PREFACE.
INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III.
INTRODUCTION.
THE
POSITIVE SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL LAW.During
the past twelve or fourteen years Italy has poured forth a stream
of
new ideas on the subject of crime and criminals; and only the
short-sightedness of her enemies or the vanity of her flatterers
can
fail to recognise in this stream something more than the outcome of
individual labours.A
new departure in science is a simple phenomenon of nature,
determined
in its origin and progress, like all such phenomena, by conditions
of
time and place. Attention must be drawn to these conditions at the
outset, for it is only by accurately defining them that the
scientific conscience of the student of sociology is developed and
confirmed.The
experimental philosophy of the latter half of our century, combined
with human biology and psychology, and with the natural study of
human society, had already produced an intellectual atmosphere
decidedly favourable to a practical inquiry into the criminal
manifestations of individual and social life.To
these general conditions must be added the plain and everyday
contrast between the metaphysical perfection of criminal law and
the
progressive increase of crime, as well as the contrast between
legal
theories of crime and the study of the mental characteristics of a
large number of criminals.From
this point onwards, nothing could be more natural than the rise of
a
new school, whose object was to make an experimental study of
social
pathology in respect of its criminal symptoms, in order to bring
theories of crime and punishment into harmony with everyday facts.
This is the positive school of criminal law, whereof the
fundamental
purpose is to study the natural genesis of criminality in the
criminal, and in the physical and social conditions of his life, so
as to apply the most effectual remedies to the various causes of
crime.Thus
we are not concerned merely with the construction of a theory of
anthropology or psychology, or a system of criminal statistics, nor
merely with the setting of abstract legal theories against other
theories which are still more abstract. Our task is to show that
the
basis of every theory concerning the self-defence of the community
against evil-doers must be the observation of the individual and of
society in their criminal activity. In one word, our task is to
construct a criminal sociology.For,
as it seems to me, all that general sociology can do is to furnish
the more ordinary and universal inferences concerning the life of
communities; and upon this canvas the several sciences of sociology
are delineated by the specialised observation of each distinct
order
of social facts. In this manner we may construct a political
sociology, an economic sociology, a legal sociology, by studying
the
special laws of normal or social activity amongst human beings,
after
previously studying the more general laws of individual and
collective existence. And thus we may construct a criminal
sociology,
by studying, with such an aim and by such a method, the abnormal
and
anti-social actions of human beings—or, in other words, by studying
crime and criminals.Neither
the Romans, great exponents as they were of the civil law, nor the
practical spirits of the Middle Ages, had been able to lay down a
philosophic system of criminal law. It was Beccaria, influenced far
more by sentiment than by scientific precision, who gave a great
impetus to the doctrine of crimes and punishments by summarising
the
ideas and sentiments of his age.[1] Out of the various germs
contained in his generous initiative there has been developed, to
his
well-deserved credit, the classical school of criminal law.[1]
Desjardins, in the Introduction to his ``Cahiers des Etats Generaux
en 1789 et la Legislation Criminelle,'' Paris, 1883, gives a good
description of the state of public opinion in that age. He speaks
also of the charges which were brought against the advocates of the
new doctrines concerning crime, that they upset the moral and
social
order of things. Nowadays, charges against the experimental school
are cited from these same advocates; for the revolutionary of
yesterday is very often the conservative of to-day.This
school had, and still has, a practical purpose, namely, to diminish
all punishments, and to abolish a certain number, by a magnanimous
reaction of humanity against the arbitrary harshness of mediaeval
times. It had also, and still has, a method of its own, namely, to
study crime from its first principles, as an abstract entity
dependent upon law.Here
and there since the time of Beccaria another stream of theory has
made itself manifest. Thus there is the correctional school, which
Roeder brought into special prominence not many years ago. But
though
it flourished in Germany, less in Italy and France, and somewhat
more
in Spain, it had no long existence as an independent school, for it
was only too easily confuted by the close sequence of inexorable
facts. Moreover, it could do no more than oppose a few humanitarian
arguments on the reformation of offenders to the traditional
arguments of the theories of jurisprudence, of absolute and
relative
justice, of intimidation, utility, and the like.No
doubt the principle that punishment ought to have a reforming
effect
upon the criminal survives as a rudimentary organ in nearly all the
schools which concern themselves with crime. But this is only a
secondary principle, and as it were the indirect object of
punishment; and besides, the observations of anthropology,
psychology, and criminal statistics have finally disposed of it,
having established the fact that, under any system of punishment,
with the most severe or the most indulgent methods, there are
always
certain types of criminals, representing a large number of
individuals, in regard to whom amendment is simply impossible, or
very transitory, on account of their organic and moral
degeneration.
Nor must we forget that, since the natural roots of crime spring
not
only from the individual organism, but also, in large measure, from
its physical and social environment, correction of the individual
is
not sufficient to prevent relapse if we do not also, to the best of
our ability, reform the social environment. The utility and the
duty
of reformation none the less survive, even for the positive school,
whenever it is possible, and for certain classes of criminals; but,
as a fundamental principle of a scientific theory, it has passed
away.Hitherto,
then, the classical school stands alone, with varying shades of
opinion, but one and distinct as a method, and as a body of
principles and consequences. And whilst it has achieved its aim in
the most recent penal codes, with a great, and too frequently an
excessive diminution of punishments, so in respect of theory, in
Italy, Germany, and France it has crowned its work with a series of
masterpieces amongst which I will only mention Carrara's
``Programme
of Criminal Law.'' As the author tells us in one of his later
editions, from the a priori principle that ``crime is a fact
dependent upon law, an infraction rather than an action,'' he
deduced—and that by the sheer force of an admirable logic—a
complete symmetrical scheme of legal and abstract consequences,
wherein judges are compelled, whether they like it or not, to
determine the position of every criminal who comes before
them.But
now the classical school, which sprang from the marvellous little
work of Beccaria, has completed its historic cycle. It has yielded
all it could, and writers of the present day who still cling to it
can only recast the old material. The youngest of them, indeed, are
condemned to a sort of Byzantine discussion of scholastic formulas,
and to a sterile process of scientific rumination.And
meantime, outside our universities and academies, criminality
continues to grow, and the punishments hitherto inflicted, though
they can neither protect nor indemnify the honest, succeed in
corrupting and degrading evil-doers. And whilst our treatises and
codes (which are too often mere treatises cut up into segments)
lose
themselves in the fog of their legal abstractions, we feel more
strongly every day, in police courts and at assizes, the necessity
for those biological and sociological studies of crime and
criminals
which, when logically directed, can throw light as nothing else can
upon the administration of the penal law.
CHAPTER I.
THE
DATA OF CRIMINAL ANTHROPOLOGY.The
experimental school of criminal sociology took its original title
from its studies of anthropology; it is still commonly regarded as
little more than a ``criminal anthropology school.'' And though
this
title no longer corresponds with the development of the school,
which
also takes into account and investigates the data of psychology,
statistics, and sociology, it is none the less true that the most
characteristic impetus of the new scientific movement was due to
anthropological studies. This was conspicuously the case when
Lombroso, giving a scientific form to sundry scattered and
fragmentary observations upon criminals, added fresh life to them
by
a collection of inquiries which were not only original but also
governed by a distinct idea, and established the new science of
criminal anthropology.It
is possible, of course, to discover a very early origin for
criminal
anthropology, as for general anthropology; for, as Pascal said, man
has always been the most wonderful object of study to himself. For
observations on physiognomy in particular we may go as far
backwards
as to Plato, and his comparisons of the human face and character
with
those of the brutes, or even to Aristotle, who still earlier
observed
the physical and psychological correspondence between the passions
of
men and their facial expression. And after the mediaeval gropings
in
chiromancy, metoscopy, podomancy and so forth, one comes to the
seventeenth century studies in physiognomy by the Jesuit Niquetius,
by Cortes, Cardanus, De la Chambre, Della Porta, &c., who were
precursors of Gall, Spurzheim, and Lavater on one side, and, on the
other, of the modern scientific study of the emotions, with their
expression in face and gesture, conducted by Camper, Bell, Engel,
Burgess, Duchenne, Gratiolet, Piderit, Mantegazza, Schaffhausen,
Schack, Heiment, and above all by Darwin.With
regard to the special observation of criminals, over and above the
limited statements of the old physiognomists and phrenologists,
Lauvergne (1841) in France and Attomyr (1842) in Germany had
accurately applied the theories of Gall to the examination of
convicts; and their works, in spite of certain exaggerations of
phrenology, are still a valuable treasury of observations in
anthropology. In Italy, De Rolandis (1835) had published his
observations on a deceased criminal; in America, Sampson (1846) had
traced the connection between criminality and cerebral
organisation;
in Germany, Camper (1854) published a study on the physiognomy of
murderers; and Ave Lallemant (1858-62) produced a long work on
criminals, from the psychological point of view.But
the science of criminal anthropology, more strictly speaking, only
begins with the observations of English gaol surgeons and other
learned men, such as Forbes Winslow (1854), Mayhew (1860), Thomson
(1870), Wilson (1870), Nicolson (1872), Maudsley (1873), and with
the
very notable work of Despine (1868), which indeed gave rise to the
inquiries of Thomson, and which, in spite of its lack of synthetic
treatment and systematic unity, is still, taken in conjunction with
the work of Ave Lallemant, the most important inquiry in the
psychological domain anterior to the work of Lombroso.Nevertheless,
it was only with the first edition of ``The Criminal'' (1876) that
criminal anthropology asserted itself as an independent science,
distinct from the main trunk of general anthropology, itself quite
recent in its origin, having come into existence with the works of
Daubenton, Blumenbach, Soemmering, Camper, White, and
Pritchard.The
work of Lombroso set out with two original faults: the mistake of
having given undue importance, at any rate apparently, to the data
of
craniology and anthropometry, rather than to those of psychology;
and, secondly, that of having mixed up, in the first two editions,
all criminals in a single class. In later editions these defects
were
eliminated, Lombroso having adopted the observation which I made in
the first instance, as to the various anthropological categories of
criminals. This does not prevent certain critics of criminal
anthropology from repeating, with a strange monotony, the venerable
objections as to the ``impossibility of distinguishing a criminal
from an honest man by the shape of his skull,'' or of ``measuring
human responsibility in accordance with different craniological
types.''[2][2]
Vol. ii. of the fourth edition of ``The Criminal'' (1889) is
specially concerned with the epileptic and idiotic criminal
(referred
to alcoholism, hysteria, mattoidism) whether occasional or subject
to
violent impulse; whilst vol. i. is concerned only with congenital
criminality and moral insanity.But
these original faults in no way obscure the two following
noteworthy
facts—that within a few years after the publication of ``The
Criminal'' there were published, in Italy and elsewhere, a whole
library of studies in criminal anthropology, and that a new school
has been established, having a distinct method and scientific
developments, which are no longer to be looked for in the classical
school of criminal law.
I.What,
then, is criminal anthropology? And of what nature are its
fundamental data, which lead us up to the general conclusions of
criminal sociology?If
general anthropology is, according to the definition of M. de
Quatrefages, the natural history of man, as zoology is the natural
history of animals, criminal anthropology is but the study of a
single variety of mankind. In other words, it is the natural
history
of the criminal man.Criminal
anthropology studies the criminal man in his organic and psychical
constitution, and in his life as related to his physical and social
environment—just as anthropology has done for man in general, and
for the various races of mankind. So that, as already said, whilst
the classical observers of crime study various offences in their
abstract character, on the assumption that the criminal, apart from
particular cases which are evident and appreciable, is a man of the
ordinary type, under normal conditions of intelligence and feeling,
the anthropological observers of crime, on the other hand, study
the
criminal first of all by means of direct observations, in
anatomical
and physiological laboratories, in prisons and madhouses,
organically
and physically, comparing him with the typical characteristics of
the
normal man, as well as with those of the mad and the
degenerate.Before
recounting the general data of criminal anthropology, it is
necessary
to lay particular stress upon a remark which I made in the original
edition of this work, but which our opponents have too frequently
ignored.We
must carefully discriminate between the technical value of
anthropological data concerning the criminal man and their
scientific
function in criminal sociology.For
the student of criminal anthropology, who builds up the natural
history of the criminal, every characteristic has an anatomical, or
a
physiological, or a psychological value in itself, apart from the
sociological conclusions which it may be possible to draw from it.
The technical inquiry into these bio- psychical characteristics is
the special work of this new science of criminal
anthropology.Now
these data, which are the conclusions of the anthropologist, are
but
starting-points for the criminal sociologist, from which he has to
reach his legal and social conclusions. Criminal anthropology is to
criminal sociology, in its scientific function, what the biological
sciences, in description and experimentation, are to clinical
practice.In
other words, the criminal sociologist is not in duty bound to
conduct
for himself the inquiries of criminal anthropology, just as the
clinical operator is not bound to be a physiologist or an
anatomist.
No doubt the direct observation of criminals is a very serviceable
study, even for the criminal sociologist; but the only duty of the
latter is to base his legal and social inferences upon the positive
data of criminal anthropology for the biological aspects of crime,
and upon statistical data for the influences of physical and social
environment, instead of contenting himself with mere abstract legal
syllogisms.On
the other hand it is clear that sundry questions which have a
direct
bearing upon criminal anthropology—as, for instance, in regard to
some particular biological characteristic, or to its evolutionary
significance—have no immediate obligation or value for criminal
sociology, which employs only the fundamental and most indubitable
data of criminal anthropology. So that it is but a clumsy way of
propounding the question to ask, as it is too frequently asked:
``What connection can there be between the cephalic index, or the
transverse measurement of a murderer's jaw, and his responsibility
for the crime which he has committed?'' The scientific function of
the anthropological data is a very different thing, and the only
legitimate question which sociology can put to anthropology is
this:—``Is the criminal, and in what respects is he, a normal or an
abnormal man? And if he is, or when he is abnormal, whence is the
abnormality derived? Is it congenital or contracted, capable or
incapable of rectification?''This
is all; and yet it is sufficient to enable the student of crime to
arrive at positive conclusions concerning the measures which
society
can take in order to defend itself against crime; whilst he can
draw
other conclusions from criminal statistics.As
for the principal data hitherto established by criminal
anthropology,
whilst we must refer the reader for detailed information to the
works
of specialists, we may repeat that this new science studies the
criminal in his organic and in his psychical constitution, for
these
are the two inseparable aspects of human existence.A
beginning has naturally been made with the organic study of the
criminal, both anatomical and physiological, since we must study
the
organ before the function, and the physical before the moral. This,
however, has given rise to a host of misconceptions and one- sided
criticisms, which have not yet ceased; for criminal anthropology
has
been charged, by such as consider only the most conspicuous data
with
narrowing crime down to the mere result of conformations of the
skull
or convolutions of the brain. The fact is that purely morphological
observations are but preliminary steps to the histological and
physiological study of the brain, and of the body as a
whole.As
for craniology, especially in regard to the two distinct and
characteristic types of criminals—murderers and thieves, an
incontestable inferiority has been noted in the shape of the head,
by
comparison with normal men, together with a greater frequency of
hereditary and pathological departures from the normal type.
Similarly an examination of the brains of criminals, whilst it
reveals in them an inferiority of form and histological type, gives
also, in a great majority of cases, indications of disease which
were
frequently undetected in their lifetime. Thus M. Dally, who for
twenty years past has displayed exceptional acumen in problems of
this kind, said that ``all the criminals who had been subjected to
autopsy (after execution) gave evidence of cerebral
injury.''[3][3]
In a discussion at the Medico-Psychological Society of Paris;
``Proceedings'' for 1881, i. 93, 266, 280, 483.Observations
of the physiognomy of criminals, which no one will undervalue who
has
studied criminals in their lifetime, with adequate knowledge, as
well
as other physical inquiries, external and internal, have shown the
existence of remarkable types, from the greater frequency of the
tattooed man to exceptionally abnormal conditions of the frame and
the organs, dating from birth, together with many forms of
contracted
disease.Finally,
inquiries of a physiological nature into the reflex action of the
body, and especially into general and specific sensibility, and
sensibility to pain, and into reflex action under external
agencies,
conducted with the aid of instruments which record the results,
have
shown abnormal conditions, all tending to physical insensibility,
deep-seated and more or less absolute, but incontestably different
in
kind from that which obtains amongst the average men of the same
social classes.These
are organic conditions, it must be at once affirmed, which account
as
nothing else can for the undeniable fact of the hereditary
transmission of tendencies to crime, as well as of predisposition
to
insanity, to suicide, and to other forms of degeneration.The
second division of criminal anthropology, which is by far the more
important, with a more direct influence upon criminal sociology, is
the psychological study of the criminal. This recognition of its
greater importance does not prevent our critics from concentrating
their attack upon the organic characterisation of criminals, in
oblivion of the psychological characterisation, which even in
Lombroso's book occupies the larger part of the text.[4][4]
A recent example of this infatuation amongst one-sided, and
therefore
ineffectual critics is the work of Colajanni, ``Socialism and
Criminal Sociology,'' Catania, 1889. In the first volume, which is
devoted to criminal anthropology, out of four hundred pages of
argumentative criticism (which does not prevent the author from
taking our most fundamental conclusions on the anthropological
classification of criminals, and on crime, as phenomena of
psychical
atavism), there are only six pages, 227- 232, for the criticism of
psychological types.Criminal
psychology presents us with the characteristics which may be called
specially descriptive, such as the slang, the handwriting, the
secret
symbols, the literature and art of the criminal; and on the other
hand it makes known to us the characteristics which, in combination
with organic abnormality, account for the development of crime in
the
individual. And these characteristics are grouped in two psychical
and fundamental abnormalities, namely, moral insensibility and want
of foresight.Moral
insensibility, which is decidedly more congenital than contracted,
is
either total or partial, and is displayed in criminals who inflict
personal injuries, as much as in others, with a variety of symptoms
which I have recorded elsewhere, and which are eventually reduced
to
these conditions of the moral sense in a large number of
criminals—a
lack of repugnance to the idea and execution of the offence,
previous
to its commission, and the absence of remorse after committing
it.Outside
of these conditions of the moral sense, which is no special
sentiment, but an expression of the entire moral constitution of
the
individual, as the temperament is of his physiological
constitution,
other sentiments, of selfishness or even of unselfishness, are not
wanting in the majority of criminals. Hence arise many illusions
for
superficial observers of criminal life. But these latter sentiments
are either excessive, as hate, cupidity, vanity and the like, and
are
thus stimulants to crime, or else, as with religion, love, honour,
loyalty, and so on, they cease to be forces antagonistic to crime,
because they have no foundation in a normal moral sense.From
this fundamental inferiority of sentiment there follows an
inferiority of intelligence, which, however, does not exclude
certain
forms of craftiness, though it tends to inability to foresee the
consequences of crime, far in excess of what is observed in the
average members of the classes of society to which the several
criminals belong.Thus
the psychology of the criminal is summed up in a defective
resistance
to criminal tendencies and temptations, due to that ill-balanced
impulsiveness which characterises children and savages.
II.I
have long been convinced, by my study of works on criminal
anthropology, but especially by direct and continuous observation
from a physiological or a psychological point of view of a large
number of criminals, whether mad or of normal intelligence, that
the
data of criminal anthropology are not entirely applicable, in their
complete and essential form, to all who commit crimes. They are to
be
confined to a certain number, who may be called congenital,
incorrigible, and habitual criminals. But apart from these there is
a
class of occasional criminals, who do not exhibit, or who exhibit
in
slighter degrees, the anatomical, physiological, and psychological
characteristics which constitute the type described by Lombroso as
``the criminal man.''Before
further defining these two main classes of criminals, in their
natural and descriptive characterisation, I must add a positive
demonstration, which can be attested under two distinct forms—(1)
by the results of anthropological observation of criminals, and (2)
by statistics of relapse, and of the manifestations of crime which
anthropologists have hitherto chiefly studied.As
for organic anomalies, as I cannot here treat the whole matter in
detail, I will simply reproduce from my study of homicide a summary
of results for a single category of these anomalies, which a
methodical observation of every class of criminals will carry
further
and render more precise, as Lombroso has already shown (see the
fourth edition of his work, 1889, p. 273).
Homicides
sentenced
To
penal To Imprisonment
Soldier servitude
Persons
in whom I detected (346) (363) (711)
No anomaly in the skull
11.9 p.c. 8.2 p.c. 37.2 p.c.
One or two anomalies 47.2 ''
56.6 '' 51.8 ''
Three or four anomalies 30.9 '' 2.6 '' 11
''
Five or six anomalies 6.7 '' 2.3 '' 0 ''
Seven
or more anomalies .3 '' .3 '' 0 ''
That
is to say, men with normal skulls were three times as numerous
amongst soldiers as they were amongst criminals; of men with a
noteworthy number of anomalies occurring together (three or four),
there were three times as many amongst criminals as amongst
soldiers;
and there was not one soldier amongst those who showed an
extraordinary number (five or more).This
proves to demonstration not only the greater frequency of anomalous
skulls (and the same is true of physiognomical, physiological, and
psychological anomalies) amongst criminals, but also that amongst
these criminals between fifty and sixty per cent. show very few
anomalies, whilst about one-third of the whole number present a
remarkable combination, and one-tenth are normal in this
respect.Amongst
the statistical data exhibiting the primary characteristics of the
majority of criminals, the data connected with relapsed criminals
are
especially conspicuous. Though relapses, like first offences, are
partly due to social conditions, they also have a manifest
biological
cause, since, under the operation of the same penal system, there
are
some liberated prisoners who relapse and some who do not.The
statistics of relapse are unfortunately very difficult to collect,
on
account of differences in the legislation of different countries,
and
in the preparation of records, which, even under the more general
adoption of anthropometrical identification, rarely succeed in
preventing the use of fresh names by professional criminals. So
that
we may still say, in the words of one who is a very good judge in
this matter, M. Yvernes, not only that ``the Prisons Congress of
London (1872) was compelled to leave various problems undecided for
lack of documentary evidence, and especially the question of
relapsed
criminals,'' but also that to this day (1879), ``we find varying
results in different countries, the exact significance of which is
not apparent.''I
have, however, published an essay on international statistics of
relapsed criminals, from which I drew the following general
conclusion: that even in prison statistics, which often give higher
totals of relapsed cases than are given by judicial statistics,
because they are more personal, and therefore less uncertain, we
never obtain the full number of relapses, though the totals given
vary from country to country, from district to district, and from
prison to prison. It would be impossible to state accurately what
proportion the numbers given bear to the actual number; but I am
justified in saying, from all the materials which I have collected
and compared in the aforesaid essay, that the number of relapses in
Europe is generally between 50 and 60 per cent., and certainly
rather
above than below this limit. Whilst the Italian statistics, for
instance, give 14 per cent. of relapses amongst prisoners sentenced
to penal servitude, I found by experience 37 per cent; out of 346
who
admitted to me that they had relapsed; and, amongst those who had
been sentenced to simple imprisonment, I found 60 per cent. out of
363, in place of the 33 per cent. recorded in the prison
statistics.
The difference may be due to the particular conditions of the
prisons
which I visited; but in any case it establishes the inadequacy of
the
official figures dealing with relapse.After
this statement of a general fact, which proves, as Lombroso and
Espinas said, that ``the relapsed criminal is the rule rather than
the exception,'' we can proceed to set down the special proportions
of relapse for each particular crime, so as to obtain an indication
of the forms of crime which are most frequently resorted to by
habitual criminals.For
Italy I have found that the highest percentages of relapse are
afforded by persons convicted of theft and petty larceny, forgery,
rape, manslaughter, conspiracy, and, at the correctional courts,
vagrancy and mendacity. The lowest percentages are amongst those
convicted of assault and bodily harm, murders, and
infanticide.For
France, where legal statistics are remarkably adapted for the most
minute inquiry, I have drawn up the following table of statistics
from the lists of persons convicted at the assize courts and
correctional tribunals, taking an average of the years 1877-81,
which
is not sensibly affected by the results of succeeding years.It
will be seen that the average of relapses for crimes against the
person is higher than the average for the most serious cases of
murderous and indecent assault, which are clearly an outcome of the
most anti-social tendencies (such as parricide, murder, rape,
inflicting bodily harm on parents, &c.). Thus homicide and
fatal
wounding, though relapse is very frequent in these cases, still
display a less abnormal and more occasional character by their
lower
position in the table, as shown in the cases of infanticide,
concealment of birth, and abandonment of infants. As for the very
frequent occurrence of relapse in special crimes, such as assaults
on
officials and resistance to authority, which rarely come before the
assize courts—though even there they tend to support the higher
numbers in the tribunals—these are offences which may also be
committed by criminals of every kind, and which, moreover, depend
in
some measure on the social factor of police organisation, and
frequently on the psycho-pathological state of particular
individuals.The
somewhat rare occurrence of relapse in such a grave type of murder
as
poisoning is noteworthy. But this is only an effect of the special
psychology of these criminals, as I have explained elsewhere.
FRANCE—CASES
OF RELAPSE, 1877-81. COURTS OF ASSIZE
CRIMES
(Against
the person) p. 100
Violence against public officers 85.8
Bigamy
59.3
Wounding parents or grandparents 55.9
Riot 55.3
Kidnapping
of minors 46.2
Sexual assault on adults 44.0
Wilful murder
(assassination) 42.3
Parricide 41.7
Manslaughter (homicide)
39.4
Sexual assaults on children 38.5
Attempts against railways
37.5
Serious wounds followed by death
36.8
——
General
average 35.8
Abortion
30.0
Perjury 26.7
Sequestration 18.8
Poisoning
16.7
Infanticide 6.0
Stealing, substitution or abandoning
children 4.9
CRIMES
(Against
property) p. 100
Theft in churches 74.3
Thefts, simple
71.7
Robbery, with violence, not on the highway 66.0
Burning
buildings not inhabited, woods, etc.
59.8
——
General
average 58.5
Barratry
50.0
Theft by servants 44.2
Counterfeiting 43.8
Forgery,
private writings 42.5
Burning inhabited dwellings 41.5
Forgery,
commercial paper 38.3
Forgery, public documents 37.0
Fraudulent
bankruptcy 35.3
Abuse of confidence by domestic servant
32.5
Extortion 30.7
Embezzlement of public funds 28.5
Robbing
the mails by postal employees
Smuggling by customs officers
CORRECTIONAL
TRIBUNALS
DELICTS
p. 100
Infractions of surveillance 100
Infractions of expulsion
of foreign fugitives 93.0
Infractions of interdiction to sojourn
89.0
Drunkenness 78.4
Vagabondage 71.3
Begging 65.7
Fraud
(escroquerie) 47.8
Insult to public officers 46.8
Forcible
entry 45.3
Thefts 45.2
Breach of trust
43.8
——
General
average 41.9
Riot,
resistance 40.3
Written or verbal threats 39.6
Prohibited
weapons, etc. 37.3
Political, electoral, and newspaper delicts
35.7
Outrage to public morality 34.5
Public outrage to decency
32.2
Voluntary wounds and blows 31.0
Unlawful opening of cafes,
inns 27.7
Unlawful practice of medicine or pharmacy
26.6
Contraventions of railway regulations 25.3
Hunting or
carrying prohibited arms 24.2
Breach of good morals, tending to
corruption 23.8
Simple bankruptcy 23.6
Insult to ministers of
religion 20.4
Fraudulent sales of merchandise 16.7
Defamations,
insults, calumnies 14.2
Rural delicts 12.0
Amongst
crimes against property, the most frequent relapses are found in
the
case of thieves (not including thefts and breaches of trust by
domestic servants, which thus, proving their more occasional
character, confirm the agreement of statistics with criminal
psychology). The same thing is observed in regard to forgers of
commercial documents and to fraudulent bankrupts, who are partly
drawn into crime under the stress of personal or general crises.
And
the infrequency of relapse amongst postal employees condemned for
embezzlement, and amongst customs officers who have been guilty of
smuggling, is only a further confirmation of the inducement to
crime
by the opportunities met with in each case, rather than by personal
tendencies.Amongst
minor offences, apart from that evasion of supervision which is no
more than a legal condition, there are, both in France and in
Italy,
very frequent cases of relapse by vagabonds and mendicants, which
is
a consequence of social environment, as well as of the feeble
organisation of the individuals. Other relapses above the average,
included amongst these offences, constitute a sort of accessory
criminality, existing side by side with the habitual criminality of
thieves, murderers, and the like, such as drunkenness, attacks on
public functionaries, infractions of the regulations of domicile,
&c.In
thefts and resistance to authorities, relapse is less frequent here
than in the assize courts, for in the majority of these minor
offences, in their general forms, there is a greater number of
occasional offences, as is also the case with bankruptcies,
defamation, abuse, rural offences, &c., which demonstrate their
more occasional character by their very low figures.Hence
the statistics of general and specific relapse indirectly confirm
the
fact that criminals, as a whole, have no uniform anthropological
type; and that the bio-psychical types and anomalies belong more
especially to the category of habitual criminals and those born
into
the criminal class, who, after all, are the only ones hitherto
studied by criminal anthropologists.What,
then, is the numerical proportion of habitual criminals to the
aggregate number of criminals?In
the absence of direct inquiry, it is possible to get at this
proportion indirectly, from facts of two kinds. In the first place,
a
study of the works on criminal anthropology supplies us with an
approximate figure, since the biological characteristics united in
individuals, in sufficient number to create a criminal type, are
met
with in between forty and fifty per cent. of the total.And
this conclusion may be confirmed by other data of criminal
statistics.Whilst
the statistics of relapse give us a very limited number of crimes
and
offences committed by born and habitual criminals, science and
criminal legislation give us a far more extended
classification.Ellero
reckoned in the penal code of the German Empire 203 crimes and
offences; and I find that the Italian code of 1859 enumerates about
180, the new code about 200, and the French penal code about 150.
Thus the kind of crimes of habitual criminals would only be about
one-tenth of the complete legal classification of crimes and
offences.It
is easy indeed to suppose that born and habitual criminals do not
generally commit political crimes and offences, nor offences
connected with the press, nor against freedom of worship, nor in
corruption of public functionaries, nor misuse of title or
authority;
nor calumny, making false attestations or false reports; nor
adultery, incest, or abduction of minors; nor infanticide,
abortion,
or palming of children; nor betrayal of professional secrets; nor
bankruptcy offences, nor damage to property, nor violation of
domicile, nor illegal arrests, nor duels, nor defamation, nor
abuse.
I say generally; for, as there are occasional criminals who commit
the offences characteristic of habitual criminality, such as
homicides, robberies, rapes, &c., so there are born criminals
who
sometimes commit crimes out of their ordinary course.It
is now necessary to add a few statistical data in respect of the
classification of crime, which I take, like the others, from the
essay already mentioned.
HABITUAL
CRIMINALITY ITALY. FRANCE. BELGIUM.
(homicide, theft, conspiracy,
rape, incendiarism, vagrancy, swindling) A* B* C* A* B* C* A* B* C*
Proportion of the persons p.c. p.c. p.c. p.c p.c. p.c. p.c.
p.c. p.c.
convicted of these crimes and offences to the total number of
convictions . . 84 32 38 90 34 35 86 30 30That
is to say, habitual criminality would be represented, in Italy, by
about 40 per cent. of the total number of condemned persons, and by
somewhat less in France and Belgium. This would be accounted for in
Belgium by the exclusion of vagrancy; but the difference is
virtually
due to the greater frequency in Italy of certain crimes, such as
homicide, highway robbery with violence, and conspiracies.Further,
it is apparent that in all these countries the types of habitual
criminality, with the exception of thefts and vagrancy, are in
greater proportion at the assizes, on account of their serious
character.The
actual totals, however, are larger at the tribunals, for as, in the
scale of animal life, the greatest fecundity belongs to the lower
and
smaller forms, so in the criminal scale, the less serious offences
(such as simple theft, swindling, vagrancy, &c.) are the more
numerous. Thus, out of the total of 38 per cent. in Italy, 32
belong
to the tribunals and 6 to the assizes; out of 35 per cent in
France,
33 belong to the tribunals and 2 to the assizes; and out of 30 per
cent. in Belgium, 29 belong to the tribunals and 1 to the assizes.
This also is partly accounted for by legislative distinctions as to
the respective jurisdictions of these courts.As
to the particulars of the totals, it is found that thefts are the
most numerous types in Italy (20 per cent.), in France (24 per
cent.), in Belgium (23 per cent.), and in Prussia (37 per cent.,
including breaches of trust).[5][5]
Starke, ``Verbrechen und Verbrecher in Preussen,'' Berlin, 1884, p.
92.After
theft, the most numerous in Italy are vagrancy (5 per cent.),
homicides (4 per cent.), swindling (3 per cent.), forgery (.9 per
cent.), rape (.4 per cent.), conspiracy (.4 per cent.), and
incendiarism (.2 per cent.).In
France and Belgium we find the same relative frequency of vagrancy
and swindling; but homicide, incendiarism, and conspiracy are less
frequent, whilst rape is more common in France (.5 per cent.) and
in
Belgium (1 per cent.).Such
then are the most frequent forms of habitual criminality in the
generality of condemned persons; and it will be useful now to
contrast the more frequent forms of occasional criminality. For
Italy
the only judicial statistics which are valuable for detailed
inquiry
are those of 1863, 1869-72. For France, every volume of the
admirable
series of criminal statistics may be utilised.It
will be seen that the frequency of these occasional crimes and
offences in Italy and in France is very variable, though assaults
and
wounding, resistance to authorities, damage, defamation and abuse,
are the most numerous in both countries.The
proportion of each offence to the total also varies considerably,
not
only through a difference of legislation between Italy and France
in
regard to poaching, drunkenness, frauds on refreshment-house
keepers,
and so forth, but also by reason of the different condition of
individuals and of society in the two countries. Thus assaults and
wounding, which in Italy comprise 23 per cent. of the total of
convictions, reach in France no more than 14 per cent., whilst
resistance to the authorities, &c., which
YEARLY
AVERAGE or
CONDEMNEd PERSONS.
ITALY,
1863-72. FRANCE 1877-81
CRIMES AND OFFENCES OF
GREATEST FREQUENCY
(not including those
of Habitual
Criminals).
p.c.
p.c. p.c. p.c.
Wilful Assault and Wounding …
Illegally
carrying Arms …… — 8 7 — 3 3
Resistance to Authority,
Assaults and
Violence against Public
Functionaries … 3 5 4 —2 10 10
Injury to Property … … …
— 2 2 — I 1-6 1 5
Defamation and Abuse … … … — s-S 1-6
— I-6 1 5
Written or Spoken Threats … … — 1 4 1'2 — '2
—2
Illegal Games … … … … — I —8 — 2 1 'I
Political
Crimes and Offences …… 31.7 — —2 — 4 2 —2