Andriola, Joseph P.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 31Issue 3 September-October Article 6Fall 1940Some Suggestions for Treating the DefectiveDelinquentJoseph P. AndriolaFollow 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 CitationJoseph P. Andriola, Some Suggestions for Treating the Defective Delinquent, 31 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 297 (1940-1941)SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR TREATING THEDEFECTIVE DELINQUENT(References in the text are to the Bibliography at the end of the article.)Joseph P. AndriolaThe great alarm over feebleminded-ness so prevalent during the first twodecades of this century was due, nodoubt to (1) the rediscovery of Mendel'slaws of heredity, (2) the rise of theeugenics movement, and (3) the wide-spread influence of geneological studiesof degenerate and defective stock, allthree augmented by the developmentof mental tests. Pseudo-scientists, self-styled patriots, and other quacks,loudly condemned the feeblemindedperson as a mean to further their sev-eral ends. Unfortunately even manyscientists and other workers in thefield believed that the feeblemined per-son was the greatest menace in society.Suggestions for dealing with him in-cluded wholesale euthanasia, steriliza-tion, mass segregation, and an attitudeof indifference which claimed that nat-ural selection would sooner or laterbring about his extinction. Even today,after the great strides made in thestudy of mental deficiency since theWorld War, many persons-a surpris-ing number of them in our more edu-cated groups-still think that thefeebleminded individual is a grotesquecreature who thrives on rape, henceshould be summarily imprisoned. Nodoubt this view is responsible for thegrowth of the misnomer "sex moron."I Probation Officer, Juvenile Court of Toledo,Olo, on leave for graduate study at the Uni-versity of Michigan Institute of Public andMoron, is a term, primarily used in thefield of psychology, with no relation tosex, which refers to one whose mentalage is at least eight years if an adult,and whose intelligence quotient is atleast fifty if a child.There are probably as many defini-tions of the term feebleminded as thereare variations among feebleminded peo-ple. Frequently it is used synony-mously with mentally retarded, weak-willed, and other similar expressions.Perhaps one of the most lucid and gen-erally accepted definitions is that ofStanley P. Davies which states thatfeeblemindedness contains three essen-tial and interrelated concepts: (1)marked limitations or deficiency of in-telligence, frequently associated withother shortcomings of personality,which is due to (2) lack of normal de-velopment, rather than to mental dis-ease or deterioration, and which mani-fests itself in (3) social and economicincompetence.'It will be noticed that this definitionis primarily a functional one which isflexible enough to include wide varia-tions of individuals and yet not so broadas to make the group difficult of iden-tification. Its fundamental criterionbased upon that of the British, appearsto be a social one. This view holds thatSocial Administration.- Davies, Stanley P.: Social Control of theMentally Deficient, 1930, p. 2.[ 297 ]JOSEPH P. ANDRIOLAin the final analysis the test for deter-mining feeblemindedness does not restupon the individual's intelligence rat-ing. alone but on whether or not headjusts in society-that is, whether hecan meet the minimum standards ofgood citizenship imposed by society.Thus a series of criteria to be used fordetermining feeblemindedness shouldinclude the following: physical exam-ination, complete social history, andmental examination.By the use of such criteria it wouldbe obvious that the person with a men-tal age of eight years who has goodsocial habits, a simple job to providefor his needs, and keeps out of trouble,would not be classified as feebleminded.On the other hand, a person with amental age of, let us say, eleven ortwelve who fails to adapt himself tothe competitive struggle of living ac-cording to the accepted standards ofsociety or whose behavior is antisocialwould be classified as feebleminded.Thus we see that the question of theindividual's total personality whichsome writers call the Personality Quo-tient should be the determining factorand not his intelligence alone.In 1934 the American Association onMental Deficiency 3 adopted the follow-ing scale based on the Stanford-Binettest:Mental Age IntelligenceFeebleminded in Years QuotientIdiot ............ 0-3 0-19Imbecile ........ 3-7 20-49Moron . . .... 8- 50-3 American Association on Mental Deficiency,Proceedings and Addresses of the 58th AnnualSession, held in New York City, May 26-29, 1934,p. 415.4 Ibid.5 Davies, Stanley P.: Ibid, p. 132.Although the upper limits of mentalage and intelligence quotient for moronare not given, the Association adds thatas a rule the upper limit for the diag-nosis of mental deficiency should be anintelligence quotient of sixty-nine, butthis limit should not be adhered to incases where medical, social and otherfactors clearly indicate that the patientis mentally defective.4There are various estimates- of thenumber of feebleminded in the UnitedStates, ranging from 1/2 of 1% to 3%of the population. A conservative fig-ure would be about 1,000,000 or lessthan 1%. In this group we find whatare known as defective delinquentswhich includes the feebleminded juve-nile offenders and the feeblemindedadult criminals. A well known studentof the subject defines defective delin-quents as those feebleminded in whomantisocial and criminal tendencies arefound to be so deep-seated as to requirecare and treatment quite distinct fromthat of the usual mental deficiency in-stitution.'Studies in the past decade and a halfgenerally agree that about 10% or 100,-000 of the feebleminded population iscomposed of dangerous criminals. Whenthis figure is compared with a total of500,000 dangerous criminals' in the gen-eral population, it reveals that one outof every five of these criminals is fee-bleminded. Allowance is made for thefact that feebleminded offenders aremore likely to be apprehended. Thisis amply illustrated in the studies7 sum-6 Hoover, John Edgar: "The Part of Youthin Law Enforcement." Radio Address, June22, 1936.7Michael, Jerome, and Adler, Mortimer, J.:Crime Law and Social Science, 1933. Pp. 88-169.SUGGESTIONS FOR TREATING THE DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTmarized by Jerome Michael and M. J.Adler which show that between 20%and 50% of the apprehended group isdefinitely feebleminded. Although thereis and probably always will be somedisagreement regarding the exact sizeof this group there seems to be generalagreement that the defective delin-quent does not profit by the methodsand techniques employed in the treat-ment of delinquency or by those em-ployed in the treatment of mental de-ficiency, either in or out of the insti-tution. With negligible exceptions thestates do not have special provisionsfor the treatment of defective delin-quents.Let us first examine what happensto the defective delinquent child who isbrought before the juvenile court.There are usually three dispositionsthat can be made: he may be commit-ted to the state institution for the fee-bleminded, sent to an institution forjuvenile offenders (the "reformatories"and "boys training schools," or if a girlto comparable institutions for girls), orreturned to society with or without thebenefit of supervision.Now let us look into these three dis-positions. Commitment to an institu-tion for the feebleminded rarely meansimmediate admission there. In prac-tice it involves returning the child tosociety to await a vacancy in an alreadycrowded institution. As illustrated bya recent article8 in the Detroit News,when the institution is ready to receivehim he may have committed one ormore serious offenses, perhaps evenmurder, or have left the community. In8 "855 Imbeciles Loose in the City." Novemberthe event that he is admitted to theinstitution for the feebleminded, thedefective delinquent invariable fails tomake an adjustment and his delinquentbehavior spreads to other previouslydocile inmates leading often to variousforms of aggression including even ar-son and murder within the confines ofthe institution.If the child is placed in an institutionfor juvenile offenders the problem be-comes worse. Less well endowed men-tally than the other children there, heis easily led by them to antisocial actswhich only result in punishment for himfrom the people in charge.But suppose that the best of theabove "solutions" takes place, namely,that the child is returned to thecommunity under the supervision ofa probation officer with requisitetraining. In the first place no matterhow skilled the officer is or how manyextra hours he works, his usual largecaseload precludes adequate supervi-sion. It must not be forgotten thattreating the young delinquent and espe-cially the defective delinquent involvestreating him in relation to his familyand in relation to society. Since societyis anything but understanding in itsattitude toward this type of child, hiseffective supervision requires, besidesfamily casework, another type of socialwork: community organization. There-fore, even if we grant that the proba-tion officer's caseload can be keptwithin the reasonable limit of twenty-five or thirty cases he woull have todo community organization work inaddition to his regular family casework.14, 1939.JOSEPH P. ANDRIOLAEven the best probation officer is notadequately trained to do this. Andthere is no reason why he should be.His job is to help delinquent childrenof normal intelligence help them-selves become good and happy citizens.In dealing with the problems of de-linquency we must always bear in mindtwo things: the effect on society andthe effect on the individual. Society, isplaced first and for a -specific reason,namely, that the protection of societyshould be the first responsibility of thecourt. Then comes the responsibilityof protecting the delinquent individual.That the court does not succeed com-pletely in this dual task is obviousbut we must not be too hasty to con-demn it. By its very nature the court'sfunction is defined: it is set up by law,thus existing in and by the collectivewill of all the people for whom we usethe general term, society. Thereforeit is obliged to operate within the rigidconfines of the law which usuallydoes not provide for the most effectiveway of accomplishing this twofold task.Those who have had experience in-dealing with the chronic behavior prob-lems of the defective delinquent childwhose offenses may include setting fireto property, sexual aberrations, physi-cal violence, or the persistent playfulpastime of throwing stones at the wind-shields of passing automobiles, realizethat frequently the practical thing maybe to commit him to an institution de-signed for his care. If he cannot beadmitted immediately he may-againas a practical or expedient measure-have to be held in a detention home.Where such a home is crowded or lack-ing, he may have to be kept in a jail,obviously unsuited for a juvenile of-fender.Now let us examine the adult of-fender who is feebleminded. In dealingwith him we have a somewhat differentproblem. He does not come under thefairly benevolent guidance of the juve-nile court but is brought before thecriminal court. There he is usuallysentenced to jail, workhouse, or pene-tentiary, or he may be released with areprimand or a suspended sentence.He may also be placed on "probation,"the circumstances of which vary fromstate to state and in general are mostunsatisfactory.With the exception of New York andMassachusetts, none of the states haveinstitutions for defective delinquents.However, Pennsylvania is to be com-mended for its plan to cope with theproblem. Within the next year it isexpected that the Pennsylvania Indus-trial School at Huntington will be-come the Pennsylvania Institution forDefective Delinquents. It will housefeebleminded males fifteen years andover who have been convicted of crimeor have shown criminal tendencies.Thus in forty-six states the adult fee-bleminded offender is thrust into oneof our penal institutions or returned tosociety. In prison he usually fails tomake an adjustment and back in soci-ety he does not remain long beforebeing brought into court charged withadditional crimes. As pointed outabove, there are at least 100,000 of thesecriminals in the country today. Someare at large and over 90% of those whoSUGGESTIONS FOR TREATING THE DEFECTIVE DELINQUENTare incarcerated will sooner or laterreturn to society.One suggestion for coping with themwould be to emulate the Massachusettssystem. There the court can legallymake and record a finding of DefectiveDelinquent, and commitments of men-tal defectives are made to the Depart-ment of Mental Diseases. From thatpoint on, this department handles theproblem of institutionalizing persons ineither an institution for the feeble-minded or one for defective delin-quents, by supervision in the commu-nity, or by discharging him entirely.In New York, by legislative act of1921 a special state institution for maledefective delinquents sixteen years andover was established at Napanoch. Thiswas the first institution of its kind inthe United States. It receives for in-determinate commitment those con-victed of all offenses except first degreemurder. If the superintendent believesan inmate's release to society is un-warranted he may be kept there forlife. Thus in both Massachusetts andNew York the law has recognized theexistence of the defective delinquentand has made special provision for him.Also in 1930 the Federal Governmentestablished an institution at Spring-field, Missouri, for the care and treat-ment of Federal offenders who arementally defective. It houses defectivedelinquents, psychopaths, psychotics,sexual perverts and some chronic med-ical cases such as those sufferingfrom tuberculosis.The following are some further sug-gestions for dealing with defective de-linquent adults:1. Psychiatric clinics should be providedfor all criminal courts. Examinationof offenders should not depend on thediscretion of some court official butall persons brought before the courtshould be examined.2. When the clinic finds a person feeble-minded and the court finds him guiltyof crime he should be classified as aDefective Delinquent. Instead of re-ceiving a criminal sentence involvinga fixed minimum time of incarcera-tion, he should be committed for life.This plan involves questions of legal-ity which could be worked out jointlyby law makers, specialists in the careof the mentally deficient, and crim-inologists.3. Efforts should be made to fosterestablishment of special institutionsfor this type of offender but in themeantime the most practical place ofsegregation is not in institutions forthe feebleminded but in special unitsor wards set aside in penetentiariesso that he does not mingle with theother prisoners.4. Opportunities should be providedwhenever possible, for continuedstudy and research by qualified per-sons of the institutionalized defectivedelinquent.The treatment of the defective de-linquent child presents a slightly dif-ferent picture since it is generally be-lieved that there is hope of retraininghim. Still we must go slowly andaccept only those data which have beenproved by repeated empirical studies.Techniques for understanding his men-tal mechanisms are far from fully de-veloped. He does not react to socialsituations as other children do. Neithercan he benefit by psychiatric treatmentat its present stage of development. Nomatter how well behaved he may be ina rigidly controlled environment likean institution for the feebleminded, hewill frequently commit serious offenses302as soon as this control is removed.Therefore the following program issuggested:1. The program should first of all haveavailable the services of specialistsin the fields of education, medicine,psychiatry, psychology, social work,and sociology.2. Intensive efforts for early detectionof mental deficiency through schools,private physicians, child guidanceclinics and other similar sources.3. Complete mental and physical exam-ination of patients to determineextent of deficiency.4. Automatic registration by govern-mental agency set up for studying,training, and treating of all thementally deficient. The AmericanAssociation on Mental Deficiencycould provide invaluable data andadvice for establishing such anagency.JOSEPH P. ANDRIOLA5. In cases of defective delinquents,commitment for life in institutionsdesigned for their care. Where suchan institution is lacking, commit-ment should be to a special unit setaside for them in the institution forthe feebleminded.6. Intensive institutional program oftraining especially for the morongroup in the hope of returning someto society.7. At the discretion of a board com-posed of the above named specialistsand the director of the institution,parole could be tried in promisingcases, providing that an adequateand competent staff exists for carry-ing on the supervision in the com-munity. Also, provision should bemade for the return of parolees tothe institution without any legal orother impediment at any time thatthe board deems advisable.

Some Suggestions for Treating the Defective Delinquent

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2968&amp;context=jclc

Some Suggestions for Treating the Defective Delinquent

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons