Before proceeding to the treatment of crimes separately, it is necessary to divide them into some main groups. It is a grave error (committed, however, by many criminologists) not to take account of the very different nature of crimes, if one is concerned with their etiology. It is, to be sure, permissible to treat conjointly moral forces which may prevent the execution of criminal ideas and which apply to all crimes. I have done so in the preceding pages. But we cannot treat the origin of the criminal idea itself in this same way. There are criminals and criminals. There are enormous differences between a professional thief, and a man who has been guilty of assault and battery in a state of intoxication, just as there are between a ravisher and a political criminal. And anyone who does not take account of these differences must necessarily limit himself to certain generalities.

I propose to treat of crimes divided into four categories in accordance with the motives which led their authors to commit them. Three of these categories form quite definite units, while the fourth is more heterogeneous.

The first is composed of crimes that have an economic aim (economic crimes). The greater part of the so-called crimes against property, such as theft, embezzlement, etc., belong to this category, but not all, for malicious mischief, for example, is generally dictated by a desire for vengeance. On the other hand some crimes against the person, like procuration, the object of which is economic and not sexual, belong here. As for crimes against the state, we must add counterfeiting to this category. Then there are other crimes that may be committed either for economic or non-economic reasons; for example, murder (for the purpose of robbery or for revenge), perjury (for the profit of winning a civil suit, or to prevent the conviction of a friend), arson (to get the insurance money, or for revenge), etc.

It may be urged here that, notwithstanding the similarity of their motives the crimes of any class still present many differences. This is true in part, and I have accordingly subdivided them. But on the other hand these differences are not very great from the standpoint of criminal sociology. For the jurist the difference between counterfeiting bank-notes, burning a house to get the insurance, and procuration is very important; but for sociology it is much less so. A man who knows how to make counterfeit bank-notes, will commit this crime, whenever he wishes for any reason to enrich himself in a dishonest [537]fashion, but he will become neither an incendiary nor a procurer. A former prostitute, on the contrary, will not think of making bank-notes, but will become a procuress. The kind of economic crime committed by the person who has a mind to commit such a crime, depends principally upon chance (occupation etc.).

The second category includes sexual crimes, and the fourth political crimes—two categories quite distinct therefore.

The other misdemeanors and crimes form the third category, and are more or less heterogeneous. The principal motive of these crimes is vengeance. Among them are insults, malicious mischief, assaults, homicide, etc. Other motives are: the fear of shame (infanticide, which, however, may also be committed for economic reasons); then fear of falling into the hands of justice (perjury, rebellion); and some others beside.332

Finally, to give a picture of the quantitative proportions of the principal crimes, I add here some figures upon criminality in some of the countries of Europe. These figures may at the same time serve to show to those who are not acquainted with criminal statistics, how regular a course crime has from one year to another.

It is crimes of vengeance, therefore, which form the largest group, then come economic crimes, and then sexual and political crimes, both with low figures. If we do not count the very minor offense of insult in the third group, the first and third groups will be nearly of the same size. There are, then, almost no political crimes in England. As in Germany, sexual crimes are very rare, and it is the economic crimes and those committed out of revenge, etc., that are the most important. The latter preponderate even more in England than in Germany. [538]

[539]

[540]

[541]

Here, also, the political crimes and the sexual offenses show the smallest figures. The economic crimes exceed considerably those committed out of revenge, etc., a fact to be accounted for in great part by the inclusion of vagrancy and mendicity among the economic crimes. These tables hardly lend themselves to international comparison, since certain acts are regarded as misdemeanors in one country, and as contraventions in another.

[542]

The results of the Italian statistics agree in general with those that have gone before.

[543]

These figures thus confirm in general the results of the preceding tables. The most frequent crimes are those committed out of revenge etc. and the economic crimes. The sexual crimes only reach low figures, and the political crimes are negligible.

We have placed certain crimes, like homicide and arson, in all the tables, among the crimes of vengeance, etc., although they may also be committed from an economic motive. The French and Italian criminal statistics give information upon the frequency of the motives which lead to these crimes.

About 28% of the crimes, then, had an economic motive, about 12% had a sexual motive, and 40% were committed out of revenge.

[544]

Finally, it must not be forgotten that certain crimes of a different kind (leze-majesty and malicious mischief, for example) are sometimes committed simply that the author of them may get himself imprisoned, and hence should be classed as economic crimes.

We have now reached the question: how close a connection have the different crimes with economic conditions? We shall give only a detailed sketch of the subject; to treat it more fully would require extensive monographs. We shall limit ourselves to indicating the general lines. [545]