The whole of the first volume and the first chapters of the second volume of “La sociologia criminale”7 contain a criticism of the theses of the Italian school. The author denies the correctness of these, since he believes that we must consider the anthropological and physical causes as having little or no importance. This he demonstrates in detail. In his last chapters Dr. Colajanni treats of social and economic factors.

While admitting that economic conditions are of the highest importance in the development of the whole social life, and consequently in the matter of criminality, the author does not agree with Marx and Loria, who consider every social occurrence, whether political, or religious, or æsthetic, or moral, as the unique and direct product of an economic phenomenon.8 [221]

According to the author, this assertion is carried too far, since the feelings and passions of superior people, who do not think of material profits, influence the masses at certain moments.

A great number of philosophers, moralists, poets, statisticians, and economists have seen in economic conditions the “causa causarum” of morality, and consequently also of crime. Pietro Ellero, among others, says very decisively: “From private property are derived all crimes, or almost all. Property engenders cupidity and haughtiness on the one side and depravity on the other, even when it does not produce the perfect tyranny of the one class and the degradation of the other. It is the cause of most of the evil passions, faults, and crimes that are committed, of the troubles, anxieties, sadness, and rancor from which both rich and poor suffer alike. The immoral influence of property is continued afterwards, and that terribly, in the present organization of the family, constructed, as it is, almost always upon the basis of calculation!”9

It is incontestable that economic conditions have a direct influence upon the origin of crime. The lack of the means of satisfying the numerous wants of a man is already a goad to incite him to procure these means in any way whatever, honest or dishonest. And it is the dishonest way that one will choose by preference when society makes it difficult or impossible to act otherwise. A London pickpocket gets $1500 a year on the average; on the other hand, the misery of those who wish to earn their living honestly is indescribable. Further, the honest man’s chance of being killed or becoming incapable of working is greater than the thief’s chance of being punished. Honest work results in fewer advantages and more dangers than dishonest work.

The indirect influence is not less important than the direct. War, our present industry, the family, marriage, political institutions, revolutions, vagrancy, prostitution, education, etc. are important causes of crime, but they can all be reduced to economic causes. According to many persons education is the one means of preventing moral evils, but John Stuart Mill has already said: in our present society the poor have no education, and that of the rich is bad. There is no possibility of a good education if a certain material well-being is lacking. Hence those who expect everything from education under the present conditions are wrong.

But where does well-being cease and poverty begin? Both are only relative conceptions; consequently we cannot fix their limits. [222]In order to attain the minimum of criminality in any given society there must be the certainty of the means of subsistence, stability of economic conditions, and equality in the distribution of wealth.

Some authors deny that political revolutions have their causes in economic conditions. Lombroso and Laschi, for example, attempt to explain them chiefly by physical influences; which is the more astonishing, because in the general opinion it is from economic causes that they are derived. They adduce, among other things, to support their opinion, the fact that out of 147 revolts that took place in Europe between 1793 and 1880, only a third were attributable to economic conditions. It goes without saying that this does not at all prove the correctness of their thesis, since in all these cases the authors are speaking only of direct causes, while most military revolutions, revolts against the royal power, etc., spring from economic conditions, even if indirectly. It is true that in the 19th century the direct revolutionary influence of crises and famines has decreased, because of the measures taken by the governments. This does not however prevent there having been revolts occasioned by such conditions (Lyons in 1831, etc.). The frequent revolts in Belgium and France, rich countries, do not furnish any proof against the thesis of Dr. Colajanni; for notwithstanding the great wealth of these countries, nothing proves that it is equally divided. As soon as the poverty of a people has passed certain limits, we see in that country neither crimes, revolutions, nor suicides, since all energy is then extinct.

Another question is this: how far is there a correlation between the progress made by socialism and the increase of criminality.10 Several authors, like Garofalo, are of the opinion that there is an intimate connection between the two. But they do not furnish any facts as proofs in support of their assertion, to which, on the contrary, the facts give the lie.

The countries where socialism is most widely spread do not show the greatest criminality; rather the contrary. The German and Italian districts where there are the most socialists are no longer the most criminal. How could it be otherwise? While socialism is the conscious and collective reaction against the existing order, crime is the unconscious and individual reaction against that order.

Next, Dr. Colajanni turns his attention to idleness and vagrancy, which are both causes of crime. Out of 32,943 thefts in Paris in 1882, 57% were committed by vagrants. [223]

But are idleness and vagrancy considered in themselves also offenses? Any man is harmful to his species, says Féré, when he does not collaborate, either materially or intellectually, in production. According to Dr. Colajanni, idleness and vagrancy, viewed from such a high social point of view, are really offenses. But then the idle rich are also guilty of these offenses. Finally, what are the causes of these crimes? Spencer, Féré, and Sergi say: the vagrants are the weak, the degenerate, the parasites of society. The question is this, then: do these phenomena find their origin inside or outside of the human organism? Romagnosi says that vagrancy and idleness ought to be punished only when they are not excusable. To make them inexcusable it would be necessary to procure employment for every man who was willing to work. Spencer, Sergi, and Garofalo, on the contrary, are of the opinion that these crimes are almost always to be imputed to the same persons. However, Spencer should not have forgotten that in his own country, aside from industrial crises, numerous occurrences have forced a great number of persons to become idlers and vagrants through no fault of their own, as for example, the Irish and Scotch farmers driven from their lands by the landlords.

And Garofalo should have known that it is capitalism that has made the work of men superfluous by employing women and children, and that the cause does not rest with those who suffer from it; on the contrary, the cause of economic crises is not in their victims, but in the system that is in force.

An examination of the causes of these two phenomena obliges us to distinguish between habitual and accidental, or forced, vagrancy. However—and this is too often forgotten—the latter transforms itself into the former, for the taste for work is, like morality, an acquired social product. This is why this quality is lost when one is long without work.

One of the most important causes of the possible transformation of a worker into a vagrant is a long illness. Having lost the habit of work, and being enfeebled, a man will find great difficulty in going to work again. If he does not succeed he descends step by step until he comes finally to mendicity. But it is chiefly the economic transformations, inventions, overproduction, that must be called the “causa causarum” of the phenomena cited above.11

Prostitution, which occupies so important a place in the etiology of [224]crime, in almost every case finds its origin in poverty, in a bad education, in a corrupting environment, as is proved by the official investigations and the writings of specialists, like Parent-Duchatelet, Fiaux, Augagneur, and many others.12

The correlation that exists between crimes against property and economic conditions is very evident, and is direct. This causality appears also with regard to crimes against persons. Only it is then indirect. The influence of poverty upon criminality is especially great when it has been of long duration. Proudhon is quite right when he says: “Hunger that is every instant present, during the whole year, during the whole life, hunger which does not kill in a day, but is composed of all deprivations and all griefs, and unceasingly consumes the body, ruins the spirit, demoralizes the conscience, corrupts the race, generates all vices and diseases (drunkenness, among others), and an aversion towards work and thrift, baseness of spirit, callousness of conscience, laziness, and prostitution together with theft.”13

The fact that the number of thefts of provisions is relatively small has little importance, since the thief always tries to steal some article of small bulk and great value. Also it must not be forgotten that little thefts of food often pass unnoticed, or without complaint being made, because the party injured does not consider the act a crime, since committed from necessity.

Another convincing proof of the influence of economic conditions is the incontestable fact that it continually happens that a person will declare himself guilty of a crime that has not been committed, with the sole purpose of obtaining a lodging in jail. The great percentage made up of crimes committed from cupidity, as well as the fact that the number of recidivists is greater for crimes against property than for others, shows the great influence of economic conditions.

The study of the morality of primitive peoples shows us that the crimes of abortion, for example, of infanticide, and homicide upon the aged, have their origin in economic conditions exclusively, the means of subsistence not being sufficient to support a large population. When these crimes occur among civilized peoples they have the same causes. For example, cases of infanticide are very common in Trevise, one of the poorest provinces in Italy. The lack of education or the influence of other factors opposed to education are the reason why the corrupting influence of which we have been speaking often rages in the lower classes with all its force.

To prove the assertion that economic conditions have little influence [225]upon criminality, some authors cite the fact that England, with its great wealth, shows a greater number of crimes against property than Italy, which is much poorer. He who reasons in this way forgets that the absolute wealth of a country may be very great, but the distribution of that wealth not proportional. England gives us the proof of this; in no other country is the difference between rich and poor more pronounced, and without the presence of other important and opposing factors, the criminality would be much greater than it is now.

One might also bring up the difference between the criminality of Ireland, which is smaller despite the proverbial poverty there, and the great criminality of Italy. However, when we study conditions in the two countries we find that those in Italy are still more undesirable than those in Ireland, which explains the greater criminality against property in Italy. The mysterious assassinations of large landholders and their agents in Ireland have also their cause in the bad distribution of the land. In Belgium criminality is greatest where well-being is least (in Flanders). According to the researches of Liszt and Starcke, the poorest districts of Germany are also those that are most criminal, etc.

Upon the economic condition of criminals the author gives the following data: In 1870–71 there were among the prisoners at Neufchâtel 10% who had some property, and 89% who had only their work for their support (in the non-criminal population the percentage of these is much smaller). According to the data of Stevens the prisoners in Belgium were divided as follows: 1% of well-to-do persons, 11% of persons with some income, and 88% of indigent persons.

The statistics of recidivists in Sweden from 1870 to 1872 give the following information:

Marro, in his “I caratteri dei delinquenti”, gives us the following:

[226]

At the time that they committed their crimes 43% of these criminals in general, and more than 50% of the criminals against property were without work.

---

All that has been given above has to do with statics; what follows has to do with dynamics. The rule universally observed is this: modifications in economic conditions are followed by modifications in criminality. When the former grow worse, the number of crimes (and especially of those against property) increases, and vice versa. It is especially the proletariat, who have no means of resisting the unfavorable influence of crises, a rise in the price of food, etc., who are hardest hit in these cases.

The author gives some data. In Italy in 1880 a great increase of crime coincided with a lack of work and with a rise in the price of provisions. The gradual diminution in criminality must be attributed to the good harvest and the large emigration. In Belgium the number of prisoners rose during the crisis of 1846 from 6750 to 9884. In Norway, in consequence of the depression of 1869, crimes against property reached the maximum. The number of prisoners in Sweden rose from 1835 to 1839, chiefly because of poverty, from 12,799 to 18,357. A great increase in crime took place in England in consequence of the crises of 1826, 1830, 1847, and others. In the United States there were in 1884 not less than 400,000 working-men without work, which explains the following figures:

In consequence of the economic crises of 1839, 1840, 1843, 1847, 1867, 1876, and 1881, the number of murders increased in France.14

The maximum stability and the minimum lack of proportion in the distribution of wealth is the best preservative against crime. The correctness of this rule is proved by the facts. The small number of crimes among the Irish is explained by their altruistic sentiments, which are the consequence of their social institutions from before the conquest of their country by the English. Among Mohammedans [227]crime is rare. Also there may be remarked among them a true democracy, based upon equality and fraternity. The Yorubas (in Eastern Africa) have a mild character, and they are benevolent and true to their word; with them the land is considered as common property, etc., etc.

“These are facts which speak clearly: the collectivism of the Javanese dessa, of the Berber diema, the Russian mir, the Slav zadrouga, and the village community of the early Aryans and North American Indians, produces everywhere, with all climates, among all races, identically the same results—morality and solidarity.

“It is to be noted also, that everywhere and at all times, whether in the temperate or the frigid zone, in the North, in the South, or at the equator, laws and institutions which aim to insure certainty of subsistence and to maintain a certain equality, go far to cut down crime; and they do it in such a way as to make those who live under them more moral than those who are subject to different institutions and laws. We have clear examples of this among the Hebrews, Iroquois, Peruvians, Chinese, Berbers, etc., although they differ greatly as to the grade of civilization they have reached.”15