Studies in Forensic Psychiatry by Bernard Glueck (best black authors txt) 📕

The only argument, and a very weighty one it is, which can be raised against the foregoing proposition, is whether the incorrigible criminal is sufficiently characterized by such unmistakable features as would enable us to recognize him when we see him, and thus justify his permanent isolation from the community. I believe he is, and the cases here reported are fair representatives of that class. Another problem which presents itself is: “Where shall we put the incorrigible criminal?” If we agree that he owes his criminality to causes over which he has no control and that the crime here is the outgrowth of a degenerative personality, a personality which is distinctly abnormal, it would seem that he belongs in a hospital rather than a penal institution, but is this unequivocally so? It is unquestionably true that these individuals are abnormal, that without actually being insane they evidence from their earliest childhood a more or less distinct deviation from the normal; they may therefore be considered as “border-line cases,” i.e., cases which deviate from normal man and incline toward the insane through numerous gradations. As soon, however, as their abnormality manifests itself in distinct incorrigible antisocial tendencies, the right of society to protect itself from such an element must be considered. When free from actual psychotic manifestations (which very easily engraft themselves upon this degenerative soil) these individuals do not belong in a hospital for the insane. Here they serve only as a very troublesome and disturbing element, and wield an undesirable influence over many easily impressionable insane patients. They do not belong in a general penal institution because of the very deleterious influence they exert on the accidental but uncorrupted convict with whom they come in close contact in these institutions. It is my opinion that these individuals, forming as they do a distinct species of humanity, should be segregated into colonies especially designed for them, where under proper medical supervision, they should be made to earn their subsistence by means of some useful occupation. It is very obvious that an indeterminate sentence is the only rational way of approach to this problem and this should be supplemented by the vesting of the parole power in the hands of a board composed, not exclusively of members of the legal profession, but largely of physicians, and particularly those trained in psychopathology.

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.

We cannot, however, arrive at a proper conception of the nature of a juvenile offender by merely studying a cross section of him at any given moment of his life. In order to understand man, especially abnormal man, we must study him in a longitudinal section; we must note his mode of reaction to experiences in everyday life, under all manner of conditions and circumstances; we must investigate the motives and desires which prompt his conduct; we must find out how effectually he adapts himself to the environment in which he happens to be placed and in how far he is able to modify the world about him so as to make it subservient to his needs and wants. The same problems which confront criminology today, psychiatry had to face some years ago. In order to be able to rationally and scientifically deal with the insane the psychiatrist found it essential to establish certain criteria which might enable him to tell, with some degree of certainty, what the future life of a given insane person will be. In the last analysis it is this same thing which we are aiming to attain in our dealings with the criminal. The problem which is constantly before us in dealing with juvenile delinquency is what might be expected of the future life of the juvenile under consideration and what must be done towards directing his future into proper channels. So, after all, it should be our aim to establish certain criteria by means of which we should be able to render a proper prognosis. That we possess no such criteria at present can be denied by no one.

As I have already stated, psychiatry had to face the same problems. With the advent, however, of the Kraepelinian school these have in a great measure been solved. Kraepelin, by studying the entire life history of his patients, was able to show that certain disease pictures when studied in cross section may simulate one another very closely clinically and at the same time be of the most diverse significance prognostically. He further showed that certain acute psychotic disturbances are merely the outward expressions of an underlying progressive disorder, and though the acute manifestations may disappear and leave no apparent trace behind them, the great majority of these individuals will spend the rest of their lives in institutions for the insane. By calling attention to certain symptom-complexes, which are especially characteristic of certain mental disorders, he gave us the means by which we are able at the present time to predict with a fair degree of certainty what the future life of a given patient will be. We can now tell without great fear of contradiction which of our patients are going to spend the rest of their lives in institutions.

Now, criminality is generally conceded to be an expression of a diseased personality and there is no reason why the same principles which served to advance our knowledge of psychiatry should not be employed here.

In the foregoing study we aimed to carry out these principles, but we believe that better results still could be obtained at the hands of a trained psychiatrist right at the penitentiary. The reasons for this are quite obvious. The relationship between prisoner and physician would then be quite a different one, the data could be more readily verified with the assistance of the machinery of the law, and the subjects would be in a more accessible mood than when suffering from a mental disorder. As a matter of fact the best work thus far done on the mentality and disorders of mentality of prisoners was done by a prison physician, Dr. Siefert, of Halle.

Thus we see that the question of the degenerative prison psychoses has an important relation to the question of criminology in general.

This becomes at once apparent, if we accept the contention of many authorities that the degenerative soil which makes the development of these psychoses possible, is likewise responsible for the criminality of these individuals; in other words,—if we agree that crime and psychosis are here branches of the same tree. Manifestly any discussion of the treatment of these psychoses must of necessity touch upon the vastly broader problem of the treatment of the habitual criminal, the recidivist, and therefore a slight digression from the subject at hand will be unavoidable.

If we admit that it is the prison environment which serves to bring out the prison psychosis, it is perfectly evident that the first therapeutic indication is the removal of the prisoner from that environment as soon as the disorder is recognized. This problem is at present dealt with in several ways. There are certain penal institutions, especially in Europe, which have within their walls a psychiatric department for the reception of these cases. Others send their insane convicts to the criminal department of some hospital for the insane. In this country there are States in which still a third system is in vogue, namely, the confinement of these cases in special hospitals