by far the largest class of crimes may be called crimes against property. strictly speaking, these are crimes in relation to the ownership of property; criminal ways of depriving the lawful owner of its possession.
many writers claim that nearly all crime is caused by economic conditions, or in other words that poverty is practically the whole cause of crime. endless statistics have been gathered on this subject which seem to show conclusively that property crimes are largely the result of the unequal distribution of wealth. but crime of any class cannot safely be ascribed to a single cause. life is too complex, heredity is too variant and imperfect, too many separate things contribute to human behavior, to make it possible to trace all actions to a single cause. no one familiar with courts and prisons can fail to observe the close relation between poverty and crime. all lawyers know that the practice of criminal law is a poor business. most lawyers of ability refuse such practice because it offers no financial rewards. nearly all the inmates of penal institutions are without money. this is true of almost all men who are placed on trial. broad generalizations have been made from statistics gathered for at least seventy-five years. it has been noted in every civilized country that the number of property crimes materially increases in the cold months and diminishes in the spring, summer and early autumn. the obvious cause is that employment is less regular in the winter time, expenses of living are higher, idle workers are more numerous, wages are lower, and, in short, it is harder for the poor to live. most men and women spend their whole lives close to the line of want; they have little or nothing laid by. sickness, hard luck, or lack of work makes them penniless and desperate. this drives many over the uncertain line between lawful and unlawful conduct and they land in jail. there are more crimes committed in hard times than in good times. when wages are comparatively high and work is steady fewer men enter the extra-hazardous occupation of crime. strikes, lockouts, panics and the like always leave their list of unfortunates in the prisons. every lawyer engaged in criminal practice has noticed the large numbers of prosecutions and convictions for all sorts of offences that follow in the wake of strikes and lockouts.
the cost of living has also had a direct effect on crime. long ago, buckle, in his "history of civilization," collected statistics showing that crime rose and fell in direct ratio to the price of food. the life, health and conduct of animals are directly dependent upon the food supply. when the pasture is poor cattle jump the fences. when food is scarce in the mountains and woods the deer come down to the farms and villages. and the same general laws that affect all other animal life affect men. when men are in want, or even when their standard of living is falling, they will take means to get food or its equivalent that they would not think of adopting except from need. this is doubly true when a family is dependent for its daily bread upon its own efforts.
always bearing in mind that most criminals are men whose equipment and surroundings have made it difficult for them to make the adjustments to environment necessary for success in life, we may easily see how any increase of difficulties will lead to crime. most men are not well prepared for life. even in the daily matter of the way to spend their money, they lack the judgment necessary to get the most from what they have. as families increase, debts increase, until many a man finds himself in a net of difficulties with no way out but crime. men whose necessities have led them to embezzlement and larceny turn up so regularly that they hardly attract attention. neither does punishment seem to deter others from following the same path although the danger of detection, disgrace and prison is perfectly clear.
sometimes, of course, men of education and apparent lack of physical defect commit property crimes. bankers often take money on deposit after the bank is insolvent. not infrequently they forge notes to cover losses and in various ways manipulate funds to prevent the discovery of insolvency. as a rule the condition of the bank is brought about by the use of funds for speculation, with the intention of repaying from what seems to be a safe venture. sometimes it comes through bad loans and unforeseen conditions. business men and bankers frequently shock their friends and the community by suicide, on disclosures showing they have embezzled money to use on some financial venture that came to a disastrous end.
these cases are not difficult to understand. the love of money is the controlling emotion of the age. just as religion, war, learning, invention and discovery have been the moving passions of former ages, so now the accumulation of large fortunes is the main object that moves man. it does not follow that this phase will not pass away and give place to something more worth while, but while it lasts it will claim its victims, just as other strong emotions in turn have done. the fear of poverty, especially by those who have known something of the value of money, the desire for the power that money brings, the envy of others, the opportunities that seem easy, all these feelings are too strong for many fairly good "machines," and bring disaster when plans go wrong.
only a small portion of those who have speculated with trust funds are ever prosecuted. generally the speculation is successful or at least covered up. many men prefer to take a chance of disgrace or punishment or death rather than remain poor. these are not necessarily dishonest or bad. they may be more venturesome, or more unfortunate; at any rate, it is obvious that the passion for money, the chance to get it, the dread of poverty, the love of wealth and power were too strong for their equipment, otherwise the pressure would have been resisted. the same pressure on some other man would not have brought disaster.
the restrictions placed around the accumulation of property are multiplying faster than any other portions of the criminal code. it takes a long time for new customs or habits or restraints to become a part of the life and consciousness of man so that the mere suggestion of the act causes the reaction that doing it is wrong. no matter how long some statutes are on the books, and how severe the penalties, many men never believe that doing the forbidden act is really a crime. for instance, the violations of many revenue laws, game laws, prohibition laws, and many laws against various means of getting property are often considered as not really criminal. in fact, a large and probably growing class of men disputes the justice of creating many legal rules in reference to private property.
primitive peoples, as a rule, held property in common. their inhibitions were few and simple. they took what they needed and wanted in the easiest way. there is a strong call in all life to hark back to primitive feelings, customs and habits. many new laws are especially painful and difficult to a large class of weak men who form the bulk of our criminal class.
to understand the constant urge to throw off the shackles of civilization, one need but think of the number of men who use liquor or drugs. one need only look at the professional and business man, who at every opportunity leaves civilization and goes to the woods to kill wild animals or to the lakes and streams to fish.
the call to live a simple life, free from the conventions, customs and rules, to kill for the sake of killing, to get to the woods and streams and away from brick buildings and stone walls, is strong in the constitution of almost every man. probably the underlying cause of the world war was the need of man to relax from the hard and growing strain of the civilization that is continually weaving new fetters to bind him. there must always come a breaking point, for, after all, man is an animal and can live only from and by the primitive things.
children have no idea of the rights of property. it takes long and patient teaching, even to the most intelligent, to make them feel that there is a point at which the taking of property is wrong. nowhere in nature can we see an analogy to our property rights. plants and animals alike get their sustenance where and how they can. it is not meant here to discuss the question of how many of the restrictions that control the getting of property are wise and how many are foolish; it is only meant to give the facts as they affect life and conduct.
it is certainly true that the child learns very slowly and very imperfectly to distinguish the ways by which he may and may not get property. his nature always protests against it as he goes along. only a few can ever learn it in anything like completeness. many men cannot learn it, and if they learned the forbidden things they would have no feeling that to disobey was wrong. even the most intelligent ones never know or feel the whole code, and in fact, lawyers are forever debating and judges doubting as to whether many ways of getting property are inside or outside the law. no doubt many of the methods that intelligent and respected men adopt for getting property have more inherent criminality than others that are directly forbidden by the law. it must always be remembered that all laws are naturally and inevitably evolved by the strongest force in a community, and in the last analysis made for the protection of the dominant class.
