Ver.04.29.93*END*
Scanned by Charles Keller with
OmniPage Professional OCR software
donated by Caere Corporation, 1-800-535-7226.
Contact Mike Lough <Mikel@caere.com>
PATHOLOGICAL LYING, ACCUSATION, AND SWINDLING
A STUDY IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
BY
WILLIAM HEALY, A.B., M.D.
DIRECTOR, PSYCHOPATHIC INSTITUTE, JUVENILE COURT, CHICAGO
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR NERVOUS AND MENTAL DISEASES
CHICAGO POLICLINIC; AUTHOR OF ``THE
INDIVIDUAL DELINQUENT''
AND
MARY TENNEY HEALY, B.L.
TO
MERRITT W. PINCKNEY
JUDGE OF THE JUVENILE COURT
CHICAGO
``Bonus et sapiens et peritus utilitatis dignitatisque civilis.''
EDITORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
This volume is one of a series of Monograph Supplements to the
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. The publication of the
Monographs is authorized by the American Institute of Criminal
Law and Criminology. Such a series has become necessary in
America by reason of the rapid development of criminological
research in this country since the organization of the Institute.
Criminology draws upon many independent branches of science, such
as Psychology, Anthropology, Neurology, Medicine, Education,
Sociology, and Law. These sciences contribute to our
understanding of the nature of the delinquent and to our
knowledge of those conditions in home, occupation, school,
prison, etc., which are best adapted to elicit the behavior that
the race has learned to approve and cherish.
This series of Monographs, therefore, will include researches in
each of these departments of knowledge insofar as they meet our
special interest.
It is confidently anticipated that the series will stimulate the
study of the problems of delinquency, the State control of which
commands as great expenditure of human toil and treasure as does
the control of constructive public education.
ROBERT H. GAULT,
Editor of the Journal of Criminal COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION
Law and Criminology, OF THE
Northwestern University. AMERICAN INSTITUTE
FREDERIC B. CROSSLEY, OF CRIMINAL
Northwestern University. LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY.
JAMES W. GARNER,
University of Illinois.
PREFACE
Careful studies of offenders make group-types stand out with
distinctness. Very little advancement in the treatment of
delinquents or criminals can be expected if typical
characteristics and their bearings are not understood. The group
that our present work concerns itself with is comparatively
little known, although cases belonging to it, when met, attract
much attention. It is to all who should be acquainted with these
striking mental and moral vagaries, particularly in their
forensic and psychological significances, that our essay is
addressed. In some cases vital for the administration of
justice, an understanding of the types of personality and of
behavior here under discussion is a prime necessity.
The whole study of characterology or the motivation of conduct is
extremely new, and there are many indications of immense values
in uncovered fields. Some appreciation of this fact may be
gained from the following pages which show the possibility of
tracing one form of behavior to its source.
We have laid under contribution practically the entire literature
on the subject, almost none of which is in English, and also the
thorough-going longitudinal case studies made by the Juvenile
Psychopathic Institute of Chicago. In the latter material there
was found much of value bearing upon the subject of lying, false
accusation, and swindling of pathological character.
Our institute, later taken over officially by the Juvenile Court
of Cook County, was for five years maintained upon a foundation
provided by Mrs. W. F. Dummer.
WILLIAM HEALY
MARY TENNEY HEALY
WINNETKA, ILL.
June, 1915.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER
EDITORIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
PREFACE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PREVIOUS STUDIES
III. CASES OF PATHOLOGICAL LYING AND SWINDLING
IV. CASES OF PATHOLOGICAL ACCUSATION
V. CASES OF PATHOLOGICAL LYING IN BORDER-LINE MENTAL TYPES
VI. CONCLUSIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORS
INDEX OF TOPICS
PATHOLOGICAL LYING, ACCUSATION, AND SWINDLING
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Through comparison of the literature on pathological lying with
our own extensive material we are led to perceive the insistent
necessity for closer definition of the subject than has been
heretofore offered. Reasons for excluding types earlier
described as pathological liars will be found throughout our
work. Better definition goes hand in hand with better
understanding, and it is only natural that formal, detailed
contemplation of the subject should lead to seeing new lines of
demarcation.
Definition: Pathological lying is falsification entirely
disproportionate to any discernible end in view, engaged in by a
person who, at the time of observation, cannot definitely be
declared insane, feebleminded, or epileptic. Such lying rarely,
if ever, centers about a single event; although exhibited in very
occasional cases for a short time, it manifests itself most
frequently by far over a period of years, or even a life time.
It represents a trait rather than an episode. Extensive, very
complicated fabrications may be evolved. This has led to the
synonyms:--mythomania; pseudologia phantastica.
It is true that in the previous literature, under the head of
pathological liars, cases of epilepsy, insanity, and mental
defect have been cited, but that is misleading. A clear
terminology should be adopted. The pathological liar forms a
species by himself and as such does not necessarily belong to any
of these larger classes. It is, of course, scientifically
permissible, as well as practically valuable, to speak of the
epileptic or the otherwise abnormal person through his disease
engaging in pathological lying, but the main classification of an
individual should be decided by the main abnormal condition.
A good definition of pathological accusation follows the above
lines. It is false accusation indulged in apart from any obvious
purpose. Like the swindling of pathological liars, it appears
objectively more pernicious than the lying, but it is an
expression of the same tendency. The most striking form of this
type of conduct is, of course, self-accusation. Mendacious self-
impeachment seems especially convincing of abnormality. Such
falsification not infrequently is episodic.
The inclusion of swindling in our discussion is due to the
natural evolution of this type of conduct from pathological
lying. Swindling itself could hardly be called a pathological
phenomenon, since it is readily explicable by the fact that it is
entered into for reasons of tangible gain, but when it is the
product of the traits shown by a pathological liar it, just as
the lying itself, is a part of the pathological picture. It is
the most concrete expression of the individual's tendencies.
This has been agreed to by several writers, for all have found it
easy to trace the development of one form of behavior into the
other. As Wulffen says, ``Die Gabe zu Schwindeln ist eine `Lust
am Fabulieren.' '' Over and over again we have observed the
phenomenon as the pathological liar gradually developed the
tendency to swindle.
Notwithstanding the grave and sensational social issues which
arise out of pathological lying, accusation, and swindling, there
is very little acquaintance with the characteristics of cases
showing this type of behavior, even by the people most likely to
meet the problems presented. Lawyers, or other professional
specialists have slight knowledge of the subject. Perhaps this
is due to the fact that the pathological lying does not follow
the usual lines of abnormal human behavior, unless it be among
the insane where other symptoms proclaim the true nature of the
case. Another reason for the slight acquaintance with the
subject is the fact that almost nothing has been written on it in
English.
The important part which behavior of this type sometimes plays in
court work is witnessed to by the records of our own cases as
well as those cited in the previous literature. The legal issues
presented by pathological lying may be exceedingly costly. These
facts make it important that the well-equipped lawyer, as well as
the student of abnormal psychology, be familiar with the
specific, related facts. For such students the cardinal point of
recognition of this class of conduct may at once be stated to be
its apparent baselessness.
The only method by which good understanding may be obtained of
the types of personality and mentality involved in pathological
lying, accusation, and swindling, as well as of the genetics of
these tendencies, is by the detailed reading of typical case
histories. In this fact is found the reason for the presentation
of this monograph. Appreciation of the nature of the phenomena
can only be obtained through acquaintance with an entire career.
Any of us may be confronted by fabrications so consistent as to
leave at one or several interviews the impression of truth.
Our selection of literature to summarize needs no explanation.
We have simply taken all that we could find which specifically
bears on the problem. Lying, in general, especially as a form of
delinquency, has received attention at the hands of some authors,
notably Ferriani[1] and Duprat.[2] The falsifications and
phantasies of children and adolescents have been dealt with by
Stanley Hall.[3] None of these goes into the important, narrower
field with which we are here concerned. The foreign literature
is vitally important in its opening up of the subject, but from
the standpoint of modern psychopathology it does not adequately
cover the ground.
[1] Ferriani, Lino, ``L'Enfance criminelle.'' Milan, 1894.
(Trans. Minderjahrige Verbrecher. Berlin, 1896.)
[2] Duprat, G.-L., ``Le mensonge.'' Alcan, Paris, 1903.
[3] Hall, G. Stanley, ``Children's Lies.'' Amer. Journal of
Psychology, Jan. 1890; pp. 59-70.
The fabrications, often quite clever, of the clearly insane,
which in earlier literature are confounded with pathological
lying, we have discriminated against as not being profitable for
us to discuss here, while not denying, however, the possibility
in some instances of lies coexisting with actual delusions. We
well remember a patient, a brilliant conversationalist and letter
writer, but an absolutely frank case of paranoia, whom we had not
seen for a period during which she had concocted a new set of
notions involving even her own claim to royal blood, confronting
us with a merry, significant smile and the remark, ``You don't
believe my new stories, do you?''
A short statement on the relation of lying to delinquency may be
of interest here. Ferriani's discussion[4] of the lying of 500
condemned juvenile offenders, with classification of their lies,
ranging from self-defense, weakness, and fancy, to nobility of
purpose, does not include our field. Nor does he leave much room
for appreciation of the fact we very definitely have observed,
namely, that plenty of young offenders are robust speakers of the
truth. Our analysis[5] of the delinquencies of 1000 young
repeated offenders carefully studied by us does not tell the
proportion of truth tellers as distinguished from liars, but it
does give the number in which lying was a notable and excessive
trait. The total number of males studied was 694, of females
306. Ages ranged from 6 to 22; average about 16 years.
[4] loc. cit.
[5] Vide p. 140, in chapter on Statistics, William Healy, ``The
Individual Delinquent.'' Little, Brown, and Co. Boston, 1915.
MALES FEMALES
Lying--counted only when excessive and a 104 80
notorious characteristic of the individual, (15%) (26%)
False accusations--only recorded when of an 5 16
excessive and dangerous sort, (.7%) (5%)
The exact number of pathological liars is not determinable in our
series because of the shading of this lying into other types. It
would be safe to say that 8 or 10 of the 1000 were genuine cases
of pathological lying according to our definition, that 5 more
engaged in pathological false accusations without a notorious
career in other kinds of lying. Examples of borderline mental
cases showing fantastic lying and accusations are given in our
special chapter. Some of the cases of pathological lying given
in this work do not belong to the series of 1000 cases analyzed
for statistical purposes. The extraordinary number of times
several of these individuals appeared in court (resembling in
this respect the European case histories) shows that the total
amount of trouble caused by this class is not in the least
represented by their numerical proportion among offenders.
We have purposely limited our own material for presentation.
Here, as elsewhere, we insist on the value of genetics and
consequently have busied ourselves at length with those cases
where we could gain something like an adequate conception of the
antecedents in family and developmental histories and where some
measure of the psychogenetic features could be taken. Cases of
older individuals with their prolonged and often picturesque
careers, equivalent to those recounted in European literature, we
have left strictly alone. One ever finds that the older the
individual the less one can learn satisfactorily of beginnings of
tendencies, just on account of the unreliability of the principal
actor in the drama. The cases of older swindlers at first sight
seem to offer much for the student of criminalistics, if only for
purely descriptive purposes, but in the literature we have failed
to find any satisfactory studies of the formative years of such
careers. By taking instances of younger pathological liars, such
as we have studied, the natural progress into swindling can be
readily seen.
In court work we have been brought face to face with many cases
of false accusation and, of course, with plenty of the usual kind
of lying. Where either of these has been entered into by way of
revenge or in belief that it would aid in getting out of trouble,
no further attention has been paid to it from the standpoint of
pathological lying. Our acquaintance with some professional
criminals, particularly of the sneak-thief or pick-pocket class,
has taught us that living conditions for the individual may be
founded on whole careers of misrepresentation and lies--for very
understandable reasons. Self-accusations may sometimes be
evolved with the idea of gaining directly practical results, as
when a lover or a comrade is shielded, or when there is danger of
a larger crime being fastened on the self-incriminator.
In selection and treatment of our material we have confined
ourselves as closely as possible to the definition first given in
this chapter--a definition that after some years of observation
we found could be made and held to. While we would not deny that
some of our cases may eventually find their way into an insane
hospital, still none of them, except some we have enumerated
under the name of border-line types, has so far shown any
indication of this. That some of our cases have more or less
recovered from a strongly-marked and prolonged inclination to
falsify is a fact of great importance for treatment and
prognosis.
We see neither reason for including insane cases nor for
overlapping the already used classifications which are based on
more vital facts than the symptom of lying. Our use of abnormal
cases in our chapter, ``Illustrations of Border-Line Types,''
will be perfectly clear to those who read these cases. They
represent the material not easily diagnosed, sometimes after long
observation by professional people, or else they are clearly
abnormal individuals who, by the possession of certain
capacities, manage to keep their heads well above the level of
social incompetency as judged by the world at large.
We have introduced only the cases where we have had ample proof
that the individual had been given to excessive lying of our
peculiar type. In the court room and working with delinquents
outside the court, it is in rare instances totally impossible to
know where the truth finally rests; such have been left out.
Then, too, we omit cases in which false accusations have about
them the shadow of even a suspicion of vindictiveness. False
accusations of young children against parents would hardly seem
to have such a basis, and yet in some instances this fact has
come out clearly. Grudge-formation on the part of young
individuals has all through our work been one of the
extraordinary findings; capacity for it varies tremendously in
different individuals.
Several forms of excessive lying, particularly those practised by
children and adolescents, are not discussed by us because they
are largely age phenomena and only verge upon the pathological as
they are carried over into wider fields of conduct. The
fantasies of children, and the almost obsessional lying in some
young adolescents, too, we avoid. There is much shading of
typical pathological lying into, on the one hand, the really
insane types, and, on the other hand, into the lying which is to
be explained by quite normal reactions or where the tendency to
mendacity is only partially developed.
It has been a matter of no small interest to us that in planning
this monograph we conceived it necessary to consider part of our
material under the head of episodic pathological lying and that
later we had to omit this chapter. Surely there had been
cases--so it seemed to us at first--where purposeless lying had
been indulged in for a comparatively short time, particularly
during the adolescent period, without expression of a
prevaricating tendency before or after this time. When we came
to review our material with this chapter in mind we found no
sufficient verification of the fact that there was any such thing
as episodic pathological lying, apart from peculiar
manifestations in cases of epilepsy, hysteria, and other mental
abnormalities. A short career of extensive lying, not
unfrequently met with in work for juvenile courts and other
social agencies, seems, judging from our material, to be always
so mixed up with other delinquencies or unfortunate sex
experiences that the lying, after all, cannot be regarded as
purposeless. It is indulged in most often in an attempt to
disguise undesirable truths. That false accusations and even
self-accusations are engaged in for the same purpose goes without
saying. The girl who donned man's clothes, left home and lived
for months a life of lies was seeking an adventure which would
offset intolerable home conditions. The young woman who after
seeing something of the pleasures of the world was placed in a
strict religious home where she told exaggerated stories about
her own bad behavior, was endeavoring to get more freedom
elsewhere. A young fellow whom we found to be a most persistent
and consistent liar was discovered to have been already well
schooled in the art of professional criminalistic
self-protection. So it has gone. Investigation of each of these
episodic cases has shown the fabrications to emanate either from
a distinctly abnormal personality or to partake of a character
which rules them out of the realm of pathological lying. In our
cases of temporary adolescent psychoses lying was rarely found a
puzzling feature; the basic nature of the case was too easily
discoverable.
A fair question to ask at this point is whether pathological
lying is ever found to be the only delinquency of the given
individual. We should hesitate to deny the possibility of its
being the sole offense, but in our study of a long list of cases,
and after review of those reported by other authors, it seems
practically impossible to find a case of this. The tendencies
soon carry the person over to the production of other
delinquencies, and if these do not come in the category of
punishable offenses, at least, through the trouble and suffering
caused others, they are to be regarded essentially as misconduct.
The reverse of the above question deserves a word or two of
attention; are there marked cases of delinquency which do not
show lying? Surveying the figures of Ferriani[6] who enumerated
thousands of lies, belonging to his nine classes of
prevarications, which a group of 500 young offenders indulged in,
one would think that all delinquents are liars many times over.
But as a matter of fact we have been profoundly astonished to
discover that a considerable percentage of the cases we have
studied, even of repeated offenders, have proved notably
truthful. Occasionally the very person who will engage in a
major form of delinquency will hesitate to lie. Our experience
shows this to be less true, however, of sex delinquency than
perhaps of any other. This statement is based on general
observations; the accurate correlations have not been worked up.
Occasionally the professional criminal of many misdeeds is proud
of his uprightness in other spheres of behavior, including
veracity. But even here one would have to classify carefully,
for it is obvious that the typical swindler would find lying his
best cloak of disguise. On the other hand, a bold safe-blower
may look down with scorn upon a form of criminality which demands
constant mendacity.
[6] loc. cit.
Realizing that pathological lying is a type of delinquency, and
following the rule that for explanation of conduct tendencies one
must go to youthful beginnings, we have attempted to gain the
fullest possible information about the fundamentals of
developmental and family history, early environment, and early
mental experiences. Fortunately we have often been able to
obtain specific and probably accurate data on heredity. The many
cases which have been only partially studied are not included.
Successive cross-section studies have been made in a number of
cases, and it has been possible to get a varying amount of
after-history. Observational, historical, and analytical data
thus accumulated have given us a particularly favorable
opportunity for discerning the bases of this special delinquent
tendency. The results of the various kinds of social treatment
which have been undertaken are not the least interesting of our
facts.
To enumerate the results obtained on the many mental tests given
in most cases seems quite unnecessary for the purpose of this
monograph. We have referred to a few points of special interest
and rarely have designated the results on tests in our series.
In general, the reader probably will be better off with merely
the statement of the principal findings and of the mental
diagnosis.
Of much interest for the present subject is the development of
psychological studies of testimony or report. Because of the
natural expectation that the pathological liar might prove to be
an unreliable witness our studies on this point will be offered
in detail. For years we have been giving a picture memory test
on the order of one used extensively abroad. This ``Aussage''
Test is the one described as Test VI in our monograph on
Practical Mental Classification.[7] More recently our studies on
the psychology of testimony have led us into wider fields of
observation, and here the group of cases now under discussion may
have to stand by themselves. The picture, the record of
testimony on which is given in some detail in our case histories,
is that of a butcher's shop with objects and actions that are
universally comprehended. After careful and fair explanation of
what is about to be undertaken, the picture is exposed for ten
seconds, and then the examinee is asked to give a free recital of
all he saw. When he states that no more is remembered he is
questioned on omitted details. (All told, there are about 50
details of varying importance in the picture.) During the
progress of this part of the examination he is asked if he saw 7
objects which might well be in a butcher shop, but which are not
in the picture. This is the test for susceptibility to
suggestion. All points are carefully scored. Norms on this
test, as on many others, it seems hardly fair to give by
averages--there is much variation according to mentality and even
personality groups. Practically all of our cases of pathological
lying range above the age of young childhood, so it is not
necessary here to discuss the characteristics of young children's
testimony. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the ordinary
individual recalls voluntarily or upon questioning upwards of 20
items, and does not give incorrect items to any extent. On
questioning he may perhaps accept one or two of the seven
suggestions, but when details in general are asked for he does
not add fictional items more than are accounted for by some
little slip of memory. One can find definite types of
intellectual honesty, even among children of 10 or 12 years of
age, when there is no tampering with the truth; if an item has
not been observed, there is no effort to make it seem otherwise.
For discussion of the results on this test among our pathological
liars we refer to our chapter on conclusions.
[7] ``Tests for Practical Mental Classification,'' by William
Healy and Grace M. Fernald, Monograph No. 54. Psychological
Review Pub. Co., 1911, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.
The short summary of causative factors given at the end of the
case study deals only with the factors of delinquency. To avoid
misinterpretation of the coordinated facts, what they are focused
upon should ever be remembered. The statement of these
ascertained factors brings out many incidental points which
should be of interest to lawyers and other students of
criminalistics.
It should be needless to state to our professional readers that
the personalities represented in our case histories are entirely
fictitious, but that alterations have been made only in such
facts as will not impair scientific values. We confess to no
particular pleasure in writing up this rather sordid material;
the task is undertaken because such studies offer the only way to
gain that better understanding which is necessary for adequate
treatment of special types of human beings.