[440]

All the statistics cited127 show then that the poor supply a very great proportion of the convicts, in every case a greater proportion than they bear to the population in general, and the well-to-do form only a small part.

There are still other ways of inquiring what part the different classes take in criminality. One consists in an examination of the statistics of the intellectual development of the convicts, for the illiterate and those who have received only a primary education belong, almost without exception, to the classes without fortune. These statistics have already been given, and they confirm entirely the conclusions to be drawn from the figures for the financial condition of the convicts.

The third way of solving the problem is by a study of the statistics of the occupations of those convicted. Here, however, great difficulties present themselves. In the first place not all the criminal statistics make the distinction between the employer and the workman in such and such an occupation. And it is just this information that we need. In the second place we need beside statistics for the occupation of the criminals, others showing the occupations of the population in general, and the two classified in the same way. Even in this case the picture given by these statistics will not be exact, for there are among the employers many persons who are not really independent (workers at home, etc.), or persons who, while being employers, are, as far as their plane of living is concerned, only the equal of the proletarian, and not of the bourgeois.

Upon this question we have the following figures: [441]

[442]

[443]

These statistics, probably the best upon the subject, tell the whole story to those who know how to read the figures. They constitute a proof of the enormous influence of the social factors in the etiology of crime. It is impossible to maintain that the influence works the other way, that the moral disposition influences the choice of a profession. Dr. Prinzing rightly says in the article cited: “It is quite impossible that those engaged in the three great groups of occupations, agriculture, manufacturing, and commerce, are persons of different kinds of moral traits. On the contrary, the supposition that the moral endowment of each group is nearly the same is completely justified by the movements that are continually going on under our own eyes, through which the countryman becomes a city-dweller, and the man who has grown up in the practice of agriculture, a workman or assistant in manufacturing and commerce.”132

According to the first table the workmen are implicated, in a much greater degree than the independents, in all the crimes except that of [444]insult (which is explained by the fact that this crime is one of those which are prosecuted only after complaint laid, and that working-men decide to lay complaint much less quickly than the bourgeois). Certain crimes, indeed, are more often committed by the independent merchants than by the working-men of the same class, but here it is necessary to remember that many of the small merchants are on the same plane of living as the working-men. The liberal professions, on the contrary, show very low figures, a fact which is to be plainly noticed in the second table, where the attention is caught by the very low figures of the group of students and person with incomes. The participation in all crimes by unskilled workmen is very great, even if we allow for the figures’ being exaggerated.

I have not been able to procure statistics concerning the occupations of the whole population of England. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be worth while to mention the figures concerning the occupations of the criminals, for, considered by themselves, they show clearly that the classes without means play a very large part in crime. At least 95% of the men are in this condition, as well as at least 5% of the women (a part of the merchants must be added in both cases) while of the 31.9% without occupation it is certain that a large number are also poor.

Since this table makes no distinction between independents and dependents, it does not advance the matter much, and the only important observation that can be drawn from it is that agriculture and the liberal professions give the lowest figures. A clearer idea is given by the following table: [445]

[446]

Although there are no statistics of the occupations of the corresponding non-criminal population, the figures are well worth noting. We discover that the unskilled laborers form a large proportion of the prisoners, in every case a larger proportion than they bear to the population in general; and that the merchants and manufacturers form a much smaller part of the prisoners than they do of the population as a whole, for they certainly constitute more than 5.45%, especially in France, a country where small industries still flourish.

These figures show that in Italy also the capitalists and liberal professions furnish a figure for criminality below that of the other groups. The same is true of the following table:

[447]

The following table is more detailed for certain occupations:

We have now arrived at the end of our observations upon occupations among criminals. Other statistics are available, but either it is impossible to compare them with statistics of the non-criminal population, or they are without significance for some other reason. At any rate it seems to me that those I have given are enough to show that proportionately the non-possessors are more guilty of crime than the possessors.141

The thesis set forth above is confirmed, then, in three different ways. [448]The question still remains to be answered, to what must we attribute the greater criminality among the non-possessors?

As was remarked at the beginning of this section (on the egoistic tendency of the present economic system, and its consequences), there are three questions which present themselves in connection with the etiology of crime; first, what is the origin of the criminal idea? Second, what are the forces in man which prevent this idea from coming to realization? Third, the occasion for committing the crime. For the moment we shall concern ourselves with the second question only; and we shall ask ourselves the question, is the explanation that these forces are weaker with non-possessors than with others? It is very difficult, if not impossible, to give an answer to this question, for it is very complicated. In the first place it is necessary to prove that the environment of the non-possessors arouses thoughts for which that of the possessors offers no place. The circumstances in which the well-to-do live are in general of such a nature that the moral force has no need of offering combat, since the criminal thought does not exist. For example, in economic offenses one of the principal provocatives of criminal ideas is poverty, which is unknown to the bourgeoisie. It follows that nothing definite can be said about the relative force of the moral sentiments in these two groups of the population in counteracting criminal ideas. Other examples could be added, and I am of the opinion that this influence of the environment will be by itself sufficient to explain the difference in the criminality of the two groups.

It is impossible to decide with certainty whether, aside from the above-mentioned influence of the environment, the present economic system and its consequences have a harmful influence upon the social sentiments that is stronger in the case of non-possessors than it is in the case of possessors. It must be considered as certain (and the figures which I shall give farther along also show it) that the circumstances in which children and young people live among the proletariat is a cause of their being much more demoralized than the children of the bourgeoisie. The influences acting upon the adults of the two classes differ so much in nature and intensity that it is impossible to contrast their effects.

It is unnecessary to say that in what has preceded the possessing class has been contrasted with the proletariat alone, and not with the lower proletariat. It goes without saying that the environment in which the latter live makes them the class most destitute of the moral sense in the whole population. [449]

c. Marriage. To form an idea as to whether there is a relation between crime and marriage, and in this case, as to what its nature is, we must have recourse to statistics. Almost all the criminal statistics give information upon the civil status of criminals (England is the sole exception, I believe).

We shall commence with: