Chapter IV (2)

“Those ferocious instincts which seem the return of another world, in brawls or in times of revolution, are not returning at all, because they have never disappeared. During a certain time they do not manifest themselves in the individual or the family, because there is no need that they should; or possibly they manifest themselves in ways less dangerous, in connection with ordinary circumstances and relatively favorable to tranquillity. But let there arise any need, no matter what, of a “mobilization of the offensive and defensive forces”, then the mobilization takes place, and the most civilized man appears under the form of the dangerous animal he has never ceased to be, happily for himself and his species. This man whom you take for an atavistic throw-back, appears such to you only because you have failed to recognize in their mild form, in yourself and in others, the fundamental brutality and egoism of the human species. Notwithstanding the civilizing influences in the midst of which you have lived, notwithstanding the peaceable habits that you have contracted, and all the horror with which you are inspired by the contrary habits of which you fear to fall the victim, it is enough that you should be worked upon rather strongly by a combination of annoying circumstances, that even you should become a dangerous individual. When we wish to study crime as anthropologists or as psychologists, we must not be afraid to look the truth in the face, and it is important to clear our minds beforehand, as far as possible, of the illusions of self-love, and of deceptive conventions.” [171]

Then Professor Manouvrier criticises in a manner as just as it is witty, the hypothesis of the “delinquent man.” He demonstrates that, according to the method of the New School, a work could be written upon the “hunting man” also, full of scientific observations upon his argot, his boasting, etc., etc., upon all sorts of signs, in short, which go to show that a taste for hunting is an atavistic phenomenon. The explanation of crime by atavism is no more true than this other, for both can be explained by the environment.

If we hold absolutely to the expression: “born-criminal”, every man is one, just as every dog is a born-swimmer. Every dog knows how to swim very well, but this does not prevent a number of dogs from never swimming, since ordinarily there are more convenient ways of crossing the water. In the same way every man is a born-criminal, but most men refrain from becoming actual criminals, since that course is more advantageous to them than the other.

“No one is ignorant that the educational influences to which one is subjected during his whole life and especially during infancy, and the solicitations of self-interest, are exceedingly variable under different circumstances and for different individuals; and that the educational influences and the solicitations of self-interest unite very generally to furnish the motive for criminal conduct and for honest conduct as well. And it is this that governs every man’s manner of acting in his relations with others; and it must not be forgotten in treating of anthropology, whether anatomical, physio-psychological, or sociological. It is never forgotten in practical life.

“We all know that, whatever our fundamental character may be and the honest habits that we have been able to form, our manner of conducting ourselves may vary considerably under the influence of changes in our environment, and in proportion to those changes. It is a temptation to which the most austere man would greatly dread to be exposed, and to which he would never voluntarily expose himself, because he knows that the tendencies imputed to criminals (said to be atavistic, but all simply human) are not lacking in himself. These tendencies, when they have found abundant and honorable means of satisfaction during long years, become so much the more to be dreaded on this account, and run great danger of becoming criminal as soon the legal means of satisfaction disappear. The man who comes to lack these means finds himself in a much more dangerous situation as far as the likelihood of his becoming a criminal is concerned, than one who had become accustomed to privations.” [172]

Professor Manouvrier begins the last section of his study by asking what is the significance of the anatomical peculiarities observed in the so-called born-criminals. “The truth probably is that we do find in a number of criminals in prison more of the lower or abnormal characteristics than in a like number of persons chosen at random. But this in no wise proves that those among the criminals who have such characteristics, have been predestined to crime from their physical make-up. Those among them who are not so constituted are nevertheless criminals, and honest men who bear the criminal marks have nevertheless remained honest.

“The truth is that the ‘new school’ consider as criminals only the refuse of this class, the prisoners; just as, when they wanted to depict prostitutes, they took poor syphilitic girls who had been at least three years in brothels, that is to say, the refuse of refuse. Under what family and social conditions these criminals and prostitutes lived during childhood and afterward, it is easy for anyone to imagine who has caught but a glimpse of the slums of manufacturing towns. In order to escape crime and prostitution or mendicity when one has grown up in such an environment, it is necessary to have virtues that are extremely rare among respectable people, so much the more so since, to the temptations that come from poverty in the midst of luxury, is ordinarily added the effect of example, and even of education of the particular kind that is called criminal education. All this may be resisted for some time, but it is only the first step that costs. The good qualities themselves that one possesses become the causes of crime. It may even be maintained that physical excellencies themselves drive men to crime more strongly than defects, when once the external conditions become favorable for crime.” [173]

The fact that we generally find more inferior individuals among the criminals imprisoned than among other men must be attributed to the two following circumstances: first, that criminals who have not been arrested, owe their liberty generally to the fact that they are better endowed; and second, that in all social classes a selection goes on by which those best constituted are always in possession of the most desirable and least painful means of existence, while to those less privileged fall the lowest professions, and they “end sooner or later by falling into the ditch where the influences that drive men to crime reach their maximum frequency and power, while the contrary motives are proportionately weak.” Those who have known better days sometimes prefer suicide to crime; but those who are born in the ditch, know no other life, and are consequently led into crime.

What is much more astonishing than crime is the fact that workmen labor courageously and patiently for ten or twelve hours a day, and notwithstanding this lead only a miserable life. The reason is that they have known nothing but labor since infancy and have always had to be content with very simple amusements. It goes without saying that one man is more moved to commit crimes than another, although the conditions under which they are living are the same, just as an athlete will use violence quicker than a weakling. But this is no reason to declare strength a factor of crime, since it serves for useful acts as well. Acts which are contrary to the proper working of society are, therefore, called abnormal and those are called normal that are in harmony with it. But it is not therefore permissible to transfer this distinction to the field of biology, and call the criminal abnormal. “Aptitudes that are very normal physiologically, may be employed for acts that are equally normal physiologically, but which, from a social point of view are classed as abnormal, because contrary to the social prosperity. Yet this is an abuse of the word ‘abnormal’, because society as at present constituted is, in its normal functioning, consistent with innumerable causes of conflict between its own interests and those of individuals. And just as the annoying consequences of our mistakes often make us recognize the truth, so crimes very often serve to indicate to societies the reforms they ought to bring about in order to perfect themselves.

“Every individual has wants to satisfy, wants primordial or secondary, that may become infinitely complicated and clothed in forms as much more various as the environment becomes more complex. Now it happens in every society, and especially in very civilized societies, that the different individuals do not find the same facilities, and further, do not possess the same means of action. There is an evident disproportion between the existing needs and the milder means of satisfying them; whence the struggle for existence and well-being.

“In our estimating the intrinsic worth of criminals, we must not fail to take account of this fact, that most honest men do not deprive themselves of any of the pleasures which are the aim of criminals, and that most criminals, in order to escape crime would have had to have rare virtue. Among the legal means of satisfaction offered by society there are those that are easy and agreeable, among others that of drawing the income from capital amassed by one’s parents. There are also difficult and painful ones, which are the lot of those whom pecuniary heredity has not secured against the so-called criminal heredity. In order to share legally in the pleasures of which they are witnesses, those whom we may call disinherited by fortune, must make efforts of which those born to wealth have no idea. This is why, if the disinherited seek a short-cut, we must ask ourselves, before we consider them as monstrous beings, whether under the same circumstances we should be able to keep to the legal path.

“The struggle for existence and well-being is regulated by social laws. If these were perfect, each individual could satisfy his wants in an equitable measure, that is to say in the measure of his faculties, his labor, and the service he renders to the community. Crimes would then be diminished in an enormous proportion, but they would not be suppressed, for there would still be inevitable competitions, and the time will probably never come when, on the one hand, each individual will have just the wants that his social worth will permit him to satisfy legally, and, on the other, will have sufficient virtue to renounce the satisfaction of wants, even factitious ones, which he has once contracted without being able to comply with the conditions which the most just law imposes for this satisfaction.” [174]

The penal law is one of the means the object of which is combating the illegal satisfaction of wants. Everyone knows, however, that this means does not always attain the end sought. The penal law will, in fact, produce a diminution of criminality only when it shall have brought about profound penal changes,—when punishment shall be no more than the useful and necessary reaction against acts that are harmful to the well-being of the community and to the development of society.

It is to be proved that there is, besides the normal, or ordinary, origin of crime, a pathological, or extraordinary, origin. “It is quite superfluous to bring in tendencies atavistically recalled by pathological degeneracy, in order to explain the harmful effects of this degeneracy, and of mental diseases, upon the way in which the degenerate and mentally diseased act. The least functional trouble is enough to alter our sensations, our judgment, our imagination, our deliberations, and consequently, to make us act wrongly.” [175]

The theory of the innate character of crime through atavism is consequently quite erroneous. “It would be unseemly on my part to refer it, through atavism, to original sin or to the call of the blood of the ancient melodramas. I will not even say that it is derived through tradition, which is an environmental influence, from the old phrenological doctrine, although that is an error of the same kind. Errors, in fact, are like crimes; they have no need of atavism nor of immediate heredity, nor even of tradition, in order to repeat themselves. Causes of error or causes of crime, the springs are far from being dried up. They always flow abundantly. It is necessary in science to react against errors, and in society to react against crimes. But it must never be forgotten that every man is normally exposed to commit both errors and crimes.” [176]

—I shall make only a few observations upon Professor Manouvrier’s study, a work which, in my opinion, is one of the best, not to say the best, upon the origin of crime, and in about fifty pages says more than many a bulky volume.

In the first place Professor Manouvrier shows that in our days wants have increased greatly, and he believes that civilization is the cause of it. I am of the opinion that this last assertion is not correct and that civilization has nothing to do with it. Many writers commit this error of confusing civilization and the present mode of production, and it is just for this reason that it is useful and necessary to correct it. All the evils that have been brought upon the peoples of Africa and of China, war, alcohol, etc., etc., have been called by the collective name of “civilization.” In reality it is those who have brought all these calamities upon these countries, and have tried to destroy a veritable, age-long civilization like that of China, who are the barbarians. It is not a civilizing instinct that has driven European states to a policy of expansion, but rather cupidity, eagerness for gain on the part of the owning class, who are seeking a new outlet for their merchandise; in short, it is the present mode of production, capitalism.

The same is true with regard to the constant increase of wants; it is the present system which creates wants. New methods of procuring profit are invented, and it is only with this in view that many inventions are made, most of them useless, often even harmful. And on the other hand there is a class of persons who grasp at any means, even the most absurd, of passing the time, and have the money to procure these means. And these wants spring up in other persons also, and the impossibility of satisfying them makes men the more eager. Consequently it is not civilization, but capitalism, which must be designated as the cause of this phenomenon.

In the second place, Professor Manouvrier thinks that criminality would diminish enormously, but without disappearing entirely, if the social laws were perfected so that each individual could satisfy his wants according to his capacities, his labor, and his services to the community. This is, in my opinion, entirely correct; but the maxim of Saint-Simon, “to every man according to his capacities, to each capacity according to its works”, which, in Professor Manouvrier’s opinion, is perfect, by many others is not thought to be so, though superior to the present distribution of commodities. We can set over against this the rule, “that each shall work according to his faculties and his strength, and receive according to his needs.” If this were realized, crime would become almost unimaginable. Many persons are of the opinion that such a thing could never be realized. But they forget that it is exclusively from the environment that the enormous differences in wants arise (the wife of the millionaire has perhaps a thousand times as many needs as the wife of the proletarian). If these two persons had been born and brought up in the same environment, the wants of the one would have been to those of the other perhaps as 1 to 3, or even less, but certainly not more. And then those who believe in a future distribution according to needs, are of the opinion (and think they can prove it) that, if in the present organization of society egoism is omnipotent, the feeling of solidarity will be so strengthened in the future social organization, that the man endowed with great abilities and much energy, will not begrudge his fellow less highly endowed, the satisfaction of all his wants.

I would, at the same time, make a remark concerning the environmental school in general, a remark not to be considered as a criticism, for I agree perfectly that it is the environment that makes the criminal. It is this: it is not enough for the treatment of the question of criminality, to furnish proof of the assertion that the cause of crime is not inherent in man; it is also necessary to show in what respects the environment is criminogenous, and in what way it can be improved. Now the French School has given but little attention to this.—

V.

A. BAER.

The work of Dr. Baer, “Der Verbrecher in anthropologischer Beziehung”, has only an indirect importance for our subject, as the title indicates. Since his medical and anthropological studies lead him to the conclusion that the social atmosphere is the fundamental cause of crime, it is worth while to note his opinion. For this it will be sufficient to quote the following: “For us crime is, as Prins excellently expresses it, not an individual phenomenon, but a social one. ‘Criminality is made up of the elements of human society itself, it is not transcendent but immanent. We can see in it a kind of degeneration of the social organism.... The criminal and the honest man are each dependent upon their environment. There are social conditions that are favorable to moral health, where there is no tendency, no inclination toward crime; there is a social environment where the atmosphere is corrupt, where unwholesome elements have accumulated, where crime settles as soot does in a flue, where the tendency toward crime bears fruit.’ Though Ferri has recently advocated the opinion that the criminal is the result of three factors, operative at the same time, and that these three causes are individual (i.e. anthropological), physical, [177] and social; in our opinion, on the other hand, these three causes are actually to be reduced to a single one, if, as he himself points out, we take into consideration the fact that the first two are both dependent upon social conditions. The anthropological and physical stigmata of criminals are, as we have endeavored to show above, in most cases wholly conditioned by the influences and circumstances of their environment.

“Crime, we will close this work by saying, is not the consequence of a special organization of the criminal, an organization which is peculiar to the criminal alone, and which forces him to the commission of criminal acts. The criminal, such by habit and apparently born as such, bears many marks of bodily and mental deformity, which have, however, neither in their totality nor singly, so marked and peculiar a character as to differentiate the criminal from his fellows as a distinct type. The criminal bears the traces of degeneracy that are to be found in abundance among the lower classes from which he mostly takes his rise. These traces, acquired through social conditions and transmitted, in his case at times emerge in stronger form. Whoever would do away with crime must do away with the social wrongs in which crime takes root and grows, and, in establishing and applying forms of punishment, must give more weight to the individuality of the criminal than to the category under which the crime falls.” [178]