Stenquist, Thorndike, and Trabue ([54]) report the results with the Binet 1911 tests, under a slightly modified procedure, for 75 randomly selected dependent and 4 delinquent girls cared for by a certain county, excluding those children within the county sent to an institution for the feeble-minded. The children were from 9 to 16 years of age, with a medium age of 11 years. The line between the delinquent and dependent groups with these younger children becomes rather obscure. They state: “A child may, in the county in question, become a public charge by commitment by an officer of the poor-law on grounds of destitution, or by an officer of the courts on grounds of delinquency.... The decisive factor is often simply whether the parents are more successful in getting justices to commit their children than in getting poor-law officers to do so.” With the detailed records which they give it is possible to apply our standard even for the immature, although it is certainly less adequate for those under 15 years of age tested by the 1911 scale. I have translated their corrected Binet ages back to the original test ages, since their summary of retardation in terms of years below average ability at each age is not comparable with our borderline. Among the 79 girls who are mostly dependent, there are 5 girls, or, 6%, who fall within our presumably deficient group and 8 in the doubtful group, a total of 16%. So far as serious deficiency is concerned the situation is undoubtedly worse among delinquents than among corresponding groups of dependents. The figures of these investigators show this for their group of boys, to which we shall refer later.
Certain other groups of women and girls have been examined with the Binet or other tests, but the results are of little significance for judging the problem of deficiency objectively, since the individuals were either selected for examination because they were thought to be abnormal mentally or because there are not adequate norms for determining the borderlines with the particular tests used. At the New York State Training School for Girls in Hudson, we find that 208 selected cases who were not profiting by their training were examined with the 1911 scale. They ranged in life-age from 12 to 20. We cannot determine how many were under 14 years of age, or how much effect might have been produced by selecting dull cases; but 44 tested IX or under and 52 tested X ([158]). Dr. Spaulding ([183]) used Binet and other psychological tests on a group of 400 inmates of the Massachusetts Reformatory for Women at South Framingham; but she gives only her judgment based on the examination and history of the cases so that we have no data on this group for comparison. Her statement that 16.8% showed “marked mental defect, i. e., the moron group” and 26.8% showed “mental subnormality (slight mental defect)” is an excellent illustration of the best type of subjective judgment on consecutive cases, since she is familiar with test results. For her purpose of deciding how to care for the women it is of undoubted value, but for comparative purposes it is clear that it is impossible to tell how her subjective opinion would agree with that of an equally competent diagnostician, or what is meant by her terms “feeble-minded” or “subnormal.” For scientific purposes the Binet results for her group would be of much value, for we should like to know whether the conditions at Bedford are typical among the women's reformatories for the older offenders.
Dr. Rowland used psychological tests other than the Binet scale with a group of 35 at the Bedford Reformatory for Women, but there are no adequate norms for the comparison of her results with the general conditions ([49]). Baldwin ([1]) has shown that delinquent colored girls, 13 to 21 years of age, in the girls' division of the Pennsylvania Reformatory school at Sleighton Farm are inferior to white girls in the same institution in a learning test. As cited by Gruhle ([121]), Cramer ([10]) used an Ebbinghaus completion test, definition tests, etc. with 376 delinquent girls in Hanover, but there are no borderlines for comparison. As cited by Bronner, von Grabe gave several psychological tests to 62 prostitutes treated in the city hospital in Hamburg and compared them with a control group of 30 ([6]).
The most striking conclusion that comes out of the study of this evidence of frequent deficiency among delinquent girls and women is the close association between sex offenses and deficiency. One hundred and four out of 118 consecutive admissions at the Illinois training school were known to be sexually immoral. At Bedford 94 out of 100 consecutive cases had records of immorality, while three-fourths of the same group tested questionable in intellect by our standards ([11]). This evidence, taken with the report of the Massachusetts' Commission and the tests of sex offenders who were not at the time legally delinquents, reported by McCord, and the Virginia Commission, leaves little doubt that there is an excess of deficiency among this type of offender. Many of these deficient girls probably at first drift into the life of prostitution. They are passive rather than active agents. This distinction in the nature of the offense accounts for some of the difference between the sexes in this form of delinquency. Furthermore our public attitude in matters of social hygiene has made the isolation of the female sex more common. Part of this may be due to the greater difficulty of proof in the case of men and boys, but in part it undoubtedly means that men have not been held to as high a moral standard as women in this regard. The greater frequency of deficient sex offenders among girls, does not mean that girls are more likely than boys to be active sex offenders. They are, however, more likely to be isolated for such offenses, and also more likely to be passive offenders.
The greater amount of deficiency found among female delinquents than among corresponding groups of males is thus easily accounted for by frequent association between deficiency and sex delinquency on the part of girls and women. The combination of legal sex delinquency and deficiency is due both to a native sex difference and a difference in social attitude toward the two sexes as to this form of offense. Whichever may be the main cause of the facts found, it is clear that deficiency is, today, most serious among female offenders. It is so serious that some of our reformatories for women might even prove to be practically institutions for deficient delinquents. It is in this type of institution without doubt, that the immediate problem of the deficient delinquent is most pressing. Permanent guardianship, if not isolation, for at least a third of the inmates of an institution like Bedford which shows this amount of clear tested deficiency, under our very conservative standard, would seem to be a wise move in social hygiene. It should be undertaken at once with vigor. A more fundamental change in our social attack of this problem means state guardianship before adolescence for all girls testing presumably deficient under our standard, when their deficiency is not due to removable handicaps.
(c) Men And Boy Delinquents In State Institutions.
For the purpose of judging the importance of the question of feeble-mindedness among the most serious criminals, those committed to the state prison, we have a very important study by Rossy ([48]). Three hundred cases were taken at random with the exception of a few selected cases on which a report was requested. In this group, thirty prisoners could not be examined either because of language difficulties or because of their refusal to be tested. The Point Scale of Yerkes and Bridges was used and the results are presented in terms of mental ages on that scale. The examiner considered all those testing XI or under as feeble-minded and found 22% of the 300 in this class. This is less conservative than even our doubtful standard, but I estimate that 16% would fall within our doubtful and presumably deficient groups. This includes 11% who test X or under with the Point Scale plus 54% of those who tested XI. This estimate is made on the basis of the tables given by Haines ([26]), comparing Binet 1911 results with those of the Point Scale on the same individuals. It adds the proportion of those testing XI with Point Scale, who would test nearer X with the Binet 1911 scale.
Ordahl[[21]] examined 51 convicts in the penitentiary at Joliet, Ill. They “were selected in a manner thought to secure fair representation of the prison population as a whole.” The Kuhlmann 1911 Binet scale was used and supplemented by tests for 13 to 18 years taken from the Stanford scale. It is possible that selection affected the results with this small group, since 25% showed test ages of IX or under and 36% tested X or under.
Haines tested with the Point Scale 87 consecutive admissions to the Ohio penitentiary ([24]). He found 18% tested below a record corresponding to X.6 on the Goddard 1911 scale, which is about the upper limit of our doubtful group.
That a smaller proportion of the state prison inmates is found intellectually deficient than is found among the inmates of the industrial schools is not surprising. This may be due to various causes. Among these may be mentioned the failure to recognize feeble-mindedness, heretofore, among the younger delinquents while the adult feeble-minded were more carefully isolated in their proper institutions. The deficient adults have also been reduced in frequency by the excessive mortality. Probably the feeble-minded are not so likely to plan or commit felony as lesser crimes and misdemeanors. Moreover the adult feeble-minded may be more stable and less inclined to delinquency than adolescents. Whatever may be the explanation, deficiency generally does not seem to be as common among the inmates of a state prison as among minor delinquents in states which are in the forefront in the care of their feeble-minded.