In “Crime, Its Causes and Remedies”,2 one of his last works, Professor Lombroso treats, among other things, of the influence of economic conditions upon criminality.

Chapter VI, bearing the title, “Subsistence (famine, price of bread)”, is the first in which we find any observations especially interesting to us. By the aid of data from von Oettingen, Starke, Corre, and Fornasari di Verce, which we treat separately, the author calls attention to the fact that the course of criminality is very little influenced by the price of provisions. He closes by drawing the following conclusion:

“But, admitting the action of scarcity of food upon the increase of thefts and of abundance upon the increase of homicides, assaults, and debauchery, it is easy to understand its slight influence upon the variation of criminality in general, if one group of crimes increases with a given state of the market, and another group decreases under the same conditions, and vice versa. Even when the price of food moves in a constant direction it does not modify essentially the proportion of certain crimes. For example, in Italy the effect of the rise in price of food upon aggravated thefts is very marked; yet the greatest difference is between 184 and 105, that is to say, a variation of 79 to the 100,000. Likewise, when the sexual crimes increase on account [89]of the low price of food, the greatest difference is 2.14 to the 100,000,—a fact easy to understand when one thinks of the greater influence of heredity, climate, and race.”3

The circumstance that the thefts of food represent hardly 1% of the total cases of theft (according to Guerry), that in London bread occupies only the 43d place among 43 categories of articles stolen, and that Joly has shown that the cases of theft of money are much more numerous than those of meal, domestic animals, etc.—all of this leads the author to the conclusion that the proportion of crimes caused by lack of food and real misery is not so great as has been supposed.

—I will not make any criticism of the preceding at this point, but wait until I analyze the works themselves. The exposition of the work of Dr. G. Mayr, for example, shows how superficial the observations made by Professor Lombroso are. (See also the analysis of the work of Dr. Müller, in which it is shown that now the industrial situation plays a preponderating part in causing crime.) I would only call attention to the naïve error involved in Professor Lombroso’s last remark, that there are only a few articles stolen that could immediately provide for pressing needs, and that this proves that poverty is not an important factor in criminality. If society were not based upon exchange this might be true, but the assertion has no basis in the present state of things, when anything may be bought for money. The reason that more money than food is stolen is to be found, in part, in the facts; first, that money is less bulky, and consequently can be more easily taken and concealed; and second, that money has more value than the same quantity of provisions, so that more can be procured with the same effort. But this proves nothing with regard to the influence of poverty upon crime.4—

In the second part of the chapter Professor Lombroso tries to show that the effect of hunger upon revolts is not very great. He cites a number of cases where there were no revolts although prices were high and work scarce. Thus, for example, in Strasburg from 1451 to 1500 and from 1601 to 1625, the price of beef rose 134% and that of pork 92%, and during many years wages fell 10%; and yet there was no insurrection.

—I must vigorously protest against any such argument, which, in my opinion, has no value. I will leave out of consideration the last example, which proves but little, since during these periods the price of bread may have been very low, neutralizing the effect of low wages [90](it is quite problematical whether the poorer classes of the population were great consumers of beef and pork!). But it is inaccurate to conclude from the fact “that prices were high and there was no insurrection” an absence of influence of the economic conditions. There may have been a number of factors working in the opposite direction, which prevented the manifestation of the economic factor. To cite but one example, it may be that during those times an excessively severe penal law was in force, threatening the least attempt at insurrection with cruel death.—

We shall next sum up Chapter IX, “Influence of Economic Conditions—Wealth.” After saying that it is difficult to estimate the wealth of a country at all accurately, the author produces the following data in the first section of the chapter. He divides the provinces of Italy into three groups according to the total wealth (estimated from taxes on consumption, direct taxes, and taxes on business), and compares the figures thus gained with some of the principal kinds of crimes, reaching the following results:

Professor Lombroso draws the conclusion, “that fraudulent crimes increase positively with the increase of wealth, and the same is true of thefts, but if we add rural thefts we get the maximum where wealth is least; and this last is always true of homicides.”6

“The results for sexual crimes are more unexpected. They show their minimum in Italy where wealth is moderate, and their maximum where there is the minimum of wealth. Italy thus presents an exception, as the usual course of sexual crimes is to increase with the increase of wealth.”7

Another way of estimating the wealth of a country is by means of the inheritance tax. For different Italian provinces the following results are thus obtained: [91]

This table gives very little information as to the influence of wealth upon criminality, since we can draw from it the most contradictory conclusions. Note, for example, that the highest figures for theft are to be found in the regions of Latium and Sardinia, i.e. in the richest and the poorest provinces, etc., etc.

—I have more than once had occasion to show that the value of such researches is fictitious. It is not the total amount of wealth but its distribution that bears upon criminality. (See, for example, Quetelet and Colajanni)—

In the 3d section the author treats of the effect of involuntary unemployment. Wright tells us that in Massachusetts of every 220 persons convicted, 147 are without regular work, and that 68% of criminals have no occupation. According to Professor Lombroso this is easily explained by the fact that criminals do not like to work. According to Bosco there were only 18% of murderers in the United States without work (—the proportion not being given for non-criminals, these figures have little value—). Finally, Professor Lombroso mentions the opinion of Coghlan, who says that unemployment has no influence upon criminality in New South Wales (—upon what he bases his opinion, we do not know—).

—Such data as these (to a subject of such high importance as this the author gives but thirty lines) suffice for the conclusion that the phenomenon in question has little significance for criminality. I have only to recall the extensive studies of Mayr, Denis, Müller, [93]Lafargue, and others, upon this subject, to prove the inaccuracy of this idea.— [92]

Note.—Column 1 is taken from Mulhall’s Dictionary of Statistics (quoted by Coghlan, op. cit.); and columns 2–5 are figured from the data published by the Director of Italian Statistics (“Movimento della Delinquenza secondo le Statistiche degli Anni 1873–83”, Rome, 1886). [93]

In the table on the preceding page the figures for criminality of different countries are compared with the number of days’ wages equivalent to the annual cost of food for one individual. These figures give us a composite picture of the price of food and the wage-scale.

This table shows; first, that excessive labor with a low wage, i.e. with a lack of proper nutrition, has a certain correspondence with homicide; second, there is also a certain correspondence with assaults (Spain and Belgium furnishing exceptions); third, sexual crimes are most common where we find the fewest days’ work and vice versa (Great Britain and some other countries being exceptions); fourth, that theft shows no correspondence.8

In another way Lombroso attempts to compare the economic conditions of different countries and their criminality, namely, by means of the number of savings-bank books. For Europe the figures are as follows (taken from Coghlan):

These figures show how homicides move in inverse ratio to the number of savings-bank books, while the contrary is the case with thefts. The author forgets to point out that there are five exceptions to this rule.

In Italy the greatest number of accounts corresponds to the smallest number of homicides, as the following table shows: [94]

There are several exceptions to this rule; for example, the richest, like Palermo, Rome, Naples, and Leghorn, give very high figures for homicides. According to Professor Lombroso the explanation in the case of Palermo and Naples is to be found in the geographical situation; in the case of Palermo, in race and the abuse of alcohol; and in the case of Rome, in race, the abuse of alcohol, and in the political situation.

For France we get the following results:

Here is just the opposite of what we get in Italy. The author explains this in the following manner: first, the richest districts are those that are industrial, where the influx of immigrants is greatest (these latter committing four times as many crimes as the French); second, because of ethnic and climatic factors; third, because of the greater wealth of France, which is four times as rich as Italy; and fourth, because of the demoralizing influence of quickly acquired wealth.9

The industrial activity of a country causes a considerable increase of criminality, especially when it displaces agriculture. Of 42 agricultural departments only 11, or 26%, go beyond the average number of assassinations in France; while the average is exceeded by [95]10 out of the 26 departments of mixed industry, or 38%, and by 7 out of 17 manufacturing departments, or 41%. Rapes upon adults and crimes against persons show similar results.10

Percentage of departments exceeding the average of all France in:

Not only poverty, but often wealth as well may cause crime. This is why some very wealthy districts show a figure for criminality as high as do the very poor. “The cause of all this is only too clear. On the one side poverty and the lack of absolute necessities impel toward the theft of indispensable things for the satisfaction of the individuals’ own needs. This is the first cord binding poverty and assaults upon property. On the other hand, poverty makes men impulsive through the cortical irritation following the abuse of wine and alcohol, that terrible poison to which so many of the poor resort to still the pangs of hunger. Account must be taken also of the degeneration produced by scurvy, scrofula, anemia, and alcoholism in the parents, which often transforms itself into epilepsy and moral insanity. Poverty also drives men to commit brutal eliminations of individuals who are an unwelcome burden upon the family, … Poverty is indirectly a cause of sexual crimes, on account of the difficulty which the poor have of obtaining satisfaction through prostitution; on account of precocious promiscuity in factories and mines; etc., … On the other hand, when a slight temptation toward evil is presented to an individual in comfortable circumstances, he is rendered physically and morally stronger by sufficient nutrition and a sounder moral training, and is less pressed by need, so that while he feels the impulsion to do evil, he can more easily resist it.

“But wealth, in its turn, is a source of degeneration from other causes, such as syphilis, exhaustion, etc. It drives men to crime through vanity, in order to surpass others, and from a fatal ambition to cut a figure in the world.”11 It may be asked why it happens then that the inmates of prisons are almost always poor and rarely rich. The answer, according to the author, is that because of the influence [96]of his fortune, family, etc., the rich man can more easily extricate himself from the clutches of the law than the poor man, who knows no one, cannot employ a famous lawyer, etc. etc.

Professor Lombroso sums up his opinion as follows: “The economic factor has a great influence upon crime, not, however, that poverty is the principal cause of it, for excessive wealth, or money too quickly acquired, plays a large part as well; and poverty and wealth are frequently neutralized by the effect of race and climate.”12