The correlation that exists between crimes against property and economic conditions is very evident, and is direct. This causality appears also with regard to crimes against persons. Only it is then indirect. The influence of poverty upon criminality is especially great when it has been of long duration. Proudhon is quite right when he says: “Hunger that is every instant present, during the whole year, during the whole life, hunger which does not kill in a day, but is composed of all deprivations and all griefs, and unceasingly consumes the body, ruins the spirit, demoralizes the conscience, corrupts the race, generates all vices and diseases (drunkenness, among others), and an aversion towards work and thrift, baseness of spirit, callousness of conscience, laziness, and prostitution together with theft.” [241] The fact that the number of thefts of provisions is relatively small has little importance, since the thief always tries to steal some article of small bulk and great value. Also it must not be forgotten that little thefts of food often pass unnoticed, or without complaint being made, because the party injured does not consider the act a crime, since committed from necessity. Another convincing proof of the influence of economic conditions is the incontestable fact that it continually happens that a person will declare himself guilty of a crime that has not been committed, with the sole purpose of obtaining a lodging in jail. The great percentage made up of crimes committed from cupidity, as well as the fact that the number of recidivists is greater for crimes against property than for others, shows the great influence of economic conditions. The study of the morality of primitive peoples shows us that the crimes of abortion, for example, of infanticide, and homicide upon the aged, have their origin in economic conditions exclusively, the means of subsistence not being sufficient to support a large population. When these crimes occur among civilized peoples they have the same causes. For example, cases of infanticide are very common in Trevise, one of the poorest provinces in Italy. The lack of education or the influence of other factors opposed to education are the reason why the corrupting influence of which we have been speaking often rages in the lower classes with all its force. To prove the assertion that economic conditions have little influence upon criminality, some authors cite the fact that England, with its great wealth, shows a greater number of crimes against property than Italy, which is much poorer. He who reasons in this way forgets that the absolute wealth of a country may be very great, but the distribution of that wealth not proportional. England gives us the proof of this; in no other country is the difference between rich and poor more pronounced, and without the presence of other important and opposing factors, the criminality would be much greater than it is now.