Criminality and economic conditions

[422]

Although the division according to good and bad conduct is somewhat arbitrary, and although it is impossible to separate the effect of bad housing from other influences operative at the same time, yet these figures say plainly: there is a relationship between housing and conduct. It is evident that there is a reciprocal effect between the condition of the dwelling and the conduct of the inmates, but this fact does not diminish the influence of the dwelling.92

Finally, we add some figures upon the influence of furnished rooms as residence, summarizing the results of an inquiry into industries in Paris, made in 1860 and including 400,000 persons:93

Paris, 1860.

[423]

The evil influence of living in furnished rooms comes out plainly in these figures.

As has already been said at the beginning of these observations as to the influence of the economic life upon the development of social feelings on the part of the proletariat, the egoistic side of the human character is developed by the fact that the individual is dependent, that he lives in a subordinate position, and that he feels himself poor and deprived of everything. However, in so far as the proletarian sells his labor he is guaranteed against famine, however miserable his condition, and conscious of the utility of his rôle in society, he feels himself, notwithstanding his poverty, a man who, except for his employer, is independent of all men. But if work is not to be found, or if the proletarian, sick and infirm, is not able to work, it goes without saying that the resulting unemployment is very demoralizing. The lack of steady work, the horrors of the penury into which he and his fall, and the long train of evils which result from both, kill the social feelings in a man, for, as we have seen above, these feelings depend upon reciprocity. Let one familiarize himself with the thought of [424]the condition of the man who lives in the greatest poverty, i.e. the man who is abandoned by all, and he will understand how egoistic must be the feelings of such.

From the position in which the proletarians find themselves it follows that, towards each other, it is rather the altruistic than the egoistic feelings that develop; living less isolated than the bourgeois, they see the misfortune that strikes their neighbor, and have felt the same themselves, and above all, their economic interests are not opposed. Forced idleness—at present chronic, and acute in times of panic—modifies these conditions at times; it makes competitors of the workers, who take the bread out of each other’s mouths.94

The proletarian is never sure of his existence: like the sword of Damocles unemployment is constantly hanging over his head. Upon this subject Engels says:

“But far more demoralizing than his poverty in its influence upon the English working man is the insecurity of his position, the necessity of living upon wages from hand to mouth, that in short which makes a proletarian of him. The smaller peasants in Germany are usually poor, and often suffer want, but they are less at the mercy of accident, they have at least something secure. The proletarian, who has nothing but his two hands, who consumes today what he earned yesterday, who is subject to every chance, and has not the slightest guarantee for being able to earn the barest necessities of life, whom every crisis, every whim of his employer may deprive of bread, this proletarian is placed in the most revolting, inhuman position conceivable for a human being.”95

This uncertainty of existence is one of the reasons which explain why, in relatively prosperous times the working-man often spends his wages as soon as he receives them, for he knows that the economies possible to him are so small that he could never be saved from misery in case of unemployment.

Finally we must speak of ignorance and lack of training on the part of the proletariat, as a factor of criminality. As we know, this question of education is one of those which are most debated in criminal sociology. Certain authors have prophesied that each new school would make a prison superfluous, while on the other hand it has been claimed that ignorance and the lack of civilization have nothing to do with the etiology of crime, but that on the contrary knowledge and civilization are even factors of crime. Although these extreme [425]opinions are hardly ever expressed nowadays, the ideas upon the point in question still differ widely.96

In my opinion, no really decisive arguments have ever been adduced for the opinion that the intellectual condition of men has no influence upon criminality. In general the reasoning is as follows: ignorance is decreasing; crime on the contrary increases; ignorance cannot therefore be a factor. Such a line of argument is very superficial, for ignorance is surely not the only cause of crime. Its influence may therefore be neutralized by other factors. And further, from the point of view of statistics it is not permissible to use the indirect method when the direct method is practicable. In most criminal and prison statistics the percentage of the illiterate among the criminals is given, and we have only to put beside these figures those for the illiterate among the non-criminal population to be convinced of the existence or absence of the connection in dispute.

We shall begin, then, by giving the figures that we know.

[426]

[427]

The following table gives the figures for the different crimes:

According to the census of 1900, 18% of the total male population over 15 years old were completely illiterate.101

In 1907 1.32% of the men and 1.75% of the women out of the total population could not sign their names.102 [428]

[429]

[430]

According to the census of 1901 the percentage of illiterates was 12.2 for the men, 13.1 for the women, and 12.7 for the total population 12 years old and over.107