Chapter I: General Considerations. 483 (6)

As regards the education of criminals, 22% of the women and 17% of the men had been brought up by persons outside of the family. The following table bears upon the others, i.e. those who were brought up at home: [745]

============+======================================= | Number of Prisoners. +------------+------------+------------ Education. | Men. | Women. |Illegitimate. +------------+----------- +------------- | Total. % | Total. % | % ------------+------------+------------+------------- Good | 4,696 57 | 586 44 | 37.6 Defective | 3,096 37 | 619 46 | 47.6 Bad | 481 6 | 141 10 | 14.8 ------------+------------+------------+------------- Total | 8,273 100 | 1,346 100 | 100.0 ============+============+============+=============

These figures show that the education of a very great number of criminals was very insufficient, and especially so in the case of illegitimate children.

The following table, dealing with the canton of Berne, gives still further details. [746]

============================+======================================================== |To 100 Convicts of Each Category the Education had been: Categories of Convicts. +-------------+--------------+-------------+------------- | Good. | Defective. | Bad. | Not known. ----------------------------+-------------+--------------+-------------+------------- Legitimate | 33.0 | 54.0 | 11.0 | 2.0 Illegitimate | 8.4 | 63.4 | 25.3 | 2.8 Brought up at home | 38.0 | 11.0 | 49.0 | 2.0 ,, ,, in another family| 9.0 | 17.0 | 73.0 | 1.0 ,, ,, ,, an institution| 16.0 | 19.0 | 53.0 | 13.0 ============================+=============+==============+=============+=============

The figures concerning the bad education of illegitimate persons are very striking, as well as those brought up in families other than their own; of the latter only 9% had received a good education even as that term is used in the table.

Wurtemberg, 1877–1888.

The following figures have to do with 3,181 criminals in prison in Wurtemberg during the years mentioned:

Out of 100 in each group there were the following number of illegitimate births:

All prisoners 27.0
Habitual criminals 30.6
Occasional criminals 17.4
Thieves 32.4
Swindlers 23.1
Sexual criminals 21.0
Perjurers 13.0
Incendiaries 12.9

Between 1876 and 1885 there were 8.76% of illegitimate births in the general population; and while the general mortality of children in their first year was 26.1% (1884–1893) that of illegitimate children was 32%. [747] The influence of illegitimacy is very strong here, therefore.

To 100 persons of each category the following were brought up outside of their own family:

Prisoners in general 16.0
Habitual criminals 19.3
Occasional criminals 7.6
Thieves 20.9
Incendiaries 11.0
Swindlers 10.8
Sexual criminals 9.4
Perjurers 6.0

To 100 persons of each category there were the following one or both of whose parents had led an immoral or criminal life:

Prisoners in general 43.7
Sexual criminals 51.7
Thieves 47.3
Swindlers 34.8
Incendiaries 31.0
Perjurers 23.0

Finally it must be mentioned that 16.2% of 1,714 in the detention prison had alcoholic parents.

We are now at the end of our statistical data and also of our observations upon the environment in which criminals are brought up; for it seems to me superfluous to make further comments: the great influence of environment is indubitable.

Tomel and Rollet close their work “Enfants en prison” with these words, which I make my own, and which are as applicable to adult as to juvenile criminals: “Has society done everything that it ought to spare children the prison? We believe that with ourselves [the reader] will answer, ‘No!’ Each child to whom we refuse protection will become a delinquent. It is a wolf that we are preparing for the sheep-fold. If tomorrow he makes his fellows pay his own arrears of injustice, if he steals, if he kills, he will not say, ‘I commit a crime’; he will say, ‘I make reprisals.’” [748]

f. Prostitution. Prostitution has a special importance for the etiology of sexual offenses and of procuration. However, it is not with this that we are concerned at present, but with the correlation between prostitution and criminality in general, in the sense, that is, that prostitution has a demoralizing effect upon the women who practice it and upon the men who have intercourse with them.

Let us begin with the effect upon the prostitutes themselves. And as with all observations upon the relation between certain social phenomena and criminality, these must be preceded by statistical data.

How large a quota do prostitutes contribute to crime? This is a hard question to answer, because, first, most criminal statistics make no mention of the occupation of prostitute; second, when the statistics do mention prostitution they do not give the real truth, since the facts will often be concealed by the woman interested; third, the extent of prostitution is almost unknown, so that it is impossible to make the necessary calculations.

The following figures give us some information on the subject.

Austria, 1896–1898.

It is to the study of Dr. A. Baumgarten “Die Beziehungen der Prostitution zum Verbrechen”, that I owe the following figures (which, I believe, bear wholly upon Vienna). In the years 1896–98 there were 34 annually convicted out of a total of 2,400 prostitutes, or 1.4%, not counting those who were punished for infraction of the regulations covering prostitution. [749] The author thinks this degree of criminality very small. I venture to be of a different opinion. If we note that criminal statistics, those of Germany, for example, show that there are annually only 0.3 women over 12 years of age convicted to the 100, we shall see that the part that prostitutes take in crime must be called more than a small one.

England, 1836–1900.

The English penitentiary statistics show whether the female prisoners are prostitutes or not. As we have seen above (p. 499) the percentage of prostitutes rose in the period between 1894–1900 to 15% of the total. The figures bearing upon earlier years, however, show a much higher percentage; in the years 1836–1854 25.2% of the women convicted (in London) were prostitutes [750]; in the years 1858–1862 prostitutes made up 24.7% of the women arrested. [751]

However, when we examine these exceptionally high figures, we must not forget that, according to the “Vagrant Act”, the fact of being a prostitute itself is a misdemeanor; a part of these women, therefore, were convicted for this and not for having committed some other offense. The following figure however, where this circumstance is excluded, also shows a great criminality upon the part of prostitutes, and gains added weight from the fact that many persons would not care to make complaint for fear of scandal: to each 100 persons of both sexes convicted in London between 1843 and 1854 of “theft from the person”, there were 36.0 prostitutes. [752]

France, 1890–1895.

In citing the figures upon the occupations of the prisoners (1890–1895) we showed (p. 501) that about 5% were prostitutes. Compared with that given in the corresponding statistics for England this percentage is small. It must, however, be taken into consideration that a great number of occasional prostitutes figure in the penitentiary statistics under the head of another occupation.

Germany, 1885.

For this country I have been able to find only the following. Among the 2,900 women imprisoned in the 16 great German prisons there were found in 1885 500 (17.2%) who had already been punished for professional prostitution. [753] Although there are no positive data upon the extent of prostitution, it is nevertheless certain that much less than 17.2% of women in general are prostitutes. The figure cited shows that prostitutes take a relatively large part in crime.

Italy, 1891–1895.

1,949 (1.5%) out of 126,717 women convicted in the years 1891–1895 were prostitutes. [754] Here also it must be taken into account that this number is made up only of prostitutes by occupation, and that those who follow it as an auxiliary calling are grouped under other occupations. Also, L. Ferriani, in his “Minderjährige Verbrecher”, concludes that of the 460 young female criminals studied by him, 243 (52.8%) were prostitutes. [755]

What data I have been able to secure do not prove—but render exceedingly probable—the assertion that prostitutes show a high degree of criminality. In my opinion this phenomenon is to be explained as follows.

First. From its nature the profession opens a vast field for committing economic offenses.

Second. Prostitution has a very demoralizing effect upon those that practice it. Those who have not sufficiently taken account of the real causes of prostitution consider this a confusing of cause and effect, and believe that it is the demoralization which causes prostitution. In reasoning thus they forget that part of the prostitutes are forced by poverty to take up this profession, and that in such cases there is no need of supposing demoralization. Whatever may be the case with regard to the rest, the profession would increase the demoralization already existing.

All the authors who have taken up the question are agreed that this is really the case. It is impossible to imagine a more degrading situation than that of a prostitute. A woman who is continually forced to act in opposition to her feelings, who is obliged to enter into intimate relations with the first comer however abject he may be, who has become unaccustomed to all work, and who is despised, inevitably loses all respect for herself and falls lower and lower. [756]

A second bond of connection between criminality and prostitution is that it makes possible a category of persons who constitute a permanent danger to society, namely the “protectors.” The unregistered prostitutes need a man who will look after them, and to whom they may attach themselves in their forlorn condition. In exchange for this protection the prostitute gives up a large part of her earnings. In examining the biographies of great criminals we see that a large number of them have belonged to this category. It is evident that only demoralized persons can lead such a life, but that this life in its turn increases their demoralization. [757]

In the third place, prostitution has a demoralizing effect upon the men who come into contact with the prostitutes. We cannot lay it to chance that it is shown in many criminal procedures that guilty persons have had relations with the world of prostitution. This world includes only a relatively small number of persons; but the men who frequent it are numerous, and the demoralization which ensues is prejudicial to society. This demoralization is easily explained, as Dr. Lux shows in his “Sozialpolitisches Handbuch”, in these words: “The venality of the delights of love debases the pleasure; the man learns to see in woman only a means of satisfying his lust; all higher regard for woman is lost to him, his thoughts become frivolous and cynical, his character continually more vulgar. Whoever has an opportunity to come to know the young men of the large cities, must, unless he is already tainted with their opinions himself, be shocked at the brutality and coarseness of their thought and speech. The whole conversational material of our gilded youth consists of filth and obscenities; they boast of things that a decent man would blush to be charged with. The young man is demoralized and depraved by association with prostitutes, of whose standard of morality he must beware lest he stifle in it every nobler feeling.” [758]

g. Alcoholism. Here we have to take up but a single one of the ways in which alcoholism is connected with criminality. For while acute alcohol-poisoning enters into the etiology of sexual offenses and those committed in revenge, etc., it has almost no relation to the largest of the classes, namely economic crimes. Acute alcoholism, therefore, has no place among our general observations. With chronic alcoholism it is otherwise; for the man who is subject to this undergoes a general demoralization by which he is predisposed to crime even when he is not drunk. The manner in which this demoralization takes place is not a question within the province of sociology; it is sufficient for us that this consequence of chronic alcoholism is universally recognized. [759]

To show the influence of chronic alcoholism upon criminality we can use only the direct statistical method; that is to say, we must find the number of chronic alcoholics among criminals, and then place beside this the number among the non-criminal population, in order that we may compare them. If the latter figures are lacking, a comparison is impossible. However, as we shall see, the percentage of chronic alcoholics is so great among the criminals, that we can affirm that among the non-criminals the percentage is very small. Consequently the influence of chronic alcoholism, whether greater or less, is indubitably proved. Here are the statistics which we have at our disposal.

Belgium, 1874–1900.

M. Masoin tells us that out of 2,588 convicts (sentenced for 5 years at least) who entered the central institution at Louvain between 1874 and 1895, there were 1,157 (44.7%) addicted to drunkenness. Out of 216 sentenced to hard labor for life there were 118 (54.6%), and out of 202 sentenced to death 121 (60%). [760]

In the prison of Mons Dr. Morel shows that out of 325 recidivists 181 (53.9%) were given to alcoholic excesses. [761]

It appears from the “Statistique Judiciaire de la Belgique” of 1900, that in 1898, out of 19,169 recidivists (men) there were 5,976 (31.2%) who had already been convicted of breaking the law against drunkenness, and out of 22,904 non-recidivists (men) 1,984 (8.7%). Among the women the figures were 8% (recidivists) and 1.1% (non-recidivists). [762]

Denmark, 1871–1897.

Out of 2,982 prisoners received between 1871 and 1880 in the prison at Vridslöselille, 797 (27%) were drunkards. The penitentiary statistics show us that during the years 1891–1897, among the non-recidivists 16.3% of the men were drunkards, and 4.6% of the women. [763]

England and Wales, 1858–1897.

The following figures are taken from the police statistics [764]:

=======+===========+================================================ | | Of whom there were Habitual Drinkers:[765] | +---------------+---------------+---------------- |Number of | Men. | Women. | Total. Years. | Persons +---------+-----+---------+-----+----------+----- |Prosecuted.| Absolute| | Absolute| | Absolute | | | Number. | % | Number. | % | Number. | % -------+-----------+---------+-----+---------+-----+----------+----- 1858 | 434,492 | 13,553 | 3.7 | 4,130 | 4.5 | 17,683 | 4.1 1859 | 419,929 | 18,440 | 5.6 | 5,303 | 5.9 | 23,743 | 5.7 1860 | 409,780 | 19,471 | 6.0 | 5,210 | 6.0 | 24,681 | 6.0 1861 | 421,891 | 19,475 | 5.8 | 4,960 | 5.7 | 24,425 | 5.8 1862 | 438,228 | 20,830 | 6.0 | 5,209 | 5.8 | 26,039 | 5.9 1894 | 689,761 | 19,224 | 3.3 | 6,557 | 5.3 | 25,781 | 3.6 1895 | 687,075 | 16,268 | 2.8 | 5,695 | 4.7 | 21,963 | 3.1 1896 | 728,374 | 17,308 | 2.8 | 6,015 | 4.7 | 23,323 | 3.2 1897 | 757,485 | 17,012 | 2.7 | 6,084 | 4.6 | 23,096 | 3.0 =======+===========+=========+=====+=========+=====+==========+=====

These figures have no great value; they represent the number of habitual drinkers to be less than it really is. The statistics cited divide all persons prosecuted into eight groups (habitual criminals, prostitutes, vagrants, etc.) and under the heading of habitual drinkers only those alcoholics figure who are not included under other headings. If a vagrant, for example, is also a habitual drinker, he will be counted among the vagrants and not among the habitual drinkers; hence this latter group is much larger than the figures would indicate. [766]

France.

At the penitentiary Congress in Brussels (1900), M. V. Marambat, well known for his studies on the relation between criminality and alcoholism, gave the following figures: [767]

=======================================+=========+==========+====== Crimes and Misdemeanors. |Number of|Number of | |Convicts.|Drunkards.| % -------------------------------------- +---------+----------+------ Murder, assault, and other crimes of | | | violence | 787 | 649 | 82.4 Malicious mischief, etc. | 433 | 344 | 79.4 Theft and other economic offenses | 3,359 | 2,156 | 64.2 Arson | 42 | 26 | 61.9 Rape and other sexual offenses | 683 | 352 | 51.5 Other offenses | 18 | 9 | 50.0 +---------+----------+------ Total | 5,322 | 3,536 | 66.4 =======================================+=========+==========+======

At the same congress Dr. Malgat reported the following results of an investigation made by him in the prison at Nice: [768]

=======================================+=========+==========+====== Offenses. | Entered.| Drinkers.| % ---------------------------------------+---------+----------+------ Insults and violence to public officers| 138 | 91 | 65.9 Theft | 579 | 357 | 61.6 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 56 | 34 | 60.7 Assaults | 275 | 160 | 58.1 Vagrancy | 346 | 196 | 56.6 Indecent assault | 52 | 29 | 55.7 Homicide | 33 | 18 | 54.5 Expelled offenders | 175 | 95 | 54.2 Breach of trust | 63 | 33 | 52.3 Other offenses | 133 | 80 | 60.1 +---------+----------+------ Total | 1,850 | 1,093 | 56.3 =======================================+=========+==========+======

Germany.

An inquiry made by Dr. A. Baer with regard to the inmates of the German prisons, in the period after 1870, gives the following results: [769]

=======+==========+============================================
| | Number of Drinkers.
| Number +--------------+--------------+--------------
| of | In General. | Occasional. | Habitual.
|Prisoners.+--------------+--------------+--------------
| |Absolute.| % |Absolute.| % |Absolute.| %
-------+----------+---------+----+---------+----+---------+----
Men | 30,041 | 13,199 |43.9| 7,071 |23.5| 6,128 |20.4
Women | 2,796 | 507 |18.1| 198 | 7.1| 309 |11.0
+----------+---------+----+---------+----+---------+----
Total | 32,837 | 13,706 |41.7| 7,269 |22.1| 6,437 |19.6
=======+==========+=========+====+=========+====+=========+====

For the different crimes and misdemeanors the figures are as follows: [770]

=================+=========+===============+============================== | | |Among the Drinkers there were: Crimes and | Number | Drinkers. +---------------+-------------- Misdemeanors. | of | | Occasional. | Habitual. |Prisoners+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- | (Men). |Absolute| |Absolute| |Absolute| | |Number. | % |Number. | % |Number. | % -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- A. Houses of Correction. -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- Assaults | 773 | 575 | 74.5 | 418 | 72.7 | 157 | 27.3 Robbery, etc. | 898 | 618 | 68.8 | 353 | 57.1 | 265 | 42.9 Homicide | 348 | 220 | 63.2 | 129 | 58.6 | 91 | 41.4 Rape, etc. | 954 | 575 | 60.2 | 352 | 61.2 | 223 | 38.8 Theft | 10,033 | 5,212 | 51.9 | 2,513 | 48.2 | 2,699 | 51.8 Attempted | | | | | | | homicide | 252 | 128 | 50.8 | 78 | 60.9 | 50 | 39.1 Arson | 804 | 383 | 47.6 | 184 | 48.0 | 199 | 52.0 Murder | 514 | 237 | 46.1 | 139 | 58.6 | 98 | 41.4 Various crimes | 1,689 | 712 | 42.2 | 358 | 50.2 | 354 | 49.8 Perjury | 590 | 157 | 26.6 | 82 | 52.2 | 75 | 47.8 -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- B. Houses of Detention. -----------------+---------+--------+------+--------+------+--------+----- Offenses | | | | | | | against morals | 200 | 154 | 77.0 | 113 | 73.3 | 41 | 26.7 Rebellion | 652 | 489 | 76.5 | 445 | 89.0 | 54 | 11.0 Assaults | 1,130 | 716 | 63.4 | 581 | 81.1 | 135 | 18.9 Robbery | 48 | 28 | 58.3 | 16 | 57.0 | 12 | 43.0 Domiciliary | | | | | | | trespass | 411 | 223 | 54.2 | 210 | 94.2 | 13 | 5.8 Disturbance of | | | | | | | public peace | 34 | 18 | 52.9 | 12 | 66.6 | 6 | 33.3 Various | | | | | | | misdemeanors | 826 | 433 | 52.4 | 306 | 70.7 | 127 | 29.3 Arson | 23 | 11 | 48.0 | 5 | 45.4 | 6 | 54.6 Theft | 3,282 | 1,048 | 32.0 | 666 | 63.5 | 382 | 36.5 Obtaining | | | | | | | money under | | | | | | | false | | | | | | | pretenses, | | | | | | | forgery, embez.| 786 | 194 | 24.7 | 111 | 57.2 | 83 | 42.8 =================+=========+========+======+========+======+========+=====

Out of a total of 359 vagabonds and mendicants Dr. Bonhoeffer found 281 (78.2 %) alcoholics. [771]

Italy.

Out of a total of 507 criminals examined by him Dr. Marro found 379 (74.7%) addicted to excess in alcohol, and only eight (1.5%) abstainers or “unknown.” [772]

Netherlands, 1900–1901.

It was only in 1900 that the criminal statistics mentioned for the first time the number of habitual drunkards among the convicts. Here are the results:

======================================+======================= |Percentage of Habitual Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Drunkards in Each | Category. --------------------------------------+----------------------- Obtaining money under false pretenses | 16 Crimes against the public authority | 13 Mendicity and vagabondage | 10 Crimes of violence | 10 Crimes against morals | 10 All crimes | 8.31 Assault | 7 Theft | 7 Receiving stolen goods | .5 Poaching | 3 ======================================+=======================

Among the recidivists the drunkards formed 11.6%.

The data for 1901 are more detailed and also more worthy of confidence.

======================================+======================= |Percentage of Habitual Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Drunkards in Each | Category. --------------------------------------+----------------------- Mendicity and vagabondage | 26.51 Rebellion | 21.16 Embezzlement | 19.20 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 18.26 Serious assaults | 16.94 Malicious mischief | 16.59 Insult to public official | 16.10 Disturbing the public peace | 14.33 Simple theft | 11.61 Sexual offenses | 10.84 Assaults | 10.87 Insults | 9.96 Aggravated theft | 8.84 Poaching | 1.46 All crimes | 13.00 ======================================+=======================

Of the recidivists 21.96% were habitual drunkards. [773]

New York (State), 1869–1870.

In his “Dangerous Classes of New York”, C. L. Brace states that in 1870, out of 49,423 criminals in the prisons of New York City there were 30,507 (61.6%) habitual drunkards, and 893 (81.6%) of the 1,093 prisoners in the Albany penitentiary in the years 1869–70 likewise were drunkards. [774]

R. L. Dugdale gives the following figures for the 233 criminals examined by him: [775]

======================================+======================= |Percentage of Habitual Crimes. | Drunkards. --------------------------------------+----------------------- Theft from the person | 55.00 Robbery | 47.36 Crimes against persons | 40.47 Theft | 39.28 All crimes | 39.05 Crimes against property | 38.74 Burglary | 33.33 ======================================+=======================

Prussia, 1894–1897.

Out of 18,049 recidivists in the houses of correction in the years 1849–1897, there were 4,930 (27.3%) habitual drunkards, of whom 4,473 (28.7%) were men, and 457 (18.2%) were women. [776]

Sweden, 1887–1897.

Out of 27,452 inmates in the prisons during the years 1887–1897 there were 3,273 (11.9%) addicted to drink, of whom 3,101 (12.7%) were men and 99 (3.2%) women. [777] These figures, however, are below the reality, since only those are counted as alcoholics who were drunk at the time they committed the crime. When we take into consideration that the number of criminals who were in a state of intoxication when they committed their crimes was 52.6%, we may be certain that a considerable number of them were habitual drunkards.

Switzerland, 1892–1896.

On the 1st of January, 1892, there were 2,201 persons in the 35 penitentiaries; 1,816 men and 385 women. Among these there were 880 drunkards (39.9%); 762 (42%) men, and 118 (31%) women. [778]

In the years 1892–1896, the Swiss criminal statistics give alcoholism as the cause of crime in 23.1% of the cases. [779] This figure, however, has no great value; not only are the statistics concerning alcoholism as a cause little worthy of confidence, as the author of them confesses (indeed, it is impossible to speak of “the cause” of a criminal act, since there are always several); but further there is no distinction made between acute and chronic alcoholism.

Wurtemberg, 1887–1888.

Among the 3,181 prisoners examined by Sichart in the years 1887–1888, there were 939 (29.5%) habitual drunkards. The figures for some of the more important crimes are as follows: [780]

=====================================+============== |Percentage of Crimes. | Drunkards in |Each Category. -------------------------------------+-------------- Crimes against morals | 36.3 Arson | 34.2 Theft | 28.0 Obtaining money under false pretenses| 25.7 Perjury | 24.0 =====================================+==============

The data given above show sufficiently, it seems to me, what the relation is between chronic alcoholism and criminality. Notwithstanding their divergences the percentages in the different countries are generally very high, and in every case much higher than among the non-criminal population. The danger that these statistics are based upon inaccurate data is not great, since the culprit has every reason to pretend that his act has been committed in a state of intoxication, in order that he may be less severely punished, and not that he is a chronic alcoholic.

There still remains the question as to what is the degree of influence which chronic alcoholism has upon crime. We should be exaggerating if we were to declare (as is sometimes done by total abstainers) that whenever a criminal is an habitual alcoholic, alcoholism is one of the principal causes of his crime. It is evident that in many cases it is only an accidental phenomenon. Nevertheless, the figures given above agree with the thesis that chronic alcoholism is a demoralizing agent and as such belongs to the etiology of crime. Its influence naturally cannot be exactly expressed in figures. [781]

h. Militarism. Although the influence of militarism upon criminality may not be an important factor in comparison with some others, it is still necessary to speak of it here briefly, and under two heads: its influence in time of peace, and its influence in time of war.

First, the influence of militarism in time of peace. The army is recruited in great part among those who do not volunteer, in other words among persons who have not the least taste for the military life and only serve for fear of incurring severe penalties. Then a great number of the volunteers have become soldiers only from necessity, because they could not find a place for themselves anywhere else. Finally one class of volunteers have enlisted very young, for a long term of service, perhaps at the instance of their parents, or drawn by the brilliant uniform, or other means of advertising peculiar to the army. It is unnecessary to add that for the last two classes the military service is often a deception, which makes them regret having engaged in it.

The first source of demoralization in an army is to be found in its composition. When you bring together a number of men, uneducated for the most part, with nothing to unite them but constraint, and when there are already certain bad elements among them, the demoralizing influence makes itself felt at once. No moral bond unites these men, but on the contrary a vague irritation begins to spread. And this demoralization is not counteracted by that great moral force, work; a great part of the time among the soldiers is passed in forced idleness, and the rest in learning things in which they have little interest, if indeed they do not feel an aversion to them.

It is naturally only by a discipline of iron that order can be maintained and the recruits taught their trade. As soon as a man is debased by excessive discipline to the rôle of a machine, his moral qualities deteriorate; the state of things thus created brings it about that the great power given to superiors often degenerates into a thirst for domination, and renders the subordinates servile, and yet of the opinion that anything is right for them so long as they are not found out. [782]

Since most soldiers are only under arms for a short time, the consequences named are not of great importance for them, but those consequences nevertheless exist for the professional soldier. The best known set of statistics upon the criminality among soldiers is that of Hausner, [783] who shows that it is 25 times as great as the criminality of civilians. These figures, however, have little value, because among the civilians are counted not simply the men of military age, but the whole population. Further, a statistical comparison of military and civil criminality will always meet with great difficulties, for, first, there are offenses of which only soldiers can be guilty; second, the number of the soldiers is not constant even in any one year. Although we cannot, therefore, express in figures the harmful influences of militarism, it exists, nevertheless. But even if we had the figures and they were to show—supposing a most improbable case—that criminality was no greater among soldiers than in civil life, even this would not contradict the evil influence of military life, since repression and the fear of punishment are greater among soldiers than among civilians, and abject poverty, one of the powerful factors in economic criminality, is totally lacking in the army. [784]

The question may be raised as to whether the disadvantages spoken of above are inseparable from every form of organization of the army. The answer must be that this is the case in part only. The harmful consequences will partially disappear when the army is adapted to the democratic spirit, and the service remains limited to the time strictly necessary to make a good soldier; but the fact that the great mass of which the army is composed has no sympathy with its aim and end but remains in service only by constraint, will continue to exist. This latter circumstance will disappear only in the country where the army is exclusively for the purposes of defense, to repulse an enemy that wishes to destroy democratic institutions.

We come now to the influence of war itself. That which, at ordinary times, is one of the gravest crimes, homicide, is commanded in war; ravages and burnings are the order of the day. It is inevitable that those who are driven to commit such acts, lose little by little their respect for the lives and property of their fellows. War arouses a spirit of violence, not only in those who take part in it, but in the whole population.

Happily wars are neither so numerous nor so long continued as formerly, so that the consequences have no longer so wide a scope.

Statistical research into the influence of war upon criminality is very difficult, for criminality diminishes in time of war in an abnormal fashion, first, because a great part of the male population of the age most disposed to crime is under arms; second, the repression of crime being less vigorous makes the degree of criminality appear smaller than it really is, which explains why the figures for the criminality of women and juveniles are less.

We often hear that war has also a good moral influence, since the whole nation is then animated with a single ideal. This is true only in the very rare cases where a war is really popular, in place of being the means of procuring material profits for a small minority, while the great majority remain indifferent. It goes without saying that even in these exceptional cases, the harmful consequences to the participants still remain. [785]

We have examined the tendencies of the present economic system and of its consequences. Before concluding we must treat of the effect of

i. The penalty. The present codes give prominence to three kinds of penalties: fines, different kinds of imprisonment, and capital punishment. We naturally do not have to say anything of the first of these, since there can be no question raised as to its effect upon the person upon whom the fine is laid. All that we can say is that this penalty fails of its object since no account is taken of the financial condition of the person sentenced to it, and it follows that while the punishment involved is only trifling for the rich, it constitutes a heavy burden for the poor. Often a fine for a poor man who cannot pay is simply a sentence to a short imprisonment.

The death penalty also naturally is outside of our present discussion. I would simply observe that among the numerous arguments against this penalty it must be noted that it has no intimidating effect upon those who are present, as one would suppose, but on the contrary a demoralizing influence; besides which the attention of the ignorant class is drawn to the crime and the perpetrator of it. Those who are condemned to death have almost all been present at executions. Out of a total of 511 of whom we have information, there were only 15 (about 3%) who had never witnessed an execution. [786]

In investigating the influence of punishment upon morality it is imprisonment alone, therefore, which must be taken into consideration, so much the more since even in the case of minor crimes it is almost always inflicted, while capital punishment is either altogether abolished, as in some countries, or else rarely pronounced and still more rarely executed.

The following table shows how many times imprisonment is inflicted in comparison with other forms of punishment.

Germany, 1882–1895. [787]

=================+============================================= | Penalties to Each 1,000 Persons Sentenced. +------+------------+------+------------------ Years. |Death.|Imprisonment|Fines.|Public Admonition. | |(All kinds.)| | -----------------+------+------------+------+------------------ 1882 | 0.3 | 736.3 | 253 | 10 1883-87 } annual | 0.2 | 697.4 | 291 | 11 1888-92 } average| 0.1 | 660.2 | 323 | 17 1893 | 0.1 | 619.2 | 363 | 18 1894 | 0.1 | 607.2 | 375 | 18 1895 | 0.1 | 595.2 | 386 | 19 =================+======+============+======+==================

60% to 70% of the sentences, then, were deprivation of liberty. What is the effect of this? The answer to this question must be found in the statistics of recidivism. Here are the results for certain countries of Europe, which probably are not much different from those of other countries.

Germany, 1882–1900. [788]

======+==============+========================================== | |To 100,000 of the Population over 12 there | Numbers of | were Recidivists who were Convicted Years.|Recidivists to+-------+--------+-------------+----------- |100 Convicts. | Once. | Twice. |3 to 5 Times.|6 Times and | | | | | Over. ------+--------------+-------+--------+-------------+----------- 1882 | 24.9 | 115 | 56 | 64 | 23 1883 | 25.8 | 119 | 59 | 69 | 20 1884 | 26.3 | 127 | 63 | 72 | 22 1885 | 27.4 | 127 | 63 | 75 | 26 1886 | 28.0 | 129 | 65 | 79 | 30 1887 | 28.8 | 131 | 66 | 81 | 34 1888 | 29.3 | 127 | 65 | 80 | 35 1889 | 31.2 | 142 | 71 | 87 | 40 1890 | 32.7 | 150 | 76 | 93 | 43 1891 | 34.0 | 158 | 79 | 99 | 47 1892 | 34.7 | 169 | 87 | 107 | 54 1893 | 35.2 | 171 | 88 | 111 | 57 1894 | 36.9 | 181 | 93 | 120 | 65 1895 | 37.9 | 184 | 96 | 124 | 69 1896 | 38.8 | 183 | 96 | 129 | 75 1897 | 39.6 | 186 | 99 | 129 | 78 1898 | 40.1 | 189 | 100 | 133 | 83 1899 | 40.8 | 187 | 100 | 133 | 85 1900 | 41.2 | 180 | 96 | 131 | 86 ======+==============+=======+========+=============+===========

Recidivism has regularly increased, then: a little more than 65% in 18 years.

It is present in different crimes in very various degrees. For the following crimes it is very great.

Germany, 1882–1895. [789]

===============================+=================================================== |Number of Recidivists having undergone Imprisonment | to Each 100 Convicts in the Crimes. | Years +-------------+-------------+-------------+--------- | 1882. | 1886. | 1890. | 1895. -------------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+--------- Leze-majesty | 40.7 | 41.3 | 43.2 | 52.8 Rebellion | 31.8 | 41.3 | 46.8 | 52.7 Robbery and blackmail | 44.4 | 45.6 | 51.5 | 50.9 False accusation | 34.8 | 37.1 | 42.1 | 48.3 Crimes of fraud | 32.9 | 38.9 | 42.9 | 45.4 Crimes against personal liberty| 26.6 | 32.3 | 37.8 | 42.8 Theft and embezzlement | 32.1 | 35.2 | 37.2 | 40.4 Crimes against morals | 24.1 | 31.3 | 35.9 | 38.3 Counterfeiting | 28.5 | 31.1 | 35.1 | 38.2 ===============================+=============+=============+=============+=========

The following figures give a picture of recidivism in

England and Wales, 1871–1900. [790]

=======+===============+====================================================== | |Percentage among Convicts of Recidivists who have been | Percentage | Convicted Years. |of Recidivists +----------+----------+----------+----------+---------- |among Convicts.| Once. | 2 to 5 | 6 to 10 | 11 to 20 | Over 20 | | | Times. | Times. | Times. | Times. -------+---------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+---------- 1871-77| 40 | | | | | 1880-92| 48 | | | | | 1894 | 54.5 | 15.2 | 18.3 | 7.7 | 6.2 | 6.9 1895 | 55.5 | 15.7 | 18.0 | 8.9 | 6.9 | 5.9 1896 | 57.3 | 14.8 | 19.1 | 9.0 | 7.7 | 6.6 1897 | 57.6 | 18.9 | 19.0 | 8.8 | 7.6 | 7.1 1898 | 59.9 | 16.2 | 20.0 | 8.9 | 7.5 | 7.1 1899 | 60.2 | 16.4 | 19.9 | 9.2 | 7.6 | 7.0 1900 | 59.3 | 15.8 | 19.2 | 9.2 | 7.7 | 7.4 =======+===============+==========+==========+==========+==========+==========

Here also, then, as in Germany there is a great increase in recidivism; 72% in 29 years.

For some offenses recidivism is more common than for others, as the following figures show.

England and Wales, 1899–1900. [791]

(Assizes and Quarter Sessions.)

======+=============================================================== |Number of Recidivists to 100 Persons Convicted of the Following | Crimes. Years.+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------------+-------- | Crimes | Crimes | Crimes | | | |against |against |against | | Forgery | |Persons.|Property |Property |Malicious| and | Other | | with | without |Mischief.|Counterfeiting.|Crimes. | |Violence.|Violence.| | | ------+--------+---------+---------+---------+---------------+-------- 1894 | 32.1 | 67.3 | 64.1 | 42.5 | 41.1 | 27.9 1895 | 35.2 | 67.3 | 66.1 | 51.8 | 38.5 | 24.4 1896 | 36.1 | 67.2 | 66.3 | 44.3 | 37.4 | 25.0 1897 | 38.0 | 68.7 | 66.4 | 51.1 | 40.0 | 28.1 1898 | 39.3 | 68.1 | 68.3 | 56.0 | 43.2 | 32.4 1899 | 37.7 | 69.9 | 67.4 | 58.3 | 40.0 | 35.2 1900 | 39.7 | 71.0 | 68.9 | 59.4 | 40.9 | 29.8 ======+========+=========+=========+=========+===============+========

The following table has to do with

Austria, 1866–1899. [792]

=========+========================================================================== | Percentage of Convicts Who +------------------+------------------+------+----------------+------------ Years. |Had been convicted|Had been convicted| |Had been already| Were | of Crime | of Crime |Total.| convicted |Recidivists. | Once Before. | Several Times. | |of a Misdemeanor| | | | | or | | | | | Contravention. | ---------+------------------+------------------+------+----------------+------------ 1866-1870| 11.9 | 15.5 | 27.4 | 17.5 | 44.9 1871-1875| 11.6 | 14.2 | 25.8 | 17.9 | 43.7 1876-1880| 10.9 | 14.6 | 25.5 | 22.2 | 47.7 1881-1885| 10.6 | 14.2 | 24.8 | 25.2 | 50.0 1886-1890| 10.9 | 12.9 | 23.8 | 27.9 | 51.7 1891-1895| 11.1 | 12.5 | 23.6 | 28.9 | 52.5 1896 | 12.5 | 10.7 | 23.2 | 31.5 | 54.7 1897 | 12.7 | 10.6 | 23.3 | 30.4 | 53.8 1898 | 12.5 | 9.9 | 22.4 | 29.1 | 51.5 1899 | 12.4 | 10.1 | 22.5 | 29.8 | 52.4 =========+==================+==================+======+================+============

This table has only a little value for the problem of recidivism; it bears only upon those convicted of crime and leaves out of account those convicted of misdemeanors; and in the last two columns are included persons convicted of contraventions, who ought not to figure in statistics of recidivism.

The following figures have much greater value.

France, 1850–1900. [793]

=============+============================== |Percentage of Recidivists in | Each Group of Convicts. +--------+--------------+------ Years. |Assizes.| Correctional |Total. | | Tribunals. | -------------+--------+--------------+------ 1850-1855 | 33 | -- | -- 1856-1860 | 36 | -- | 31 1861-1865 | 38 | -- | 34 1866-1870 | 41 | -- | 38 1871-1875 | 47 | -- | 42 1876-1880 | 48 | -- | 44 1881-1885 | 52 | 44 | 44 1886-1890 | 56 | 47 | 47 1891-1895 | 57 | 46 | 46 1896-1900 | 57 | 46 | 46 =============+========+==============+======

Here, then, is a steady increase, checked only in the last 15 years by the law of May 27th, 1885, upon recidivism.

The following table shows recidivism for certain offenses. [794]

========================================+===================================== | Percentage of Recidivists among Crimes and Misdemeanors. | Convicts. +--------+--------+--------+---------- |1881-85.|1886-90.|1891-95.|1896-1900. ----------------------------------------+--------+--------+--------+---------- Drunkenness | 81 | 79 | 79 | 86 Vagabondage | 73 | 78 | 79 | 82 Mendicity | 72 | 77 | 75 | 80 Assaults upon parents, etc. | 69 | 63 | 55 | 80 Aggravated theft | 73 | 77 | 79 | 79 Counterfeiting | 50 | 54 | 57 | 55 Insults and violence to public officials| 48 | 50 | 51 | 51 Obtaining money under false pretenses | 51 | 50 | 51 | 50 Homicide | 42 | 50 | 52 | 50 Murder | 46 | 44 | 44 | 48 Arson | 53 | 50 | 52 | 46 Theft | 47 | 51 | 47 | 46 Serious assaults | 40 | 35 | 42 | 46 Domestic theft | 47 | 45 | 42 | 44 Forgery | 37 | 43 | 46 | 44 Fraudulent bankruptcy | 33 | 26 | 31 | 44 Misdemeanor connected with fishing | 35 | 39 | 39 | 41 Breach of trust | 41 | 43 | 41 | 39 Offenses connected with hunting | 26 | 32 | 34 | 38 Minor assaults | 32 | 36 | 35 | 35 Offenses against morals | 31 | 30 | 32 | 31 Maltreatment of children | 32 | 25 | 21 | 25 Infanticide | 7 | 6 | 8 | 7 ========================================+========+========+========+==========

Here are the figures for

Italy, 1876–1889. [795]

========+========================= |Percentage of Recidivists | among those arraigned | Before. Years. +----------+-------------- | Assizes. | Correctional | | tribunals. --------+----------+-------------- 1876 | 10.4 | -- 1877 | 11.2 | -- 1878 | 13.2 | -- 1879 | 20.7 | -- 1880 | 21.5 | -- 1881 | 26.5 | 20.2 1882 | 28.8 | 21.1 1883 | 29.4 | 22.6 1884 | 32.8 | 23.6 1885 | 34.7 | 27.6 1886 | 34.0 | 27.8 1887 | 36.0 | 32.2 1888 | 32.2 | 30.6 1889 | 36.3 | 32.3 ========+==========+==============

In Italy also, then, there is a constant increase of recidivism (except in 1888).

In conclusion, here are the figures for the

Netherlands, 1896–1901. [796]

========+=========+============+============+======================== | | | | Percentage of Convicts | | | Percentage | who had been Convicted. Years. |Convicts.|Recidivists.| of +-------+-------+-------- | | |Recidivists.| |2 to 5 |6 times | | | | Once. |times. |or more. --------+---------+------------+------------+-------+-------+-------- 1896 | 17,205 | 5,097 | 29.6 | 17.1 | 10.3 | 2.2 1897 | 16,832 | 5,566 | 33.0 | 19.6 | 11.6 | 1.8 1898 | 16,368 | 5,997 | 36.6 | 21.2 | 13.2 | 2.2 1899 | 15,631 | 6,092 | 38.9 | 20.7 | 15.4 | 2.8 1900 | 15,169 | 6,048 | 39.8 | 20.3 | 16.2 | 3.3 ========+=========+============+============+=======+=======+========

The imperfection of the present mode of combating crime is shown even by the evidence of the statistics we have given. It would be hard to imagine a more complete fiasco; in place of a decrease there has been an increase of recidivism; in place of making men better, the prison makes them worse.

Here is in brief the explanation of the fact. As we have already observed above in treating of the definition of crime, one of the important elements in the present system of punishment consists, for many people, in the desire to satisfy their revengeful feelings excited by the crime. Those who realize that the punishment must be especially aimed at the improvement of the criminal form only a small minority. The present forms of punishment and the manner in which they are inflicted are little if at all in accord with this latter point of view. At present the penalty is not much more than an evil inflicted upon the criminal to satisfy the vengeance of a great part of mankind, and at the same time to make it impossible for the criminal to do harm, either for a time or else forever, and finally to terrify him and other men into not committing crimes. So long as punishment has this characteristic, so long as it does not aim at the improvement of the criminal, so long will it fail to effect a decrease in crime, but will rather bring an increase, as the facts prove. No one, not even the most dangerous criminal is morally improved in the slightest degree by vengeance wreaked upon him. Vengeance engenders only vengeance and no other feeling. We can expect to see good results from punishment only if the criminal, from the manner in which he is treated, perceives that those who have him in charge wish him well, are trying to improve him, and that his act was wicked and intolerable.

There are two types of imprisonment; imprisonment in common, and in separate cells. It is very easy to understand that a term of imprisonment served in common has disastrous consequences for the prisoner. It is because of this system that the prison has had the name of a school of crime, which would be a good joke if the facts were less serious. All kinds of criminals, young and old, those sentenced for minor offenses, [797] and those guilty of grave crimes, criminals against property and criminals against persons, all find themselves massed together, so that instead of leaving prison bettered, almost every one leaves it worse than he went in. No work is done, or at least only stupefying labors; a real trade is neither practiced nor learned. [798]

The disadvantages of this system have led to the cellular plan by which the contagious influences of the prison are gotten rid of. Much was hoped for from the change, but the statistics of recidivism show the hope to have been ill-founded; separate confinement improves the prisoner no more than the older type. This fact is not difficult to explain. Starting from the false theory that man has a free will, the non-determinists have believed, and unhappily still believe, that the criminal left to himself and to his own reflections will repent. As Sacker in “Der Rückfall” judiciously remarks, the criminal must not be left to his thoughts—if he has any—but must be given new ideas. It is unnecessary to remark that it is not life in a cell that will give them to him.

Man is a social being; without life among his fellows he is like an animal out of its element. How can he become better if he lives alone. The cell stupefies him, isolation and monotony make him a machine, which later will not be fit for a free life. I do not know a better description of the consequences of separate confinement than that given by the competent author of “Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts”, Th. Holmes. He says: “How is it that a man’s facial expression changes during a long detention? How is it that his voice becomes hard and unnatural? How is it that his eyes become shifty, cunning, and wild? It is no fault of the prison officials; they cannot help these things; from the governor downward they are not to blame. It is not because of hard work. From conversation with, and knowledge of, such men, I gather that some of them at any rate would be thankful for more work. It is the system that does it, the long-continued, soul-and-mind-destroying monotony, the long, silent nights in which for hours men lie awake thinking, thinking, thinking, driven in upon themselves and to be their own selves’ only companion. No interchange of ideas is possible, no sound of human voices comes to call forth their own, and their own vocal organs rust. Nor does returning day bring change, nothing but the same duties, performed in the same way, at the same hour, and the same food, in the same quantities, served in the same demoralizing way. They become strangers to the usages of civilized society, and devour their food even as the beasts, but not with the wild beast’s relish. To the use of knife and fork they become strangers; to a knowledge of their own lineaments they become strangers; to high thoughts, amiable words, courtesy, love of truth, and all that makes a man they become strangers, for these virtues cannot dwell with senseless monotony. But if these things die of atrophy, other but less desirable qualities are developed. A low cunning takes their place; the wits are sharpened to deceive or to gain small ends; hypocrisy is developed, and men come out of prison hating it, loathing it, but less fitted to perform the duties of life than when they entered it.” [799]

Read further the opinion of Dostoievsky: “I am firmly convinced that the boasted cellular system pursues but a false, if specious, aim. It sucks the vital power out of a man, enervates his mind, weakens and cows him, and finally presents the desiccated mummy of a man made half mad, as a picture of reformation and repentance.” [800]

It would be possible to fill these pages with the well-supported opinions of those who regard the cellular system as “an aberration of the 19th century” (Ferri). [801]

To sum up then, we come to the conclusion that the system of imprisonment is not in a condition to arrest the tide of criminality, but further that it is even one of the causes of the increase of crime, since it makes the prisoners still worse. It may be that in consequence of what I have just said the reader will remark that there is no other expedient possible than imprisonment, whether in common or cellular. Although the question of the treatment of the criminal as it ought to be is not one of those with which we are at present occupied, I shall nevertheless say a few words on the subject.

It is possible to practice a third system, which takes its origin from the idea that the crime does not proceed from the free will, but from causes which it will be necessary to try to remove, in place of inflicting a useless punishment. It is to the credit of the State of New York that it should be the first to put in practice this sort of a system of combating crime (in the Elmira Reformatory). An effort is made to make a man of the criminal, to turn him into a strong and sound individual; he is taught a trade, his mind is elevated, his feeling of honor revived, in short, everything is done that is necessary to stimulate the development of what is human in the man. And the results prove that those who are following this method are surely on the right road. [802]

There is only one objection to this system; that many persons who have not committed crime lead a life which in various ways is worse than that of the criminals so treated. However, this very sound objection does not condemn the system, but rather the present organization of society, which obliges a great number of persons to drag out a miserable existence. The question of crime and the social question are inseparable; he who examines the first without the second will not do much toward solving it.

j. Imitation. Before concluding we must give our attention to one more factor: imitation. We have already pointed this out in speaking of the moral education of the young, but it is also of importance with adults (e.g. the influence of the press, etc.; see above, C., a., in this chapter), though not to so great an extent. When society shows very egoistic tendencies imitation strengthens these considerably; when we see persons with whom we have to do, always acting in an egoistic manner, our anti-egoistic forces weaken little by little and we end by doing as the others do. [803] In the crime of mobs imitation plays an important part.

The proofs to support the power of imitation in the etiology of crime are to be found in the biographies of most great criminals; bad example plays generally a preponderant rôle in the drama of life. I know only a single set of statistics giving exact information of the atmosphere in which criminals have lived, and so furnishing an idea of the influence of imitation. It is that furnished by the “Elmira Reformatory”. According to the “Twenty-second Yearbook” (1897) the character of the people with whom the inmates had associated was as follows: [804]

=========================+========================== | Prisoners. Character of Associates. +------------------+------- | Absolute Number. | % -------------------------+------------------+------- Positively bad | 4,511 | 54.2 Less bad | 3,614 | 43.4 Doubtful | 81 | 1.4 Good | 113 | 1.0 +------------------+------- Total | 8,319 | 100.0 =========================+==================+=======

A second proof of the influence of the contagion of crime is found in the fact that the criminality in the cities, where people come more into contact with each other, is in general greater than that in the country. Although it is evident that we cannot impute this exclusively to imitation (it is due, among other things, in part to the great differences of fortune found in the cities), it still plays an important part. [805] The following figures give a picture of the criminality in the large cities and in the country. [806]

England and Wales, 1894–1898.