The first part of the study, “Die Kriminalität in Frankreich von 1840–1886”, is taken up with an examination of the trend of criminality during these years. The author comes to the conclusion that during this period crime has increased, and that the line that shows this increase is made up of a succession of curves, alternately concave and convex.

In the second part, he treats of the causes of crime. He first points out that the belief that the proclamation of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the French Revolution would be speedily followed by a diminution in crime, was not borne out by the facts. Then he takes up the idea, so widespread in the first half of the 19th century, that one of the most important causes of criminality is the lack of education. This hypothesis has been generally recognized as false, [230]in consequence of an examination of the facts. According to Lafargue, who is entirely in agreement with Quetelet on this point, it is necessary not only to examine the qualities of the individual, but also especially to analyze society, and to try thus to discover the sources of crime. Next the author shows the results of the researches of Quetelet with regard to the influence of the season, age, and sex upon criminality, and sets forth and criticises briefly the theories of Lombroso and his partisans with regard to the criminal man. We should run to too great length if we gave more fully his refutation which is as brilliant as it is accurate.

Some statisticians connect the returns of the harvests and vintages with criminality. An investigation upon this point as regards France, gives the following results: the years 1847, 1854, 1868, and 1874, which are characterized by a great increase of crime, were preceded by years of bad harvests.

The average of the crops of grain was:

the crop rose:

However, the bad harvests of 1855, 1861, and 1879 did not have these results, and with the good crops of 1847 to 1852 crime increased. Here there were, therefore, other factors. Consequently, although the price of grain can partially explain the fluctuations of criminality, it does not account for the general increase from 1840 to 1886.

The author combats further the opinion of Professor Lacassagne that crimes against persons are especially under the influence of the production and consumption of wine. If this were the case the wine-growing departments ought to furnish the highest figure for crimes against persons, which is not the case. On the contrary, Lafargue is of the opinion that in this respect, the consumption of brandy is of more importance. The continually increasing abuse of alcohol (i.e. of spirituous drinks like brandy) which in its turn is due to the miserable condition of the proletariat, is one of the causes of the increasing criminality.

Quantity of alcohol consumed: [231]

In the third part Lafargue makes special investigations with regard to the correlation between economic conditions and criminality. If the theory of Lombroso were correct, criminality ought to decrease; bad harvests no longer explain the increase, and the climate has not changed. However, the increase of criminality coincided with the enormous increase in the productive forces in France.

There is a close correspondence, then, between the development of the economic forces and the increase of criminality. Must we regard this as simply chance, or is there causality between the two? Quetelet has already pointed out that the poorest districts, i.e. those in which the absolute wealth is not great, but where the contrasts are not very marked, furnish fewer criminals than the wealthier provinces. According to Lafargue this has become still more striking with the development of capitalism.

“The colossal development of the productive forces and the national wealth does not lead to the increase of the well-being of all the members of society, but to enormous fortunes on the one hand, and on the other to misery and need, for the great majority of the [232]population.”19 If the multiplying, grading, and perfecting of punishments have been incapable of checking the upward progress of crime, this proves that crimes and misdemeanors against the common law are the necessary products of conditions, and are closely bound up with the form and fashion of the creation of social wealth in capitalistic society.

“The development of the capitalistic mode of production is not uniform; at times it is over-rapid, and then slows up again and undergoes crises that destroy the living of thousands and millions of individuals. If it is correct that modern criminality is a necessary consequence of the method of the production of wealth in capitalistic society, then the fluctuations of crime must correspond with the variations in production. The number of offenses must increase in times of crisis, and decrease when economic conditions improve; in other words, criminality is determined by the flourishing or depression of the capitalistic mode of production.”20

As a means of measuring comparative economic conditions, Lafargue has taken the annual number of failures. He has also traced a curve for the price of flour.21

Examining the first plate we see that lines I and II, although not entirely parallel with V, follow it in general. According to Lafargue there are three counter-determinants that caused the deviations: first, changes in the price of flour; second, political events; third, extraordinary industrial activity. Thus, for example, it was the political events of 1848–52 that prevented the decrease of crime during those years, though the failures and the price of flour went down; and at the close of 1854 a feverish economic development recommenced, which, with the fall of the price of flour in 1856–59, caused a decrease of criminality during those years. At the same time the failures rose a little; but the line would doubtless show a different course if it were drawn with reference to the ratio of failures to the total number of commercial and industrial enterprises in this period. The low price of flour in 1869 neutralized the increase of failures and even diminished the criminality. From 1874 to 1878 a new industrial revival kept crime stationary or reduced it. Since 1876 the failures have increased greatly and crime follows at a little interval; the falling price of grain (1881–1885) certainly exerted an influence. [233]

[234]

The curves are almost constantly parallel; the deviations are caused by political events and by the industrial revival.22

Vagrancy and mendicity take the same course as failures; they increase, however, from 1848 to 1852 in consequence of the political troubles of those years. From 1878 on, failures, and vagrancy and mendicity increase and are parallel. In the periods of industrial revival (1854–59 and 1874–76) vagrancy and mendicity decline sharply. In examining the curve of recidivism it must be remembered that since 1884 many recidivists have been transported.

Here we see a result contrary to that on the preceding charts: If the failures increase the rapes generally decrease, and vice versa. [235]According to this plate the consumption of alcohol has no relation to crimes against morals.

---

At the end of his study the author comes to the following conclusion: “The effect of bankruptcy upon criminality and politics is undeniable; it furnishes one of the most striking proofs of the correctness of the historical theory of Karl Marx, that the phenomena of literature and art, of morality and religion, of philosophy and politics, in human society, lead back to the phenomena of economic development.”23