Criminality and economic conditions

[459]

Here also the highest figures are found with the widows and divorcées and the lowest with the unmarried women. In the following economic offenses it is the married women who are oftenest guilty: aggravated theft (except between 18 and 21 and after 60); fraudulent bankruptcy; forgery (except between 25 and 50); and violation of secrets. We must once more note that the widows and divorcées show very high figures.

As to sexual crime we have the following:

Here the widows and divorcées are at the head and the married women last. The other sexual crimes give figures for women too small to be of any value for our purpose.

Certain of the crimes which remain show the following figures:

The highest figures are those for widows and divorcées (except over 50), and the lowest for the unmarried. [460]

The highest figures are for the widows and divorcées, the lowest for the unmarried.

Here the highest figures are those for the married women except between the ages of 21 and 40 when they fall to the widows and divorcées.

In this regard the widows and divorcées show the greatest criminality, the married women the lowest. [461]

Finally, we may add the results for some other crimes. The married women are more guilty than the unmarried in the following: rebellion162 (except between 21 and 40); violation of factory laws; crimes against individual liberty; and malicious mischief (except between 25 and 40). In the following the unmarried women lead the married: perjury, false accusation, homicide and murder (except for the ages over 50), unintentional homicide (except after 50), and arson. It is to be noted that the widows and divorcées are at the head.

The conclusion to be drawn is that the married woman commits more crimes than the unmarried, but that this does not apply to all crimes nor to all ages.

So much for the figures themselves; now for their explanation.

It is very difficult, in examining the influence of marriage upon criminality, to separate the moral consequences from other factors. We are mistaken, for example, if we attribute to the moral influence of marriage the fact that married persons are less often guilty of the great majority of economic crimes than the unmarried. The fact that anyone marries is ordinarily an indication that he is in a material situation more or less good. The danger that he will commit an economic offense becomes, then, much less great than when he is in a less comfortable condition. The correctness of this position is clearly shown by the statistics given, according to which married men still young give a higher figure than that furnished by the bachelors. The reason is that proletarians marry while still young. The material cares of these husbands are then much greater than later on when their children have already left home, or are at least earning their own living.163 If we examine the figures for insults we shall see that married men and women both are more guilty than the unmarried. It would be very erroneous to conclude that marriage increases the tendency to this offense. The explanation is to be found in the fact that when a single dwelling (or barrack rather) is the common habitation of several workmen’s families, living conditions easily become a permanent source of disputes. In this case it is not marriage but bad housing conditions which appear as a factor in the etiology of crime. If it were possible to separate these conditions [462]or these material consequences of marriage from its moral consequences, the difference between the criminality of the married and the unmarried would not appear very great. Especially is this true if we keep sight of the fact that the bourgeoisie generally marry at a more advanced age than the proletariat. This brings it about that there are more of the bourgeois among the older married people than among the younger; and since, from other causes, the bourgeoisie commit fewer crimes than the proletariat, the influence of marriage seems greater here than it really is.

As for the criminality of women it must be noted that the unmarried women of the bourgeoisie represent a greater proportion of the whole number of unmarried women than the women of this class do of women in general. And since from other causes the criminality of the women of this last class is very small, marriage seems to have a less favorable effect than it really has.

As for the consequences of marriage upon morality, I believe they are the following. In the first place marriage has a tendency to increase the feeling of responsibility, especially if there are children. Then when man and wife understand one another, when they are happy in their union, no one will deny that marriage has a strong moral influence, for, according to the proverb, happy people are not wicked. The proof of this is that married men participate less than bachelors in the crimes of rebellion, assault, homicide, murder, etc., while widowers are more often guilty of them, becoming addicted to alcohol after the death of their wives, or becoming demoralized in other ways. However, it would be more accurate to speak of the moral influence of love than of marriage in the sense of legal monogamy. Happy married couples do not owe their happiness to the legal sanction. Without it their happiness would be as great. On the other hand if the couple is ill-assorted for one reason or another, then marriage has a very demoralizing influence. Legal monogamy comes into play in such cases by rendering difficult the separation of persons who do not understand each other, or of whom one or the other conducts himself badly.

The great power of a man over his wife, as a consequence of his economic preponderance, may equally be a demoralizing cause. It is certain that there will always be abuse of power on the part of a number of those whom social circumstances have clothed with a certain authority. How many women there are who now have to endure the coarseness and bad treatment of their husbands, but would not hesitate to leave them if their economic dependence and the law [463]did not prevent. Holmes, the author of “Pictures and Problems from London Police Courts”, who for years saw all the unfortunates who came before these tribunals, says in this connection: “A good number of Englishmen seem to think they have as perfect a right to thrash or kick their wives as the American had to ‘lick his nigger.’ Yes, and some of these fellows are completely astonished when a magistrate ventures to hold a different opinion. I well remember a great hulking fellow, with a leg-of-mutton fist, being charged with assaulting a policeman. After all the evidence had been given, the magistrate inquired whether the prisoner had been previously charged. ‘Yes, your worship, he was here two months ago, charged with assaulting a female.’ As the prisoner declared this was false, and indignantly denied that he had ever assaulted a female, the gaoler brought in his book and proved the conviction. The prisoner then looked up in astonishment, and said: ‘Oh, why, it was only my own wife!’ Only their own wives; but how those wives suffer! Is there any misery equal to theirs, any slavery to compare with theirs? If so, I never heard of it. I have seen thousands of them, and their existence is our shame and degradation.”164

Further it goes without saying that a marriage entered into for reasons of self-interest is demoralizing.

Although the above consequences of marriage must be mentioned, that our discussion may be as complete as possible, and although they may have a certain importance for the etiology of crime, yet their influence is not very great. There are causes of criminality much more important, which may put those that have been named entirely in the shade.165

Before taking up the criminal consequences of the family, I am of the opinion that this is the best place to fix our attention for a moment upon the criminality of women. In treating above of the origin of marriage as it exists today, we have at the same time spoken of the social position of woman.

d. The criminality of women. In order to give an idea of its extent and nature we must begin with some statistics. [464]

This table shows that women have a general criminality from 4 to 5 times less than that of men. The figure for women exceeds that for men in the case of one crime only, procuration; for the others it is smaller, and for some very small (e.g. assaults, assassination, etc.). The following table gives an idea still clearer and more detailed.

The country upon which we are about to fix our attention is:

[466]

When we examine this table, as well as the one that follows, it must be noted that the women constitute more than half of the population (51.5% according to the census of 1901).169

The following table shows the relative proportion for the more important groups of offenses:

These statistics show, then, that in England also the criminality of women is not as great as that of men. However there is great divergence in the crimes taken separately. [467]

In connection with this table we must note that, according to the census of 1890, 51.6% of the population over 14 are women.

[468]

As the two following tables show, the part which women take in different crimes varies greatly, as in the countries cited above.

For the correctional tribunals the figures are as follows:

[469]

It is only in some few crimes that women play a larger part than men (infanticide, abortion, concealment of parentage, offenses against chastity—including procuration); in all others they play a smaller part, and in some cases much smaller, than the men.

We turn now to Italy: