Chapter II: Economic Crimes (3)

Above I have shown how it happens that only some of those who live in absolute poverty commit crime. We have only, then, to ask ourselves why one commits a crime with violence and the other without violence. The causes are of different kinds. Oftenest it is chance, i.e. opportunity, that is the cause. No one uses violence if it is not necessary, and since the opportunity of committing a successful theft is much greater than that of committing an economic crime with violence, it is the first that is most often practiced. Those who, when driven by abject poverty, commit an economic crime with violence, when the opportunity presents itself, are persons who lack neither the force nor the courage necessary, and in whom the environment in which they live has not inspired a great aversion to violence. Further, absolute poverty is so powerful a factor that it often neutralizes the important influences of education and environment.

From cupidity. The class of criminals who use violence or commit a homicide from cupidity is very small. They furnish only a minor part of violent economic crimes, the total number of which is not itself very great. To show how far the influence of economic environment goes I will cite some striking cases taken at random.

First. In 1892 a certain Scheffer was convicted at Linz (Austria) of attempted murder. His crime was the following. He and his wife could earn their living only by working hard. Chance brought a change. One of their relatives, a young girl who had lost her father and mother a short time before, came to live with them. The girl being very rich, the condition of the Scheffers was entirely changed; from then on they could live in abundance. Once habituated to this wealth they were filled with the fear that their relative would marry and the money pass to someone else. Little by little the idea came to them of persuading the girl to make a will in their favor, and then killing her, an idea which they rejected at first, but which nevertheless became stronger and stronger. From unforeseen circumstances the crime was never consummated, but stopped in the attempt. [928]

Second. In a little village upon the frontier of Austria and Bavaria there was committed in 1893 a murder under the following circumstances. One evening, while returning by himself along a lonely road, a rich peasant who was in the habit of carrying a considerable sum of money with him, was killed and robbed. It was proved that his servant was the author of the crime. This man was a natural child, very poor, and had had to work very hard all his life. Seeing his strength going he was in great fear of being no longer able to earn a living. His sole enjoyment in his monotonous and toilsome life was getting drunk on Sundays. Like most of the inhabitants of his commune he was an ardent poacher. [929]

Third. In 1892 the wife of an employe of the post office was assassinated in her dwelling in Berlin, and all her money stolen. The criminals were two young workmen of 17 and 18 years of age, one of whom knew by chance that the woman had savings. [930]

These three cases, types of hundreds of others, have in common the opportunity which had excited, in an unusual degree, the cupidity of the criminals, and the fact that these were very poor. Whatever other causes may have entered in, it is certain that without the great difference of fortune between the authors of the crimes and their victims, the crimes would never have been committed.

Finally, we come to the influence of the environment upon the authors of the crimes. As we have seen, the conditions under which criminals are brought up are in general very unfavorable, and this is especially the case with dangerous criminals. Consider, for example, the second case (we know nothing of the environment of the criminals in the first). What a life this murderer had behind him. The influences which give most men their aversion to violence were entirely lacking. On the contrary his environment had brutalized him. A natural child, he had been brought up in very poor circumstances, and was stupefied by long and toilsome work, with a weekly intoxication as his sole relaxation. No one would assert that this same individual would have become an assassin if he had lived under totally different conditions.

Or look at the third case. One of the guilty parties had been brought up under unfavorable conditions (of the education of the other we know nothing), both were forced, quite young, to earn their living and had been thrown with bad companions, and one of them had already been sentenced to imprisonment.

It is a mistake to believe that such a case is the exception instead of being the general rule. He who takes the trouble to read the biographies of these criminals knows that they have always been brought up in an unfavorable environment, that they have suffered imprisonment at an early age, and have fallen lower and lower. As far as I know there are no statistics upon this subject except those of Dr. Baer in his study already referred to. Out of 22 young assassins examined by him 9 (40%) had had a bad education, 11 (50%) a defective education, and only 2 (10%) a better education; 8 (36%) were orphans; 11 (50%) had been brought up in very poor circumstances and were obliged while quite young to contribute to the support of the family; 10 (45%) had grown up in the streets of a great city and had thus been exposed to demoralizing influences; and 13 (60%) had received an insufficient primary education. [931]

The researches of Dr. Baer have to do with Germany, but they hold good for other countries also. Take, for example, the opinion of Tomel and Rollet, who are authors of great experience. In speaking of the “criminal type” they say: “Well, no, this type does not exist, since we always find the same conditions in the genesis of the criminal temperament, and if these educational and environmental conditions had been absent, the destiny of the little assassin might have been quite different.” [932]

We have still to fix our attention upon one side of the environment in which the authors of the crimes with which we are concerned at the moment, have lived. They come generally from an environment where,

First, education often consists simply in the administration of a sound beating to the child, a fact which habituates him to the idea that violence is an ordinary act, especially as he sees the members of the family often strike one another;

Second, the men ordinarily carry a knife, and do not hesitate to threaten with it, or even to use it in case of a dispute. It is evident that the influence of this upon character is great at the impressionable age of childhood. The tendency toward violence, combated among children of the well-to-do classes, is, on the contrary, often strengthened among the children of the poor. If later chance places in their way an opportunity to profit by violence they recoil from it less than others. [933]

The authors of violent economic crimes spring nearly always from the lower classes of the population; the exceptions are few in number. We will take up one of these exceptions which has attained considerable notoriety, an evident proof of the rarity of these cases.

In 1878 an old woman was murdered in Paris and all her papers of value were stolen. It was proved that Barré, a business agent, and Lebiez, a medical student, both of whom had passed their youth in a favorable environment, were the guilty persons. This is one of those very rare cases where objection can be made to the environment hypothesis with a semblance of truth, but a closer examination shows that environment nevertheless played its part in this frightful tragedy. The two criminals, sprung from fairly well-to-do provincial families, having gone to Paris, had been living in straitened circumstances. At the time of their deciding to commit the crime their pecuniary condition was very bad. In the second place, both had constant recourse to prostitutes; and in the third place both were ardent speculators. Because of his business Barré was in contact with those who gambled at the bourse, and seeing men enrich themselves without work he entered feverishly into speculation. He lost, drew his father into a new deal, and was still unfortunate. In order to go on and retrieve his losses he used money entrusted to him (his first crime), but still lost. Going from one malversation to another he finally, in order to extricate himself, had recourse to the crime narrated above. His accomplice was found in nearly the same situation. [934]

The effect of environment is to be discerned, then, as easily in this case as in those that have been referred to before. Limiting ourselves to the principal influence alone, we see that if these individuals had not been in contact with the world of speculation, their cupidity would not have been excited to such a point that they were induced to commit crime. Here the rôle played by chance in such cases clearly appears; if they had been fortunate in their speculations they would never have become criminals.

As with all crimes, the question presents itself as to how far individual factors were active, in other words, do the individuals who are guilty of such crimes differ from other men? Certainly, and that to a considerable extent. But in granting this we do not, however, recognize a qualitative difference between them and other men such as would make them biologically abnormal. The motives which have induced these persons to commit crime, are present, though only in small measure, in everyone. Those who commit these crimes have by nature very intense material needs; in the curve A D (see p. 534) they occupy the places near D. As regards their social sentiments they are ranged near the other end of the curve, and their repugnance to violence is very small. Further, they have the necessary courage and strength. [935] If we consider how little chance there is of finding all this united in one individual, it will become clear that few individuals are predisposed to these crimes, and when they are committed the criminal is found in a special environment. In my opinion there can be no question of individual factors, then; it is the environment that decides here. There will be persons always and everywhere who run more danger than others of committing such a crime; but it is the environment which will decide whether they will commit it or not.

Professional criminals. The great majority of violent economic crimes are committed by professional criminals. When an individual has fallen, from whatever reason, into the world of professional crime, sooner or later comes the time when he must use violence if he wishes to attain his end. Joly has very well said in his social study, “Le crime”: “The man who has formed the habit of breaking into houses and bursting open safes, is forcibly drawn sooner or later to rid himself of witnesses who surprise him at this work, or of a victim who might perhaps recognize him.” [936] It cannot be asserted of these individuals any more than of others, that they are born with a special tendency toward assassination, a tendency to be explained by atavism, or something approaching it. They have been living in an environment in which such acts are considered as a necessary evil inherent in their trade. Driven by the tendency to imitate, they do as others do. Certainly there are those of them who do not commit these crimes, but that proves nothing, for it may be that chance has favored them and they have never been under the necessity of using violence, or they have less courage and force than the average man, or, it may be, have an exceptional innate aversion to violence.

As Professor Manouvrier remarks, the case would be entirely different if such criminals killed without plausible motives, if they committed murder without anything but the act in view. The facts show that this is not so. Note the opinion of Flynt. “The taking of life is ... [a] deed that he [the professional criminal] regrets more than he has been given credit for. One thinks of the criminal as the man who has no respect for life, as one who takes it without any twitchings of conscience; but this is not the general rule. The business criminal never takes a life, if he can help it.” [937]

We need not treat here of the causes which have led to the designating of these acts as crimes; they are the same as those given above in connection with economic crimes without violence. The harm done by these crimes is naturally greater than in the case of crimes without violence, since they put life as well as property in danger. It is interesting to note here, once more, the dualism of ethics; many primitive peoples consider these acts as crimes when they are committed within the same group, but very honorable when once the act passes beyond the limits of the group. [938] Further, with modern peoples this difference still persists; colonial wars often resemble a colossal robbery.

D. Fraudulent Bankruptcy, Adulteration of Food, and Analogous Crimes.

We reach now the last group of economic crimes, those which are committed wholly, or in great part, by the bourgeoisie. The motives of these crimes are not all the same; here too it is necessary to make distinctions. The categories into which we must distribute the motives leading to these crimes are analogous to those which lead to theft etc., poverty and cupidity. And as in the case of theft it is necessary to add a third category, that of the great criminals, who can be compared with criminals by profession.

The first category may be compared with that of theft committed from poverty; those who fall into this class are persons who, for one reason or another, have seen their business decline, and not knowing any other way to escape from their difficulties, hope to retrieve their losses and save themselves by committing a misdeed. I take from Moreau’s “Le Monde des Prisons” a typical case. After having described how a certain R. had succeeded in setting himself up in business and had been successful, the author speaks as follows. “Unhappily the panic caught him among the first. His business became worse and worse. In a few months he lost several thousand francs. Two of his traveling salesmen ran off with their goods. Orders ceased coming in. It was failure, dishonor. He fought, but was wrecked....” [939] Finally, in order to escape ruin he committed a breach of trust; he was discovered and convicted.

We cannot say that it is absolute poverty that drives these persons to commit a crime, for generally they have enough left to keep them from dying of hunger. And if not, they are generally members of families who are in a position to keep them from the worst poverty. Further they can try to provide for their wants by paid labor. Nevertheless these cases are somewhat analogous to those of absolute poverty. Picture to yourself the state of mind of one who has led a more or less comfortable life, who has been independent, and enjoyed the esteem granted to a man who is well-to-do, and who sees that the time is approaching when all this will come to an end, and that there remains nothing for him to do but accept some minor poorly paid employment, and lead henceforth an existence that cannot satisfy him in any way. Imagine also that chance throws in his way an opportunity to commit a crime with good hope of success. It must be granted that we find here very powerful determinants to crime.

This cause of crimes of this class is of an entirely social nature. Under another mode of production, for example, under that of village communities, the idea of committing such crimes could not arise. For this reason we cannot say that social causes have often nothing to do with the matter, but that it is the man’s own fault if his business goes to pieces. This is certainly true at times; but it is the present organization of society which makes it possible for a man to be in charge of an enterprise which he is not fitted to conduct, while another who is fitted for it cannot find employment for his talents. It is only in a society where complete anarchy reigns in the economic life, that it is possible for a man to think he is capable of directing a business merely because he happens to have capital.

Let us now examine the other side of the question. What are the forces capable of preventing these projects from being realized? First let us ask, what is the environment in which many of these individuals who are guilty of such crimes are brought up? Certainly they have learned that one must be honest, that it is wrong to pick pockets, etc., and they will not fail in this regard. But they have learned also that the principal end in life is to grow rich, to succeed. Too often this is contrary to the principle of probity. “Be honest, be honest, if possible, but ... make money!” This is the principal rule imprinted upon the minds of the children in certain bourgeois environments. It is an honesty of a special kind that is inculcated, not a moral honesty, but an honesty for the sake of one’s own interests. “Honesty is the best policy” says the quasi-moral precept. Those whose probity has this for a basis have only a weak check to prevent them from becoming criminal, when the thought of the wrong act arises within them. They remain honest so long as it is to their advantage, but woe to society when this is no longer the case.

But further, the environment in which these persons have lived after their youth has not contributed to reinforce the social sentiments, and consequently those that are working in an anti-criminal direction. “Every man for himself” is the principle of success in such an environment. It is evident that the social sentiments must be strongly opposed in their development if the maxim just given is that which dominates. To act morally implies sacrificing one’s own advantage for the sake of the general good. He who is compelled always to have his own interests at heart can give very little thought to the interests of others.

As in the case of all crimes, it is necessary with regard to these also to put the question, are the individuals who are guilty of them, as regards their innate qualities, like those who have lived and still live under the same conditions? And as is the case with all crimes, the answer here must be in the negative. Those who are guilty of these crimes are, in general, those who are below the average in the strength of their moral qualities. They are rather weak than bad; they are conscious of the harm that they do to others and are ashamed of it, but they are too weak to resist the pressure of circumstances. As always it is the environment that is the cause of the crimes’ taking place; it is the individual differences which explain in part who is the one to commit them. Adapting the well-known sentence of Quetelet we may say, “it is society that prepares the crimes, it is the men of inferior moral caliber who execute them.” If the environment were entirely different the men of inferior moral caliber would not be guilty of crime.

It may be observed, perhaps, that if it is true that a special predisposition on the part of the individual is unnecessary for the explanation of these crimes, they ought to be more numerous than they are. This is true enough, but it does not refute the opinion which has been expressed. For, first, as is the case with all the others, these crimes are more numerous than the criminal statistics show; second, there are reasons why some men do not commit crime, although all circumstances lead to it, and their moral condition does not prevent. For example, there are those who, as a consequence of the struggle for existence, have lost all energy and all courage, and give up the fight, even the fight with dishonest weapons; others, prudent by nature, take into consideration the fact that, bad as their situation may be, it would be worse if the crime were discovered, etc.

Statistics prove that it is really the decline of business that is the cause of a great number of bourgeois crimes. In the first part of this work I have given some which show this correlation, namely:

Italy, 1873–1890.

For this country the statistics on this question (see p. 144) have been compiled by Dr. Fornasari di Verce. This author has shown that with the exception of fraudulent bankruptcy (an astonishing and inexplicable fact), commercial crimes are strongly influenced by economic happenings.

Prussia, 1854–1878.

Dr. Starke has proved that the curve of these crimes is parallel with that of economic events (p. 65).

These statistics, to be sure, are not numerous, since the number of crimes committed by the bourgeoisie is small, and the other economic crimes, like theft, for example, are much more important, and hence draw the attention of statisticians more. [940]

We come now to the second category; bourgeois economic crimes from cupidity (as is always the case, the line of demarcation between this group and the preceding one is not distinctly traced, there being many gradations between the two). They are committed, not, as in the first category, by those whose business is declining, but by those whose affairs are more or less flourishing. The only motive, then, is cupidity; what they get by honest business is not enough for them, they wish to become richer. After what has been already said about cupidity it is unnecessary to go into detail here. It has been shown that it is only under certain special circumstances that this desire for wealth arises, and that it is unknown under others. It will be necessary only to point out the fact that although cupidity is a strong motive with all classes of our present society, it is especially so among the bourgeoisie, as a consequence of their position in the economic life. This, then, is the first and most important cause of these crimes, a cause which is not individual, but entirely of a social nature.

In the second place, the opportunity to commit these offenses undetected is enormous (I refer especially to the adulteration of food). In general the consumer cannot judge whether the merchandise is pure or not, and in most cases there is no inspection by experts, or else it is worthless, since the experts are named by the producers themselves.

In the third place, we have to ask ourselves, in what way does the environment in which these persons live exercise an influence upon their social sentiments? We have already called attention to this point some pages above, and can be brief therefore. This environment tends to weaken the social sentiments which might act as a check upon very egoistic acts.

Considered from the point of view of the consumer the adulteration of food products is a grave crime, for it injures the health and may even endanger the life. But what moral impropriety will be seen in it by a producer who derives great profits from the exploitation of children, or who, by a corner in grain, causes a great increase in the price of bread? Is there, sociologically speaking, a difference between these two groups of acts? Certainly not; the one is as harmful as the other, nay, the last two probably more harmful than the first.

This kind of crime must be the despair of those who seek for some biological anomaly of the criminal as the primary cause of crime, for here the anomaly forms almost the rule. Dr. Puibaraud, in his “Malfaiteurs de profession”, rightly says: “The adulteration of food is carried on under our eyes, at our very doors, and we are so used to it that we say nothing. They put fuchsine in our wine, margarine in our butter, chicory in our coffee, tallow in our chocolate, and we swallow it all in perfect good humor. What is the use of protesting? So things are, and ‘business could not be carried on’ if they gave us really pure food. So we swallow it all without gagging or moving a muscle. Provided we are not poisoned—too quickly—we profess ourselves satisfied.” [941]

Everyone knows that the adulteration of food is enormous. If anyone has any doubts let him read the reports of the chemists upon a product whose adulteration is easy, milk, for example. His doubts will disappear rapidly; at least half of the milk is adulterated. It is only the adulteration of food products that constitutes a legal offense, but the adulteration of other articles does not differ from this when considered from a sociological point of view, and it is unnecessary to say that there too the adulteration is enormous.

There are, to be sure, manufacturers and merchants who are not guilty of such acts; first, because certain articles cannot be adulterated; second, because in certain branches the oversight in the interests of the consumers is very rigorous; third, because certain producers find it more advantageous to be honest, knowing that thereby they will procure a large body of regular customers. These three reasons have nothing moral in them, though there is a fourth reason which affects certain producers, namely that they have scruples against such practices. [942]

Let us consider once more the curve of the individual differences. Those persons who should be placed between A and B are those who, if the conditions we have named are present, will commit without scruple misdeeds of the kind we are considering. The great average class, between B and C are those who, in general, are not guilty of acts prohibited by law, but who probably do things which in reality do not differ much from these, and, in any case, are not permissible by the moral code of the consumers (for commerce has a morality of its own). These are the persons who get rid of their merchandise by means of all sorts of tricks and dodges, are silent about the bad qualities of their wares and exaggerate the good ones; these are the dairymen who put water in their milk (“for absolutely pure milk is not wholesome”, they say); the doctors who make visits when they are no longer necessary; these are those who.... But let us stop; we could fill pages with the practices of those whose honesty is not proof against trial. [943]

In going from B to C the moral aversion to such acts, observed in individuals, becomes gradually greater, and the danger that they will commit such practices diminishes, and we finally approach those who should be placed between C and D, those who are in no way guilty of such acts.

As is always the case with economic crimes, it is, then, the environment that is the cause of these offenses, while individual differences explain in part who are the authors of them.

We come now to the last category of the criminals of this group, to the great criminals, to those who throw themselves into gigantic enterprises while knowing beforehand that these will certainly or probably fail, or those who make great purchases of stock, and afterward cause a rise in price through the dissemination of false news, etc.

If there is any kind of crime that is the consequence of the economic environment exclusively, this is the one. Such crimes can arise only in a time like ours, with its insatiable thirst for gold, with the unlimited opportunity to deceive the public, greedy for great profits. A superficial knowledge of economic history is enough to make it plain that the bourgeois crimes, and especially those which we are now discussing, can be committed only under an economic system of the kind that ours is.

This should make those anthropologists reflect who wish always to find the causes of crime in the man himself and not in his surroundings. Naturally the originators of such deeds are marked out by characteristic traits. But there is no reason to admit that persons with such dispositions could not have been born also under a different economic system. Yet such crimes do not appear under any other mode of production.

What is the kind of persons who commit these crimes which society has prepared for? We note first that chance must have prepared such individuals in the proper environment, for a crime of this kind. If they were in the class of agriculturists, for example, the idea of committing it would not have occurred to them; it is only in a special environment that such crimes can be committed.

These people are characterized, in the first place, by excessive cupidity. In this regard they come high in the curve. Their prodigality is without limits; once they have executed a great coup they buy splendid palaces, give costly fêtes, support several mistresses, etc. An individual of this type, Arton, had a mistress who cost him 300,000 francs in one year; he needed a million to cover his annual expenses. [944] This is why they are not content with the large incomes which they could obtain honestly; they wish to surpass others in wealth, being ordinarily very vain. [945]

We have said that such individuals would probably have succeeded in securing large incomes honestly, for all are of a high order of intelligence. In following their machinations we are astonished by their perspicacity and their cleverness. Plans like theirs could never have been conceived and still less executed by men of mediocre intelligence. [946]

“I believe,” says Professor Morselli in his preface to Laschi’s work which we have quoted, “in fact, that no common intelligence is needed to cover up malversations for a long time, to organize clever swindles, outrageous frauds and bankruptcies, exploitations of the credulous public. It needs no more talent, perhaps it needs less, to accomplish a great number of useful and honest things, to make a so-called discovery or invention. We have, as I have said elsewhere, a fetishism with regard to genius, talent, higher intelligence. The effort of mental energy which is required by the complex planning and execution of a financial crime does not differ, as far as cerebral dynamics are concerned, from the effort demanded by an action that is perfectly regular from a moral point of view.” [947]

In the third place, this class consists of persons who, as to the intensity of their moral sentiments, take the lowest place. What an ordinary criminal does in a small way, they do on a gigantic scale; while the former injures a single person, or only a few, the latter bring misfortune to great numbers. And they do it with indifference, for the disapprobation of honest men does not touch them.

As I have already shown elsewhere, brought up in no matter what environment, such individuals would not excel in the strength of their social sentiments. But I have added that, nevertheless, the influence of the environment of these persons is very great. We do not know much of the circumstances under which they have passed their youth. At least Laschi makes no mention of them in “Le crime financier”, the principal work upon this class of misdeeds. It is more than probable that their moral education is totally lacking, or has been only very superficial. Theresa Humbert, for example, had already been instructed by her father in the art of swindling on a large scale.

On the other hand we know the environment in which they have generally passed the rest of their lives. They belong to the world of speculation, an environment which has very special ideas upon economic morals. In most of the cases of this kind, facts are brought out which show that the moral ideas in these circles differ much from those of the rest of mankind. It is evident that those who commit these crimes go farther than the morality of their world permits. But it takes great moral perspicacity to distinguish in this field the demarcations between what is permitted and what is not, and it is just this perspicacity that some persons lack. This is why most criminals of this kind, when they are brought into court, say with sincere conviction that they are innocent, that they have done nothing that is incompatible with morality. [948]

Then, speculation etc. is one of the infallible means for killing all social sentiments; it is egoism pure and simple. Can we be astonished that some of these individuals [949] in such an environment enter into conflict with the penal law? It seems to me not. Nor is there any reason to grant that they are abnormal from a biological point of view. So even the Italian school is forced to admit that the stigmata found elsewhere cannot be pointed out in these individuals. [950] Furthermore, in this case we can hardly speak of atavism. It may be that our ancestors were great offenders, but it is not probable that they ever were guilty of swindles of this kind.

It is not necessary to speak fully of the reasons which cause these acts to be classed as crimes. They are harmful to the regular progress of capitalism and consequently are threatened with penalties. The punishment of the adulteration of food-stuffs, on the contrary, is a consequence of the opposition of the consumers to one of the harmful effects of this system.

In this connection it is interesting to note, first, that the penalties prescribed for these crimes are relatively light as compared with those for ordinary economic crimes, like theft, for example, especially when we reflect that the harm done by them is much greater; second, that the number of punishable acts is very limited as compared with those which really deserve punishment. As Baccaro observes in his work, “Genesi e funzione delle leggi penali”, it is these crimes which show clearly the class character of the penal law. [951]