CHAPTER VI
DELINQUENCY
Among the duties assigned to the division psychiatrist wasthat of cooperating with judge advocates for the purpose of establishing inevery division a method of treatment of delinquents similar to that insuccessful operation at the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks. As a resultof this, many cases of mental diseases were discovered among delinquents and thecharges against them either were dropped and discharged on disability initiated,or, if the case was tried and sentence imposed, the findings of the court wereapproved, including discharge, and the confinement was omitted.
As in civil life, so in the Army, especially in such offensesas stealing, absence without leave, desertion, and persistent failure to obeyorders, a certain proportion of offenders are mentally defective or mentally illto such a degree that they can not reasonably be held responsible for theirdelinquencies. In such cases punishment is not effective; and by consigningirresponsible persons to prison for long terms, the Government is put toneedless expense, the possibility of treatment is lost, and great injustice maybe done individuals. For example, during the summer of 1918 the commandingofficer of one of the camps in the United States was facing serious difficultieson the charges of neglect of duty about to be brought by the Inspector Generalof the Army. He had been frequently absent from his post, was lax in theenforcement of discipline, did not have the details of his command well in hand,organized an excessive number of entertainments, etc. Examination by apsychiatrist revealed a mild manic state, and upon the psychiatrist's reportthe charges were dropped and sick leave of six months was granted, at theexpiration of which this officer had made a perfect recovery. Had a psychiatristnot been available, the matter would have ended quite differently, as the mentalsymptoms were not sufficiently pronounced to have justified the dropping of thecharges, except on the recommendation of an expert. If the officer had beentried he would certainly have been convicted, which would have been a grossinjustice to him, and would have postponed his recovery indefinitely.
NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARYBARRACKS, FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANS.a
At the United States Disciplinary Barracks the work of theneuropsychiatric department was not confined, as it has been in some of thecivil institutions where it has been used, to the detection of gross mentalabnormality. On the contrary, the neuropsychiatric department was coordinatedwith every activity in the barracks. Each prisoner was regarded as an individualhuman being, and a personality survey was essential before any program wasoutlined for the
aBased on Report to the Surgeon General of the Army of thework of the class in disciplinary psychiatry at the United StatesDisciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kans., January and February, 1919, byMaj. Herman M. Adler, M.C., Mar. 1, 1919. On file, Historical Division, S.G.O.
132
prisoner. At every change that was made in his treatment,whether it was the granting of privileges, transfer to other living conditions,employment, education, release, or reinstatement in the Army, theneuropsychiatric officers were first called upon to examine into the facts andto make recommendations based upon the tendencies and the requirements of theindividual prisoner. Many mistakes were made in this, and as a result, no doubt,justice was not always meted out; but taken as a whole the work of theseofficers justified itself in view of the fact that the disciplinary barrackswere able somehow to weather the storm of war and all the bad conditionssuggested above.
Many features of the psychiatric and sociological departmentof the Fort Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks combined to make it an excellentplace where trained psychiatrists could be fitted for their military duties.Psychiatrists there were kept in close touch with the battalion, learned paperwork, became familiar with courts-martial proceedings, and had the mostfavorable opportunities for studying the reactions of the psychopathicpersonality to the military environment. Though the facilities there were notsufficient to provide an education in psychiatry, they were unsurpassed as faras the military-legal features of psychiatry were concerned.
After a complete survey of the three Army disciplinarybarracks and the conditions at some of the large camps and posts, it was decidedto proceed with plans already developed in the Surgeon General's Office fortraining psychiatrists for the Army. That part of the training which dealt withdisciplinary features was assigned to the United States Disciplinary Barracks,Fort Leavenworth.
The work of this course began on January 1 and concludedon March 1, 1919. The program for the course consisted of two main parts: First,formal instruction; second, practical work.
The formal instruction consisted of lectures given daily,except Saturdays and Sundays, which covered the entire field of psychiatry,delinquency, and crime, the causes of delinquency, manifestations ofdelinquency, the management of delinquents while awaiting trial in guardhousesand after sentences in the disciplinary barracks, education and training ofdelinquents, the restoration to duty of delinquents, parole and aftercare.Special attention was paid to the methods employed by the civil authorities aswell as military authorities. Lectures were given on police work, on crimetreatment in civil courts, jails, and penitentiaries, the principles ofinstitutional management, and the various phases of expert testimony andreports. Daily clinics were held at which presentation of cases was made.
SURVEY OF PRISONERS
The practical work consisted in a survey of the prisoners.This survey had a twofold application. In the first place, it served as a meansof acquainting the officers with the variety of problems presented by theprisoners and gave them training in the proper methods of examination and inthe formulating of recommendations based upon the findings in the individualcases. In the second place, it procured for the Army a considerable amount ofexact information in regard to the prisoners at the institution and in regardto certain
133
problems of a general nature connected with the disciplinaryproblem as a whole. The survey was conducted as follows:
The prisoners were brought to the examination room in groupsof about 300. They were then given the group psychologicalexaminations and their mental rating determined. This having been done, theprisoners were assigned to the psychiatric officers. At the time of eachexamination the psychiatric officer had before him the complete record made bythe department of psychiatry and sociology, including the history, physical andmental examination, educational record, industrial record, and the entirecorrespondence in regard to the prisoner, as well as the records of theexecutive officer that contained information as to the prisoner's conductwhile in the disciplinary barracks. The psychiatric officer then examined theprisoner in regard to certain traits of personality. The traits of personalityused in this examination were selected with no idea of making a completeinventory of each personality, but rather for the purpose of obtaininginformation in regard to the salient or decisive traits as related to thebehavior and to the difficulties and successes of the prisoners. An attempt wasthen made to classify each prisoner according to the principal personalityfactors that appeared to underlie his social difficulties.
The information on the cards was arranged in three groups.First, information in regard to the physical and mental make-up of theindividual. Second, information in regard to environmental opportunities of eachindividual. Third, information in regard to the success or failure of theindividual availing himself of such personal or environmental advantages as hemight possess.
Of the 3,000 prisoners examined, 436 belonged to the group ofconscientious objectors. On account of the special interest attaching to thisgroup, they were kept separate in the analyses.
INTELLIGENCE RECORD
This was performed by the psychological officers according tothe methods followed in the examination of the Army.
REPORT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS
GROUP EXAMINATIONS
The alpha and beta psychological group tests were givento 2,968 men. The distribution of the grades received by these men is shownbelow, together with some figures for the sake of comparison. The results areexpressed in percentages.
| A | B |
| C | C- | D | D- |
United States Disciplinary Barracks | 5.5 | 9.2 | 16.2 | 24.6 | 20.2 | 15.6 | 8.3 |
Camp Lee, August white draft | 3.8 | 6.8 | 12.5 | 22.0 | 21.7 | 17.1 | 16.1 |
Normal company | 5.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 30.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 5.0 |
It is apparent from the above data that the prisoners were a little better than the August draft at Camp Lee and only slightly below the theoretical normal company. It is also apparent that the prisoners were about an average group as regards intelligence.
134
INDIVIDUAL EXAMINATIONS
Of the 247 men receiving D- grades in the group tests, 171 were givenindividual examinations. The results of these tests are as follows:
| C |
| D | E | Total |
Stanford-Binet | 2 | 11 | 29 | 80 | 122 |
Performance | 0 | 1 | 12 | 36 | 49 |
| Total | 2 | 12 | 41 | 116 | 171 |
Per cent | 1.2 | 7.1 | 24.1 | 64.4 | --- |
On the basis of these figures it appears that about 5 per cent only of the men in the institution were of such low mentality that it was considered likely that they would have been rejected from the draft had they been examined at the time of their entrance into the Army.
INTELLIGENCE RATINGS IN THE VARIOUS CRIME GROUPS
For the purpose of this study the crimes for which the men were sentenced tothe institution were divided into the following groups:
A. Crimes of acquisitiveness, as larcency, robbery, forgery, fraud, etc.
S. Sex crimes of all descriptions.
P. Crimes of violence, such as assault, fighting, and murder.
M. Purely military crimes, such as absence without leave, desertion, escape,sleeping on post, drunk on post, discredit to uniform, and allowing escape ofprisoners.
G. Military crimes of an aggressive nature, such as disrespect to officer,mutiny, disobedience of orders, and insubordination.
D. Disloyalty, disloyal statements, disrespect to the United States.
R. Conscientious objectors of the religious type.
K. Conscientious objectors of the political type.
Q. Conscientious objectors because of being alien enemies, of having alienenemy relatives, of noncitizenship, and other like draft irregularities.
This classification was made after considerable study of the data at hand,including past reports of the institution and the personnel cards. Theidentification and grouping of the conscientious objectors which was used inthis study was followed as a part of the personnel survey also.
The records of 2,416 men make up the data of this study. The cases were takenat random just as they came up for examination. The results obtained wereconsidered to present a good picture of the whole group of prisoners.
As some of the men had not yet been given the individual examination at thetime when this study was made they were put in the table in a D- group. Itwas anticipated that about a third of these men would raise their grades uponfurther examination, while the rest would be rated E.
In the following table all figures except those in the columns headed"Totals" express percentages.
The regular prisoners and the men in the disciplinary battalion are tabulatedin separate groups.
135
|
|
|
|
|
|
| D | D- |
|
| ||
| A (regular) | 8.2 | 12.8 | 24.8 | 28.2 | 16.6 | 9.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 320 | ||
| A (battalion) | 19.0 | 19.0 | 33.3 | 19.0 | 9.5 | .0 | .0 | .0 | 21 | ||
| P (regular) | .0 | 9.5 | 14.3 | 24.0 | 29.0 | 19.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 42 | ||
| P (battalion) | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 50.0 | .0 | 20.0 | .0 | .0 | 10 | ||
| S (regular) | 5.8 | 26.4 | 11.0 | 42.2 | 11.0 | 5.3 | .0 | .0 | 19 | ||
| S (battalion) | --- | a50.0 | --- | a50.0 | --- | --- | --- | --- | 2 | ||
| G (regular) | 4.7 | 3.1 | 12.5 | 28.2 | 21.6 | 20.2 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 128 | ||
| G (battalion) | 7.4 | 7.4 | 18.5 | 33.3 | 14.8 | 11.1 | .0 | 7.4 | 27 | ||
| M (regular) | 4.0 | 8.6 | 13.5 | 26.3 | 21.6 | 19.7 | 2.8 | 4.5 | 1,071 | ||
| M (battalion) | 4 .3 | 8 8 | 15.7 | 29.6 | 25.6 | 14.7 | .6 | .6 | 305 | ||
| D (regular).... | 12.5 | 18.9 | 15.7 | 34.8 | .0 | 6.2 | 3.1 | 9.4 | 32 | ||
| D (battalion) | --- | --- | --- | b50.0 | b50.0 | --- | --- | --- | 2 | ||
| R | 12.8 | 51.1 | 26.5 | 27.0 | 13.7 | 4.1 | .1 | .0 | 218 | ||
| K | 39.3 | 13.2 | 20.2 | 9.5 | 10.7 | 7.1 | .0 | .0 | 84 | ||
| Q | 1.5 | 2.2 | 8.1 | 15.5 | 21.2 | 37.0 | 4.5 | 10.6 | 135 | ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.2 |
|
a1 case.
b1 case each.
In the above tabulation the following significant facts arenoteworthy: (1) The men in the disciplinary battalion were in general a littleabove the regular prisoners in intelligence. However, this superiority was veryslight and is perhaps not significant in view of the fact that the number ofcases in the battalion was small. (2) The men sentenced for the acquisitivecrimes (Group A) were rather decidedly above the average and above most of theother groups. (3) The conscientious objectors of the religious andpolitical groups were high grade men very markedly above the average of thewhole group. This superiority was especially noticeable in the case of thepolitical objectors. (4) The men classed as conscientious objectors because ofbeing alien enemies, having alien enemy relatives, etc. (Group Q), weredecidedly low in intelligence. This seemed to be the one group in theinstitution whose troubles might have been ascribed to low mentality. (5) Themen who committed aggressive crimes of a military nature, who were disobedientto orders, disrespectful to officers, etc., were somewhat below the averagementally. On the other hand, the men whose aggressiveness amounted to disloyaltywere considerably better than the average group, as less than 20 per cent ofthem fell below C.
As a supplement to the above, a special study was made of theconscientious objectors who had continually refused to do any work. Of these,six refused to take the examination. The records made by the others are givenbelow.
|
| B | C+ | C | C- | D | D- | E | Total |
Religious | 10.0 | 25.0 | 15.0 | 20.0 | 20.0 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0 | 20 |
Political | 59.0 | 5.9 | 11.7 | .0 | 11.7 | 11.7 | .0 | 0 | 17 |
|
| 32.6 | 16.4 | 13.5 | 10.8 | 16.4 | 8.3 | 2.7 | 0 | 37 |
The examinations indicated to those conducting this study that the intelligence had little, if anything, to do with the fact that a man was confined in the disciplinary barracks. The distribution of intelligence was found to be about the average in the normal population, with the exception of the group of conscientious objectors belonging to the alien enemy groups, who were decidedly low in intelligence. It was obvious from this that the contentions made by many that delinquents as a class contained a large percentage of morons were
136
not true in regard to the disciplinary barracks, at least.Whatever the causes for confinement in this institution, they had to be soughtfor elsewhere than in the sphere of intelligence.
In order to arrive at information bearing on this, an inquirywas made into the previous career of each individual, especially in regard tohis education and personality. On the basis of this study, the individualprisoners were classified so far as possible in three groups: Those who wererepeatedly in difficulties with their environment (1) because of an exaggeratedor excessive egocentric attitude; (2) because of an excessively unstable,emotional make-up; and (3) because of inadequacies of intellectual judgment.This classification was confined to individuals who gave repeated evidence ofone or the other personality trend. It was not an attempt to classify all humanpersonality and was, therefore, considered susceptible of failure in anapplication to individuals who had not had difficulties. It was hoped that amethod could be worked out to such an extent as to make it applicable to widergroups.
On this basis a preliminary analysis of the examinations madeshowed that out of 3,028 cases, 2,088 were classified egocentric, 724 asinadequate, and 216 as emotionally unstable. While these figures were notintended to represent an accurate analysis, they were considered, broadlyspeaking, to be a fair index of the personality make-up of the population ofthis institution.
Out of the 2,968 men examined by psychological methods, 117received a grade of E (unfit for military service).
With the methods of eliminating the mentally unfit that wereused during the mobilization of the draft army, a very large proportion of theinadequate group, that might otherwise have come in, were kept out of the Army.It was obvious that even with the most rigorous attention to detail a certainnumber of the cases of this group under most conditions would be admitted. Someof these found their way to the disciplinary barracks. In addition to thisgroup, there were others who were accepted during the period of voluntaryenlistment who had never been examined mentally until they came to thisinstitution.
In regard to the next group, that of the individuals whosedifficulties could possibly be traced to a marked emotional instability,violent passion, uncontrollable anger, and similar manifestations, it is acharacteristic of this type of individual that while he may be a serious menace,he has qualities which often, in fact as a rule, appeal to the sympathies of hisassociates. These individuals are likely to recover from their emotional upsetvery rapidly and are usually in a repentant mood and ready to make personalamends. The result is that, in general, all about them, from their fellowsoldiers to the commanding officers, are inclined to be lenient with them andto take advantage of every circumstance that will enable them to pass over theepisode as lightly as possible. Such individuals occur in every organization andoften cause difficulties, but they rarely get beyond the guardhouse and only inextreme cases find their way to the disciplinary barracks.
The very large group of egocentric personalities, on theother hand, represents a type of individuals who not only get into difficultiesbecause of their insubordination and inclination to have their own wayregardless of any
137
other circumstances save those affecting their own desires,but they manage almost invariably, as a result of their arrogant, contemptuous,and often insolent bearing, to arouse the dislike or indignation of those withwhom they are associated. These individuals always complain of injustice and notinfrequently, because of other circumstances as mentioned, with some grounds.These are the individuals who represent the most difficult problem inpersonality to any organization and especially to an organization such as theMilitary Establishment, in which the factor of personal subordination toauthority is so important. The analysis of this factor was not complete, buteven on the basis of the above figures, it was obvious that this was the majorproblem in delinquency represented by the group of prisoners at FortLeavenworth.
It was noted, in this connection, that the proportion ofegocentrics to the other types was especially large in the conscientiousobjector group. As these examinations were made by 15 different examiners and insome cases were repeated by different examiners who almost invariably agreedin the diagnosis, these figures appeared to have significance. The proportion inthe nonconscientious objector group was, egocentric, 1,657; inadequate, 666; andemotionally unstable, 211. In the conscientious objector group the proportionwas, egocentric group, 431; inadequate, 58; emotionally unstable, 5. In otherwords, the egocentric group among the nonconscientious objectors was abouttwice as large as both the other groups. Among the conscientious objectors itwas approximately seven times as large as both the other groups. It was noted,however, in this connection, that there were difficulties in the application ofthis classification to all individual cases. This was considered especially trueof the conscientious objector group, where numbers of individuals might have hadno record of previous difficulties of any serious sort before the onethat brought them to the disciplinary barracks. However, the figures in regardto previous offenses were suggestive. Out of a group of 577 sentenced to thedisciplinary barracks for disobedience of orders, 433 were conscientiousobjectors; 134 non-conscientious objectors and 235 conscientious objectors weresentenced here for their first military offense; 119 nonconscientious objectorsand 26 conscientious objectors had committed previous military offenses and 138nonconscientious objectors and 72 conscientious objectors had committedprevious civil offenses. These previous offenses were distributed as follows:Violence, 96 nonconscientious objectors, 66 conscientious objectors; fraud, 3nonconscientious objectors, 6 conscientious objectors; larceny, 27nonconscientious objectors, 11 conscientious objectors; truancy, absent withoutleave, etc., 88 nonconscientious objectors, 12 conscientious objectors; absentwithout leave and desertion group, 1,346 nonconscientious objectors and 61conscientious objectors.
Eleven of these conscientious objectors had committedprevious civil delinquencies. Regarding the nature of the previous offenses, therecords of the conscientious objectors showed 11 acts of violence, such asassault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
In regard to the definite mental diseases or psychopathicconditions in this group of 3,028 cases, 9 of the psychoses were examined, 4 ofthe psychoneuroses, 2 of the drug addictions, and 14 of the constitutionalpsychopathic states.
138
The work of the department of psychiatry and sociologyresulted in the elimination from the institution of most of the cases fallingin the psychopathic category.
The conscientious objector problem was, in the main, one ofindividualism and marked or excessive egocentric personality and, therefore,differed only in the distribution of the other types from that of the problem ofall the other prisoners. Whether treatment by custodial methods at thedisciplinary barracks was indicated, or not, depended largely upon thedetermination in each individual case as to whether the egocentric attitude wasa deep-seated, fast personality characteristic, or whether it was merely asomewhat excessive manifestation of this trait under exceptional circumstances.The latter seemed to be the case in a certain group of individuals, and thesolution of the problem therefore, so far as these were concerned, lay in theirconsideration as a social or political problem, rather than a disciplinaryproblem. In the great majority of the individuals in this institution, however,who were there because of their excessive egocentric characteristics, itappeared that this reaction was due to a fixed characteristic, not susceptibleof change to any marked degree, and requiring long and patient training toeffect any adjustment to environmental conditions. With these facts in mind, itwas considered to be extremely important to avoid any appearance of individualdiscrimination, to refrain from any act in the management of these casespreceding trial, during trial, or after sentence and commitment, that wouldcarry any appearance of justice to the invariable class of unfair treatment.It was believed that the only methods that could succeed in this class ofcases and could form the foundation of an adequate disciplinary system were themethods that were developed in the institutional treatment of the extreme formsof egocentric personality exhibited by the paranoiac and paranoid psychoses.The principle was that whatever was done was done for the benefit and the reliefof the individual suffering from the disorder, whether consciously or not.Retributive punitive treatment had been tried and discarded in this group. Itfailed for the same reasons in this other group of noninsane and nondefectivedelinquents of the egocentric personality. The basis of the treatment at theUnited States Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth was always "asquare deal" formula. It was difficult in this institution to maintain theappearance of this at all times. It was almost impossible when the institutionwas overcrowded with men suffering from classification at the hands ofcourts-martial, officers, and others who had to work under the difficulties oflife in camp or in the field.
In regard to the two other groups, the problem was a muchsimpler one. Emotionally unstable individuals, on account of their generaltendencies to arouse sympathy, had little difficulty if, by chance, they cameto this institution. In the case of inadequate individuals, the problem ofintensive training, or the education of such faculties as they had, was thechief consideration. Facilities of this institution were adequate in principleand arrangement, though somewhat overtaxed by the large population at the timethis study was made.
