Copyright
R. L. (Richard Louis) Dugdale.

The Jukes; online

. (page 10 of 12)
Online LibraryR. L. (Richard Louis) DugdaleThe Jukes; → online text (page 10 of 12)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


crimes against person it is 59.52 per cent, and for those against
property 79 per cent. Thus it turns out that in the crimes of
design, which require training to insure success, and upon which
the offender depends for his living, the proportion of habitual crim-
inals is 19.48 per cent greater than in crimes of impulse.

With certain political economists, it has become customary to
assert that crime does not pay. The main point relied on to sustain
their view is that, on the average, the net booty obtained by crime
is less than the average rate of wages, that criminals are subject to
frequent imprisonment, and that they forfeit the advantages of the
good opinion of their neighbors. All these positions are true if
they were predicated of reputable people who are sensitive of their
good name ; but they are not true when affirmed of habitual crimi-
nals. As to the good opinion of the righteous, that is a negative
advantage which sinks to a level of absolute insignificance in the
estimation of a clever pickpocket. The " habituals " have a com-
munity of their own ; they seek for the approbation of this circle
and not that of the philanthropists and divines, whose code of
propriety is incomprehensible to them and not unfrequently a
subject of derision.

We must also dispossess ourselves of the idea that crime does
not pay. In reality there are three classes with whom it does : ist.
The experts, who commit crimes which are difficult to detect or who
can buy themselves off. These are the aristocrats of the profession.
2d. The incompetent, who are too lazy to work and too proud to beg,
or too young for the poor-house. 3d. The pauper, who steals be-
cause prison fare and prison companionship offer higher inducements
than poor-house fare or poor-house society. This stock amounts to
22.31 per cent of all criminals, as seen by table XII. The whole
problem, so far as these three classes are concerned, resolves itself
into the economic axiom of relative efficiency. The question with
them is not : Does crime yield a rate of income less than that of a
skilled mechanic ? But, does it yield a rate higher than any employer
would be willing to pay for an inefficient, careless and untrained



THE JUKES. 1 01

class such as the habitual criminals usually are ? How incompetent
they are for ordinary avocations of industry is seen when we find
that 78 per cent of criminals in State prison are without trades,
although their average age is 27 years, while only about 44 per cent
are 20 years old and under, and none less than 16.

In the second place, some criminals make large fortunes, com-
pound their felonies, and form examples of successful crime which
allure the ambition of lesser rascals, just as the mercantile success
of A. T. Stewart stimulates the ambition of a neophyte trader. It
is quite true that they run the risks of imprisonment, but the
average human mind is constituted to run risks. The miner, the
engineer, the sailor risk their lives without hesitation for wages
averaging from $15 to $150 a month and board; why should not
the criminal be satisfied to run the lesser risks of his profession
just as other men do in theirs. The question ceases to be : " Does
crime pay on the average ? " but " will it secure a prize in the
lottery of chances ? "

As the question presents points of practical use in the manage-
ment and repression of the criminal class, aside from mere disputa-
tion, Table XVII. has been prepared, selecting 38 cases of habitual
criminals, whose testimony on the questions at issue is deemed
sufficiently trustworthy to be accepted as approximately correct.

From this table the average duration of criminal life of each
habitual criminal amounts to 11.55 years, of which 7.84 are spent
in criminal liberty and 3.71 in prison. Here we have a measure of
crime risks which is far below the hazards of a miner, for, while he
holds himself ready to spend 300 days, or 82 per cent of his life, in
an occupation the conditions of which are far more onerous than
that of imprisonment, and the remuneration of which yields not
much above the bare necessaries of life, the criminal only gives up
34 per cent of his life to secure 66 per cent of license and self-
indulgence. Furthermore, it appears that the average number of
convictions in 12 years is 4.55, or one conviction in two years and
six months. This accords with the estimate of one convict, that
" there is from two to three years' average between commitments."
For each commitment, the table shows an average of 146 offenses, and



IO2



THE JUKES.



TABLE XVII.

SHOWING CRIMINAL CAREER, OFFENSES AND CONVICTIONS.



SCHEDULE
NUMBER.


S

d

V

1

44

|

<e

44

(4

1

<!


Age at last conviction.


a

_a

1

rf

j:*3

ri

4>
>,

I


Total imprisonment to
last conviction.


"rt
Ijj

s|

S- 3

rt-

V

>,
*4
u

^


Total offenses.


Average number of
offenses in one year.


Aggregate convictions.


Ratio of offenses to
convictions.


6 .




2i


w J




12 O


Mt




6








27


*4


i 6


10 6


M




6






10


*3

J-r


*4


O '

31


T? . O


M




2








*l

TQ


*7


i

i 6


ij y
8 6


M










12


l<
2O


B


Sri


3.O


M










Id


IO


c


.0

o 7


4.Q


M










IO


*Tf

IB


S


Ui J


* V
6 2


ooo


IAA


6


150 to i




TJ.










yuw

D 1




2




uo ...




7
IB




2 2


6 10






Q




aft


2O


75


c ?


TT ?


1A. Q


M




g






1C


7*

IQ


5 Z


17.4

I O


04* y

3.Q


IOO


1A.


I


7,4 to I




18


28


IO




6 o


M








49


is


17




>w
37


o o


M










II


*/

21


IO


o
O. 7


u. V
8.e


i.eoo


4ie




8?q. i






22


T C


6 Q


8 7


M




J




fit






*5


v. y

x 6


^ 6


M








A6. .




*y

21


12


i . *


IO.O


a eo


77




88.1




IO


18


8


3.O


5.O


2 HO


SO


7


83.1




14


17


i


O.Q


2. ^


IOO


44


2


5O. t


*g. .


18


2O


7


0.6


1.6


2OO


127


7,


66.1






21


16


3.O


n o


II 8?








86"




22


I?


ii .0


2 ,O


10?


ff








IO


22


12


J .2


8. 10


300


74




75. I




7


41


JA


IO. 7


21 .Q


(t.OOO


218


16


717. C






C4


*3I


17. O


"J'V
I4.O


M




g




8


14


j'f
IQ


e


I .^


5 .0


M










14


2t


ii


6.Q


4.


M




g




62


17


27




.O


1 1 .0


M




g






g


24


16


1 . II


12. I


M




6






10


22


3


2.6


0.6


IOO


2OO


2


50. I




8


17




1 . 7


7. S


M












21


12


2.8


9. 4


M








eg..


1C


2O


C


1.7


3 -Q


80


21




27. I




17


2S


12


J .0


8.7


D








80 . ....




2O


6


l.O


1 .O


IOO


IOO


7


IOO. I


26


12


18


6


2.2


^. IO


75


IQ


2


38.1






18


1 1


O.O


1 1 .0


100 ?


? ?


j


IOO. I






IQ


IO


4.2


5. IO




7 '


























Totals.






A\n


I AO . Q2


298 08




I. A.AA


I*7C


2 nfrl tO 14


Averages . .


==== =


= = =


==== =

i i.ee


3. 71


7 8*


= = = ==


*>^4^-
IO7


J 75
i c5










* O3


/*


7.04




1<JJ


4.53





* Has been in insane asylums fourteen years of his life. t M stands for " many offenses."
t D stands for " declines to answer." Rejected because grossly untrue. II Doubtful.



THE JUKES. 103

as about 100 offenses are committed each year, this would be equal
to one commitment for every 18 months of liberty, equivalent to 66
per cent of the total crime career. By adding 34 per cent, the
period of imprisonment, we get, as the time between convictions, by
this calculation, two years and three months, which again accords
with the statement of another convict, who testified that, for " small
crimes about 100 to 150 offenses to one conviction are committed, and
for big jobs, five offenses to one conviction ; but it takes sometimes
two years to put up a job on a bank." This computation would,
of course, not be correct for the total crimes committed in the
community, because this estimate refers only to Staie prison convicts.

It has been found impossible to get any reliable information as
to the average income of criminals from any calculation based
upon the value of the articles stolen as returned by the indictment,
for the tendency of the prosecutor is to enormously overestimate
the amount of his loss, and, in the second place, it is usually only
when a considerable loss has been sustained that the prosecutor is
roused sufficiently to give his time to secure the conviction of the
offender. For these reasons, $214, the average amount of each
theft which the schedules yield, is much above the actual truth as
respects the total criminal class, although it may be under the truth
for cases that receive State prison punishment, the higher crimes
being of course concentrated in this class of prisons.

To get a reasonable approximation of the net income, such pris-
oners as were sufficiently communicative were asked what yearly or
weekly income, by labor, they would think sufficient to restrain them
from theft. In most cases the question seemed so novel that they
were actually nonplussed. The habit of estimating expenditures
and of keeping in mind the relation between income and outgo was
so absolutely wanting, that they could form no approximate judg-
ment on the question. The most consistent answers were : " One
thousand a year at shoemaking," providing he could work half the
time, " five hundred dollars a year ; " " seventy-five dollars a month,"
and " ten dollars a week," in most cases without any realization of
the value of money.

Reverting, at this point, to the testimony of a convict quoted



io 4 THE JUKES.

above, that those who do minor crimes commit about 100 to 150
offenses to one commitment^ while those who " go for big money " get
caught once out of five times, we have here something which may
serve as a measure of police and public efficiency in preventing
crime. Where large stores of valuables are kept, extra precautions
are taken by the owners ; where large sums are lost, the loser spares
no pains or expense to catch and punish the offender, and the
result is the convictions are 27 times more frequent in propor-
tion to the number of offenses. Nor is it fair to lay the chief blame
upon the police for not bringing petty offenders to justice more
frequently. The blame is far more due to the public, which is so
careless or indifferent to its small losses, that it invites pilfering. We
know of one person who nas lived 20 years of adult life and never had
his pocket picked, though a resident of the city for three-fourths of
that time, and another who has gone 40 years with a like experience,
while others get theirs picked, on an average, twice a year. The
same caution in the latter case would, no doubt, produce the same
immunity as in the former, and would of itself go far to solve the
perplexing problem : What shall we do about our criminals ? One
answer is : Lead them not into temptation.

Relations of Crime and Pauperism. In Table XII. it appears
that 22.31 per cent of State prison convicts are of pauper stock.
This is a considerable proportion, and it was intended to test wheth-
er the tentative inductions made in the " Jukes " * held good, that the
tendency of the oldest boy is to be the criminal, that of the young-
est to be the pauper of the family ; but the inquiry was frustrated
from various causes and the material collected is not sufficiently
elaborated or consecutive to be available for record. There are,
however, some facts which add to the evidence that the tentative
inductions there stated are correct.

" Refuge " Boys. Under this title are included all boys who
have been sent to a reformatory, school ship, industrial school, or
house of refuge. The total number of refuge boys is 53, or 22.74
per cent of the prisoners examined the great mass of them being
city boys. Dividing the total number of criminals into two cate-

* Induction! as to pauperism p. 38, 10. Inductions as to crime p. 471 4.



THE JUKES. IOS

gories, those who are not refuge boys and those who are, we find
that 68.88 per cent of the former are habitual criminals, while the
latter rise to 98.15 per cent of their number. Thus, while the
refuge boys furnish a little less than one-fourth of the prison popu-
lation for all crimes, they yield 29.41 per cent of the total number
of habitual criminals, or nearly one-third. It may be thought that
the percentage of refuge boys is too great ; but I have reason to
think these numbers are below the reality, because to be a refuge
boy is, among criminals, a term of reproach, and for this reason
inany of them deny having been inmates of a reformatory. In
confirmation of this there are u cases scheduled whom it is most
probable are house-of -refuge boys, but who have not been included
in the tables as such because they are not known to be of that class.
Comparing crimes against property and person with each other,
we find that wlu'le the first show 25.13 per cent of refuge boys or
over one-fourth, the latter show only 11.90 per cent or about
one-ninth of this class. Dismissing crimes against person and
confining ourselves to crimes against property, we find that while
they commit over 25 per cent of crimes against property, they
commit 26.37 P er cent * robbery, 31.24 per cent of burglary and
65 per cent of pocket-picking. Why do these boys commit
crimes against property, and of these burglary and picking pockets
by preference ? In the first place it seems to be owing to the
"congregate system," which allows abundant opportunity for
criminal training. In a conversation growing out of the examina-
tion, one of them (see schedule No. 33, Table XVIII.) says : " I never
learned a thing in my life in prison to benefit me outside. The
house of refuge is the worst place a boy could be sent to." " Why
so ? " " Boys are worse than men ; I believe boys know more
mischief than men. In the house of refuge I learned to sneak-
thief, shop-lift, pick pockets and open a lock." " How did you get
the opportunity to learn all this?" "There's plenty of chance.
They learn it from each other when at play." "But when you are
at play you are otherwise occupied ? " " Boys don't always want
to play, and they sit off in a corner, and they get it " (criminal
training). This man confessed to thirty arrests besides his sixteen



I0 6 THE JUKES.

convictions, and on the books of the prison is registered " second
offense." Another boy, schedule number 25, after he had answered
my questions, asked : " Please, sir, may I ask you a question ? '
" Certainly." "Why do they send boys to the house of refuge? "
" I suppose it is to teach them to be better boys." " That's a great
mistake, for they get worse." " How should that be ? " "I
wouldn't be here, only I was sent to the refuge." " What did you
learn there that should have caused you to be sent here (Sing
Sing) ? " "I didn't know how to pick pockets before I went, and
I didn't know no fences ; that's where you sell what you steal, you
know." " Yes, I know. How many fences did you learn of ? "
"Three." " What else did you learn in the way of thieving? " "I
learned how to put up a job in burglary." During the cross-
examination, when he was asked if he had learned a trade, he
replied : " No, sir, only a branch of a trade." The answer was
quite uncommon, so I asked why it happened. " That was in the
refuge ; they never learn you a trade ; they learn you a branch of a
trade, and keep you at it while you stay there." These statements
may be exaggerations, but they certainly have great ground of prob-
ability. The fact is that the average refuge boy steals in the
direction in which he is trained, and picking pockets and locks are
the arts which can be taught in the reformatory with less chance of
detection by the officers, than any others. In the 53 cases present-
ed there is not one of forgery or false pretenses, for these require
educational advantages which they do not get. It would be useful
to know how much of the criminal recklessness which is found
among refuge boys is owing to the imprisonment to which they are
consigned at an early age becoming itself a training in cell life
which effaces the wholesome dread of prison which the reputable
youth universally entertain.

In Table XII. it will be found that 45.28 per cent of their
number are orphans before their fifteenth year ; 88.67 P er cent are
neglected children ; 24.52 per cent are of criminal families ; 24.52
per cent of pauper stock ; 50.96 per cent of intemperate family,
and 50.96 per cent habitual drunkards. With respect to the per-
centage of neurotic heritage, it must be borne in mind that a large



THE JUKES. 107

number of refuge boys are illegitimate, and do not know anything
about their paternity ; for this reason it is impossible to get
reliable information as to the existence of nervous diseases in
their ancestry. Were this obtainable the percentage would un-
doubtedly be much higher than that shown in table XII., where it
appears as only 15.09 per cent. The average age at which their
childhood was neglected is 8 years and a quarter ; they began crime
at 9 years and 8 months, 2 of them at 5 years, 4 at 7, and 5 at 8 ;
they went to the refuge at 12 years and 9 months, while their
present age is only 23. They began prostitution at the average of
14 years and 9 months, one beginning at 6 and one at 10, and had
contracted venereal disease at 19 years and 6 months, four of them
at 1 6 and under.

On taking a closer review we find 26 are habitual drunkards,
two of them before their ninth year, and of these 26 we know that
14 had parents who were habitual drunkards ; 5 of these 14 are of
pauper stock, 6 are of criminal family, and 3 are either insane or of
nervously disordered stock. This statement does not exhaust the
story of the heredity ; for out of these 26 habitual drunkards 4 had
occasional drunkards for fathers, while the ancestral habits of six
others are unknown ; but it is to be remarked that not one has parents
recorded as temperate. Of the 21 who are occasional drunkards
only 2 have for parents habitual drunkards, while 2 have parents who
are temperate, leaving 8 whose parentage is unknown. It is also to
be remarked that of 16 criminals addicted to intemperance in any
degree who have parents known to be habitual drunkards, 7 belong
to criminal families, while the 37 other refuge boys show only 6
who are of criminal stock.

On inspection of Table XVIII., it will be seen that in 45 cases
out of 53 I was unable to get information as to the ancestral char-
acteristics as to nervous disorders ; otherwise the number would be
much greater.

Of the 8 who are of neurotic stock 3 are themselves deranged,
2 being insane in the asylum ; 5 are habitual drunkards, one at 8,
one at 9, and one at 18, while 3 are known to be the children of
habitual drunkards, the ancestral habits of the other two being un-



1 08



THE JUKES.



TABLE XVII.





o
.2

5

-5

CJ

"u
C/;


Offense.


Ages. [Imprisonment


Criminal typo.


Liccntious-


11

"^


o

o

^5

4-1

1/3
I*


o ^




Present.


1/1 J/

o d;


-*-

o
X


Ag. yr.of
sentence.


u.

o 3

-* Q


Whether of
criminal
stock.


In the
stock.


o

it

r-*


_o o


y.m.


y.n,


rt *


i

2

3
4

i

8
9

10

ii

12

'3

20
21
22

23

26

27
28

29

3
3 1
3 2

33
34

P

H

39

40

4 1
42
43
44

46
47
48

49
5^
5i

53


88
142

3S

2 5
in

* *

3
M
4

86
40
129
26
61
126
So
140

ft*

'43

74
6

33

141

80
128

4
42

54

127

119

'45
93
43
47
93
3'

120
76

48

139
121

91

13


Burg, and lar.
Bur"-.


9

7


9
9

9

5

12

9
ii

14

10

16
No.?
S

12

5

10
17?

9
8

7
9

q
10

7

9
. . . .



7

10
10

S

9
8

's'


9

10

18

13
No. ?

9
17

18

ii

No. ?

12

16

12
12

No. ?
9^

10
o

o
9

j /

ii
9

10
17
'3

;j

'3

13

12
12

S
Yes

9
9
18

10

13


27

22

6o 2

21
27

3

21
22

2 5
l8

95

27

18

17
28?,

20 J

28

41
2O

21}

20

24
*9

21

2 5

24

19

2 3
20

2 4

22

'2
19

*9
3 1
19
23

2 3

20

19
18

26

2l"|


. r

2.0

3
5.0

1.2

No.?

I .0

9
1.8

I.O

*

2.O

. II

2.0

d

o
7 . ()

i . i

I. 10

I.I

I.O

4.0

1.8

6.0

9
9
9

I .0

.6
3-7

2 -3
1.9

1.6

2.10

J.7


o >
3

st

I

M*

4

2

2

3?

i

6

2

4

2?
I?

Df

4

M.
16

3
3

5
3

4

2?
2

5
3
6


r> ;


If *




s.?

1.6
19.0

8.0

4-5

n. 6

3-3
7.10

13.6

S.ii

4-2
4.0
6.6

7-3

Life

17.0

12.0

6.8
3.10
4.0

2X.fi

-| 'o

I 3 .6

3-9

4-9!

II .0

4.0
4.6
8.0
8.3
11.3

5-
4.4!
6-7

^ ~>


II.

11.
II.
II.
II.
II.
II.
II.
II.
II.
H.
Fo
11.
11.
11.
II.
II.
i i.
II.

If.

i r


Br.inH.R. }




Yes
Xo ?


Lar




P lar ...


9

5

12

5
ii

9

9
Yes

5

12

5

10

10

Yes

9
7
6
6

6

12
10
II

S

10

6

12

9

10
12

6

12

7

10
10

5

17

7
7
6

4
9
6






Lar




M. Prost..


Yes
Yes

6


Lar.frompr. .
Bur <T


Br. & F. hab.
F. &. M. hab.




Lar .from pr. .
Att. to kill...
Bur 17


M. Prost. .




16
1 6

13
1 6

16
16

No ?




Rob


I


Lar . . .




L. from pr . .
P Lar




2 br h. i br h r




L. from pr. . .






Rob. & burg.
P Lar . . .


i


F. h. br. II.K
F.cc m.2 b.h r






Arson





20
13

Yes


I., from pr. ..




Murder ist . .
Robbery ....
Att. G/Lar. .
L. from pr. . .
Robbery ....
L. from pr. .
Att. to k;!!.. .
Lar




II.
II.
II.
II.
H.
11.
II.
II.
II.
11.
II.
H.
11.
Fo?
II.
II.
II.
11.
H.

II.
H


1






M. Pro-,:. .
M. Prost. .


16

10














Yes


Lar






Robbery ....
L. from pr. . .
L. from pr. . .
Burg


Bro. H. R...


M Prost




18

14
Yes


Bro ....






2 sist. prost


L. from pr. .
R. stolen gds.
Burg


Bro II R .











M. Prost.





G Lar ....






M. Prost. .


No ?
'5


Burcr










P. L. from pr.








M. Prost. .


L. from pr. . .
L. from pr. . .
I ar


1-7

.1

1.6

I.O

3.0

3-4

|j


9

2?

5

2

3


5.6

2.6

5.10

2.0

4-3
5-


II.
II.
II.
II.
H.
TI.

1 0?

II




M. Prost..




Bro h.ib . .




16






P Lar


M. bro. II. R.


M. & s. pro


. .. .


Att. Rape. ..
Bnrf








Lar ........








Bur '




















10

ii


1 1


15


9


ii


3-3


II.
H.






16


Lar . .


No ?












1


Average agelS.27


9.61


T2.21


23.02


1.6








14-77



Explanations, t Declines to answer. ,. J
F. 0,.First Offender, ft Vag. Vagrant. *t O.



days. * M.inv times. V Doubtful.

R. Out Door Relief. "*" Learned in Pnson or Refuge.



REFUGE BOYS.



THE yUKES.



109



ness.

~ E
~*'% rt

J C! tn

u; <y h


Inebriety.


Nervous
diseases.


Orphan-
age.


Pauperism.


Trade or
occupation.


Indv'ual.


Family.


r- 1
T

;j **-i
*"w *-

! j=


In the
stock.


=1


In the
stock.


_ rt "^


\- *

o "^

~

O *"O


o

-2 C


; C


Character of
family.




No






No .
No .


Bro. cp..
F. ep....
Bro. ep..


No

12

No

No



No
No
10
No
No
No
No


10

16
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No






Plumber.
Shoes, ^
Teamster.
Tailor 23,*^
None.
Machinist.
Laborer.
None.
Bar-tender.
None.
Shoe, ^[
Sailor.
Bricklayer, ?
Brush-ink.^]
None.
Gasfitting.
Engineer.

Laborer.
L'ngsho'man.

shoes, ;[

Teamster.
Tailcr, ^*;j" *
Brass-m'ldcr.
Carpenter.
Ca'ingchrs^f
Actor.
Shoes, ^[
Plumbing.
Compositor.
Machinist.
None.
Shoes, ^^[
None ?
Jockey.
None.
Ncnc.
None ?
None ?
Laborer.

Blacksmith.
Laborer.
None ?
None ?
Shoe, ""^i"
Shoemaking
None.
None.
None ?




Yes
Yes

6
7

12
10

16

9
16

13

9
20

14

No?

12

16




9
8
Yes
Yes
iS
iS
Yes

22
18
2 3

Yes
No?

17
17
Yes
No?

24
Yes
Yes
Yes
29
Yes
19
19
Yes
Yes


F.'hab.'


No . . .


M. &s.O. R.










Vagfi






F hab


No .

No .
In.
Ep..
No .
No.
No .
No


M. Para.

1 b.in. 1 cp






No . . .




g *-#

s. is a

S. 16
S. iS
G. 1 6

G. 21


F. & M. hab.
M. occ. F. h.
F. & bro. h. .


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12

Online LibraryR. L. (Richard Louis) DugdaleThe Jukes; → online text (page 10 of 12)