Goddard, Henry H.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 11 | Issue 3 Article 131921In the Light of Recent Developments What ShouldBe Our Policy in Dealing with the DelinquentsJuvenile and AdultHenry H. GoddardFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclcPart of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationHenry H. Goddard, In the Light of Recent Developments What Should Be Our Policy in Dealing with the Delinquents Juvenile andAdult, 11 J. Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 426 (May 1920 to February 1921)IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS:WHAT SHOULD BE O'UR POLICY IN DEAL-ING WITH THE DELINQUENTS-JTVENILE AND ADULT'HENRY H. GODDARD 2It has been repeatedly pointed out that society has passed throughthree stages in its treatment of the wrong-doer. First was the oldidea of revenge, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, where theunderlying thought seems to have been that some sort of justice wassatisfied if the wrong-doer was made to suffer in a similar fashion andto the same extent as his victim. Then came the second stage, whichstill finds some defenders, where the idea was to punish the offenderso as to deter others from committing a similar 6ffense. Finally wehave arrived at the third, stage in which the prime thought is to sotreat the offender as to bring about his reformation. To these threethe idealist has sometimes added a fourth, the period when crimesshould not simply be treated but should be prevented. We certainlyhave not made much progress in that direction as yet. Moreover, itis probably true that in fact we are to a considerable extent still in thesecond stage. Nevertheless the idea of reforming the offenders is welladvanced and is uppermost in the minds of most of the people andstudents of the problem, even though in practice we do not always findit practical. Recent developments in criminology lead inevitably notonly to the idea that treatment of the offender for the purpose ofreforming him is impracticable but also rather definitely to the logicalconclusion that in a large proportion of the casesit is impossible, im-possible not from the nature of the crime but from the nature of thecriminal, not on account of the strength of the habit that may havebeen formed, but on account of the weakness of the mentality andconsequent inability to correct any habit. We might perhaps escape thedilemma by going back to the second or some other stage of thoughtwith the conclusion that whether or not we can reform criminals theymust be punished. If punishment does not result in reformation somuch the worse.- But unfortunately recent developments have not1Read at the Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Criminal Lawand Criminology at Indianapolis, September 17, 1920.2Director of the Bureau of Juvenile Research, Columbus, Ohio.POLICY IN DEALING WITH DELINQUENTSonly revealed to us the impossibility of reforming delinquents but havedemonstrated at the same time their irresponsibility. This latter is aserious problem, for the idea of punishing a person for a crime forwhich he is not responsible is as repugnant in law as in ethics. Beforeproceeding to discuss a possible policy consistent with. the facts, itmay be well to review the situation as it is and discover how seriousis the predicament which we have suggested. We have coming to usas a result of *the war some of the most valuable data that have everbeen supplied to students of social problems.As a result of the examination of 1,700,000 men in the Americanarmy, it was found that 10% had the intelligence of a 10-year-old boyor less. These men were found by actual experience in camp to be sostupid as not to be worth sending to France. Another 15% had onlythe intelligence of 11-year-old children, 20% more the intelligence of12-year-old children, 25% the intelligence of 13 and 14-year-olds,16 % the intelligence of 15-year-old children, 9% the intelligence ofa person .16 to 17 years of age, and 42 % the highest intelligence, thatof 18 and 19-year-olds" These figures are of profound importancefrom many standpoints, but we are concerned just here mainly with thelower groups, from which we have every reason to expect that a con-siderable proportion of our wrong-doers will come for the simplereason that these children have not sufficient intelligence either to un-derstand the laws or adapt themselves to them; consequently it isinevitable that when one of these persons with low intelligence hasalso an excitable temperament and an environment that is not con-ducive to right living, he is practically certain to become an offenderagainst the law. From the practical side it is of course now acceptedthat a large percentage of criminals are of weak mind. A strikingparallel to these figures has recently been published by the Bureauof Education at Washington, corresponding to the groups above men-tioned. This publication shows that 13% of school children leavesch6ol in or before the 4th grade at the age of about 10 years, another13% leave in the 5th grade at the age of 11, 14% more leave in the6th grade at the age of 12, and 20% leave in the 7th and 8th grades atthe ages of 13 or 14, and parallel to this again it is shown that at thetime the study was made 9% of wage earners were earning from $150to $200, 12% were earning from $250 to $300, 16% were earning from$350 to $400, 31% were earning from $450 to $600 a year. The corre-3 See "Army Mental Tests," by Yoakum and Yerkes, pp. 22, 133, Holt & Co.,and "Human Efficiency and Levels of Intelligence, pp. 24-33, by Henry H. God-dard, Princeton University Press.HENRY H. GODDARDlation between the corresponding groups in these three lists is so greatas to render it practically certain and a logical conclusion that it is thementality of the group that is determining the time for leaving schooland the wages that could be earned ;4 all of -hich has much to do withour problem of criminality and makes it clear that the material out ofwhich law-breakers can be made is exceedingly abundant. With thisevidence we have a right to expect a very large proportion of law-breakers of both juvenile and adults will be of low mentafity. We mayproceed to consider the particular problem before us.As we have already stated, it is clear that these people of lowmentality are not fully responsible for the crimes they commit, and itseems equally apparent that the chances of reforming them are alsosmall. The fool cannot learn wisdom. At this point, however, wehave made another discovery which is of considerable significance tothe problem. Not all of these people of even the lowest inteligence arefools, and on the other hand, some of these groups of the highestintelligence are criminals. We have for long been puzzled by a classof criminals that commit the most absurd and often atrocious crimesand yet who cannot by any possibility be classed as feeble-minded ormentally defective. Indeed many times they prove to be above averageinfelligence rather than below, and sometimes these cases are defendedon the ground of insanity and not infrequently the spectacle is pre-sented of our ablest alienists disagreeing on that question. In othercases the' agreement of the specialists as to sanity is complete, buteveryone familiar with the criminal is willing to testify that he isnoted for his peculiarities, and that he has always done strange things,sometimes within the law and sometimes counter to it.It is known that we have to consider a large group, how large wedo not yet know, of people who are in the incipient stages ofinsanity, not yet sufficiently marked to come within the usual definitionof that term and not admitted by the experts, but nevertheless showingby finer tests distinctly abnormal functioning of the mind and, what ismore striking perhaps, consistently bad behavior. The psychopathicpersonality is a recent arrival in sociological circles, but he is destinedto fill a large place and is most assuredly a factor to be reckoned with.He is many times of as low mentality as the individuals denominatedfeeble-minded but he differs from them in that he has reached hismental level as the result of disease. On the other hand, he may haveaverage mentality or he may even be supernormal in that respect. Thepossibility of these three grades of mentality-subnormal, normal and4Human efficiency, p. 114.POLICY IN DEALING WITH DELINQUENTSsupernormal-complicates the question of responsibility. From thestandpoint of the diseased mind one might say, unqualifiedly, thatwhatever his intRlligence he is irresponsible because his mind is notfunctioning normally. On the other hand, it may quite well be thatsuch an individual is as responsible as anyone along certain lines andthat it is only when one gets into the special department where his brainfails to function properly that he is not responsible. However, sincemost of his crimes are misdemeanors related to that special phase of hisdisability, it is probable that he is not usually responsible for the thingthat has brought him before the law. As to his reformability we haveagain a serious problem. As we have stated the feeble-minded arenever cured but the insane are cured every day, or at least they recoverand live a reasonably normal, satisfactory life thereafter. Of thesecases of psychopathic personality but little is known as yet. There aresome indications that some of them recover or outgrow their disabili-ties, becoming useful and valuable citizens, and others remain in theirmild state of psychopathy and all their lives are peculiar, even trouble-some, possibly even law-breakers, but never get to the point where theyare recognized as distinctly insane. There remains the third groupthat rapidly deteriorates into some form of recognized insanity.Whether medical or hygienic science can do anythirfg to save thesesecond and third groups is as yet unknown. The condition has notbeen recognized long enough for the results of treatment to be known.Usually these people have been thought to be simply bad people andhave been repeatedly punished, remaining continual law-breakers intheir community.We are now face to face with our problem. Let us assume forthe sake of simplicity that they are all-as some of them certainly are-both irresponsible and unreformable. What shall be our policy? Wehave become accustomed to the thought that the feeble-minded shouldbe segregated, but what about the psychopathic individuals, who in allprobability constitute as large a group as the feeble-minded with thisdifference, as indicated, that they are frequently of normal mental levelor even superior? Shall we plan to segregate them for life as we do,or advocate doing, in the case of the feeble-minded? It is a propdsitionthat has many difficulties, of which the providing the necessary institu-tion is not the greatest. But on the other hand, the policy of sentenc-ing them for a time to an institution and then letting them out, unlesswe know that their mental condition has been cured, is so dangerous asto amount to folly, since it is a certainty that as long as the diseasedcondition lasts. the same conduct that brought them once into the430 HENRY H. GODDARDclutches of the law will persist with the almost certain result thatbecause of increased strain as he reaches man's stature and strengththe crimes will become more serious.Gerald Cadwallader, a 14-year-old boy, was committed to theBureau of Juvenile Research for stealing and truancy and was foundupon examination to be one of the psychopathic group. - There beingno suitable place in the State of Ohio for such a child he was assignedto the industrial school with the expectation that he would stay therefor a year, at the end of which time he could be re-examined and ifnecessary recommitted, but with the hope, of course, that possibly theregular life and discipline of the institution might work a change forthe better in him. He was of superior intelligence and well-orientedenough to know that if he behaved himself at the industrial school hewould be released the sooner. As a matter of fact he so managed thathe was released in a few months. He went home and in a short timehad committed more misdemeanors so that he was again sent to us bythe court. We kept him for a short time for study and were aboutready to send him again to the industrial school as the only possibledisposition of the case, when he anticipated our action by breaking outof his room and breaking into the laboratory and administration build-ing, stealing $160 in cash, a typewriter and a stop watch and depart-ing for his home town. He entered his home in the night time, tooka boy scout suit and a gun and was next heard of in New Orleans. Hewrote a letter home saying that he was going to New York but insteadhe went West and was later heard of in Texas. Since then no traceof him has ever been found. He is markedly psychopathic and yet itis probable that no two physicians could be found who would declarehim insane and a subject for the hospital for the insane. If he shouldturn up in your court after having committed a serious offense, whatwould you do with him?When it comes to capital offenses, there is of course anotherpossible procedure. Jean Gianini, a 17-year-old boy, murdered hisschool teacher. When arrested he confessed and was proud of hisachievement. Someone suspected that he was feeble-minded and thewriter was called in to examine him. We found that he had a men-tality of 11 years; and imbecility was the defense. His lawyer triedhard to save him from the electric chair, but distinctly stated that hedid not wish him set free. The question has many times arisen since,was it worth while to go to the trouble and expense of a ten-day trialin order to save that worthless young man from the electric chair?From the standpoint that human life, any human life, is the mostPOLICY IN DEALING WITH DELINQUENTS 431valuable thing in the world, the fight was doubtless worth making,but is there a possibility that we have put too high a value upon humanlife, at least upon some human lives? As long as society upholdscapital punishment at all, is it not possible that it is just as well to leta person of that character be disposed of in the usual way, as to makea great fight in order to keep him alive so that he can spend that lifein a state hospital for the criminal insane, where Gianini now is andwhere he will probably always remain? Recently a man in Lima, Ohio,shot and killed his wife and then turned the revolver on himself butfailed to do more than produce a scalp wound. Mental examinationshowed him to have a mentality of 11 years, but in my judgment abovethe border line of responsibility. The fact that he attempted to shoothimself seemed to indicate that he was aware of "the nature and qualityof his act and that it was wrong." The jury brought in a verdict ofguilty, with a recommendation for clemency, and the man is now in thepenitentiary for life. His lawyer has moved for a new trial and isfighting the case hard. If his lawyer wins he will go to the statehospital for the criminal insane. What is the difference? So far asthe man is concerned, he will be as comfortable and happy in oneplace as the other. He has not mentality enough to appreciate anydifference in the treatment that he may receive.In Athens County, Ohio, recently a young man 17 years old killedhis father and mother. Examination showed that he was both feeble-minded and psychopathic. The rather low grade mind that he naturallyhad, itself became diseased. In this case the prosecuting attorney askedthe grand jury to decide whether the man was probably responsibleand if not to commit him directly to the hospital for the rcriminal insane.and save the cost and trouble of a trial. At the hearing before thegrand jury the writer was asked whether he thought the man should goto the penitentiary for life or to the hospital for the criminal insane.I answered frankly, "I do not know. If you send him to the hospitalfor the insane, he goes because of his irresponsibility. If you send himto the penitentiary he goes as a responsible murderer. There may bemore reasons why he should go to one place rather than to the other,but I am not able to think of them." In all these cases there comes upalso the question of family and relatives. How much should they beconsidered? In reality it makes more difference to them than it doesto the victim himself. So far as he is concerned it is quite possiblethat the electric chair would be the kindest treatment that could begiven, and undoubtedly if we still cling to the second point of view,of deterring others from crime, the capital punishment has the greatest432 HENRY H. GODDARDvalue possible. Frontier methods were pretty harsh in comparison tothe methods of older settled communities, but we have to admit thatthose methods did put an end to horse stealing. Is it possible in viewof all the facts that the wisest policy is to have a thorough examinationinto the question of responsibility, to segregate and control the feeble-minded and psychopathic offenders, but upon those who are not clearlyirresponsible, to visit the severest penalty?

In the Light of Recent Developments What Should Be Our Policy in Dealing with the Delinquents Juvenile and Adult

bepress Legal Repository

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1745&amp;context=jclc

In the Light of Recent Developments What Should Be Our Policy in Dealing with the Delinquents Juvenile and Adult

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

bepress Legal Repository