The second section of the second chapter of the work, “Die Verbrechen in ihrem Zusammenhang mit dem wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Verhältnissen im Kanton Zürich”,38 treats of the influence of the price of provisions and crop-returns (see Plate I).

The author first calls attention to the years 1853–1861. We see that the curves of the price of cereals and of offenses against property are then quite closely parallel. However, the curve of the price of cereals was lowest in 1858, and that of offenses in 1859. It is a well-known fact that economic phenomena make their influence upon criminality felt only after some time. Further, it is only by the following year that a part of the offenses are counted in the criminal statistics. Crimes against persons increase when prices fall, and vice versa. The less the price of food is influenced by bad industrial conditions, the more its influence upon criminality will strike the eye.

The section following is entitled: “Schuldbetreibungs- und Konkurs-statistik als Ausdruck der wirtschaftlichen Lage der Bevölkerung und Kriminalität.” When we examine Plate II for the period 1832–1852, we see that the curves of bankruptcy and of offenses against property are parallel. From Plate III (1852–1892) we note that offenses against property are influenced by failures as well as by the price of grain. At times the two forces act in the same direction and reënforce one another, and at times their direction is opposite, and they more or less neutralize each other. It must be remarked that in 1867 an epidemic of cholera raged in the canton, and that the relief fund which was then given out kept the figure for criminality below what the economic situation would have produced.

Dr. Meyer’s conclusion from what has been said is this: “The result of the researches proves that in the course of years the number of crimes against property is strictly bound up with material conditions; the greater the difficulty of getting a living, the more numerous [69]the crimes against property. The statistics of crimes against property show at the same time the degrees of the prosperity of the country, as the statistics of failures, for example, prove.”39

Plate IV gives a comparison of crimes against persons with economic conditions, and shows that these crimes increase when economic conditions improve, and that vintages more or less abundant are not without importance.

On page 44, the author commences his examination of the criminality in the different districts of the canton of Zürich, investigating its distribution, both as to where the crimes are committed, and where the criminals come from.

According to the first distribution the districts of Zürich, of Dielsdorf, and of Horgen have the highest figures; those of Hinweill, of Meilen, and of Pfäffikon the lowest. According to the second distribution it is again the districts of Dielsdorf and of Horgen that have the highest figures, while Hinweill, Meilen, and Pfäffikon take the last place here also. Zürich and Winterthür, which in the first distribution held the first place, in the second have the eighth and tenth. We see from this that, however great the number of crimes the last two districts produce, the authors of the crimes are outsiders.

Dr. Meyer then compares the districts of Hinweill and Pfäffikon, which have the lowest figures, with the districts of Horgen and Dielsdorf, which have the highest. He concludes that the two former districts are the poorest, and the two latter the most well-to-do, a conclusion which he bases upon different facts, among others upon the appropriations which the public charities of the different districts receive from the state. And according to him it follows that in this case the connection between criminality and economic conditions is not direct.

The author then explains the indirect connection as follows: “In Hinweill as in Pfäffikon, there exists a general impoverishment, caused by the unfavorable state of the soil and of the population, heavy mortgages, bad cultivation by the small farmers, the diminution of industry, the lack of education, etc,—an impoverishment that threatens the ruin of entire communities.”40 Then, an increase of crime is not to be feared in countries where poverty strikes the whole population, for the thief has nothing to steal. Since in the well-to-do districts the differences of possessions are more marked, the opportunity for wrong-doing is greater, and it is this which makes criminality greater also. [70]

The conclusion of Dr. Meyer upon what has gone before is this: “Criminality is an historical product, and economic conditions are only one, though a significant, factor. Under like economic conditions … the number of crimes against property need not necessarily be like. It depends upon how the population has accommodated itself to the economic situation, whether it makes higher or lower demands upon life, what views it holds as to the end of human existence, etc.”41

As to the occupations of those convicted the data of Dr. Meyer are incomplete. The conclusion drawn from them is that the agricultural population is less criminal than the industrial proletariat. Here is the reason, according to Dr. Meyer: “An explanation of this phenomena that agrees fully with our investigations has already been given by von Valentini when he says: ‘Small holdings make direct and exhausting demands upon the labor of the whole family, while, on the other hand, they provide sufficiently for the immediate and indispensable needs of the household, so that idleness as well as anxiety about sustenance are generally both excluded from such a family.’ ”42

“It is otherwise in manufacturing. The greater independence of the industrial worker, his receiving his wages in money exclusively, the dependence of industry upon the conjunctures of the market, give instead of the stability of existence, enjoyed by agriculture, a life fluctuating and insecure. Abundance as well as want visits industrial workers, and each of the two begets in him a corresponding kind of crime.”43

—The expression “abundance” as describing the state in which the proletariat live, is a strange one. A man who is not indigent and has a few sous does not on that account live in abundance. The author adds a quotation from Garofalo to point out how the proletariat spend a great part of their “abundance” in the wine-shops. The reader is, however, referred to Part II of this work, where I have pointed out the social and economic causes of alcoholism.—

Dr. Meyer concludes his work by saying that he does not believe that an improvement of economic conditions will inevitably lead to an increase of crimes against persons, but that the causes of them are rather to be found in frivolity, grossness, and dissipation consequent upon an improvement of conditions.

But—youth does not possess wisdom! It is only by advancing [71]in age that rash, rough youth becomes wise and gentle. Now, in the same way society will lose, one by one, the faults of its youth!