Chapter II: Economic Crimes (2)

We have now to deal with crimes of persons who steal neither from absolute poverty, nor by profession. Those who are guilty of these crimes earn enough to satisfy their more pressing needs, and they steal only when the occasion presents itself (whence their name of occasional criminals) [879] in order to satisfy their desire for luxury.

The first question, then, which must be answered here is this: how do these needs arise? The answer can be brief; they are aroused by the environment. In a society where some are rich, who have more income than is needed to supply the fundamental necessities, and who create other needs for themselves, in such a society the cupidity of those who have not similar incomes at their disposal will be awakened. The desires which the criminals of whom we are speaking wish to satisfy by their misdeeds are not different from those of the well-to-do. It goes without saying that no one has ever desired any luxury that he has not seen someone else enjoying. It would be a waste of time to discuss this. Every need that is not strictly necessary, is not innate but acquired. If one has much, the other, an imitator, wants the same. There is but one piece of advice to give to those who are not convinced of this simple truth; that they read some ethnological works treating of peoples among whom there are neither rich nor poor. They will then see that cupidity, with us a universal quality, is there unknown. [880]

The division between rich and poor is many centuries old and does not belong to capitalism alone, although under capitalism the distance between the two has greatly increased and is still increasing. The greater this distance is, the more, other things being equal, cupidity increases. [881]

The cupidity of those who can satisfy only the desire for the bare necessities is not awakened in the same measure in each of them. As has already been remarked by Guerry and Quetelet (see Part I), economic crimes are most numerous in the countries where manufacturing and commerce are most developed, and where the contrasts of fortune are consequently the greatest. It is for this reason that the cities, where the contrasts between poverty and wealth are greatest, give also very high figures for crimes against property (see pp. 530–531).

Those who live in the same country or the same city are not, in spite of that, in the same environment. Every great city has thousands of workers who, because of the character of their labor, have no contact with luxury; others, on the contrary, have the desire for luxury awakened in them by the fact that their work brings them in touch with wealth. Hence it is, for example, that so large a number of economic crimes are committed by workers occupied in commerce (see p. 446), and by servants. [882] There are workmen who have never been accustomed to more than they are able to earn at the time, but there are also those who have known better days and to whom the impossibility of satisfying needs previously acquired is a constant source of suffering.

However, the contrast between rich and poor is not the only cause of the origin of cupidity. We must also sketch in addition to the above, especially the manner in which commercial capital tries to draw buyers. The times are long gone by when the producer worked principally to order. Modern industry manufactures enormous quantities of goods without the outlet for them being known. The desire to buy must, then, be excited in the public. Beautiful displays, dazzling illuminations, and many other means are used to attain the desired end. The perfection of this system is reached in the great modern retail store, where persons may enter freely, and see and handle everything, where, in short, the public is drawn as a moth to a flame. The result of these tactics is that the cupidity of the crowd is highly excited. [883]

After what has been said it is unnecessary to dwell longer upon the different ways in which cupidity is awakened in our present society. However we must note the following. Almost all the thefts of the class of which we are speaking (those committed by so-called occasional criminals) are thefts of articles of very small value (see the figures on p. 201); the exceptions are the thefts of large sums of money. The authors of these last are in general the employes of banks, etc., persons who, from the nature of their work, have the opportunity to appropriate other people’s money. When we investigate the reasons for their committing their misdeeds, we shall see that nine times out of ten (I cannot prove it by figures, but no one will contradict me) the criminal is a speculator who has lost, or perhaps an individual who visits prostitutes, and hence has great need of money.

Cupidity is thus excited by the environment, but not in the same degree in every case, the environment not being the same for all. However, even supposing that the environment were exactly identical for a number of persons, cupidity would not be excited in the same measure in some as in others, since they are not alike, one being born with more intense desires than others (admitting that it is the environment that calls forth the desires). The more intense a man’s desires, the more risk he runs, other things being equal, of falling foul of the law. As I have already remarked above, this is important for the person who is seeking the reason why A and not B has stolen, though both live in the same environment; for sociology this fact is only of secondary importance, for it does not ask “Who becomes criminal?” but rather “How does it happen that there are crimes?”

We have now examined one of the sides of the question; the principal cause of these crimes is the cupidity awakened by the environment. If the environment were different, cupidity would not be aroused and the crimes would not be committed. In my opinion most criminologists do not sufficiently appreciate the importance of this fact. It is very difficult for anyone who lives at ease to form an idea of what is passing in the mind of one who has only the bare necessaries of life and is deprived of every comfort and amusement, while he sees others who have too much, and yet often work less than he does.

Let us now examine the other side of the question. For this purpose let us make use once more of the figure of balances in describing the process that goes on in the brain of the man who hesitates. Upon one of the pans cupidity exercises its force, in different measure according to the person. What are the weights upon the other pan balancing the first? It is the moral forces which must be considered first. I have fully explained above how the economic environment has prevented the social instincts from being developed in man, and how this is especially true for certain classes of persons. It is unnecessary to repeat this here. It will be sufficient to note certain points which have a special importance for the kind of crimes with which we are occupied at the moment.

He who steals, prejudices the interests of another, does him harm, and at the same time injures society, the existence of which would become impossible were theft permitted. In my opinion, the present organization of society, of which the struggle of all against all is the fundamental principle, has reduced this moral factor to very small dimensions. In the economic domain each must be egoistic, for without egoism he would lose in the struggle for existence. In the case of theft and similar crimes, those injured are almost exclusively well-to-do persons, to whom the damage is disagreeable, but who, in general do not suffer much. The thieves, on the other hand, are almost exclusively persons who have to live on very little. How can we expect a poor man to take care not to do a small injury to the rich for fear of causing them a little discomfort, when most rich people are insensible to the suffering which without intermission, overwhelms the poor. The present organization of society is responsible for the fact that a slight sensibility to the misfortune of others offers only a trifling counterpoise to the tendency to realize one’s desires in a dishonest manner. [884] The idea that society in itself is injured by theft cannot constitute any considerable counterpoise, since he who violates the eighth commandment cannot feel himself at one with a society which never has helped him when he was in difficulties.

After this general observation let us pass on to particular remarks that apply to certain classes of persons only. How does it happen that a great proportion of mankind are honest? To this question the answer must be, “because they have been accustomed to it from infancy.” The opposite also is true; a great number of thieves are such because any moral education was out of the question in the environment in which they were brought up. They satisfy their “prehensory instinct” without being conscious of any ill-doing. With these the balance inclines to the side of dishonesty, unless a counterpoise of some magnitude is found. Above (pp. 489 ff.) we have seen that most criminals, especially thieves, come from a totally corrupt environment. [885]

This does not apply to another category of thieves; those who do not proceed from an absolutely corrupt environment—yet whose surroundings are not good and wholesome. Ferriani [886] and Aschaffenburg [887] go so far as to say that almost every child has once stolen something. This may be a little exaggerated but it certainly has truth at the bottom of it. If the child has no one to take the trouble to teach him that he ought not to steal, it is more than likely that he will have to answer for theft later (occasional theft is committed by children and minors especially). It is true that all the children whose education has been defective do not become thieves, nor even the majority of them; there are those for whom a single prohibition will be enough to make them respect the property of others for the rest of their lives. There are others of them, weak characters who, notwithstanding such prohibition, cannot resist when the temptation is strong. If their education had been good, the environment in which they were brought up more favorable, they would not have had to be turned over to justice. Hear the opinion of one of those most competent to judge of the matter, Raux, who, having put to himself the question whether the young people detained in the “Quartier correctionnel” of Lyons have a real tendency to steal, answers as follows. “Evidently not. Without entering into the analysis of the circumstances which provoke crime, we shall give, in support of our assertion, an observation as simple as conclusive. Young prisoners condemned for theft have shown us upon different occasions a probity, a most praiseworthy disinterestedness, in the presence of things that they might have appropriated without exposing themselves to any reproof.” [888]

We might close our observations upon theft from cupidity at this point if there were not fear of an objection drawn from what has just been said, namely the following. If the occasional thief has become such, on the one side because of the cupidity awakened in him, and on the other side in consequence of his lack of a good education, and if he differs, not qualitatively, but only quantitatively from the honest man, possessing less strength of character than the average—if all this is true, then the figures for theft should be higher than the statistics show. All of which would go to prove that it is wrong to deny that criminals constitute a biological anomaly.

Here is my reply. First. Moral forces do not constitute the only counterpoise to the tendency toward theft. Since the moral check often lacks efficacy, another has been created which acts in the same way to turn the egoist away from crime, namely the fear inspired by the possibility of punishment. Any one would be credulous indeed to fancy that those who have an opportunity to steal and do not profit by it are deterred by moral forces. Without punishment criminality would be much more extensive than it now is. Where the danger of being found out is not great, the number of transgressions is enormous (think, for example, of the cases of smuggling). [889]

Second. Many persons remain honest, not for moral reasons, but because they lack the courage, cleverness, or other qualities necessary for being otherwise, qualities which in themselves have nothing to do with crime.

Third. Still others remain honest for reasons based upon mature reflection. They find that it is too dangerous to commit an offense, but do not hesitate in the presence of acts essentially criminal, although they do not fall under the ban of the law. [890] No one is ignorant of this, and only certain anthropologists who examine no one but prisoners, have lost sight of it.

Those who compose the criminal world are by nature very diverse. Some are the most dangerous individuals that it is possible to imagine, others are rather weak than wicked. Among these last are ranged the occasional criminals, who, taken together, form a danger to society, but taken singly are not dangerous men in the strict sense. Leuss, who learned to know prisoners, not as judge, or as medical expert, but as a prisoner himself, says: “The great mass of prisoners are more good-natured than the average man; the good-nature of thieves corresponds with their weakness of will, that invincible obstacle to their maintaining themselves in the world of industry. Stress must constantly be laid upon the fact that these weak-willed, good-natured persons are the ones who swell the number of crimes.” [891]

When we place beside the occasional thieves, those who never steal but commit all sorts of reprehensible (though not illegal) acts, the comparison is not to the advantage of the latter. Their trickery, their pitiless egoism, often make them more dangerous to society than the others; which should be a reason for criminal anthropology not to build a system based solely upon investigations of prisoners.

Fourth. Finally many more crimes are committed than are mentioned by criminal statistics. Although I have already spoken of this (p. 84), I must return to it. In the first place, most criminal statistics give the figures only for those convicted. Those acquitted have no place, although, with few exceptions, a crime has nevertheless been committed. We know that the number of acquittals is very considerable. In Germany, there were 15 to 20 acquittals to 100 cases tried (1882–1896); [892] in Italy the number of acquittals ran as high as 51.37% (1890–1895). [893]

In the second place, in many cases the prosecution is postponed for different reasons, with the result that there is neither an acquittal nor a condemnation. Then a great many cases never come to trial because justice cannot discover the authors of the crimes. In Germany, for example, of all the cases on the dockets in the criminal courts between 1881 and 1891, only 43 to 45% actually came before the judges. [894] During the period between 1886 and 1890, the examining judges dismissed on an average 8900 cases, either because the author of the crime was unknown, or because the proof was insufficient. During the same period and for the same reasons, 98,741 cases on the average were not prosecuted by the authorities. [895] The authors of about 25% of the crimes committed in Italy remained unknown (1887–1894). [896]

These two reasons by themselves show that the number of crimes is much greater than the statistics would generally lead one to suppose, even if one takes account of the fact that some of the complaints made to the prosecutors are false.

In the third place, we have been speaking so far of the cases that come to the notice of the officers, while in a great number of cases no complaint is made, especially in the matter of petty theft, either because the person injured wishes to avoid the annoyance of having to appear in the police court as witness, or because he wishes to spare the delinquent.

In the fourth place, a great many small thefts remain unknown even to the person injured, since he does not notice the loss that he has suffered.

All this goes to show that crime, taken in the strict sense, and especially theft, is much more extensive than one would expect at first, and the objection that might have been made to my thesis is hence without weight. It is evident that the number of criminals unpunished cannot be fixed with certainty. Dr. Puibaraud places it at 50%; [897] while Tarde believes that it is greater; [898] Yvernès, the well-known French statistician, says that 90% of the professional thieves remain unknown, and Dr. Thomsen, from whom I take this last fact, says that this applies to other categories of criminals also. [899] However this may be the number in any case is very considerable.

To sum up. I believe I have shown that the fundamental causes of theft and similar crimes committed from cupidity are, on the one hand, the cupidity aroused by the environment and, on the other, neglected childhood among the poor. It is especially those weak in character who run the greatest risk of becoming guilty of these crimes.

c. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS.

In considering all the kinds of theft and analogous crimes, we note that the thefts committed by professional criminals represent only a minority. But as soon as we limit our consideration to the more serious forms of theft, such as burglary and similar crimes, we shall discover that they are committed almost exclusively by individuals whose principal or subsidiary occupation is theft, and who, in general, do not consider it shameful, and do not feel the slightest repentance.

The question arises, how it is possible for anyone to embrace so abject a profession, and thus become so harmful a parasite. [900] There are authors who would have us believe that there are persons who have chosen crime from pleasure in it. As Leuss observes in his work, “Aus dem Zuchthause”, this opinion is so absurd that it would be a waste of time to consider it. No one of sound mind could possibly prefer so abominable a profession, and one so full of risks from the point of view of simple calculation. There must be other reasons for the existence of such persons. [901] If we wish to examine these causes we must divide professional criminals into separate groups.

The first category is composed of children. Sad as this is it is none the less true. It is plain that not a single child follows the profession of thief from pleasure, for a child prefers not to work at all. These children, then, are taught to steal by their parents. If they are not very numerous, in the great cities there are always some cases of this kind. Dr. Puibaraud, former police official in Paris, describes one of these as follows. “We recall that one day, on visiting the Petite-Roquette, we found in a cell a child scarcely eight years old, with a wide-awake face, a quick eye, but whose physiognomy was already very peculiar. It was a young pickpocket who had been found drunk upon the street, and who, being arrested by an agent and taken to the station, had confessed that the gold he had in his possession was the proceeds of a theft committed by him without the knowledge of his ‘papa.’ This capture ended by the whole family’s being arrested at their lodgings, near the Place Maubert.

“This gamin was very intelligent and gave the following account of himself, which was corroborated by what was brought out in the examination. ‘My father showed me how to pick pockets, but so far I have only “done” ladies because that is easier. With gentlemen you may touch their leg when you stick your hand in their pocket and they turn round, and that’s no joke! With ladies you do not get so close and they do not feel your hand. It isn’t hard at all. Papa taught me well. We went every day together to the Palais Royal and Place de la Bastille omnibus stations. The Palais Royal is no good. The best is the Madeleine, but Mother G. works that and she quarrels with papa. We don’t go there any more. Last week papa told me to wait for him at the Palais Royal omnibus stand. He didn’t come, and, “ma foi!” I went to work by myself. I got a purse from an old lady. There were sixty francs in it. I drank a bit and then I was arrested.’” [902]

As we see this child found theft the most natural thing in the world (and any other child in the same environment would think the same); he “worked” with his father. If exceptionally favorable circumstances do not happen to present themselves to such children they will belong to the army of professional criminals all their lives.

Now, as for the others, those who have not been brought up for a life of crime, yet practice it as their profession—how can we explain their manner of life? The answer to this question can be found only in the works of those who have familiarized themselves with the life of criminals, and who have lived in their midst in order to know them (like Flynt, for example), or who are in a position, because of their profession, to study them in detail, and become their confidants (like the well-known almoners of the Grande-Roquette: Crozes, Moreau, and Faure). [903]

Except for a few subsidiary circumstances the life of the professional criminal may be summed up as follows. With very rare exceptions he springs from a corrupt environment, perhaps having lost his parents while still very young, or having even been abandoned by them. Being misled by bad company, he commits an “occasional” theft while still a child, for which he must pay the penalty of an imprisonment; he may, at times owe his entrance into prison to a non-economic misdeed. This, however, is a very rare exception. [904] As we have remarked above, prison never improves him, and generally makes him worse. If he is in contact with the other prisoners, among whom there are naturally a number of out and out criminals, he hears the recital of their adventurous life, learns their tricks and all that he still needs to know to be thoroughly informed as to “the profession.” Nor will the separate cell be any more profitable to him, brutalized as he already is by his earlier environment. Then after a certain time he is set at liberty and returned to society. The partisans of free will say that he has expiated his fault and can now commence a new life.

That is easy to say, and certainly justice will not concern itself with him any further until he commits a new offense. But this is not the same as saying that society pardons him and aids him, in order that he may remain in the right path. On the contrary, forgetting that we must forgive those who have trespassed against us, society makes life hard for him. It is almost impossible for him to find work; the fact that he has been in prison is enough to insure his being refused everywhere. Why should anyone hire an old prisoner when there are so many others who have never got into the courts? And then most prisoners have never learned a trade, and this is one reason more why they cannot easily find employment. The liberated convict becomes a nomad, begins by losing all contact with the normal world (supposing he ever had any) and feels himself a social pariah. On the other hand he has relations more and more frequent with the “under world”, with those who recognize no duty toward a society which is not interested in their fate. His moral sense comes to be more and more blunted until he becomes a criminal by profession, having a feeling neither of shame nor of repentance.

The ignorant public, who know nothing about the professional criminal except when he appears before the tribunal, is astonished to find that there are persons so abject. This astonishment is like that of some one who has never seen a house built, and cannot imagine how such a colossus can be put up. But he who has seen how the house has been erected by adding one small brick to another no longer feels any astonishment. It is the same with the professional criminal; he who has followed the story of the criminal’s life recognizes with Dr. Havelock Ellis, that his crime is but the last link of a solidly forged chain.

Generally the professional criminal does not give the least sign of repentance. He does as much injury to society as he can, without having any shame about it. Yet he is not entirely deprived of moral sense, only it extends merely to those who are really his fellows. All the tales of the world of professional criminals which depict them as void of all sense of duty toward their fellows, proceed rather from the imagination of the authors than from facts really observed. The only competent authors are those who have been able to study the criminal in his own environment, and not in prison, where his true character makes itself known as little as that of an animal in a cage. Hear the opinion of Flynt, for example. “It is often said that his (the professional criminal’s) lack of remorse for his crimes proves him to be morally incompetent; but this opinion is formed on insufficient knowledge of his life. He has two systems of morality: one for his business and the other for the hang-out.” [905] There follows the description of the relations existing between him and society of which we have already spoken, after which the author continues as follows.

“In the bosom of his hang-out, however—and this is where we ought to study his ethics,—he is a very different man. His code of morals there will compare favorably with that of any class of society; and there is no class in which fair dealing is more seriously preached, and unfair dealing more severely condemned. The average criminal will stand by a fellow-craftsman through thick and thin; and the only human being he will not tolerate is the one who turns traitor. The remorse of this traitor when brought to bay by his former brethren I have never seen exceeded anywhere.” [906]

After expatiating upon this subject, Flynt continues: “It is thought by criminologists that the good fellowship of the criminal is due to self-preservation and the fear that each man will hang separately if all do not hang together. They maintain that his good feeling is not genuine and spontaneous emotion, and that it is immaterial what happens to a ‘pal’ so long as he himself succeeds. This is not my experience in his company. He has never had the slightest intimation that I would return favors that he did me; and in the majority of instances he has had every reason to know that it was not in my power to show him the friendliness he wanted. Yet he has treated me with an altruism that even a Tolstoi might admire. At the hang-out I have been hospitably entertained on all occasions; and I have never met a criminal there who would not have given me money or seen me through a squabble, had I needed his assistance and he was able to give it. This same comradeship is noticeable in all his relations with men who are in the least connected with his life and business; and it is notorious fact that he will ‘divvy’ his last meal with a pal. To have to refuse the request of one of his fellows, or to do him an unkindness, is as much regretted by the criminal as by anyone else; and I have never known him to tell me a lie or to cheat me or to make fun of me behind my back.” [907]

This is altogether different from what is generally said and written by those who allow themselves to be led away by their imagination. It is plain that the manner in which criminals act toward a society that is hostile to them will not fail to influence the relations they have with their fellows, just as war for those who take part in it cannot leave their moral sense as regards their compatriots unharmed. However, nothing permits us to put the actions of these persons among themselves in the same rank as those towards society. In my opinion this fact has great significance for the moralist and the criminologist; it is one of the forms of the dualism of ethics. It is of very high importance for the criminologist, for its shows that we are upon the wrong track, since it is precisely the more serious forms of crime that the present methods of repression favor.

In imprisoning young people who have committed merely misdemeanors of minor importance, and who have not yet lost all touch with normal society, and putting them in contact with inveterate criminals, or perhaps putting them into a cage like beasts, without striving to enlighten their darkened minds or teach them morality, and without making them capable of sustaining the struggle for existence by teaching them a trade, we are bringing up professional criminals. Punishment, as a means of intimidation, misses its aim in great part, for the professional criminals are recruited among individuals who are not easily intimidated.

We have now come to the question why a certain number only of those whose childhood has been neglected and who have committed a light offense, become professional criminals. In the first place there are those whom chance favors, since they are assisted, it may be by their families, it may be by some philanthropist, and so return to the right path. There are those also who have the advantage of being able to find work, since no one knows that they have been in prison.

Others have less chance; no one aids them, there is no work for them; all, however, do not become professional thieves. Those who become such are the more intelligent, energetic, ambitious, and courageous of these outcasts; the others become vagrants and mendicants. Here is the opinion of Flynt upon the criminal by profession, an opinion which agrees with that of other competent authors. “I must say ... that those criminals who are known to me are not, as is also popularly supposed, the scum of their environment. On the contrary, they are above their environment, and are often gifted with talents which would enable them to do well in any class, could they only be brought to realize its responsibilities and to take advantage of its opportunities. The notion that the criminal is the lowest type of his class arises from a false conception of that class and of the people who compose it....

“In this same class, however, there are some who are born with ambitions, and who have energy enough to try to fulfil them. These break away from class conditions; but unfortunately, the ladder of respectable business has no foothold in their environment....

“Not all of these ambitious ones are endowed with an equal amount of energy. Some are capable only of tramp life, which, despite its many trials and vicissitudes, is more attractive than the life they seek to escape. Those with greater energy go into crime proper; and they may be called, mentally as well as physically, the aristocracy of their class. This is my analysis of the majority of the criminal men and women I have encountered in the open, and I believe it will hold good throughout their entire class.” [908]

There are readers, perhaps, who will find that these qualities of the professional criminal give the lie to the environment hypothesis, since individual factors are recognized in a certain way. For myself I do not find it so. The qualities mentioned have nothing to do with crime as such; they can be utilized to the profit as well as to the detriment of society; it will depend upon the environment in which the individual endowed with them has been raised what direction he will take. It would not be difficult to name a number of historic celebrities (Napoleon, for example) who, if they had been born in the lower stratum of a great city, in place of in a favorable environment, would have had only the sad celebrity of criminals exceptionally endowed.

The psychology of this kind of criminals is not yet complete however. Besides intelligence, energy, and courage we find cupidity as their great characteristic. [909] They see others who can enjoy themselves without working hard, and it is their ambition to do the same, cost what it may. Since fate has made it impossible for them to attain it honestly they risk another method. This type of criminal is well delineated in the remark made by the notorious Lemaire, when he said to the president of the court: “If I were a property owner, I should not be here.” [910]

To have invested funds, to spend plenty of money, not to have to work much, this is their ideal; to share the lot of the working-man, who, notwithstanding his long and hard labor, never succeeds in procuring for himself the pleasures of the rich, makes life insipid in their eyes. M. Gisquet, former prefect of police, gives in his memoirs the following declaration made by Leblanc, the notorious professional criminal. “If I were not a thief by vocation I should become one by calculation; it is the best profession. I have computed the good and bad chances of all the others, and I am convinced by the comparisons that there is none more favorable or more independent than that of thief, nor one that does not offer at least an equal amount of danger.

“What should I have become in the society of honest men? A natural child, with no one to protect me or to recommend me, I could only choose a disagreeable trade, become a delivery-boy in a store, or at most reach the miserable place of shipping clerk in a warehouse; and there, a supernumerary for many years, I should have died of hunger before I reached a salary of six hundred francs. As a workman in any class whatever you exhaust yourself quickly through the fatigues of your labor, to earn a miserable wage, and to live from day to day; then when accident, sickness, or old age come you must go beg or die in the poorhouse....

“In our condition we depend only on ourselves; and if we acquire skill and experience at least they profit ourselves alone. I know very well that we have risks to run, that the police and the courts are at hand, that the prison is not very far distant; but out of eight thousand thieves in Paris, you never have more than seven or eight hundred in jail; that is not a tenth of the whole. We enjoy, then, on the average, nine years of liberty to one in prison. Well, where is the worker who has not a dead season? Besides, what does he do when he is without work? He carries his possessions to the Mont-de-Piété; while we others, if we are free, lack for nothing; our existence is a continual round of feasting and pleasure.” [911]

This is the type of the perfect egoist. In ranking men according to their social sentiments, such an individual would be put at the very lowest point in the scale. And then he has grown up under unfavorable circumstances (illegitimate birth, etc.). The innate egoism of this individual may perhaps be modified by the individual factor. But this in no way diminishes the truth of the environment hypothesis, for we are treating for the moment the question why this particular individual has become a criminal, and not that of the cause of the existence of professional criminals. And these two questions are far from being identical. The existence of individual differences is the reason why one runs more danger of becoming a professional criminal than another; but it is the environment which brings it about that the predisposed individual actually becomes such. The falsity of the environment hypothesis would be demonstrated if such individuals could be proved to become criminals under all circumstances. This is of course not the case. When individuals like these are not brought up in an atmosphere of poverty, they no longer see on the one side persons who enjoy everything while doing nothing, and on the other side those who, while toiling hard, live in poverty,—they will not become examples of altruism indeed, but they will not become guilty of crime. They may even become very useful members of society, since they are generally more largely endowed with intelligence, energy, and courage than the average man. Rightly exercised, these qualities are very useful; but badly directed they are very harmful to society. [912]

So far we have been treating of the etiology of theft and analogous crimes; we shall conclude this section with some observations upon the causes that have led to the designating of these acts as crime.

Theft is a crime only because it is very harmful to society. [913] If in the majority of cases the individual does not take account of this, the assertion is nevertheless true. Everything that is harmful to society the individual considers as immoral. (Why this is so is a psychological question, with which we are not concerned here.) If we picture to ourselves present-day society, based as it is upon exchange, without the strict prohibition of theft, we shall see that it could not possibly exist. Life would be especially impossible in a society where the division of labor has attained a high degree of development, if it were permissible to take anything without giving an equivalent.

Since the human race has existed there has been private property, however trifling and unimportant it may have been. It is therefore very unlikely that theft has ever been permitted [914] (it is impossible to produce proofs in support of this), since it is difficult to imagine that anyone would consent to see himself stripped of things destined for his own use, to which, further he was more or less attached. [915] But there is a great difference between a prohibited act and a crime. It is proved that among primitive peoples theft is not reckoned among the crimes. Hear the opinion of one of the greatest specialists in this field, Dr. Post. “We find here and there a phenomenon very surprising from our modern point of view, namely that theft is not universally regarded as a misdemeanor, but the thief rather respected for his cleverness. The maximum obligation that a theft lays upon the thief is simple restitution of the stolen property. The consequence of theft is thus simply the duty of restitution under the civil law.... Theft lies entirely outside of the province of criminal law.” [916]

It is not difficult to explain the cause of this. Let the reader picture to himself the primitive forms of society, so different from those we have at present; contrasts of possessions were unknown, and the needs of men consequently less numerous; men produced only for their own consumption and not for exchange. If by chance more was produced than was needed, the surplus was given to others, for it was impossible to exchange it, or to preserve it for any great length of time, the necessary technique for this not having yet been acquired. “The law of hospitality” was universal and enjoined men to provide those in need with whatever they lacked. [917] It is quite comprehensible that at such a stage of development theft should not be in evidence, for the motives which drive men to it would be lacking. On the one hand cupidity was not awakened, and theft did not result from absolute poverty, since if there was poverty the whole group suffered together. [918] On the other hand the social instincts, being highly developed by the environment, constituted a restraint that would prevent the execution of a theft if the thought of it should occur. But even supposing that in such a society a theft, for no matter what cause, should nevertheless be committed, it would be little thought of, and certainly the thief would not be severely punished, for his act would not be very harmful to society.

As the social structure changed the ideas about theft changed equally; with the origin of the system of exchange and of the contrasts of property, came powerful motives for theft, and at the same time the social instincts grew weaker. Thus theft came to be considered a more serious matter than before, and the graded system of punishments for it, beginning with a fine, ended in capital punishment. [919] It is not our task to investigate the reason why the punishment for theft has not always been the same during the whole civilized period; it is enough for us to establish the fact that the act has always been considered as a grave offense, the perpetrator of which incurred severe penalties.

C. Robbery and Analogous Crimes.

As the figures reproduced above (pp. 535–542) have shown, the crimes with which we have now to concern ourselves are relatively rare. It is unnecessary to say that this has not always been so, but that there have been great changes in this regard. At one time robbery and similar acts of violence were the ordinary forms of professional crime. Happily for peaceable folk this is no longer the case; these crimes have been in large measure replaced by others less serious, like theft and fraud. [920] All modern states have not reached the same stage of development, nor all parts of the same state. There are those of them that, more than others, recall the past to us. So is it in regard to their criminality. While robbery may be said to have disappeared from the states of northern Europe, it is still very common in a country like Italy, and is met much less frequently in the modernized provinces of northern Italy than in the backward southern provinces, as the following figures show. [921]

Italy, 1887–1889.

===================+========================================== | Average to 100,000 Inhabitants. Provinces. +-------------------+---------------------- |Robbery, etc., with|Robbery, etc., without | Homicide. | Homicide. -------------------+-------------------+---------------------- Apulia | 5.01 | 0.27 Basilicata | 2.42 | 4.18 Sardinia | 2.06 | 12.11 Sicily | 1.22 | 14.56 Liguria | 1.07 | 8.65 Calabria | 0.97 | 6.36 Latium | 0.89 | 17.15 Campania and Molise| 0.71 | 8.08 Piedmont | 0.63 | 4.67 Romagna | 0.63 | 6.47 Abruzzo | 0.58 | 2.07 Marches and Ombria | 0.55 | 2.46 Venetia | 0.33 | 2.58 Emilia | 0.28 | 5.80 Lombardy | 0.21 | 3.14 Tuscany | -- | 5.68 ===================+===================+======================

According to the figures given by Dr. Bosco, in the United States, also, the most backward states give the highest figures for homicide. [922]

The poorer classes have more resemblance to the people of a bygone day than have the well-to-do; it appears from the statistics (see pp. 438 ff.) that economic criminality takes a more violent form among the former than among the latter. [923]

An investigation into the causes of this change in the form of economic criminality will indicate also the principal causes of the persistent existence of this kind of crime, however it may have decreased in modern times. In my opinion these causes are as follows:

First. The opportunity for committing them presented itself more often formerly, since the means of communication were very primitive, travelers had to traverse uninhabited countries, etc., and in addition the states were not so well organized as at present, and had not the means of suppressing bands of brigands vigorously.

Second. While the opportunity to commit violent economic crimes successfully was diminishing, there was a constantly increasing opportunity to commit other economic crimes, such as theft, embezzlement, and fraud. The accumulation of great wealth in the cities, the development of credit, in short, the enormous extension of capitalism, has multiplied the opportunity for economic crimes without violence.

Third. One of the consequences of the development of society has been the gradual diminution of the importance of the rôle played by violence, and, since criminality presents itself always and everywhere under the same forms as the normal life, violent economic criminality has also commenced to form a smaller and smaller part in the totality of economic crimes. The assertion that violence has lost the importance of its rôle upon the human stage might surprise one, and appear ironical in times like ours when war is the chronic condition, when the military preparations of all the states have reached a degree hitherto unknown. Violence, however, has decreased in so far as it is exercised by the individual as such. The greater becomes the centralization of the state, the more it claims for itself the exclusive right to use violence in the cases where it judges it necessary, and the more it prohibits individual acts of violence.

It is not the development of the state that is alone to be considered in this regard; the economic system enters in also. Under capitalism violence is of no use; he who is master of the means of production attains his end, i.e. makes a profit, without the use of violence. Where it is necessary, however, modern man does not recoil from it, as the wars of expansion prove.

Fourth. Civilization (in the proper sense of the word) has become more general. Formerly the privilege of a few only, it now extends to a greater number. The great mass are still deprived of it, but primary instruction contributes to its development.

When we consider the gradual diminution in the number of economic crimes committed with violence, it clearly appears how false is the notion that anyone committing such a crime is for that reason a biologically abnormal being. Will anyone claim that the number of biologically abnormal persons has constantly diminished? The contrary is much more likely.

We need not concern ourselves with the details of this question, since it has already been thoroughly treated by Professor Manouvrier (see Pt. I of this work, pp. 168–171). He who uses violence to attain an economic end may perhaps, physiologically considered, be a perfectly normal man. How many children are there who do not use force to take a toy from a weaker child? Must we class them as abnormal on that account? And are those who voluntarily take part in a war abnormal? Certainly there is a great difference between those who take part in a war, and those who, for economic reasons, commit a crime, but this difference is of a social nature. Our ideas of war and homicide are not the same, but the act of killing one’s neighbor remains identical. If homicide were the evident proof of biological abnormality the soldier also would be abnormal.

Scientific questions can be solved by reason alone, and not by sentiment. We who experience a profound repulsion at the thought of a murderer, hold him for a being apart, since we feel ourselves so remote from him. Scientific research tells us that this feeling is not innate but acquired, for we detest such acts because the environment in which we live has accustomed us to hate them. If our environment were different, our feelings would likewise be different. Besides, war proves that these feelings are not innate, by hardening the mildest persons in a very brief time.

With time the number of persons who have a horror of violence has increased. Does this prove that men have become better, or simply that they feel a repugnance to the act only and not to its effect? J. J. Rousseau once said: “If, in order to fall heir to the property of a rich mandarin living at the farthest confines of China, whom one had never seen or heard spoken of, it were enough to push a button to make him die, which of us would not push that button?”

It is certain that beside a great number of persons who would not wish to charge their consciences with such a crime, there would also be plenty who would commit it, and their number would be great enough to make the order of mandarins pass into legendary history. There is no reason to suppose that there are fewer persons in our day who would commit such acts, than formerly; if men are no longer as violent as they once were, they do not recoil any more than formerly when it is a question of suppressing, through the agency of a third party, those who oppose them; as witness the wars of expansion.

As the motives of these crimes are the same as those of economic crimes without violence, we shall treat first those that are caused by poverty; secondly, those that are committed from cupidity; and thirdly, those that are the work of professional criminals.

Statistics show that a part of the economic crimes of violence are committed from poverty, for their movement is influenced by the fluctuations of economic conditions. We take from the German criminal statistics the following table of the course of these crimes in the different months of the year.

Germany, 1888–1892. [924]

Number of Crimes a Day in the Different Months, on the Basis of an Average of 100 Crimes a Day throughout the Year.

=============+========+=========+======+======+====+=====+=====+=======+==========+========+=========+========= Crimes. |January.|February.|March.|April.|May.|June.|July.|August.|September.|October.|November.|December. -------------+--------+---------+------+------+----+-----+-----+-------+----------+--------+---------+--------- Robbery, etc.| 100 | 87 | 78 | 84 | 94 | 98 | 99 | 106 | 84 | 120 | 132 | 116 =============+========+=========+======+======+====+=====+=====+=======+==========+========+=========+=========

The highest figures are shown in the winter months when poverty is at its height. (The slight increase from April to August, which appears also in the case of a number of other economic crimes, I am unable to explain.)

As we have seen in the statistics in Part One, the economic situation also exercises its influence upon the movement of these crimes during a period of years. We refer to them here while adding some others.

Germany, 1882–1898. [925]

======+=========================+============================== | |To 100,000 Inhabitants over 12 Years.| Price of Wheat and Rye | there were Convicted for |per 100 Kilogr. in Marks.+--------------+--------------- | | Robbery. | Extortion. ------+-------------------------+--------------+--------------- 1882 | 185.19 | 1.3 | 1.7 1883 | 165.37 | 1.3 | 1.5 1884 | 159.73 | 1.4 | 1.5 1885 | 154.01 | 1.1 | 1.4 1886 | 147.26 | 1.3 | 1.3 1887 | 145.99 | 1.2 | 1.4 1888 | 155.43 | 1.2 | 1.3 1889 | 169.64 | 1.2 | 1.4 1890 | 181.32 | 1.3 | 1.4 1891 | 216.31 | 1.3 | 1.4 1892 | 184.00 | 1.4 | 1.8 1893 | 146.94 | 1.1 | 1.6 1894 | 127.10 | 1.3 | 1.7 1895 | 132.17 | 1.1 | 1.9 1896 | 139.29 | 1.2 | 1.7 1897 | 152.08 | 1.0 | 1.7 1898 | 170.55 | 1.3 | 1.6 ======+=========================+==============+===============

Although there are exceptions, the influence of the price of grain makes itself felt. It should be remarked that the years 1889–1892 were years of crisis.

France, 1825–1882.

In his study “De la criminalité en France et en Italie” Dr. Bournet shows that in the period mentioned the maxima of assassinations coincide with the years of economic crises, namely: 1839, 1840, 1843, 1844, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881. [926] It should be remarked that assassinations are committed not simply from economic motives, but for other reasons, whence it follows that the parallelism cannot be as great as in the case of economic crimes that are not committed from other motives.

Italy, 1873–1890.

Dr. Fornasari proves that economic events have a great influence upon these crimes (see Part One, p. 143).

Prussia, 1854–1896.

Dr. Starke (see Part One, p. 64) and Dr. Müller (see pp. 76–78) have proved that the changes of economic conditions are here also cause of an increase or diminution of these crimes.

Although these data are less numerous than we might desire, they show sufficiently that, in part, violent economic crimes are committed because of poverty. [927]