Criminality in Children. reached by studying them as deviations from normal conditions instead of manifesta tions of degenerate life. Study of such na ture has rightly been called "not criminal psychology but reprehensible automorph ism." Poverty alone would not explain criminal ity, especially in children, for criminality in the young is by no means confined to the poor. And again, children are not unhappy in poverty. But poverty becomes self-con scious and cognizant of its great limitations by knowledge of the extravagance of the rich. Such knowledge is acquired by the publicity given by so many to their wealth, and through the descriptions of the doings of the rich by a vulgar press. Poverty is often only indirectly the cause of crime, in that it drives children to become tramps and vagabonds. The adventuresomeness and excitement of a vagabond life are more alluring than a wretched home ex istence. If they stay at home, they are either forced to excessive work (in itself a cause of juvenile crime) or else schooled at home in the view-points and ideals of the under world. The progeny of the criminal is often "born tired" which is not surprising. It loves idleness and hates work. The rea sons given by 225 juvenile offenders for their idleness, as collected by one of the most promising of Continental students (L. Ferriani) are interesting. Forty-eight said: "We're good! for nothing;" 25 explained that "Our father doesn't work;" 22, "Work is fa tiguing;" 19, "Idleness is continued fun;" 14, "Begging is work;" 6, "Why work every day?" 10, "You make more by stealing;" 36, "We get along nicely by begging;" 8, "We haven't time;" 18, "Our employers dis charged us—how then can we work?" 19, "My father says only fools work." Of 145 girls asked the same question, 7 answered: "We eat so little and why should we tire ourselves?" 6, "What's the use of working
519
w:hen you're paid so little," and 4, "Why should we, when there are free meals?" Again, too much reliance is placed on edu cation; education is not that universal pan acea that some people imagine. This is per haps because most of what passes for edu cation is merely instruction. Of the 11,293 young offenders sent to Elmira since its foundation, only, 16.54 per cent, were illiter ates, while 32.31 per cent, had a common school education, and 4.08 per cent, that of a high school or college. Of the same number, 79.89 per cent, had good mental capacity, and only 1.33 per cent, were men tally deficient. On the other hand, 34.24 per cent, of them were absolutely unsusceptible to moral im pressions, 43.57 per cent, were possibly some what susceptible, and only 18.46 per cent, were ordinarily so. Over three thousand of them (26.59 per cent.) showed absolutely no moral sense, such as filial affection or sense of shame, 46.36 per cent, showed a little, and 21.97 Per cent- were ordinarily susceptible. It would seem from these figures (and the observation of experts strengthens it) that education alone, especially in the guise of instruction and independent of ethical train ing, is not a very efficient check to criminal propensities. Such is the opinion of observ ers like Le Bon, Taine and Leixner, the last of whom goes so far as to hold that educa tion has contributed to the growth of pros titution in Germany. In answer to all this criticism, it will be said: "Are we not constantly legislating on behalf of children? Have we not established reformatories and industrial schools? Are we not contributing to the support of chil dren-aid societies, social settlements and other child rescue work?" The answer is two-fold. There is too widespread a belief that the passage of a law will of itself work a reform. Tremendous efforts are put forth to secure its passage and then comes a gen eral quieting down and self-congratulatory
