The main trend of our findings and the outlook now, after five years’
study of offenders in connection with courts, is requested. It is plain
that in a short paper only a few of the more prominent points can be
touched. We must leave analyses and adequate descriptions for our
larger publications. However, we can here discuss some of the outcomes
and limitations of applied methods. In this summary fashion, taking
stock may be wise just at this time, when the practice of psychology is
beginning to be exploited similarly to the practice of medicine. Also,
lack of knowledge in many quarters of this new work and perhaps, the
recent statement of a well-known clinical psychologist to the effect
that psychology (or at least he says pseudopsychology) can render no
aid in the courts, call for review of the facts.
Concerning the part that psychology in its practical, applied,
clinical aspects should play in the court work, we may consider the
following. View it as you may, there is no escape from the basic fact
that conduct, social behavior, is a product of the mental life of the
individual. The most direct driving forces of misconduct therefore
are very properly to be regarded as material for study which comes
well within the province of the science of mental life. (It must have
been this which led the great jurist and criminalist, Gross, to state
that psychological valuations must ultimately become the basis of all
criminal law.) An individual differential psychology is involved which
requires knowledge of the bearings which many varieties of mental
conditions have upon action.
At the beginning of our work, we were advised by the most eminent
psychologists that the field was virgin. Everywhere we were told that
the use of the standard apparatus of the laboratory, the ergograph,
plethsygmograph, the chronoscope, all had no bearing on our problem,
for the results from none of them had been found to be correlated
with any traits or conditions which were of peculiar significance in
offenders. Many hopes that had been expressed by those who ardently
desired the rapid practical extension of psychology had not borne
fruition. We were told that methods must be worked and normal sought
out. In other words, it was deliberately stated by many, that neither
classical nor experimental psychology had as yet anything to offer
for dealing with this human problem. To introduce the usual and often
complicated devices of the laboratory, which are for measuring and
discriminating the simpler elements of mental life, would be, it was
said, to delude ourselves and be in the position of misleading others.
In accordance with our appreciation of this consideration we have all
along proceeded by methods which seem to have in them the greatest
proportion of common sense, and to be most likely to show correlation
between offending careers and characteristics possibly at the root of
criminalistic tendencies.
Moreover, as time has gone on we have become more and more convinced
that those who study offenders should seek not only for peculiarities
and disabilities, correlated with tendencies to offend, but also for
potentialities, for special abilities which might be utilized for
educational or occupational success. To grade the delinquent downwards
is not sufficient. There may be the possibility of constructive work
with him. As a matter of fact, some of the most encouraging results of
our own efforts have come through the discovery that the offender was
suited for something which he had never had the chance of doing, and
that a corresponding adjustment of his affairs brought cessation of
delinquencies. This has been even true with certain types of defectives.
Early in working with our cosmopolitan population, (and to a less
extent the trouble would have shown itself among those of one language)
we saw that any method of mental evaluation which was based largely
upon language tests, whether or not given by such a questionaire method
as that of Binet was quite unfair. Language, our universal method of
communication, does not cover all the social graces, all the social
values, nor does adeptness in the use of it mean unusual general
ability. In fact, nothing has been any more striking in our findings
than that some otherwise normal individuals have special defects
for language, and that some general defectives have such powers in
manipulating words that pass everywhere, even in courts, as normal and
even bright. It was soon felt that over and beyond tests which involve
the medium of communication, it would be more profitable to observe a
performance with concrete material which possibly might be arranged to
measure some of the socially most valuable mental qualities.
Such performance tests have had a great growth in these five years, as
emanating from several centers, until at present they are quite widely
used. For work with offenders, there is at present a wide range of
tests to choose from. For practical clinical work even more tests are
desirable, and it may be that some of those now used will be gradually
discarded and replaced by others. It stands out very clearly that what
one would like to know particularly about offenders is how they grade,
not only in general intelligence, but also on tests which may possibly
evaluate the powers of apperception, of mental representation, of
self-control, of the ability to learn by experience, and so on. Defects
along these lines seem likely to stand in much greater correlation to
delinquent tendencies than any other we could name. Special educational
and industrial disabilities may make for social failure and so may
indirectly lead also to delinquency. It is usually not difficult to
ascertain the nature of these defects. A few steps towards discovery of
vocational aptitudes can also be made by the use of tests.
We still think that the early advice to keep our testing methods simple
and direct was thoroughly sound. It is evident that we can use with
scientific safety the Binet scale for grouping young children and
defectives up to the level of 10 years. Beyond this, by using a wide
range of other tests, we can discriminate other subnormal groups who
are either defective in general or in special abilities.
In the present state of our knowledge concerning methods discretion is
needed in the selection of tests. Those primarily adapted to one group
may not be valid for another social or age group. We have just finished
an interesting comparison of the results of a certain performance test
in which college young women did worse on the average than younger
persons. We have all too little proof that tests worked up for children
are equally valid for adults. It is proposed that we render decisions
upon, for instance, findings by the Binet tests, and yet it does not
seem likely by the sort of results we ourselves have been getting
that they could be as freely applied to adults as to children for the
purposes of social diagnosis, of discriminating those who are bound
to be unsuccessful. We must remember that no one as yet has given us
the results of these tests as applied to hundreds of ditch diggers, or
section hands, who in their lowly spheres form most useful members of
society.
When it comes to the interpretation of tests we need to exercise much
discretion. It is most dangerous to proceed to render diagnosis or
prognosis without knowledge of the individual’s background in heredity,
developmental history and social environment. Such items as previous
illnesses, present physical condition, debilitating habits, and
educational opportunities need to be noted. In our work the question of
epileptic variations alone is frequently before us. We see very clearly
that grave injustice to the situation may be done without taking such
possible features of the case into account.
Very different phases of psychological work with offenders properly
are taken up from the viewpoint of human conduct in general being the
province of the student of human life. Quite the minority of offenders
show mental peculiarities which can be learned by testing and then
related to their delinquencies. Let us look at some comparisons of
offenders as we have grouped them by most careful study. Our court
work has been in the main to see the problem cases. Undoubtedly most
of the suspected psychotic or defective cases have been selected and
brought for study. We have made a series of 1000 recidivists, repeated
offenders, the average age of whom is about 15 years. These have been
graded by mental tests most carefully and we have found the following:
Per cent.
Considerably above ordinary in ability 3
Ordinary or fair in ability 55
Poor in ability 9
Mentally dull, but suffering from defective physical
conditions, or disease, or bad habits, which may be the
cause of the dullness 8
Sub-normal mentally, but not strictly feebleminded 8
Feebleminded (moron grade) 9
Feebleminded (imbecile grade) 1
Psychoses, ranging from well marked cases of insanity to
temporary, but well-marked mental aberrations 7
I have found in various parts of the country considerable doubt
expressed in regard to various statements which have been made of
the proportions of the feebleminded which probably would be found
by studying juvenile offenders. Teachers, judges, and probation
officers have scouted the idea that there was upwards of 25 per cent.
feebleminded among the children which come before a Juvenile court. Our
own long investigation would certainly show otherwise. But of course we
have never seen all of the thousands of children which come into the
Chicago court yearly, so we have never been able to definitely answer
the question of just what proportion is mentally defective.
This year I have asked the assistant director of the Institute, Miss
Bronner, to undertake at regular periods cross-section studies of the
population temporarily held in the Detention Home. These probably would
average lower than if one could see every case which was brought into
court, for frequently the most normal children who have been engaged
in a single offense are not brought into the Home. The results which
she is obtaining I shall merely hint at, but they serve to show that
the psychological study of delinquency involves very much more than the
discrimination of the feebleminded.
Any one who observed the considerable proportion of 7th and 8th grade
and high school girls and boys who become severely delinquent will not
be surprised at our findings. At least 91 per cent. of the girls and 84
per cent. of the boys have been found so far to group normal mentally,
if we take the 12 year old tests of Binet as a standard. Now, as a
matter of fact, I am not at all inclined without further investigation
to denominate anyone as mentally defective who can not pass the 12
year test, because of the obvious weakness of these particular five
tests for judging such an important point. But still we have been
willing to place this criticism for the moment aside. There are several
details of this given study which might be interesting to discuss, but
this will be done elsewhere.
The above statements are not offered so much in opposition to other
estimates of the proportion of defectives among offenders as to
show the possible variation of findings in different situations
where delinquents may be seen, and to show the nature of the work of
the psychologist in courts. We can easily see why institutions for
delinquents contain a greater proportion of mental defectives than
is found in court work, for obviously the brighter ones are handled
under probation, are found positions and succeed better on the outside
because they have more foresight and learn better by experience. It may
be that a larger percentage of the defectives will be found in studying
older groups in court work. Perhaps the brighter individuals cease
earlier to be offenders. I await with interest comparative findings
from the newly established municipal court psychopathic institutes, in
Boston and in Chicago. But of course fair general statistics can never
be made without covering an unselected series of court cases, such as
we have recently undertaken.
We must not find reason from the above figures to underestimate the
exceedingly important problem of feebleminded offenders. From their
ranks one has to come to know some of the most frequent repeaters,
some of the worst teachers of vice, and even some of the most adept
in such skilled criminalistic occupations as burglary. To answer the
problem of their care would be to relieve a strain on society that is
not even suggested by a statement of their proportionate numbers among
offenders. No one has been more surprised than we ourselves to find the
extent to which morons are actively engaged in criminalistics, and are
even definitely the instructors of others. The general notion that this
class is merely easily led is altogether erroneous.
The extent of our findings of a single disease, namely epilepsy, among
our repeated offenders we have often commented on. We need only to
mention that about 7 per cent. have been found afflicted with various
forms of this trouble. After all, this is only what might have been
expected from similar observations of others elsewhere. The psychic
manifestations of this disease make the victim a fit subject of study
by the psychopathologist.
Many of our interests have centered about the problems of adolescence.
We all know that criminalistic tendencies, those which perhaps control
the career of a life time, nearly always first show themselves before
the 19th or 20th year. The physiological aspects of this period are the
ones that have been most frequently dwelled on, but for our purposes
they may be ignored except as they influence the psyche. Overgrowth and
restlessness and other phenomena at this time do not directly create
criminalism. They have first to effect the mental life which directs
action. We have found a fair field for investigation here, and one that
opens up whole vistas of possible usefulness. Various new points of
departure for legal procedure are to be developed from data gathered
concerning this period of life, not the least of which is criticism of
that strange arbitrary discrimination under the law which says that
boys at 17 and girls at 18 are suddenly responsible, mentally formed,
able to properly care for themselves, when a few minutes or days
previously they were not. Our studies show that these age limits were
not based on practical observations of human beings.
Not the least interesting and therapeutically important part of
psychological study of offenders is ascertainment of the mental
mechanisms and mental content which stand in relation to delinquency.
However it may be with older persons, and such experienced men as
Parker in New York suggested that with adults this is a rich field
for endeavor, we have studied many cases of criminalistic tendency in
young people in which the whole trouble centered about some psychically
untoward experience or some mental conflict. From this was developed a
definite antisocial grudge, or at least an antisocial attitude. These
cases, well understood, present some of the most curable criminalistic
causes.
We must pass with bare mention such data as those on obsessional mental
imagery and the formation of mental habits, both of which psychical
phenomena play a considerable part in driving towards delinquency.
To appreciate what sets the mental machinery turning out antisocial
deeds we have to dig deep into many human experiences and many mental
activities.
It was easily to be seen at the beginning of the work that there would
be value in both extensive and intensive studies. The former would give
a survey of the field which might lead to establishment of definite
knowledge of the larger needs of the situation, would perhaps point
the way to better legislation and public provision for various classes
of offenders. The intensive work would furnish better understanding of
types and the possibilities of their treatment. Then we soon realize
that the careful and prolonged study of individual offenders was a
rational preliminary to working up statistics from which general
conclusions could be safely drawn. Time has justified this opinion.
Nothing is rasher than to make general statements about social needs
upon the basis of tests, observations and figures that have not been
proved to solve the point at issue.
As an incident to the work with offenders the psychologist in court is
occasionally asked about the reliability of witnesses. We have been
gathering data upon this point in hundreds of cases by some tests, and
find the matter a very difficult one to generalize upon. In this we
agree with various foreign students of the subject. The ability to be
a good witness is a highly individual matter, and frequently involves
the conditions of a given occasion, upon which tests do not throw any
light. Occasionally from psychological study one can render a strong
positive or negative opinion concerning individual capacities, but much
more frequently it seems to us that no safe opinion can be rendered.
We would still maintain, as we ever have done, that the greatest
hope for amelioration of the heavy burden of delinquency is in very
early studies and early understandings of individual cases. Not only
for scientific purposes but also for practical treatment the young
individual with delinquent tendencies is best handled. Not entirely,
since some social offences may first arise in late adolescence, but
in a large share of cases some of the most valuable criminological
work can be done by specialists in child study. Even in early periods
of life intensive studies must be made, especially of children of the
psychopathic type. We are more than glad to see the purpose all over
the country.
One word more about method. Those who early suggested to us that
intensive, continued study of a dozen offenders of a dozen different
types would be worth more than a thousand short examinations spoke from
a strong standpoint. Continuation studies are most valuable. They are
necessary not only for giving understandings of types, but also for
so understanding the individual that proper social adjustment of his
case can be made. Our work shows plainly that except in the case of the
grossly defective a short cross-section study is absolutely inadequate
for the work in hand, namely, scientific treatment of the offender.
As we continue to see it, then, the purpose of psychological work
with offenders is nothing more or less than the understanding of
the causes of misconduct. By no other methods will such causes be
known, and those who fail to reckon with the fundamental psychical
conditions and processes which underly delinquency will never get far
in developing better methods of treatment. Psychology in this field
is perfectly willing to be judged by results, and that is the best
self-recommendation that it can offer.
The application of well-rounded and safe psychological studies in court
work (not the pseudo-psychology that our friends decry) offers to the
law the important addition of a scientific method. It presumes to
gather in all the available facts that bear on the conduct in question,
to set down opinions of diagnosis and prognosis, and then to follow
these up in connection with any treatment given to see how correct they
may have been, and to offer the chance of such readjustment as may be
necessary. There is a direct study, then, of predictability. Now this
is exactly the method of every science that aims at self-improvement.
Unfortunately, this scientific endeavor at self-improvement has
heretofore not been the standpoint of the law. Nothing has been any
more striking to us than our observations on this point. Now through
the opening avenue of practical studies of mental life and conduct
applied to offenders in connection with court proceedings, we see every
reason to believe that the outlook may be much better for dealing with
the whole problem of delinquency and crime.