The following table shows us to what extent the women are guilty of the different crimes:

According to the census of 1901 the population over 9 years old consisted of 49.4% men and 50.6% women.178

---

Finally some figures for the Netherlands:

[471]

Women participate in the different crimes in the following proportions:

The whole population being divided in 1901 into 50.5% women and 49.5% men, the figures given above make the criminality of woman appear a little greater than it really is.

---

Here, then, are the facts, which may be reduced to this, that in all the countries named the criminality of women is much less than that of men. However, it is greater than we should suppose from the figures, since almost all the figures (except those for France) have to do with persons convicted, and acquittal is much more common in the case of women than in that of men. We have already given the figures for Germany in regard to this matter. In England the percentage of convictions is 82% for men and 79% for women.181 [472]

In France the differences are still greater:

These figures lead to the presumption that in other countries also women are more apt to be acquitted than men.

Other reasons why the criminality of women seems smaller than it really is are the following: As is shown by the statistics cited, the offenses of which women are most often guilty, are also those which it is most difficult to discover, namely those committed without violence. Then, those who have been injured are less likely to bring a complaint against a woman than against a man.184 But even when we take account of all these things, the criminality of women remains much smaller than that of men. This may be explained as follows:

First. An examination of the tables shows that women participate less in the crimes which require strength or courage. The first cause is to be found in the fact, then, that the average woman of our time has less strength and courage than the average man, and consequently commits on the average fewer crimes than he.

Second. It is clear that women take small part in sexual crimes (for procuration is not a sexual crime but an economic one), which is to be explained by the fact that most sexual crimes cannot, from their [473]nature, be committed by women. Another reason is that the rôle of women in the sexual life (and thus in the criminal sexual life) is rather passive than active.

Third. The small part played by women in economic crimes committed because of poverty or even of greed, is explained by prostitution, which generally yields greater and more certain returns than crime, and avoids the risk of prison.

Fourth. A comparison of the criminal statistics of different countries has not much value for the different reasons already given (Pt. I, Ch. II, sec. XIX). Only when the figures are very different may one draw a conclusion from them. A comparison of the tables brings out the fact that the criminality of women does not differ much in the countries named. However, when we fix our attention upon the crimes and misdemeanors more or less grave in the Italian statistics (assizes and correctional tribunals) we discover that there is a considerable difference between England, for example, on the one side, and Italy on the other. While the former country shows about 12% (offenses tried on indictment) and 23% (offenses tried summarily) of women among those convicted, the figures are 5 to 6% (assizes) and about 9% (corr. trib.) in the latter country. This difference shows that the direction in which the principal reason for woman’s small part in crime must be sought, is in her social position. This differs less from that of the man in England than in Italy. However, there are figures much more significant than those I have just cited. Between 1893 and 1899 the percentage of convicts in prison in Scotland was between 36 and 37.185 In Denmark from 1876 to 1885 about 26% of the convicts were women.186 It is an incontestable fact that Denmark and Scotland are countries where the social position of women approaches most closely that of men. Let us set in opposition to this now a country like Algeria where the life of woman is entirely different. It appears that there between 1881 and 1900 3% of those arraigned before the assizes were women, and 4% of those arraigned before the correctional tribunals.187

An examination of the criminality of women in the different parts [474]of the same country, Germany for example, shows that the highest figures for female criminality are furnished by the great cities and the countries most developed economically.

As regards England, Morrison says that of misdemeanors 25% are committed by women in London (Metropolitan Police District), and 33% in Manchester; while women commit only 10% of the misdemeanors in Surrey, and about 14% in Lancashire.189 The high percentages come then in the places where the social position of woman is most nearly equal to that of man.

Dr. H. Hoegel gives the following table for Austria. As the author says it proves that the country where the woman takes the greatest part in the economic life gives the highest figures for female criminality.

As to the movement of the criminality of women the data that I have given, and others that I have at my disposal, are not significant enough to lead to a definite conclusion. In England it has been made out that there is a small diminution of serious crimes and a slight increase of minor offenses, though the period of observation is very short. Between 1881 and 1900 the relative criminality of men and women remained constant. In Italy there was between 1890 and 1895 a slight increase in the absolute number, and a slight, but fluctuating, diminution in the relative number. In the Netherlands the proportions remained pretty constant from 1896 to 1901. [475]

The following are the figures for Germany and Austria:

There was, then, an increase in the criminality of women, but a smaller increase than that of men (except in 1898). [476]

Austria, 1881–1899.194

Here, then, there was a slight but fluctuating diminution in the criminality of women in proportion to that of men.

It must be conceded that the figures given do not contribute much to the support of the thesis that it is especially the social position of women which is the cause of their being less criminal. This position has been modified during the years to which the figures given refer. Women participate much more than formerly in the whole economic and social life. One would accordingly naturally look for a great increase in the criminality of women. Nevertheless these figures cannot, it seems to me, be used to refute the thesis in question, for the following reasons:

In the first place the figures given cover a short period only. They do not show very much, therefore; for, notwithstanding the continual increase of the importance of the rôle of woman in the economic life, the modification of her position in the whole social life is not made so quickly that one can expect much of an increase in female criminality in the criminal statistics of the last few years.195

In the second place, most of the figures give the ratio of the crimes of women to those of men; they do not then show whether the decrease in the percentage is due to a decrease in the criminality of women, or rather to an increase in that of men. This latter is the case, for example, in Germany.196

In the third place the statistics at my disposal are not sufficiently detailed with regard to the movement of the criminality of women, so that it is impossible to tell whether there are changes in the qualitative character of the crimes even though its quantitative character remains about the same.197 [477]

A very conclusive proof of the thesis that the social position of woman is what explains her lower criminality, is as follows. The difference in the manner of life of the two sexes decreases as we descend the social scale. If the social position of woman is then an important determinant of her lower criminality, the figures ought to show that the criminality of men differs more from that of women in the well-to-do classes than in classes less privileged. Now the figures already given (pp. 482 ff.) upon the intellectual development of criminals confirm our hypothesis completely. Just so the tables upon the financial situation of criminals (see pp. 493, 494); in Austria, for example, 0.2% of the women convicted in 1899 came from the well-to-do classes, and 0.4% of the men. There were no well-to-do women at all among those convicted of the graver crimes. Just so again, in the table of Prussian recidivists the women form 4% of the well-to-do convicts and 14% of the poor convicts.

Finally the figures for the influence of marriage upon criminality show (see p. 513 ff.) that the criminality of widows is very great. This proves that the smaller criminality of woman is not to be sought in innate qualities, but rather in the social environment. For widows are generally forced to come into contact with the economic and social life of the world more than other women.

We have still to explain how social position is a cause of a lower degree of criminality. As to economic offenses, it must be remarked that the small part that woman plays in the economic life has the result that the desire to be enriched at some one else’s expense is less aroused in her than it is in man, and that the opportunity to accomplish the desire is presented to her less often than to him. As to crimes committed for vengeance etc., since women live more retired lives they enter less quickly into conflict with others, and hence are less in danger of committing such crimes. Then the fact that women are less addicted to alcohol must be taken into account. The almost wholly negligible participation of women in political life explains why they are almost never guilty of political crimes, a kind of crime rare enough in any case.

After the long detour that we have made (in order to comprehend what follows), we come now at last to the subject which especially [478]concerns us in this section, the influence of the economic and social life upon the social sentiments of women.

It results from this examination that, on the one hand, women feel generally less than men the direct harmful influences of the present economic system, and those of alcoholism; that the influence, very significant for criminality, of the environment in which she passes her youth, acts as strongly upon her as upon a man; and that militarism has no influence upon her, nor has prostitution itself upon the majority of the sex.

Then woman has lived for ages in a state of oppression injurious to the development of the social instincts, which forces her to have recourse to lying and hypocrisy, those two defensive weapons of the oppressed. Just so also her retired life has been an obstacle to the development of her feeling of solidarity with reference to persons outside of the family.

In looking the whole field over I see nothing to justify the opinion that the less criminal character of women indicates a higher morality, whether innate or acquired. The consequences of her manner of life, in so far as they are harmful to the formation of character, are probably counterbalanced by those which are favorable. Her smaller criminality is like the health of a hothouse plant; it is due not to innate qualities, but to the hothouse which protects it from harmful influences. If the life of women were like that of men their criminality would hardly differ at all as to quantity, though perhaps somewhat as to quality.198

e. The family. Here we have to take up the question of how far the family in which the criminal has been raised has contributed to make him such. It will be well to begin with some theoretical observations upon the question, what is the effect of moral education upon [479]a child (in the larger sense of moral surroundings), and how far does this education in the end affect the adult?

It is unnecessary for us to tarry long upon this. The facts which we shall cite below are more convincing than all the theoretical observations, and they show clearly how great this influence is. Nevertheless some brief observations are necessary. It is not far from the truth, it seems to me, to say that the power of moral education upon the character, and that of intellectual education upon the intelligence, are equal. The thesis has been maintained that the intellectual capacities of all men are equal, and that education is the sole cause of the great differences which exist. No reasonable person would maintain this theory; men differ enormously in their innate intellectual capacities; some have great intellectual power, others have very little, while between the two extremes is found the general average. What now is the rôle that education has to play?

Those who have small intellectual capacity naturally never become superior men, even if their education is the best possible; though by virtue of proper education they might become fairly useful. Those who have great intellectual capacity also need education (though less so than the run of mankind), for otherwise their faculties will remain dormant. Darwin would never have made his great discovery if he had been born and reared in the slums of a great city and had learned nothing (even supposing that, with his poor health, he had not succumbed to such an environment). His acquaintances would have doubtless thought him intelligent, but the scientific world would never have heard of him.

It must be much the same with the moral faculty. We are not born with moral precepts in our heads, but only with a greater or less predisposition to become moral. If this predisposition, even though it be very strong, is not cultivated, there is no question of morality.

The child, even more than the man, is an imitator, and responds to suggestion in everything, but especially in morals. If we put the question: how does it happen that there are honest persons? the answer must be: largely because in their youth they have become accustomed to be honest.199 In his “Descent of Man”, Darwin says: … “Habit in the individual would … play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instinct, together with sympathy, is like any other instinct, greatly strengthened by [480]habit, and so consequently would be obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community.”200

A great proportion of the whole number of criminals have become such through the evil example of those about them, or have even been deliberately trained to crime. Even those who are endowed with great innate moral capacities cannot withdraw themselves from these influences. One of the men most competent to speak on this subject, M. Raux, director of one of the penitentiary districts in France, and author of one of the best books upon juvenile criminality says, after speaking of the miserable environment in which young criminals are brought up: “Let no one attempt to tell us after these revelations that the child, born in surroundings which asphyxiate him morally, can escape from vice. No nature would resist such demoralizing agencies. In order to convince ourselves of the truth of this it would only be necessary to try an experiment, which, it if were possible, would not fail to be conclusive.

“The method would be to transport some children of the middle or wealthy class, neither of which furnish any inmates to our reformatories, into families considered as types of those from which our young delinquents come, and to substitute for them in their former homes the children of poor families. This double substitution would have immediate effects. Little time would be needed, very little, we are convinced, for the former group of children to lose all trace of their early education and to become thoroughly bad characters. As to the other group, a moral movement in the other direction would be produced in them, but much more slowly. Vices are like diseases, they take hold quickly, and let go with difficulty. There would long remain to the second group a taste for vagabondage and gross pleasures. But when even these habits and impressions of childhood are painfully eradicated, well-being, advice, and care would always keep the child away from the possibility of theft, and after a certain time of probation passed in the bosom of well-to-do and respectable families the public would certainly regard our subjects, grown to be men, as upright and worthy of all confidence. Thus we should have transformed children of good character into malefactors, and of the malefactor we should have made an honest man.

“This experiment, which no good family would consent to try for fear of the result, would prove on the one hand, that any child placed in the living conditions of most of our young delinquents would inevitably become vicious and criminal, and on the other that if [481]circumstances easily make a malefactor of a child well brought-up, it is much more difficult to transform a bad character into an honest man.”201

In consequence of what we have just said we may put two questions; first, do all those who are brought up in such an environment inevitably become criminals; second, is there, then, no difference as to morality between two persons of whom one is born with a strong and the other with a weak moral disposition (supposing that both live in the same unfavorable moral environment)?

The answer to the first question must be that there may be sometimes those who succeed notwithstanding the very bad surroundings of their youth. (As we have seen, an expert like Raux denies this possibility.) But such cases are very rare and prove nothing against the theory of environment, for it may readily happen that such persons fall in with a better environment (at school, for example) which puts them on the right track, if they have a strong moral disposition by nature.

To the second question the answer must be made that one endowed with a strong moral disposition, but raised in unfavorable surroundings, will perhaps become criminal, and yet need not be as bad as another with a weak moral disposition, raised in a like environment.

There are criminals and criminals. Anyone who has given himself the trouble of reading the biographies of great criminals knows that all have not been entirely corrupted. It is with morals as with intelligence; in unfavorable circumstances Darwin would not have become a genius, but even in such environment he would nevertheless have been recognized as intelligent; so a child with great moral capacity would not become an honest man when brought up in the company of thieves and assassins, but in his own circle would have been considered as a good boy.

Beside very bad environments there are the great mass of those that are neither the one thing nor the other, in which the children neither have bad examples, nor are, properly speaking, deserted, but in which, nevertheless, they do not receive an education positively good. What is the influence of such environments? They are absolutely insufficient for children with little moral disposition. These have need of a strong and well-taught guide, without which they run much danger of leaving, sooner or later, the straight path. It is evident that an education such as that in question, is insufficient for the great middle class. The future lot of these young people will depend [482]especially upon the circumstances in which chance shall place them. The surroundings spoken of will be enough for those who have great moral capacities, in the sense not that a better environment would not have had a better effect upon them but in the sense that they are more susceptible to the good than to the evil influences and—except in rare circumstances—they will cause less trouble to their fellows.

Finally, how far does the effect of a good education extend? What can a good education do for a person born with weak social instincts? This is the well-known controversy. For no one denies that those who are endowed with strong social instincts, as well as those who have them only in moderation, and who constitute the great majority, do not become bad when they are brought up in a good environment.

It will perhaps be impossible to give a decisive answer to this question. For, since we cannot make experiments with living persons, we cannot get sure results. And then an education really good is so great a rarity that the number of cases where children with little moral disposition are excellently brought up is certainly very small.202

We may consider it as certain that children not well endowed will never become very altruistic even if brought up under the best conditions imaginable. But on the other hand no one would doubt that a favorable environment would develop, however little, their weak social instincts (for no one is wholly without such instincts). For the moment we cannot decide how far this influence may extend.

After this introduction we come to the organization of education in present-day society. Before stating the facts we must sum up what has been said above (see Ch. I., Sec. III, B, of this part). The organization of our present social system charges the legitimate parents of the child with his support and education. Most authors who treat of the family wax so enthusiastic that they lose all critical sense. They note that there are parents who love their children, perform all their duties towards them, etc., and they wish to make themselves believe that this is the general rule. But the subject must be considered in cold blood. Certainly it would be ridiculous to deny the social importance of the family; we may even say without hesitation that without the family our present society could not exist. But all this would not be a reason for not seeing its defects.

Are there not many who are bad, even aside from criminals? Is not the majority of mankind made up of those weak in character? [483]Are there not many alcoholics? Are there not persons who do not love their children at all? Are not the persons numerous who have little patience and tact to guide children, or who are lacking in other pedagogic qualities? Is it not true that nearly everyone is ignorant of psychological and pedagogical principles? And have not most men their whole time taken up with the struggle for existence, so that they are not able to concern themselves with the education of their children?

These are the questions that we must ask ourselves; and the answer to all of them is categorically: yes. And have not all these persons offspring? Most certainly. Then the results may be imagined. It will be of the highest importance to know how many children receive an education that is really good. I do not know of any statistics covering any very great number of children. But it will not be far from the truth to infer that the following figures are applicable, not simply to a limited number, but in general to all children. These figures are given by Ferriani:203

To each 100 children between 8 and 12 years of age: