The foregoing cases, while distinctly abnormal mentally, owe their recidivism to a qualitative rather than a quantitative defect.
Since the original publication of this paper, I have had occasion to observe a number of recidivists in whom the defect was essentially a quantitative one, i.e., patients ranging in intelligence all the way from idiocy to moronism.
The following case is a good illustration of this type:—
R. W. (colored) was admitted to this Hospital for the first time from the District of Columbia Reform School on February 8, 1898. He was at that time serving a sentence for housebreaking. He was twenty years of age at that time and examination showed him to possess the intelligence of an imbecile. During his sojourn here he had several maniacal outbreaks, but recovered from these and was discharged into the care of his parents on November 23, 1898. Sometime in 1900 he was again sent to the Reform School and was readmitted to this Hospital on November 17, 1900. He suffered at this time from an acute hallucinatory episode from which he soon recovered and was allowed to go out on a visit on February 20, 1901. He never returned from this visit but on July 23, 1902, was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment for larceny. While serving this sentence he was admitted to the State Hospital for the Insane at Norristown, Pennsylvania, where he suffered from an acute maniacal attack with persecutory delusions. He was discharged from that institution, by order of the Court, on September 29, 1903. On January 1, 1904, he was arrested for housebreaking and sentenced to three years imprisonment at the United States Penitentiary at Moundsville, Virginia. From the above institution he was admitted to this Hospital on May 8, 1905, suffering from an acute maniacal attack. He soon recovered again and was discharged on August 18, 1906, with a diagnosis of imbecility with recurrent mania. He was readmitted here October 3, 1907, and discharged April 1, 1909. On January 23, 1910, he was given a two months workhouse sentence for petty larceny. On September 7, 1912, he was again sentenced to four years in the Penitentiary for grand larceny, from which institution he was readmitted here on January 19, 1915.
I shall not enter into a detailed discussion of this case. It is simply quite illustrative of the absolute necessity for permanent segregation of mental defectives.
When some of this clinical material was first published in 1912 it met with very gratifying recognition at the hands of those who were interested in criminalistics.
I wish to take this opportunity of expressing my particular appreciation of Dr. Healy’s kind words of approbation and encouragement.
We all must agree that the first essential step towards a better understanding of criminal types consists in a thorough study of the criminal individual, such as is reflected, for instance, in the very excellent book by Healy on the “Individual Delinquent.” Such studies have thus far, however, with but rare exceptions, not been made at the proper source,—that is, in the criminal laboratory, the penal institution.
The work which is being done with the juvenile offender is, of course, very important and very valuable; but in order that this work may be checked up scientifically it must be supplemented by thorough catamnestic studies of the juvenile offenders. This, I believe to be the only rational way of approach to the problem.
This will in time, I believe, furnish us data concerning the criminal which will enable us to evaluate in a correct manner the various traits and characteristics of the juvenile offender and thus enable us to render a correct prognosis in a given case. Once we shall reach a stage in the science of criminology when we shall dare to say of a juvenile offender, as we now unhesitatingly say of the leper, “Here is a human being who will always be a danger to his fellow-man and, therefore, should be permanently isolated from his fellow-man”, the problem of recidivism will be solved.