The Review, Vol. 1, No. 6, June 1911

We found:

Mentally subnormal--a class above the ordinary institutional 51 feebleminded types, but still well below the normal. Dull from physical causes, including epilepsy. 36 Feebleminded of the upper or moron group. 48 Feebleminded of the imbecile group. 5 Psychoses (various types of mental disease). 22 --- 162

Scattered for the most part through these classes we found 7-1/2 per cent. of the total 620 to be definitely epileptic.

What a curious maladjustment it seems that while all this acknowledged social failure is in progress, and while there is this obvious incompetency of legal methods in ascertaining adequate facts for betterment of the situation, there should be so very little study of where the trouble lies. In courts for adult offenders there is almost no opportunity for unbiassed investigation of the individual criminal. In the juvenile court, with its advantages of intimate relationships established there, how can the judge from his short examination determine even this question of the mental status of the delinquent? Opinion on this subject in courts is formed by the questionnaire method, which from a scientific standpoint, for various reasons, is notoriously unsafe. Not only in court room procedure is there inadequate investigation of the individual, but all through the situation in regard to the handling of delinquents the same is true. Nowadays when the value of efficiency bureaus is everywhere recognized, it seems strange that this most business-like bit of work should not have been taken up. The outlay is millions and hundreds of millions for repression, but practically nothing for the study of how efficiently to repress.

In the past the legal disposition of offenders with mental peculiarity has very largely hinged on the question of criminal responsibility. Now this question, especially in the case of high-grade mental defectives, involves some pretty fundamental philosophical points and probably this most dangerous class will never have its responsibility completely standardized and determined. We have in sight no likelihood of finding a test or criterion of the power of ethical discernment and control. The best thinkers have finally relegated the whole problem to the common sense of juries. But a much more profitable way of looking at the matter is whether or not the individual is going to do it again, whether he is going to become a recidivist, a menace to society, and whether he is to breed progeny of the same ilk. The self-protection of society is herein involved. Why should we not drop the technical and hardly decidable question of criminal responsibility and the idea of mere punishment, and take up the much more vital problem of how society is to protect itself?

Looked at as a matter wherein the welfare of society is the chief concern, one most difficult point in the problem of mental defect grows more readily soluble. I speak of those cases in which evidence of feeblemindedness, although distinct, especially if studied by means of tests, is minor in degree as compared with the ethical defect present. These form a class of offenders most difficult to deal with because so frequently, on account of good development of language ability, they pass in the world in general, and in courts in particular, as practically normal individuals. This type has been designated by various terms. Anton has recently published a symposium monograph on the subject showing that the consensus of opinion is that there certainly exists a distinct group in which moral defect is out of proportion to the amount of mental subnormality. The recent report of the Massachusetts commission on the increase of criminals emphasizes this very point. To those who doubt the existence of mental defect in such cases I commend the use of psychological tests. Better study of the individual will, in any case, give some indication of that most important point for the welfare of society, namely, whether or not the crime will be repeated.

Turning in the interests of society to the study of the individual offender, especially the recidivist, we shall at once be led by practical considerations into an attempt to decipher the causative factors of his career. The great value of such intelligent study can be shown in many types of cases, but nowhere is it more evident than when the offenders are mentally defective. The recent work of Miss Moore for the Public Education Association of New York shows the after-records of some children formerly in the subnormal rooms in the New York public schools and also of some of the feebleminded men who were paroled from the Elmira Reformatory to New York. The financial and moral cost to the community has been very great from such sources. We ourselves have many such records, showing the terrible burden a criminalistic defective is to the community. Dozens of times, indeed up to a hundred times in the police stations, is the record of even some of the younger members of this group, as we have observed them.

Intelligent study of the problem of recidivism means catching the repeater as early as possible and making a diagnosis and prognosis for disposal of his case at once or in the future. The advantages of studying the recidivist when young are many, both from a scientific and a reformatory point of view. It is often also of immense importance to study the adult repeated offender. The disposal of him offers more difficulties frequently than the adjustment of the juvenile case. There is one matter in connection with adult offenders upon which I wish to lay special emphasis. It is in regard to the parole of criminals. It seems clear to me that if the whole matter of adult probation is to be placed upon the most sensible basis, the scientific facts which have bearing upon the situation must be brought into use. I hold that no criminal should be released upon parole until enough of a study has been made of his individuality and the causative factors of his delinquency so that there may be some sort of a guarantee that his offenses will not be continued. As it stands, almost nothing of this sort is being done. It should be the first and main inquiry of any board of parole to know whether or not the individual under consideration is likely to be a recidivist. Several points of view would be connected in such an inquiry, but the point we are concerned with today is one of the greatest value for the decision. The first question to be asked, if the matter is to be sensibly decided, is about the mental status of the individual. This inquiry with its various ramifications will often be found of great significance in answering the vital question: “Will crime be committed again by this individual?”

Intelligent study of an actual or a potential recidivist means a fairly complete investigation and is worth days of work if this be necessary. It needs a combination of the sociological, medical and psychological standpoints. We ourselves find particularly rich fields for explanation of the case in getting the history of families and of developmental conditions and in psychological examinations. The latter has been much hampered in the past by lack of practical tests, but of late these have been developed. At the present time any intelligent observer can judge something of the mental capacity of an individual by seeing his performance, under proper conditions, on a group of tests which correspond to the normal ability of the child. The well-known Binet tests, imperfect though they probably are in some respects, form an epoch-making advance in the study of feeblemindedness. We ourselves have been at much pains in the last two years in developing, with the help of a number of psychologists, a group of tests directed to the estimation of native mental ability in older and higher types of individuals. We may hope for much greater standardization of tests in the future, but, even as it now stands, there can be no doubt that just such a practical mental classification as the work with delinquents demands can be readily carried out by qualified persons.

If, avoiding _a priori_ standpoints, we enter upon a study of the recidivist, we find such a considerable number of causative factors determinable that this at once precludes the idea of crime being anything like a disease entity. Indeed, one soon comes to feel that many of the set notions about crime are academic and absurd in the light of facts ascertainable by a free-minded, practical and thoroughgoing investigation of the individual cases. Crime may be the action of a Charlotte Corday or of a Jesse Pomeroy and in form, impulse and factors of underlying causation may be found to be so varied in its manifestations that many pseudo-philosophical speculations and legal pronunciamentos on the subject are readily seen to be nothing but slipshod generalizations. Quinton, a man of great experience, in his recent work says, with apparently purposeful exaggeration, that there are just as many classes as there are criminals. Mental defect is to be considered simply as one of the causes of crime, but it is a cause so obvious, so readily determinable in most cases and so certainly irremediable and provocative of recidivism and moral contagion that one of the first steps of reform in dealing with criminals ought to be directed toward this. The mental defective is suitable neither for probation, reformatory education nor punitive measures. Custodial care alone is of service and in the case of the criminalistically inclined defective the courts should directly commit and the state protect itself by permanent guardianship.

The time is ripe for better methods of handling this class of cases. The study of recidivism shows it as a blot upon our civilization, and demonstrates that many recidivists are mental defectives. The study, on the other hand, of the individual defective criminal demonstrates him to be a source of great financial loss and much moral contagion. Studies in heredity prove that he frequently begets his kind. Developments along medical and psychological lines have given us practical methods for diagnosis of mental defectives--even the border-line cases being easily determinable as such--and give us assurance of the social future of this class of cases. The work of our own institute proves not only the applicability of common-sense study of causative factors in general to court work in this country, but directly demonstrates the overwhelming value of early differentiation of a type of offender, who by the very nature of his mental make-up is bound under ordinary social conditions to become a recidivist.

In order to get a more business-like administration of criminal affairs so that there may be practical application of at least some points which are scientifically demonstrable as imperative for the well-being of society, certain things are necessary. Concerning our immediate point, the needs are: first, better education of everybody implicated in the criminal situation as to the part that mental defect plays in delinquency. Then in connection with criminal courts, and especially in connection with juvenile courts, where the development of crime can be checked, there should be thoroughgoing study of the recidivist. The court should be acquainted with the practical value of such study and should act on it. No offender should be allowed on parole unless he is known to have the mental make-up which, on the whole, will in his environment tend to prevent his freedom from being inimical to society. Then, not a difficult matter to insure, there must be better classified institutional treatment. Finally, the court should have the power to adjudicate cases of mental defect in the best interests of society.

TREATMENT OF THE MENTAL DEFECTIVE WHO IS ALSO DELINQUENT

DR. HENRY H. GODDARD, VINELAND, NEW JERSEY

Twenty-five per cent. of delinquents are mentally defective. While we have no absolute statistics, there are many indications that this is a safe estimate. All mental defectives would be delinquents in the very nature of the case, did not some one exercise some care over them.

There is only one possible answer to the question, “What is to be done with the feebleminded person who is delinquent?” He must be cared for, but he must be cared for in a place where we care for irresponsibles. The jail or prison or reformatory, is not for him, neither must he be turned loose on the streets or sent back to the home and environment in which he has already become a delinquent.

In the present state of our laws and customs, delinquency is the one means by which we are able to get hold of a certain type of mental defective and provide for him as he should be provided for. Many of these feebleminded of the moron type come from homes or have attained to such an age or position that we have no way of getting hold of them until they do some wrong and come under the head of delinquents. But when that has happened and we have them where we can prescribe for them, it is worse than folly for us to let them go and turn them back into their former environment where they must only repeat the offense or even commit a worse one.

We must have enough institutions or colonies for the feebleminded to care for all the feebleminded delinquents at least. As it is today, even under the best conditions, many a judge recognizes mental defect in the cases that come before him and would gladly send the child to an institution for the feebleminded, but there is no room, and so he is compelled to utilize some makeshift which oftentimes is worse than nothing at all.

But the broadest treatment of this topic must go farther back than the question of what to do with these feebleminded persons who have already become delinquent. We must consider the cause here as we are trying to do everywhere in modern methods, and treat the cause rather than trying to cure. In other words, the feebleminded person should be taken care of before he becomes a delinquent. Here the first problem is diagnosis. How shall we recognize this feebleminded child of high type, this moron grade, as we now call them?

Until recently we have been more or less helpless in this matter, but now we may say with perfect assurance that the Binet tests of intelligence are entirely satisfactory and can be relied on to pick out the mental defective at least up to the age of twelve years. The public schools will be the clearing house for all these cases, they may there be tested and their mental condition found out, and they can then be cared for as condition leads. We have too long attempted to treat all children alike, whether in the public school or before the courts. When we have learned to discriminate and recognize the ability of each child and place upon him such burdens and responsibilities only as he is able to bear, then we shall have largely solved the problem of delinquency.

PLACING MISDEMEANANTS ON PROBATION

JAMES A. COLLINS

Judge of the City Court, Indianapolis, Indiana

In the city campaign of 1909 I pledged the people of the city of Indianapolis that if elected judge of the city court, I would introduce a probation system as a means of helping delinquent men and women. The enactment of a law by the legislature of 1907, under which courts may exercise the right to suspend sentence or withhold judgment in the cases of adults, made possible the application of a probation system in the administration of justice in circuit, criminal and city courts.

The probation system inaugurated in the city court of Indianapolis has covered:

_The Suspended Sentence._

The power to suspend sentence has saved many novices in crime from undergoing the harsh punishment that would be otherwise meted out to them, and that seems to be contrary to the constitutional provision that “all penalties shall be proportioned according to the nature of the offense.”

During the past year sentence has been suspended in 236 cases and judgment withheld in 3,474. The majority of these were first offenders. In those cases where the judgment was suspended, the court has had to set aside the suspension of sentence and commit the defendants in only two cases, and where the judgment has been withheld less than two per cent. have been returned to court for a second or subsequent offense.

While there is no provision under the law for the employment of paid probation officers, adequate supervision in 352 cases was made possible by good citizens volunteering to serve in that capacity. These probationers were required to furnish the court a monthly report signed by the probation officer. Time will not permit the details of these reports. Each tells its own story of heroic efforts toward right living.

_Paying Fines on Installments._

The old method of collecting money fines which compelled the defendant to pay or replevy the same moment he was fined was always a source of great hardship on the poor. It was unreasonable to expect a common laborer arrested late at night and convicted in the morning to be prepared to settle with the state. If he was unable to pay or make arrangements to have his fine stayed for the statutory period, he was sent to prison, not because the court had given him a term of imprisonment, but because he was poor, which is in effect, imprisonment for debt.

To aid this particular class there was introduced as a part of the probation system a plan for the collection of fines in small payments. In those cases where the defendant appeared deserving he has been released on his own recognizance and the case held under advisement for thirty to sixty days, as the circumstances seemed to justify, at the expiration of which time he was required to report to the court that he had paid in the amount designated as the fine and costs to be entered against him.

At the close of the year 830 persons had been given an opportunity to pay their fines in this way. Of this number, 64 were re-arrested and committed for their failure to pay their fine, and the affidavits in 32 other cases are held for re-arrest. The balance lived up to their obligation with the court and paid in more than $7,100.

This plan operates to the benefit of the defendant in several ways: it saves him his employment; it saves his family from humiliation and disgrace, as well as from the embarrassment incident to imprisonment; but more than all, it saves him his self-respect. With but a single exception not one to whom this opportunity has been given and who had paid his fine in full has been in court a second time.

_Drunkenness and the Pledge System._

No unfortunates appeal more strongly to the court than the victims of the liquor habit. In all cases of first offenders charged with being drunk and in those cases where the defendant had others dependent upon him for support, the court has made it a condition on withholding judgment or suspending sentence that the defendant take the pledge for a period varying from six months to one year. At the close of the year 101 persons had taken the pledge, and of this number all but ten had kept the same faithfully.

In the severe cases where the defendant was bordering on delirium tremens, he was committed to the workhouse and the superintendent informed of his condition. While there are no special arrangements for the treatment of inebriates at the workhouse, Superintendent O’Connor has successfully provided a separate department for such cases. With these inadequate facilities a splendid work is now being done among this class of unfortunate and harmless offenders.

_Medical and Surgical Treatment._

Men suffering from physical defects have frequently been before the court charged with offenses entirely out of harmony with their antecedents and environments. In these cases the court has been able to call to his assistance some of the best-known surgeons of the city. During the year three surgical operations were performed. Two of these were brain operations and one was sterilization for degeneracy. Three additional cases were successfully treated at private institutions for the drug and liquor habits.