Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  delinquent
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Predictions of recidivism may be formulated solely in categories of probability. In predicting human behaviour it is impossible to take account and to control all factors that influence it. Causal relationships and the general laws that explain it are still largely unknown and generally the data available on the subject are incomplete. It is therefore necessary to expect that there may be disagreement between predicted and actual behaviour. Predictions of recidivism may be formulated solely in categories of probability. In predicting human behaviour it is impossible to take account and to control all factors that influence it. Causal relationships and the general laws that explain it are still largely unknown and generally the data available on the subject are incomplete. It is therefore necessary to expect that there may be disagreement between predicted and actual behaviour. Nonetheless, despite these reservations, individual predictions of recidivism of juvenile delinquents are to all practical purposes a constant factor in the decisions of the law courts. The essential problem therefore is not whether it is possible to make individual predictions, where there is always a chance of error, but how to arrive at predictions a large proportion of which will be correct. Literature in the field of criminology devoted to this subject distinguishes the statistical and clinical methodes of prediction. These two methods were studied by the Department of Criminology of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The object of the study was to investigate a number of questions that were raised by research conducted in other countries on the Department's own empirical material.Below are given the problems related to the subject of clinical predictions: 1. Since clinical predictions play an important role in present practice it was advisable to learn to what extent the predictions made in our study were correct as regards juvenile recidivism. 2. It was equally important to discover how a given prediction was justified, what factors are considered significant in predictions made in individual cases. 3. It was resolved to make a study of the subjective aspects of clinical predictions: whether persons who received the same education and professional training tend to make the same predictions regarding the same juveniles? Whether predictions made by different persons for two groups of juveniles will prove to be accurate in the same extent? Problems of statistical predictions were related to the following questions: 1. Whether the predictive factors established in the projects carried out in other countries have any bearing in the predictions relating to juvenile delinquents in Poland? 2. It was resolved that predictive factors found in one group would be incorporated into the experimental prediction table and used in making predictions for another group. It was further resolved to check-up on the correctness of the predictions. In constructing the experimental prediction table the goal was not to construct a table designed for practical use but on the basis of our own experiments to identify the problems that arise when using a prediction table. 3. Special importance was attached to a careful analysis of cases where the predictions made with the aid of the table were incorrect. The research planned according to these guidelines was conducted in two stages. In the first stage clinical predictions were made and experimental prediction table was constructed for a representative sample of 15 and 16 year old recidivists of Warsaw. In the second stage data was tested on a new sample of 15 and 16 year old recidivists and instances were analyzed where the statistical predictions proved incorrect. The initial research embraced 100 recidivists of 15 and 16 years of age out of 202 recidivists, of the entife population of juvenile recidivists who in 1954 came before the juvenile court of Warsaw on charges of larceny and who were embraced by earlier research on juvenile recidivism conducted by the Department of Criminology. The earlier research yielded data on the after-conduct of the recidivists studied that covered a span of three years. It was established that 51 per cent of them commited offences in the follow-up period. First of all the clinical predictions on the 100 recidivists were based on the findings of environmental as well as psychological and medical examinations and without knowledge of the findings of the follow-up studies. Two psychologists who had experience in criminological studies made predictions for each of the 100 recidivists. The psychologists were not in touch with each other and did not estabiish joint criteria beforehand. Good behaviour was predicted if it was assumed that the recidivist would not commit any offences in the future, bad predictions were made if the feeling was that he could commit offences and uncertain if no definite decision was reached. If the two psychologists differed in their predictions they would discuss the subject and try to arrive at a consensus. The predictions made in this manner shaped up as follows: 18 per cent were good, 57 per cent bad and 25 per cent uncertain. There was a significant statistical relationship between the predictions and the commission or non-commission of offences in the course of the next three years by the 100 recidivists studied that may be expressed by a level of significance of p < 0.001. The bad predictions were correct in 70 per cent of the cases, the good in 83 per cent. Thus an overwhelming proportion of the predictions was correct and the proportiorr of uncertain predictions (25 per cent) inconsiderable. The problem arises what part do subjective factors play in the clinical predictions made by two different persons? Two separate predictions regarding the same juvenile agreed in 70 per cent of the cases. Greater agreement was found in the bad predictions (77 per cent) than in the uncertain (60 per cent) and the good (61 per cent) predictions. Moreover, there were large differences in the reasons given for the predictions issued to the same individual. The two psychologists frequently listed different factors in arriving at the same decisions. A great many factors were listed as reasons for the predictions which, based on an analysis of data relating to the individual cases, seemed to bear significantly upon the predictions regarding the juveniles studied. Among those mentioned were envinonmental factors, personality traits, demonstration of antisocial behaviour and information about the offences committed. The next step in the first stage of the project focused on statistical predictions. A study was made of the relationship between 23 factors and the behaviour of the 100 recidivists of 15 and 16 years of age under study over a span of three years. Account was taken of factors which were found significant in the prediction of juvenile recidivism by the research conducted in other countries and of factors which were seemed significant to the problem in the study of juvenile recidivism in Poland. It was established that a significant statistical relationship existed between the following factors and the continued antisocial behaviour of the subjects under study: 1) early age (below 11) of the onset of symptoms of demoralization, 2) early age of onset of antisocial behaviour (below 13), 3) persistent stealing, 4) membership in a group of delinquents or keeping bad company, 5) personality disorders, 6) drinking, 7) running away from home, B) Iack of schooling or work. The findings indicate that the early age of the onset of antisocial behaviour and the far-gone demoralization of the juvenile are important factors in predicting recidivism. However, no relationship was found, and this seemed strange and called for explanation, between recidivism and any of the factors that characterized the family environment. This contrasted with the findings of the previous study that embraced all the juvenile recidivists between the ages of 8 and. 16. The oldest of these were included in the present study. In order to find an explanation for the disparity an additional study, one that was not initially planned, was made of the 28 factors and their relationship to recidivism that continued over a period of three years among the youngest of the recidivists studied at an earlier time in the Department of Criminology. Toward this end 68 of the youngest subjects between the ages of 8 and 13 were isolated from the whole population of recidivists ranging from 8 to 16 years of age. It was found that the following factors had a statistically significant relationship with continued recidivism in the younger age group: 1) alcoholism in the family, 2) the home atmosphere, 3) lack of supervision by parents, 4) systematic truancy, b) early age of first symptoms of demoralization, 6) early age of first offences, 7) membership in a delinquent group, B) personaiitv disorders. Consequently, a slighty different set of factors ought to be taken into account when making predictions for younger recidivists. Environmental factors of the home are far more significant in predictions for younger delinquents. In older delinquents it was totally immaterial whether they came from a good or a bad home environment as far as predictions were concerned. A good home which had failed to guard a child of up to 15 and 16 years of age from becoming a delinquent couId handły guard the child against recidivism. In younger delinquents a good lamily atmosphere, excellent supervision, absence of alcoholism all are positive predictive factors. Younger juveniles are still highly responsive to the influence of the home and careful supervision may guard them against further demoralization. Our research substantiated the thesis that research on the prediction of juvenile recidivism ought to be conducted separately for narrow and strictly defined age levels. The age of the subject at the time the prediction is made is an important factor that must be kept in view.
EN
The article discusses the extent and trends of juvenile delinquency in the US and Poland. The text also deals with various types of statistics and databases that we can use when describing the phenomenon of crime. Despite different demographic trends, in both countries we are observing a downward trend in the broadly understood juvenile delinquency, which is considered to be the aggregate of delinquent acts  and status offenses. In the USA, in 1980-2017 the number of arrests decreased by 59.8%, while in Poland the decrease in the number of delinquents - taking into account the period 2000-2018 - amounted to 30%. The most significant impact on the decreasing level of juvenile delinquency in both countries had a decrease in the number of property crimes.
PL
W artykule omówiono rozmiary, strukturę i dynamikę przestępczości nieletnich w USA oraz Polsce. Tekst traktuje również o różnych rodzajach statystyk oraz bazach danych, z których możemy korzystać, gdy dokonujemy opisu zjawiska przestępczości. Pomimo odmiennych tendencji demograficznych, w obu krajach mamy do czynienia z trendem spadkowym w zakresie szeroko pojętej przestępczości nieletnich, za którą uważa się liczone łącznie czyny karalne, jak i przejawy demoralizacji (w USA status offenses). W USA w latach 1980-2017 liczba zatrzymań nieletnich obniżyła się o 59,8%, zaś w Polsce spadek liczby podsądnych – biorąc za okres analizy lata 2000-2018 - wyniósł 30%. Najbardziej istotny wpływ na obniżający się poziom przestępczości nieletnich w obu krajach miał spadek liczby przestępstw przeciwko mieniu.
EN
       1. The study discussed in the present paper is a continuation of the research on extent and determinants of social maladjustment among schoolchildren in Warsaw elementary schools, which was conducted in the years 1976-1979. Over 600 classes (grade III-VIII) were then examined, which makes the total numer of 17,662 children aged 9-16. Teachers indicated children who revealed symptoms of social maladjustment (such as regular truancy, many-hours loitering around the streets without control, running away from home, stealing, frequenting company of demoralized colleagues, drinking alcohol, sexual demoralization, vandalism and frequent aggressive behaviour). 885 boys (which makes 10 per cent of all schoolboys included in the study) and 220 girls (2.7 per cent of all girls) were found to reveal these children, which included information as to the child’s family environment, school situation, school failures, behaviour, health, and symptoms of social maladjustment.        From this general popuration of 885 schoolboys who revealed symptoms of social maladjustment, a group of 262 boys was separated  whose symptoms were particularly intense and cumulated. This group then underwent a detailed individual examination.       As a control group to match this group of 262 boys whose symptoms of social maladjustment were cumulated and intense, 151 boys were drawn by lot from among those of all schoolboys who had not been mentioned by the teachers as children who reveal symptoms of social maladjustment, and who were classmates of the socially maladjusted boys. The control group underwent the same individual examination.       2. At the stage of the study presented in the present paper the aim was to answer the following questions:                                                                                                                                                                      - how many of the schoolchildren indicated by the teachers because of various symptoms of social maladjustment had cases in court before they were included in the study.                                                  – how many of them  had cases in court during the five years of follow-up study.                                       – what was the total number of children who had ever had cases in court and what was the intensity of their criminal careers.                                                                                                                                              –is there any difference between the socially maladjusted schoolchildren who had cases in court and those with a clean record, as regards any features of their  family environment or the kind of symptoms of social maladjustment, which caused  them to be included in the study. Is there any difference between them as regards their school failure or the results of psychological examination.       In order to answer these questions, in mid 1982 it was checked if the children indicated as socially maladjusted had cases in court as juveniles or as young adults (aged 17 and over). The examined persons were then aged 15-23. The cases of persons concerning whom it was impossible to obtain data, as to their criminal record were excluded from the analysis therefore, finally the examined population consisted of 859 boys and 220 girls.        3. At the moment when the examined schoolchildren were indicated by the teachers as revealing symptoms of social maladjustment, 6.9 per cent of the socially maladjusted boys and 3.7 pet cent of  the girls had criminal cases in family courts.  A considerable majority of these children (5.1 per cent of the boys and all girls, 3.7 per cent) had only one case in court. The cases occurred generally at the age 14-16. The number of children who had had cases of care and protection during anamnesis is comparatively large: 5.5 per cent of boys and as many as 16.3 per cent of girls.       The examination of the schoolchildren's further criminal careers during the following 5 years produced the following results:                                                                                                                              - 20.9 per cent of boy  were convicted by courts within that period (10.2 per cent had cases in family courts, 5.7 per cent- in ordinary courts, 5 per cent- both in family and in ordinary courts).                         - 4 per cent of girls were convicted (3.6 per cent by family courts, 0.4 per cent by  ordinary courts).           It should be added that on account of the age, only 629 boys and 178 girls could have had cases in ordinary courts. Among them, 14.8 per cent of boys and one girl were convicted. The percentage is high, as part of those who „could have had cases" were only 17 years old, the probability of their conviction being  thus minimal.           25.7 per cent of boys convicted by ordinary court committed aggressive acts, while 70.7 per cent were convicted only for offences against property.       When the entire examined  period (anamnesis and follow-up period) is discussed together, it appears that every fourth boy (23.4 per cent) and every thirteenth girl among all socially maladjusted children were delinquent. This result certifies to the generally known difference between the extents of delinquency of boys and girls. However,  the represented proportion changes diametrically if one takes into account not only criminal cases, but also those of care and protection. 12.2 per cent of boys and as many as 25.4 per cent of girls had cases of care and  protection in family courts. There were  26.4 per cent  of socially maladjusted boys and 28.6 per cent of girls who had cases in family courts (criminal and care and protection together). The high percentage of girls who had  cases of care and protection may be connected to their worse family  situation which demanded intervention, as well as with the fact, that girls revealed  symptoms of sexual demoralization more frequently than boys (as many as 1/5 of socially maladjusted girls in grade VIII); these  symptoms awoke concern of the adult and may induce them to seek intervention of a court. Such symptoms, not being offences, may only be a reason for instituting tutelar proceedings.       Another problem was also examined, that is of the features of the examined persons and of their  family environment (as revealed by the questionnaires  filled in by the  teachers) which would differentiate the delinquent boys from those who had never been convicted. The delinquent boys were found to live in worse family backgrounds, in which criminality of parents or siblings or alcoholism of the father  occurred more frequently.  Instead, the delinquent boys were not found to live more frequently in broken homes or separately from their  parents. The delinquent boys were more socially maladjusted than those never convicted: they revealed a greater numer of symptoms of social maladjustment, their teachers informed more frequently of threir thefts, drinking, contacts with demoralized colleagues, and truancy. Instead, the delinquent boys were not described by the teachers as fighting with their schoolmates „often” and „very often”  more frequently than those never convicted.  It may be that such a description of a child by the teacher was unreliable;  the boy's aggressive behaviour may have been  a temporary phenomenon, resulting from actual  social situation; aggressiveness revealed at school may have been separate from the entire syndrome of social maladjustment. However, at the present stage of the study we are not in a position to take up any attitude towards these possible explanations. Neither the many-hours loitering around the streets was found to significantly differentiate the delinquent boys from those never convicted. This results from the fact that loitering is a typical way of spending time of the considerable majority of socially maladjusted boys, therefore it does not differentiate those who were convicted from the others.         4. In the group of 262 individually examined boys who revealed intense and cumulated symptoms of social maladjustment, the extent of delinquency appeared to be larger than in the entire population of 885 socially maladjusted schoolboys from which this group has been selected. During anamnesis, 32 per cent of boys had criminal cases in family courts; 78.9 per cent of them had only one case, 18.3 per cent had two cases, and 2.8 per cent -three or more cases. During the follow-up period, 28.2 per cent of the examined boys had cases in court, including 14.1 per cent who had cases in family courts only, 7.6 per cent who had cases in ordinary courts only, and 6.5 per cent who had cases both in family and in ordinary courts. Within the whole of the examined period (both anamnesis and follow-up period), nearly half of the examined boys were convicted: 29.4 per cent  had cases in family courts only, 5.3 per cent- in ordinary courts only, and 14.1 per cent-both in family and in ordinary courts. Therefore, every second  boy from the group with intense and cumulated symptoms of social maladjustment had cases in court within the examined period, while every fourth one from the entire population had been convicted.        Poor material and housing conditions of the family, insufficient care of children, broken home and bad conjugal life of the parents were not found to be significantly connected with the delinquency of the examined boys. Instead, a correlation of statistical significance was found between delinquency and excessive drinking of the fathers, their own criminal records and periods of imprisonment, as well as between the sons' delinquency and the lack of elementary education of the parents.        On the other hand, no difference was found between delinquents and non-delinquents as regards the teachers' estimation of their intelligence level and learning difficulties pointed out by their mothers and themselves. None of the biopsychical variables taken into account in the study was found to differentiate both groups: lowered level of intelligence, eyesight defect, hearing defect,  disturbances of speech, dyslexia, probable past lesions of the central nervous system, troubles with concentration, very slow rate of working. Persisting neurotic symptoms. Indeed, these factors were present rather more frequently among the non-delinquent boys, distinctly connected with their learning problems and school failures. On the other hand, delinquents actually repeated classes more frequently than non-delinquents, got bad marks in various subjects, and their learning progress was estimated as worse by the teachers. Delinquent boys more frequently behaved badly at school beginning from the lowest standards, they played truant from various lessons, were disobedient and disturbed the course of the lessons, had lower marks for behaviour and stated that they did not like school.        The socially maladjusted delinquents used to spend time in company of friends older than themselves more often than the non-delinquent boys; they themselves described those friends as badly behaved and drinking alcohol. They were also substantially more often connected with groups of juvenile delinquents according to the teachers' opinion. They revealed a considerably larger intensity of symptoms of social maladjustment. Among these symptoms, only the frequency of aggressive behaviour failed to differentiate the delinquent and non-delinquent boys, which means that as regards the individually examined group,  the result concerning the entire population was confirmed.         Therefore, the delinquency of the examined persons was related to the greater intensity of their social maladjustment, to their negative family environment and their school situation connected not only with objective learning difficulties but also with the child's reluctant attitude towards school and teachers, and with the teachers' disfavourable opinion of his learning progress and behaviour.        It is also worth mentioning that in the control group of 151 schoolboys who were not indicated by the teachers as revealing symptoms of social maladjustment, only one person was found who had been convicted by court during the entire examined period.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.