The author of this article has been head of the
Department of Sociology in Indiana University since 1935. Formerly he was
Professor of Sociology in the University of Chicago, and still earlier in the
University of Minnesota. In 1939 he was President of the American Sociological
Society, and of the Sociological Research Association during 1940 to 1941.
Professor Sutherland is well known as the author of
“Principles of Criminology,” “Twenty Thousand Homeless
Men,” “White Collar Crime,” and of chapters in “Recent Social Trends”
and of numerous other important studies. He is a member of the Advisory
Editorial Council of this JOURNAL - EDITOR.
In recent years several states have made an effort to
protect the public from “sexual psychopaths” (“persons with criminal
propensities to the commission of sex offenses”) by authorizing their
commitment to mental institutions. (1) Implicit in these laws is an ideology
which has been made explicit in an extensive popular literature. (2) This
ideology contains the following propositions:
1. Women and children are in great danger in American
society because serious sex crimes are very prevalent and are increasing more
rapidly than any other type of crime. J. Edgar Hoover
wrote, “The most rapidly increasing type of crime is
that perpetrated by degenerate sex offenders .... (It) is taking its toll at
the rate of a criminal assault every 43 minutes, day and night, in the United
States.”
2. Practically all of these serious sex crimes are
committed by “degenerates,” “sex fiends,” or “sexual psychopaths.” Wittels
wrote, “Most of the so-called sex killers are psychopathic personalities ....
No one knows or can even closely estimate how many such creatures there are,
but at least tens of thousands of them are loose in the country today.”
3. These sexual psychopaths continue to commit
serious sex crimes throughout life because they have no control over their
sexual impulses; they have a mental malady and are not responsible for their
behavior.
4. A sexual psychopath can be identified with a high
degree of precision even before he has committed any sex crimes.
5. A society which punishes sex criminals, even with
severe penalties, and then releases them to prey again upon women and children
is failing in its duty.
6. Laws should be enacted to segregate such persons,
preferably before but at least after their sex crimes, and to keep them
confined as irresponsible patients until their malady has been completely and
permanently cured.
7. Since sexual psychopathy is a mental malady, the
professional advice as to the diagnosis, the treatment, and the release of
patients as cured should come exclusively from psychiatrists.
All of these propositions, which are implicit in the
laws and explicit in the popular literature, are either false or questionable.
Some of the errors in these propositions will be indicated.
How Great Is the Danger?
Sex crimes are generally divided for statistical
purposes into three categories, namely, prostitution, rape, and other sex
offenses. In the discussions of the present problem, prostitution is
disregarded and only rape and other sex crimes are considered. Other sex crimes
include indecencies with children (generally not involving intercourse), sodomy
and other perversions, indecent exposure or exhibitionism, and incest.8 The
cases of rape, which are estimated to number about 18,000 a year in the United
States, are customarily used as an indication of the extent of the danger to
women and children. This idea needs to be examined.
Rapes are divided into two categories, namely,
forcible and statutory. The latter. is sexual intercourse regardless of force
with a female below the age of consent; the age of consent is now generally
sixteen or eighteen. It is impossible to determine at present what proportion
of all rapes are forcible. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that
approximately 50 per cent of all rapes known to the police of the United States
are forcible rapes. But only 18 per cent of the convictions of rape in New York
City in the decade 1930-1939 were forcible rape. Because of these and other
variations, the statistics of rape are very unreliable. The Committee which
prepared the plans for the uniform crime reports which are now collected by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation hesitated for some time before including rape
as one of the crimes to be reported. The hesitation was due to the conviction
that the statistics of rape would be less reliable than any other criminal
statistics. On the one hand, females frequently conceal the fact of forcible
rape rather than undergo the shame of publicity. On the other hand, charges of
forcible rape are often made without justification by some females for
purposes- of blackmail and by others, who have engaged voluntarily in
intercourse but have been discovered, in order to protect their reputations.
Physicians have testified again and again that forcible rape is practically
impossible unless the female has been rendered practically unconscious by drugs
or injury; many cases reported as forcible rape have certainly involved nothing
more than passive resistance: Finally, statutory rape is frequently a legal
technicality, with the female in fact a prostitute and taking the initiative in
the intercourse; the higher the Age of consent the greater is the probability
that statutory rape is a legal technicality. In any case it is absurd to
include all cases of statutory rape as cases of criminal assaults by
degenerates, for the preliminary reports of the Kinsey investigation of the sex
behavior of the female indicate that millions of cases of statutory rape occur
annually in the average state.
Since the statistics of rape are useless as an
indication of the extent of the danger of serious sex crimes, another method
has been used. A tabulation has been made of all cases of murders of females
reported in the New York Times for
the years 1930, 1935, .and 1940, and of the proportions of these murders which
were reported as involving rape. In those three years 324 females were reported
to have been murdered, of which 110 were in New York City, 32 elsewhere in New
York State, 56 in New Jersey, and 126 in other parts of the United States. Only
17 of the 324 murders of females were reported as involving rape or suspicion
of rape. This is an average of 5.7 cases of rape-murder per year in the United
States as reported in this newspaper. Of these 17 cases of rape-murder, two
were reported in 1930, eleven in 1935, and four in- 1940. Only 39 of the total
were murders of children, and of these twelve were reported as rape-murders-two
in 1930, six in 1935, and four in 1940.
Of the 324 murders of females, 102 were reported to
have been committed by husbands of the victims, 37 by fathers or other close
relatives, and 49 by lovers or suitors. Thus nearly 60 per cent of the murders
of females were committed by relatives or other intimate associates. Only 10
per cent were committed in connection with other crimes and all the
rape-murders reported were in that group. The danger of murder by a relative or
other intimate associate is very much greater than the danger of murder by an
unknown sex fiend. In fact, in one of the three years as many females were
reported to have been murdered by policemen-two cases, both involving
drunkenness of the policemen-as by the so-called sex fiends. Also, 25 per cent
of the persons who murdered females committed suicide.
While these newspaper reports are certainly not a
complete record of all rape-murders, they probably include a larger proportion
of such crimes than of other murders. The number of rape-murders per year is
certainly greater than 5.7, but it is doubtful whether it is greater than 100
and it may be no more than 25. This is certainly a far cry from Wittels’
estimate that tens of thousands of sex killers are abroad in the nation. (4)
“Other sex offenses” are generally misdemeanors.
Exhibitionism and homosexuality are the most prevalent of these. Hundreds of
homosexuals can be found in any large city. Few of them are arrested because
their perversions are generally limited to their own kind and constitute little
danger to the rest of society. Many of these perverts have good standing in
society. Nearly four thousand homosexuals were discharged from the armed
forces; they exceeded the average in intelligence and education, and were
generally “law-abiding and hard working.” (5) The Kinsey investigation
indicated that more than fifty per cent of the males studied, who had arrived
at middle age, had had some homosexual experience in their lifetimes.
Are the Serious Sex
Crimes Committed by Degenerates?
The popular literature identifies sex crimes and
degeneracy. Wittels writes regarding sexual psychopaths, “Such creatures, neither
sane nor insane, are responsible for most sex crimes.” And Hoover uses the word
“degenerate” to refer to the persons who commit the 18,000 rapes a year. When
it is remembered that at least half of these rapes and perhaps more than
threefourths are statutory rape, and that millions of cases of statutory rape
occur which are not reported to the police, the identification of sex crimes
with psychopathy or degeneracy is absurd. The reasoning is not based on factual
evidence but on the circular and fallacious argument that only degenerates can
commit serious sex crimes and therefore persons who commit serious sex crimes
are degenerates. Further evidence on this point will appear in subsequent
paragraphs.
How Persistent Are Sex
Offenders?
The sexual psychopath laws are based on a belief that
persons who commit serious sex crimes have no control over their sexual
impulses and will repeat their crimes again and again regardless of punishment
or other experiences. A few cases of this kind, to be sure, are reported. The
question is whether sex offenders differ from other offenders in their rate of
recidivism. Three types of evidence indicate that sex offenders have a low rate
of recidivism compared with other offenders.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports on
twenty-five types of crimes as to the proportion of persons arrested in a year
who had previous criminal records. The drug addicts have the largest proportion
of previous convictions and stand first in recidivism in the list of
twenty-five types of crimes; larceny is second, vagrancy third, drunkenness
fourth, and burglary fifth. Rape, on the other hand, is nineteenth-almost at
the bottom of the list and “other sex offenses” ties for seventeenth rank.”
Moreover, the previous criminal records in the rankings above include all types
of former crimes. If the previous record is restricted to sex crimes we find,
for instance, that of 1447 males arrested in 1937 for rape only 5.3 per cent
had previous convictions of rape. This is a much lower rate of recividism in
the same type of crime than the average for all other crimes.
The New York City Committee for the Study of Sex
Offenses concluded from its study that-sex offenders tend to be first offenders
as compared with those who commit other crimes. In a study of all sex offenders
in New York City in the decade 1930-1939 this Committee found only six
recidivists who had been convicted twice of sex felonies and none more than
twice.
It found that of 555 persons convicted of sex crimes
in 1930, only 31 or 5.5 per cent, were convicted of sex crimes, either felonies
or misdemeanors, during the next twelve years; two were convicted three times
each, four twice, and the others only once. (7) The sex offenders with the
highest rate of recidivism have generally been the exhibitionists and not the
persons who commit violent sex crimes.
The third type of evidence as to the rate of
recidivism of sex offenders is provided in a special study of juvenile
delinquents before the juvenile court of New York City. Of 108 boys accused of
sex offenses only, three had subsequent appearances for delinquencies and none
of these delinquencies was a sex offense; of 148 boys with miscellaneous
offenses (including sex offenses combined with other offenses) 109 had
subsequent criminal records. (8)
These three types of evidence demonstrate that if
specialized procedures based on recidivism are to be provided, the sex
offenders should be almost the last group for consideration. The rebuttal may
be made to the preceding argument that even if the number of serious sex crimes
is small and is not increasing and even if those who commit serious sex crimes
are seldom recidivists, yet some sex offenders do persist in sex crimes and
these, who are called sexual psychopaths, constitute a serious danger to women
and children. This raises the fundamental question of the definition and
identification of the sexual psychopath.
Who Is a Sexual Psychopath?
The laws which have been enacted regarding sexual
psychopaths generally contain two elements in their definitions of sexual
psychopaths. The first of these is an overt act9 and the second is a particular
state of mind. The mental state is variously defined. The law of the District
of Columbia defines it as “lack of power to control his sexual impulses.” The
laws of Minnesota and Wisconsin define it as “emotional instability or
impulsiveness of behavior, or lack of customary standards of good judgment, or
failure to appreciate the consequences of his acts, or a combination of such
conditions.”
The relation of the overt act to the mental state is
defined in the several laws in two different ways. In the first definition the
mental state is to be determined from the overt sex crimes. The law of
Massachusetts defines sexual psychopaths as “those persons who by an habitual
course of misconduct in sexual matters have evidenced an utter lack of power to
control their sexual impulses.” And the law of the District of Columbia states
“The term ‘sexual psychopath’ means a person, not insane, who by a course of
repeated misconduct in sexual matters has evidenced such lack of power to
control his sexual impulses as to be dangerous to other persons.” Such definitions
state explicitly that anyone-who commits several serious sex crimes is a sexual
psychopath; a finger-print record is the only evidence needed for diagnosing an
offender as a psychopath and the services of psychiatrists are not needed.
This identification of an habitual sex offender as a
sexual psychopath has no more justification than the identification of any
other habitual offender as a psychopath, such as one who repeatedly steals,
violates the antitrust law, or lies about his golf score. The psychiatrists
would almost unanimously object to this definition. They do, however, often
accept an equally mechanical definition which is not stated in the laws. This
is the proposition that the human b-ing has a normal course of devel-. opment
in sexual behavior, with the following stages appearing successively from
infancy onward: polymorphous perverse, narcissistic, homosexual, and
heterosexual. According to this proposition a person’s sexual behavior, without
reference to anything else, will reveal his general stage of development of
personality, and his personality can be diagnosed from his sexual behavior.
Homosexuality, for instance, is regarded as evidence of the arrest of personal
development in the preadolescent period and exhibitionism as regression to infancy
and both are regarded as pathologies of personality. (10) The absurdity of this
theory should be evident to anyone who has an acquaintance with the variations
in sexual behavior and sexual codes throughout the history of’manldnd;
practically all of the present sex crimes have been approved behavior for
adults in some society or other. Similarly within our society deviant cultures
with reference to sex behavior prevail in subgroups. The manner in which
juveniles are inducted into the cultures of these sub-groups in the toilets of
schools, playgrounds, and dormitories, as well as in other places, has been
shown in many research reports on juvenile sex behavior. (11)
The second definition of the relation of the overt
act to the mental state makes these two elements coordinate. According to this
conception the sexual psychopath is a person whose misconduct consists wholly
or partially of violations of the sex code but whose personality can be
diagnosed as psychopathic independently of his sexual behavior. However, the
Minnesota statute, which makes these two elements coordinate, has been upheld
in the Supreme Court on the argument that the psychopathic state is to be
revealed by the overt sexual behavior. (12) This interpretation of the law
makes the second definition identical with the first and the law becomes merely
an habitual sex offenders act.
Wittels makes the unqualified statement,
“Psychopathic personality can easily be detected early in life by any
psychiatrist.” (13) Any person at all familiar with psychiatric literature
knows that scores of psychiatrists have deplored the use of this concept
because of its lack of definite criteria. The vagueness of the term is
indicated by the fact that under the administration of one psychiatrist 98 per
cent of the inmates admitted to the state prison of Illinois were diagnosed as
psychopathic personalities, while in similar institutions with other
psychiatrists not more than five per cent were so diagnosed. Of the sex
offenders diagnosed by the Psychiatric Clinic of the Court of General Sessions
in New York City, 15.8 per cent were reported to be psychopathic, while of sex
offenders diagnosed by psychiatrists in Bellevue Hospital in New York City 52.9
per cent were diagnosed as psychopathic. (14)
The most careful investigations of the concept of the
psychopath have been made by Cason. He found 202 terms which have been used as
more or less synonymous with the term “psychopath.” (15) He condensed these
into 54 traits which are generally held to characterize the psychopath. From
101 psychopathic inmates of the Psychopathic Unit in the Federal Medical Unit
at Springfield, Missouri, he selected two groups-the 23 least psychopathic and the
29 most psyehopathic-on the basis of the number of their behaviors which are
characterized as psychopathic. He found that 46 of the 54 traits had no statistical
significance in differentiating the most psychopathic from the least
psychopathic, and of the eight remaining traits six were just barely
significant. With the exception of the two traits-intolerance and making
threats-the traits which are generally regarded as characterizing the
psychopaths were not as useful in differentiating the most psychopathic from
the least psychopathic as were the facts that a person was born in the Eastern
states, had engaged in farming, or had violated the Dyer- Aet against
automobile theft. In general, he concluded that the saint is at one extreme and
the psychopath at the other, and that a person can be diagnosed as a psychopath
“if he has a reasonable number of these symptoms in a fairly pronounced form.”
(16) This appears to equate the psychopath and the sinner.
Also, Cason and Pescor analyzed the records of 500
prisoners in the Medical Center who had been diagnosed as psychopathic and
compared them with the records of all federal prisoners. They found that the
psychopathic prisoners were very much concentrated in the age group 20-29 in
comparison with federal prisoners and with the civilian population. This is
extremely. significant, for it indicates either that people cease to be
psychopathic after they pass the age of thirty or else that psychopathic
persons cease lo commit federal crimes. Moreover, 63 per cent -of those
prisoners who had been discharged an average of 19.2 months had no subsequent
criminal record with the Federal Bureau of Investigation; of those who had some
supervision after release 71 per cent had no subsequent criminal records. Also,
39 per cent of the psychopaths were reported as obedient and well-behaved as
children, and an additional 22 per cent as obedient but inclined to get into
mischief or trouble. (17)
The conclusion from this analysis of the concept of
the sexual psychopath is that it is too vague for judicial or administrative
use either as to commitment to institutions or as to release as “completely and
permanently cured.” According to the laws of most of the states the court must
rely on two psychiatrists for decisions as to sexual psychopathy. The
psychiatrists have no diagnostic instruments or criteria by which to arrive at
demonstrable conclusions on this question; they are expected to make expert
judgments on questions on which neither they nor others are qualified to speak
as experts. The criterion of “irresistible impulse” which is implicit in the
laws cannot be applied in practice. (18)
The inadequacy of the concept of sexual psychopath
has been recognized by leading psychiatrists and others. Dr. Winfred
Overholser, superintendent of St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, stated, “Before the law
can be expected to recognize this group (sexual psychopaths) as calling for
specialized treatment, it will be necessary for psychiatrists to come to a
better agreement on the deliminitations of the group.” (19) Similarly, Dr. A.
Warren Stearns, a psychiatrist who was at one time director of the
Massachusetts Department of Correction, stated regarding sexual crimes, “The
definition of these crimes and the classification of the persons who commit
them present very serious administrative problems. For the present it is
perhaps wiser to administer existing laws carefully.” (20) The British Joint
Commission on Sex Offenses stated “Owing to the difficulties of legal and
medical definition, it is not practicable to press effectively at this stage
for special provisions for the detention and treatment, as such, of convicted
persons suspected of abnormal mentality who are not certifiable either as
insane or as mentally defective.” (21)
The lack of precision in the concept of the sexual
psychopath is especially dangerous in view of the emotions which are aroused by
sexual crimes. In the hysteria which results many crimes are committed in the
name of justice. The hysteria is illustrated by the fact that during a so-called
wave of sex murders in California nearly a dozen men confessed to one sex
murder which had been committed by one and only one man. The crimes committed
in the name of justice are illustrated by the case of James Montgomery. He was
convicted of rape in 1924 and held in the state prison of Illinois until 1949,
when the decision against him was reversed on the ground that the evidence in
the medical report that no rape had been committed was suppressed in the
original trial. (22) The dangers of this law, moreover, threaten every person.
It is not necessary in many states that a person be convicted of a sexual
crime; it is sufficient to diagnose his personality. Also, in many states the
states attorney or any other person
may ask for an investigation as to the sexual psychopathy of any person.
According to the laws of at least one of these states the person who has been
investigated and found not to be a sexual psychopath may not bring suit for
damages against the person who initiated the investigation, regardless of the
injury that he has suffered. (23) Furthermore, a person who is found to be a
sexual psychopath may be confined, as irresponsible, in a state hospital and
may also be punished, as responsible, by confinement in a state prison.
Although these sexual psychopath laws are dangerous
in principle, they are of little importance in practice. They are never used in
some states and seldom. used in the others. Only 16 persons were confined under
this law in Illinois during the ten years after its enactment. (24) The number
of cases under the Minnesota law decreased from about 35 in the first year
after its enactment to about 10 per year at the end of the ten-year period;
moreover, most of those confined under this law were charged with homosexuality
and were released after a few months. (25) During the first four years under
the Michigan law of 1939, 99 persons were committed as sexual psychopaths; and
of these 29 were released on parole or by court order by the end of that
period.
Several reasons have been suggested for the failure
to use these laws. One is that the laws were passed in a period of panic and
were forgotten after the emotion was relieved by this action. A second reason
is that the state has no facilities for the care and custody of sexual psychopaths;
the state hospitals are already crowded with psychotic patients. A third reason
is that the prosecutor and judge, anxious to make records as vigorous and
aggressive defenders of the community, favor the most severe penalty available
and are unwilling to look upon serious sex criminals as patients. They use the
sexual psychopath laws only when their evidence is so weak that conviction
under the criminal law is improbable. Finally, it is reported that defense
attorneys have learned that they can stop the proceedings under this law by
advising their clients to refuse to talk to the psychiatrists. The
psychiatrists can make no diagnosis if those who are being investigated refuse
to talk. Threats of contempt of court have been made in such cases and the law
of the District of Columbia explicitly provides that refusal to talk to the
psychiatrist is contempt of court.
Aside from the fact that a person can well afford to
be punished for contempt of court rather than be confined for an indeterminate
period as a sexual psychopath, a psychiatric diagnosis made under threat of
punishment can have no validity from a medical point of view.
In view of the slight use which has been made of
these laws, their effect on sex crimes should not be expected to be appreciable.
The reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation show that in the four states
which enacted sexual psychopath laws in 1938-1939-California, Illinoisi
Michigan, and Minnesota- the trend in rape rates was the same after the
enactment of the laws as it was in adjoining states which had not enacted such
laws. These statistics have little significance in view of the slight relation
between rape and the crimes for which persons may be confined under the sexual
psychopath laws, but no other evidence of the effects of these laws is
available.
Certain psychiatrists have stated that they are
interested in the sexual psychopath laws principally as a precedent; they
believe that all or practically all criminals are psychopathic, that all should
be treated as patients, and that psychiatrists should have a monopoly on
professional advice to the courts. These laws are dangerous precisely from this
point of view; they could be passed over in silence otherwise, as a product of
hysteria. The question is whether psychiatrists have a monopoly of knowledge of
human personality and human behavior which warrants their nomination as “the
experts” in the field of diagnosis and treatment of criminals.
Other disciplines, such as psychology, social work,
and sociology, have as much training as does psychiatry, and have points of
view, hypotheses, and techniques which should be used, together with
psychiatry, in the diagnosis and treatment of sex offenders and other
offenders. At many points the theories of one of these disciplines are in
conflict with the theories of the other disciplines and one has as much
scientific validity as the other. Moreover, the question of importance is not
whether an offender has a low I.Q. or unstable emotions, but how this trait is
related to the violation of the law and to a process of rehabilitation. There
is no more reason for turning over to the psychiatrist the complete supervision
of a criminal who is found to be psychopathic than for turning over to the
dentist the complete supervision of a criminal who is found to have dental
cavities. If the official agencies of the state are to use professional advice,
the advisors should represent all the branches of knowledge and should be on an
equal footing.
*Acknowledgment is made to the following persons for
information as to the origin and operation of sexual psychopath laws: Richard
L. Jenkins, Donald R. Taft, Paul W. Tappan, Walter J. Urben, and George B.
Vold.
1 Among these states are the following: California
(Welfare and Inst. Code, §§5500-5516, 1939); Illinois (Rev. Stats. ch. 38,
§§820-825, 1938); Massachusetts (Laws ann., ch. 123A, §§1-6, 1947); Michigan
(Stats. ann., ch. 25, §28.967, 1939); Minnesota (Stats., §§52609-52611, 1945).
In 1948 the Federal Congress passed a sexual
psychopath statute for the District of Columbia. Act of June 9, 1948, H.R.
6071, 1 U.S. Code. Cong. Serv. (80th cong., 2nd sess.) 361.
2 J. Edgar Hoover, “How Safe Is Your Daughter?” Amer. Hag., 144: 32-33, July, 1947.
David G. Wittels, “What Can We Do About Sex Crimest” Sat. Eve. Post, 221:30 f., December 11, 1948. C. J. Dutton, “Can We
End Sex Crimes?” Chrit. Cent., 54: 1594-1595, December 22, 1937.
F. C. Waldrup, “Murder as a Sex Practice,” Amer.
Mercury, 66: 144-158, February, 1948. Charles Harris, “A New Report on Sex
Crimes,” Coronet, 22:3-9, October,
1947.
3 Certain psychiatrists regard almost all crimes as
sex crimes; even theft, through its connection with the Oedipus Complex, is
regarded as symbolic incest. Others regard crimes which have any unusually
horrible features as sex crimes, as illustrated by the English murderer who
drank the blood of his victims. None of the sexual psychopath laws makes
explicit reference to this broad conception of sex crime.
4 Harris reported that Los Angeles had 24 “sex
murders” in 1946. The Department of Police of Los Angeles reports that 17 of
these were lovers’ quarrels and only five were rape-murders. Letter from Thad
F. Brown, Deputy Chief Commander, Detective Bureau, October 27, 1949.
5 “Homosexuals in Uniform,” Newsweek, 29:54, June 9,
1947. See, also, George W. Henry, “Psychogenie Factors in Overt Homosexuality,”
Amer. Jour. Psychiat., 93: 889-903,
January, 1937.
6 These ranks differ slightly from year to year. The
ranks reported above are for the year 1937, which was a typical pre-war year;
they refer to the male sex only.
7 New York, Report of Mayor’s Committee for the Study
of Sex Offenses, pp. 92-95.
8 L. T. Doshay, The
Boy Sex Offender, New York, 1943, Chs. 9-12.
9 In some laws “propensity to sex crimes” is
substituted for the overt act.
10 This idea is stated with few qualification by
Beatrice Pollens, The Sexual Criminal,
New York 1938, Ch. 3.
11 Esther Eichard, “Dispensary Contacts with
Delinquent Trends in Children: Twenty-nine Cases of Abnormal Sex Trends in
Children,” Mental Hygiene, 9:
314-339, April, 1925. Raymond W. Waggoner and D. A. Boyd, “Juvenile Aberrant
Behavior,” Amr. Jour. Orthopsych.,
11: 275-291, April, 1941.
12 State ex rel
Pearson v. Probate Court of Bamsay Count, et al., 205 Mimn 545, 287 N.W.
297 (1939), 309 US 270 (1940).
13 The terms “psychopath,” “psychopathic
personality,” and “constitutional psychopathic inferior” are used somewhat
interchangeably, although the last mentioned is being abandoned because of its
connotation regarding the constitution. 14 Jack Frosch and Walter Bromberg,
“The Sex Offender-A Psychiatric Study, Amer.
Jour. Orthopsych., 9: 761-776, October, 1939. B. Apfelberg, C. Sugar, and
A. Z. Pfeffer, “A Psychiatric Study of 250 Sex Offenders,” Amer. Jour. Psychiat., 100: 762-770, May, 1944.
15 Hulsey Cason, “IThe Psychopath and the
Psychopathic,” Jour. Crim. Psychopath.,
4: 522-527, January, 1943.
16 Hulsey Cason, “IThe Symptoms of the Psychopath,”
Public Health Reports , 61: 1833-1853, December 20, 1946. See also, “The
Characteristics of the Psychopath,” Amer.
Jour. Psychiat., 100: 762-770, May, 1944.
17 Hulsey Cason and M. J. Pescor, “A Statistical
Study of 500 Psychopathic Prisoners,” Public Health Reports, 61: 557-574, April
19, 1946. See, also, by the’ same authors, “‘A Comparative Study of Recidivists
and Non-Recidivists among Psychopathic Federal Offenders,” Jour. Crim. Law and Criminol., 37: 236-238, September, 1946.
18 Jess Spirer, “The Psychology of Irresistible
Impulse,” Jour. Crim. Law and Criminol.,
33: 457-462, March, 1943.
19 “Legal and Administrative Aspects,” Mental Hygiene, 22: 20-24, January,
1938.
20 “Sexual Crime,” Jour. Maine Med. Assoc., 37: 249 ff., October, 1946.
21 Quoted by I. S. Wile, “Society and the Sex
Offender,” Survey Graphic, 26:
569-572, November, 1937.
22 Time,
August 22, 1949, pp. 14-15.
23 Wis. State. (1947) ch. 51.37(7).
24 Newton Minow, “The Illinois Proposal to Confine
Sexually Dangerous Persons,” Jour. Crim.
Law an Crimiol., 40: 186-187, July, 1949.
25 Minnesota, Annual Reports of Bureau of Criminal
Appreliension.
No comments:
Post a Comment