletarians are totally deprived of moral sentiments. The criminal statistics of Italy show that 16% of the correctional criminality was committed by property-owners, though they form but 10% to 11% of the population. Garofalo attempts to prove the truth of his thesis also by a classification of criminals by trades. The agricultural class in Italy, the poorest and most ignorant, form 25.39% of those brought before the correctional tribunals, while those engaged in manufacturing, commerce, the army, etc., those with some education, therefore, who are much less numerous in the population, form 13.58%. In 1881 the Italian population included 67.25% of illiterates, and in 1880 68.09% of those correctionally convicted were illiterate. Further it has been proved many times that an improvement in economic conditions is accompanied by an increase of crime. In France, for example, wages have risen, the consumption of cereals, like that of meat, has increased, and the number of children enjoying the advantages of a primary education is more extensive and yet criminality has grown greatly in the same period. To the possible objection “that many authors, like Mayr, have proved that the rise in the price of grain is accompanied by an increase of crimes against property, and vice versa, and that economic conditions are consequently an important cause of crime”, Garofalo responds that crimes against persons increase with the fall in the price of grain, and that consequently, by the changes in the economic life there has been brought about a change in the kind, but not in the extent, of criminality. Exceptional occurrences, such as famines, commercial crises, etc., increase crime only in appearance. If the question is probed to the bottom (the author appears not to have done so himself, at least he does not record any results) it is probable that it will be discovered that what happens is only that the form of crime becomes more serious, that the vagrant, for example, becomes a highway-man, etc.

The conclusions that the author draws are the following:

“First. The present economic order, that is to say, the distribution of wealth as it exists today, is not a cause of criminality in general.

“Second. The fluctuations which are wont to occur in the economic order may bring about an increase in one form of criminality, but this increase is compensated for by the diminution of another form. These fluctuations are, therefore, possible causes of specific criminality.” [102]

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

First. The author dodges the question when he includes under economic conditions poverty only, and this in the very limited sense of the lack of the absolute necessities. He who writes upon the connection between crime and economic conditions must analyze the whole present economic system, and not stop with one of the consequences of that system, the poverty in which the proletarians find themselves. Consequently Garofalo’s whole argument, tending to show that the bourgeoisie have a great part in the crimes against property, is beside the mark, for capitalism results in great uncertainty of existence for the bourgeoisie also. It is then quite comprehensible that this class should be guilty of crimes of this kind. According to Fornasari di Verce, however, the Italian statistics show that the well-to-do class take less part in crime than the poor. According to him 13% of all those convicted in 1887 were well-to-do, a class which, roughly speaking, forms 40% of the whole population. (See also Colajanni, “La Sociologia Criminale”, II, pp. 536 ff.)

In consequence of this arbitrary restriction of the subject the author’s remarks are of little value. But aside from this there are still serious charges to be made against his manner of treating the subject.

Second. The assertion of Garofalo that in general in our present society he who wishes to work can find work, is not worth combating in a serious book. To say that machinery does not every day make some workers unnecessary, that there are no industrial crises causing an enormous amount of involuntary unemployment, is conclusive proof that one does not know the present mode of production. The existence of a group of the population, the so-called lower proletariat (“bas-prolétariat”, “Lumpen-proletariat”) cannot be a natural phenomenon, since it has not been always and everywhere present; it is strictly bound up with certain modes of production.

Third. As I have had occasion to show already in more than one place, the increase of crimes against persons during periods of prosperity has a very great, though indirect, connection with economic conditions.

Fourth. That poverty in the strict sense of the word is not the sole cause of economic criminality, that cupidity plays also an important rôle, I do not wish to deny. Only, this cupidity is not an innate quality of man, present everywhere and always, but is awakened only under certain economic conditions. This is especially the case in our present society.

Fifth. According to the author there are certain circumstances which may lead to the commission of a crime, but the true cause of crime is to be found in the absence or weakness of the instinct of honesty. That there exists such an “instinct of honesty” is one of numerous assertions made by Garofalo for which he produces no proof, and, in accordance with the general opinion of sociologists, I class it among the most profound errors. A moral disposition is innate in man, and varies greatly with individuals, but moral concepts—for example, that it is forbidden to steal—are certainly not innate. The very way in which Garofalo puts the question is wrong; we must not set the circumstances that have influenced a man at a certain moment over against an innate quality of honesty (fictitious besides) but must examine all the conditions which have influenced his innate moral disposition through the whole of his life, as well as his environment at a given moment.

To say that the influence of environment cannot be great, because persons well brought up sometimes commit crimes, is very superficial. Upon this point there is something deeper and more important to be said.—

III.

E. FERRI.

In order to present Professor Ferri’s views, I shall analyze “Socialismo e criminalità” and a passage connected with our subject, taken from “Sociologia criminale.” [103] This analysis will be more detailed than that of most of the other authors, since in reality the opinion of Professor Ferri is the synthesis of the opinions of many other authorities. For this reason and others it is of the highest importance.

“Socialismo e criminalità” is a polemic work directed in part against “Il delitto e la questione sociale” of Turati, and in part as Professor Ferri himself says in “Socialismo e scienza positiva”, against socialism as far as that involves the revolutionary method and the concomitant “nebulous romanticism.”

In his “Preliminari” the author gives some definitions of socialism; combats socialism of every kind, declares it to be unscientific, and sets in opposition to it sociology, which is entirely scientific. [104] We pass over this part of the work in silence, since it has little importance for our subject, and turn our attention to the end of the “Preliminari”, where the author gives an exposition of the ideas which the socialists, according to him, have about crime:

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

“II. More especially, the economic disorder of the population caused by the unjust inequality of individuals and classes, is the cause of every other disorder, moral or intellectual, and therefore of crime also.

“III. When the social transformation or revolution which the socialists desire has taken place, the social atmosphere will be most favorable.

“IV. In the socialistic order the individual also will be much superior to the man corrupted or demoralized by present conditions.

“V. And then crime, like poverty, ignorance, prostitution, and immorality in general, will have ended its unhappy tyranny over the human race.”

—It is not certain that an adherent of scientific socialism would agree that these theses are entirely accurate; for example, the second, that the bad economic condition of the population is the cause of crime—for the expression “economic condition” has here too limited a meaning, namely that of poverty, misery, etc. In place of this he would rather make use of the expression, “mode of production.” It is this which, in the last analysis, rules the whole social life, according to the Marxists.—

The first chapter of Professor Ferri’s work, bearing the title of “la genesi sociale e individuale del delitto”, begins by remarking that the socialists blame society as the cause of all evils, including poverty and crime. On the one hand, they do this because of their “strategy of propaganda”, on the other hand it is a reaction against the extreme individualism which sprang from the French Revolution. They generally pay no attention to individual factors, or perhaps recognize them in part, but attribute their origin to society also. Between these two extremes is to be found criminal sociology, which says that the causes of crime are manifold.

According to the author there are three groups of the factors of crime: the anthropological or individual factors, the cosmic or physical factors, and the social factors. Since many authors, wholly or partially, share this view, which constitutes an attack against the very foundation of the idea of the social origin of crime, we will examine it here fully.

We take from “Sociologie criminelle”, where this doctrine is best set forth, the following statement of it. “Every crime is the resultant of individual, physical, and social conditions.” [105] The individual factor is, according to the author, the most important, the primordial factor, so to speak, for he says: “The social environment gives form to the crime; but this has its origin in an anti-social biological constitution (organic or psychic).” [106] The factors pointed out are the following:

“The anthropological factors, inherent in the person of the criminal, are the first condition of crime, and divide themselves into three subclasses, according as the person of the criminal is looked at from an organic, psychic, or social point of view.

“The organic constitution of the criminal constitutes the first subclass of anthropological factors and includes all the anomalies of the skull, brain, viscera, sensibility, reflex activity, and all bodily characteristics in general, such as physiognomy, tattooing, etc.

“The psychical constitution of the criminal includes anomalies of intelligence and feeling, especially of the moral sense and the peculiarities of the criminal dialect and literature.

“The personal characteristics of the criminal include the purely biological features of his condition, such as race, age, sex; and the bio-social features, such as civil status, profession, residence, social class, and education, which have been up to this time the almost exclusive subject of criminal statistics.

“The physical factors of crime are the climate, nature of the soil, length of nights and days, the seasons, the annual temperature, meteorological conditions, and agricultural production.

“The social factors include the density of population; public opinion, morals, religion; condition of the family; the educational system; industrial production; alcoholism; economic and political conditions; public administration, the courts, the police; and in general the legislative, civil, and penal organization:—that is to say, a medley of latent causes, which interlace and combine in all parts of the social organism, and almost always escape the attention of ... criminologists and legislators.” [107]

ANTHROPOLOGICAL FACTORS.

Let us consider first the “personal characteristics of the criminal.” Professor Ferri draws the following conclusions with regard to the existence of anthropological factors in general: “In fact, if crime were the product of the social environment exclusively, how could the fact be explained, that in the same social environment and in like circumstances of poverty, abandonment, and lack of education, out of 100 individuals, 60 commit no crime, and of the 40 that remain, 5 prefer suicide to crime, 5 become insane, 5 become beggars or non-dangerous vagrants, and only the 25 others become real criminals? And why is it that among these, while some limit themselves to theft without violence, others commit robberies, and even, before the victim resists, or threatens, or calls for help, commit a murder with the sole aim of theft?” [108]

—It seems to me that there are many objections to be made to this rather carelessly drawn conclusion. In the first place, Professor Ferri is of the opinion that it may be assumed that it will be easy to find groups of persons only a quarter of whom become criminal, though they all live in the same bad environment. Leaving out of account the individuals who, because of their physical condition are incapable of crime, I do not believe that there are, for example, 60% who have never been convicted. However, even admitting that this assertion is accurate, then, that out of 100 persons living in the same environment, only one part will fall into crime, I believe that it is impossible to find even two persons who live, and have lived, in an environment exactly similar, and whose parents also have always lived in the same surroundings. In this way only can the question be clearly put. It is not only present conditions that influence a man; all past conditions have their part in the motives of present acts. It cannot be denied that the present includes the past. Nor ought the conditions which have influenced the parents to be excluded. Let us put the following case: A, B, and C live in the same very bad surroundings. A commits suicide, B becomes crazy, C commits a crime. The parents of A were well-to-do, gave their child a good education, and accustomed him to consider many things as necessities. Fallen into poverty, then weakened and become incapable of good work, A believes that it is impossible for him to restore himself. His moral ideas, acquired in his youth, are opposed to his engaging in crime. And then the few francs that he would be able to steal would not be sufficient to maintain him in the life to which he has been accustomed. Consequently he commits suicide. B is the child of a father who became an alcoholic from actual poverty. Inferior on this account, B cannot keep up the struggle for existence and becomes insane. The parents of C were indigent. He received no education; moral ideas are totally unknown to him; he has never lived in anything but poverty, and commits a theft when the opportunity presents itself without any hesitation. In these three cases, which occur daily, circumstances are the only factor that enters into consideration.

I have said above that there are no two persons who live in exactly the same circumstances. This word “exactly” is not used by Professor Ferri, and in this, in my opinion, he is wrong. In ordinary life we speak of great and small causes. But in treating of scientific questions this is surely forbidden. For no one is ignorant that what is apparently the least important occurrence may have the most extensive consequences.

May I here be permitted to make a quotation from an interesting page of Professor Manouvrier upon this question: “That the effect of environment is generally understood in too limited a way, we see proved every day in the appreciation expressed, of the causes that have determined certain differences of productive power or moral conduct. It is a question, perhaps, of two brothers. It is said that they have been brought up exactly in the same manner, that they have received exactly the same education, and that the question of environment is thus settled. Immediately the doctors begin to call in atavism, to feel the bumps of the head, to study facial asymmetry, etc. Anatomy must be appealed to, since the influence of environment has been eliminated. It can be put down to bad luck if some bump, some depression, some asymmetry is not found that will serve, whether or no, to account for a solution of the question. There remains always, further, the resource of invoking invisible, hypothetical vices of the internal constitution. The phrenologists were in a relatively difficult situation; they had to find a fixed anatomical character, a bump for a function specified in advance, or they were obliged to imagine a conflict of bump with bump. The present method is less exacting; it is enough to find no matter what deviation from morphological perfection, without its being necessary to show the connection between this deviation and the physiological inferiority to be explained. But what am I saying? The question is often of an inferiority of a sociological order, and trouble is not even taken to make sure, to begin with, that this corresponds to a psychological inferiority. Yet however indispensable this may be as a preliminary, it is not enough; it must be ascertained that this inferiority implies a functional trouble before calling in pathological anatomy at all hazards.

“The statement is made that the two brothers have been subjected to the same environmental influences merely because they have been brought up in the same house, taught in the same school, fed and clothed alike. Yet the mere fact of having been born first or second is not without importance. To have been reared with an older or with a younger brother constitutes a difference of environment that may contribute powerfully to differentiate character. Add to this the differences of environment proceeding from nurses, servants, diseases, games, etc., and you will have opened headings under which may be classed differences innumerable. There are no small things in such a matter. Biographies as now written are no more than outlines when one thinks of what truly psychological biographies ought to be. To have been taught in the same college in the case of two brothers is a similarity that may, and certainly does, conceal the greatest differences. They have not had the same teachers, the same fellow-pupils, nor, above all, the same comrades. Between the education given, and that actually received, the difference may be great....

“The influences that act upon the child outside of the curriculum have the more chance to be effective, since the curriculum is carried out in the less agreeable manner.” [109]

In consequence of what has been said, I believe that the conclusion of Professor Ferri that there are anthropological factors of crime, is too hasty. But there are still other objections to be urged to it.

Let us suppose that two persons who live, and have lived, in the same circumstances are in a position to commit a very advantageous crime, and their morality does not prevent. At the moment when the time comes to act, one commits the crime and the other does not—he lacks the courage. Courage, then, is a factor of crime, and the lack of it a factor of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. In another case, he who commits a crime is stupid, and does not consider the risk, and he who does not commit it is a crafty man. Stupidity, then, is a factor of crime, and craft of virtue! Not so, that depends upon circumstances. The reverse is also true, probably more true still. Thousands of great criminals so far from being stupid have had something of the genius in them.

The famous individual factors are only ordinary human qualities, like courage, strength, needs, intelligence, etc. etc., [110] which men possess in differing degrees, and which in like circumstances lead the one rather than the other to commit a crime. These qualities in themselves, however, have nothing to do with crime. Professor Manouvrier expresses my thought on this subject in the following: “There are, however, certain individuals more moved to crime than others, in circumstances otherwise equal. Certainly, as man is more given to crime than woman, as a robust and bold man is more given to crimes of violence than one who is miserable and timid, etc., yet each type of character finds some kind of crime practicable, if only arson. The athlete will be more inclined to strike, the smooth talker to play the confidence man, but we do not for that reason indict muscular strength, nor ready speech, nor boldness, nor agility, nor address. No more do we indict violence or trickery, qualities defined from the vicious use made of qualities valuable for honest purposes.” [111]

The reasoning of Professor Ferri, that there is in every crime, besides others, an anthropological factor, is only the statement of the fact, known long before the rise of modern criminology, that the predisposition to crime is not the same with all men. This predisposition, as we have seen, considered by itself, has nothing to do with crime as such. So much the more is the conclusion of Professor Ferri and the Italian school in general absolutely false, when they deduce from the undeniable fact that the predisposition is not the same for all, the notion that this predisposition is by nature pathological.

Thus we have finally come to two other groups of anthropological factors: the organic constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of the skull, brain, etc. and the psychical constitution of the criminal, as, for example, the anomalies of intelligence and feeling. [112] This is the special territory of the Italian school: the criminal is a being apart—“genus homo criminalis”—with special stigmata peculiar to him; there is a criminal type, anatomically recognizable; most criminals are born-criminals, etc. The explanation of this special character is to be found in atavism, an hypothesis later replaced by that of epilepsy; finally it has been claimed that the character of the criminal is in general of a pathological nature.

In our purely sociological work, though it combats in an indirect way the hypothesis of the Italian school, we do not have to concern ourselves with the conflict between the different anthropological schools, with regard to the origin of crime. We demonstrate merely, what no one who judges fairly will attempt to deny, that the hypothesis of the Italian school is erroneous. The anthropological authorities like Manouvrier, Baer, Näcke, and others, have broken this doctrine down. [113] There are no stigmata belonging to criminals only, nor is there any criminal type; the atavistic hypothesis is one of the profoundest errors.

Although the doctrine of Lombroso and his school is in general abandoned by anthropologists, it still persists in the acceptance of one fact, to which it is its immortal merit to have called attention, namely that there are a number of criminals (though a very limited number) who show a truly pathological nature, and whose criminal character can only be explained by this pathological nature. For example, when someone in an epileptic condition commits a murder, without any motive; or the case in which a well-to-do individual steals continually useless articles, of little value, etc., etc. Even in most of these instances, which are a small minority in the colossal mass of criminality, the social environment plays its part; but it must be recognized without reserve that here we have to do with true individual factors, peculiar to certain individuals. The hypothesis of the Italian school is, then, accurate for the exception, but false as a rule.—

PHYSICAL FACTORS.

It is evident that the nature of the soil, the climate, the physical environment in a word, must have an important influence upon the mode of production, and consequently upon society. [114]

It is easily understood why those who inhabit the regions of Siberia covered with snow have not become agriculturists; and why Holland, without mines of iron and coal has not become a great manufacturing country, but instead, situated upon the sea and traversed by great rivers, has become commercial. But these physical factors have remained constant or nearly constant during historical periods, while the organization of society has undergone changes that have great effects. We cannot explain these changes by a constant factor.

Plechanow formulates this very well in his “Beiträge der Geschichte des Materialismus.” He says: “The character of man’s natural environment determines the character of his productive activity, of his means of production. The means of production, however, determines the reciprocal relationships of men in the process of production as inevitably as the equipment of an army determines its entire organization, and all the relationships of the individuals of which it is made up. Now the reciprocal relations of men in the social process of production determine the entire structure of society. The influence of the natural environment upon this structure is therefore incontestable. The character of the natural environment determines that of the social environment. For example: ‘The necessity of computing the time of the rising of the Nile, created Egyptian astronomy and with it the domination of the priestly caste as guides in agriculture.’

“But this is only one side of the matter. Another side must also be considered if one is not to draw entirely false conclusions. The circumstances of production are the result, the productive forces are the cause. But the effect becomes a cause in its turn; the circumstances of production become a new source of the development of the productive forces. This leads to a double result.

“1. The mutual influence of the circumstances of production and the productive forces causes a social movement, which has its own logic and a law of its own, independent of the natural environment. For example: Private property in the primitive phase of its development is always the fruit of the labor of the property-holder himself, as may be very well observed in the Russian villages. There necessarily comes a time, however, when it becomes the reverse of what it was before: it supposes the work of another, and becomes capitalistic private property, as we can likewise see any day in the Russian villages. This phenomenon is the effect of the immanent law of the evolution of private property. All that the natural environment can accomplish in this case consists in accelerating this movement through favoring the development of the productive forces.

“2. Since the social evolution has its own logic, independent of any direct influence from the natural environment, it may happen that a people, though inhabiting the same land and retaining almost the same physical peculiarities, may have at different epochs of its history social and political institutions which are very little similar, or even totally different one from another.” [115]

Crime being a social phenomenon, and society being influenced, as we have seen, by the physical environment, one might say that this environment is a factor in criminality. He who reasons thus would have to grant that the physical environment is only an indirect factor, and therefore a very remote cause. It would be as fair to say that the invention of gunpowder was one of the causes of all murders committed with fire-arms. However, in reasoning thus I believe we forget that crime is an historic phenomenon, modifying itself according to the condition of society, and consequently regulated by laws that are independent of the physical environment. In other words, the environment is the reason why a people provides for its needs by working the material that nature has furnished; but the manner in which this work is done is independent of this environment. And it is upon this manner of working that criminality depends. An example taken from practice will make clear what I have been saying.

From the nature of the soil of Sicily it is possible to work sulphur mines there. The criminality of Sicily is very great, especially in the parts where the mines are found, and many murders particularly are committed there. We might be disposed to believe that here the physical factors came into play. Now it is true that the nature of the soil is the cause of the exploiting of the mines, but the criminality is dependent entirely upon the way in which the exploiting is done, and this has nothing to do with the physical environment. To particularize: these mines are exploited in the capitalistic fashion, i.e., with the aim of getting as much profit as possible, which brings it about that the workers are untaught, demoralized and made degenerate by ill-paid labor, excessively severe, and carried on in an unwholesome atmosphere. Hence come the higher figures for criminality. [116]

Most authors who have concerned themselves with the influence of these physical factors, have only observed their direct influence upon man. Many of them have paid no attention to the importance that these factors may have for the character of society, and they have taken no account of the fact that society develops according to laws independent of the physical environment. Phenomena have been ascribed to the direct influence of the physical environment, which have no such relationship. It is a fact pretty generally recognized, for example, that the number of violent crimes is greater in the South than in the North. The cause frequently given is the obvious one that it is the difference of climate. But this overlooks the fact that the phase of social development reached in the southern countries is totally different from that in the northern countries, and this difference explains that of the criminality against persons. Upon this subject Professor Tarde says: “Statistics compiled in epochs when, civilization not having passed from the South to the North, the North was more barbarous, would certainly have shown that crimes of blood were more numerous in the northern climates, where now they are more rare, and would have induced the Quetelets of that day to formulate a law precisely the reverse of the one now stated. For example, if we divide Italy into three zones, Lombardy, Central, and Southern Italy, we shall find that at present there are in the first 3 homicides to the 100,000 inhabitants annually, in the second nearly 10, and in the third more than 16. But shall we estimate that in the palmy days of Grecia Major, when Crotona and Sybaris flourished in the south of a peninsula which, in the North, was totally peopled with brigands and barbarians, except for the Etruscans, the proportion of bloody crimes would not have been reversed? At present there are in Italy, in proportion to the population, sixteen times as many homicides as in England, nine times as many as in Belgium, and five times as many as in France. But we could swear that under the Roman Empire it was quite otherwise, and that the savage Britons, and even the Belgians and the Gauls surpassed the effeminate Romans in habitual ferocity of manners, in vindictive fury and bravery. According to Maine the Scandinavian literature shows that homicide during the period of barbarism was a ‘daily accident’ with these peoples of the North, at present the mildest and most inoffensive in Europe.” [117]

It is plain from what has gone before that I have not wished to deny the direct influence of the physical environment upon man. Indeed, it is a fact which the whole world has observed. According to many persons, then—and a number of scientific researches have proved it—a high degree of criminality against persons proceeds from a hot temperature, while a low temperature, on the other hand, leads to many crimes against property. This implies not only that the kind of crime is different in hot countries from that in cold, but also that the change of the seasons with their variations in temperature have the corresponding effects.

I will not fatigue the reader by citing an unlimited number of examples to prove that the exceptions to this rule are very numerous. We cannot find a greater number of crimes against persons and a smaller number of crimes against property with each degree nearer the equator. If this were the case dishonesty would be unknown at the equator, and everyone there would be very violent. There are countries which, though in the same latitude, are very different as to crime, as there are others, much alike as to crime though situated far from each other, etc., etc. [118] The adherents of the theory of the “physical environment” explain these exceptions by saying that they are caused by the “social environment.” By so doing they recognize that the latter may entirely alter and even annihilate the influence of the former. Let us concern ourselves rather with the different kinds of crime, and investigate the influence which the physical environment exercises upon it.

In the first place, as to the assertion that cold increases the number of crimes against property it is unnecessary to speak at length, for nearly all authors are agreed that not physical but economic causes come into play here. Cold increases men’s needs; they must have warmer clothing and a well heated dwelling. But it is clear that all this is no motive for stealing. For the person of means gets what he wants with his own money. It is the present social organization that, during the severe weather, does not permit people to provide for the needs that are more numerous then, for the opportunity to work is more often lacking in winter than in summer.

As to crimes against persons Professor Ferri is of the opinion that the direct influence of temperature is as follows: “The increase of acts of violence to persons, which is observed in connection with higher temperatures, must be chiefly dependent upon the direct physiological effect of heat upon the human organism. For by the greater warmth the consumption of material for the production of animal heat is cut down, and hence a surplus of force is stored up capable of being used for other purposes. But this, in union with the heightened irritability of temper, may easily degenerate into that criminal activity which shows itself in acts of violence to persons. With this psychological effect of the heat, it is true, there is coupled, in the case of the poorer classes who form the majority of the population, the effect of more easily obtained and more plentiful food, but this social cause in this connection is of less importance than the direct biological influence.” [119]

The first explanation of Professor Ferri is astonishing because everyone feels that the heat has a different effect upon himself than the one given. The fact that during hot weather the consumption of bodily fuel is not so great as in cold weather cannot be considered as the most important point in treating of the question of crime. Heat enervates men, weakens their organism, and is the cause of men’s doing as little as possible. It has, then, just the opposite effect to that ascribed to it. [120]