Search results

1

Rozmiary recydywy u młodocianych więźniów po upływie 10 lat od ich zwolnienia z zakładów karnych

100%

Szymanowski T.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1974

|

issue VI

156-177

EN

All the young adult prisoners (17-20 years old), discussed in this work were released in Poland in 1961. In that year from 40 prisons were released a total of 6,193 young adults, of whom 1,025 (16.5%) had previous convictions, while 5,168 (83.5%) had received prison sentences for the first time after having reached the age of 17. The basic object of these follow-up studies was to establish the frequency of recidivism among young adult offenders during the 10 years following their release from prison. The overwhelming majority (894) of those who had had previous convictions were subjects of research; a sample of 1,188 prisoners without previous convictions was taken at random. Data forming the basis for dividing young adult offenders into those with prior convictions and those without, did not take into account the period when they were not yet of age, with the exception of time spent in approved schools. This is most significant, since, as was found in juvenile courts of two cities ‒ Warsaw and Łódź – a considerable percentage of those investigated had already faced trial while still juveniles: this percentage amounted among those without previous conviction to 35%; among those with previous convictions ‒ to 56%. Though these data from big city centres cannot be extrapolated in relation to those of the total of the young people studied, who also come from small towns and villages, they are nevertheless significant. When examining the extent of recidivism during the 10-year period after release, it should be borne in mind that among those with previous convictions as well as among those without previous convictions there were some who were socially maladjusted already as children and adolescents (between 10 and 16). The number of previous convictions (including also detainment in approved schools) of young adults were as follows: 79% had been once convicted, 14% ‒ twice, and 4% ‒ three times or more (as concerning the remaining 3% no accurate data were available as to the number of previous convictions). Thus almost one-fifth of those with previous convictions had already before their release in 1961 faced trial at least three times. Data related to the domicile of those investigated before they were sent to prison (released in 1961) are as follows: ‒ 57% of those without previous convictions had urban domiciles, and 43% rural; ‒ 73% of those with previous conviction had urban domiciles and 27% ‒ rural; Among the cases studied, urban residents predominate, notably among those with previous convictions. Subsequent convictions of young adult offenders were checked twice ‒ in 1967 and 1972 on the basis of their criminal records, revealing all the convictions and each prison term. After the end of the l0-year follow-up period, the average age of those investigated with and without previous convictions amounted to 30 years. After the follow-up period ‒ ten years from the time of release from prison in 1961 ‒ frequency of recidivism among former young adult prisoners amounted to: (a) 82% of those with previous convictions were convicted anew; (b) 57% of those without previous convictions were convicted again. As regards this high percentage of recidivism, it should be borne in mind that the cases studied are not representative of the total of young adult offenders but only of those who have been sentenced to imprisonment by the courts and the fact, already mentioned, that a considerable percentage of the young adults studied were socially maladjusted from childhood. Since the ten-year follow-up period was very long, it was divided into two five-year periods: 1961-1966 and 1967-1972. It was found that a very large percentage of young adult offenders were convicted in both the first and the second five years: those without previous convictions ‒ 26%, those with prior convictions ‒ 46%. As regards those convicted in the first five-year period, they account only for 23% of those without and 19% of those with previous convictions. The corrresponding percentages for those convicted in the second fiveyear period only are: 11% and 12%. If we differentiate former young adult prisoners who had no court records and those who did have them in the first five-year period, but committed no offences in the second five-year period, we find that a total of 63% of young adult offenders without and 42% with previous convictions were not convicted again after having reached the age of approximately 22-25 years. Study of the extent of recidivism during the follow-up period showed that among offenders convicted during the two five-year periods there was a marked predominance of recidivists with multiple ‒ at least four ‒ convictions: they accounted for 65% of those without and 61% of those with previous convictions. But among those convicted in only one of the five-year periods there was a predominance of those with only one or two convictions. They accounted for 65% of the relevant category of former young adult prisoners. Research among urban inhabitants without previous convictions revealed markedly more frequent recidivism (75%) than among such living in rural areas (54%). Among the group with previous convictions, 87% of those living in urban areas became recidivists and as many as 77% of those living in rural areas. Thus there exists a substantial group among young adult prisoners living in the rural areas who display a distinct tendency towards recidivism; it was, however, impossible to establish whether those formerly living in rural areas may not during the follow-up period have lived or commuted to work in towns. A remarkable tendency to recidivism was observed not only among young adult offenders who in 1961 had been in prison, after having been convicted of theft of personal property (79% of the subsequent recidivists among those without and 85% of those with previous convictions), but also among those who were convicted of theft of social property (59% and 38%), for offences against the public officials and government offices (60% and 79%), and against life and health (46% and 75%). This seems to confirm the hypothesis that a substantial percentage of those convicted of such offences, are also individuals who suffered from serious social maladjustment at an early age. The results of the present work bear out the findings of various Polish as well as foreign publications to the effect that imprisonment of young adult offenders suffering from social maladjustment is of very little effect. In view of the marked probability that the majority of these young adult offenders revealed even in childhood symptoms of social maladjustment, it is clearly advisable that prophylaxis should concentrate primarily on taking precautions to avoid the appearance of social maladjustment in children and the young.

2

Criminology versus criminal law - selected theoretical and practical aspect.

92%

Tarnacka A.

Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Finansów i Prawa w Bielsku-Białej

|

2020

|

issue 3

37-44

XX

Criminology and criminal law are two separate scientific disciplines which are mutually helpful for each other. Criminology is a practical discipline whose most important scientific method is empirical method relying solely on the statement of facts which makes it neutral from judgements and assessments. Criminal law, in turn, belongs to the category of normative sciences where the fundamental method is the legal-dogmatic method. The law is based assessment because the values adopted by law are the foundations on which moral and public order are built. As criminology and criminal law possess common research areas, criminology can serve as an auxiliary discipline for criminal law and was treated as such already at the dawn of its existence in the 19th century when it was believed that empirical sciences were to reform and improve social reality. Criminology derives from criminal law legal definitions pertaining to types of crimes and referring to their legal shape, whereas the legislation of criminal law which is grounded in reality and evolution judicature both require knowledge of criminology. Outcomes of criminological research are used for the purposes of criminal law which creates a bond between these two disciplines and this bond which supports their mutual co-existence.

3

Wykluczenie społeczne sprawców przestępstw seksualnych wobec dzieci a jego wpływ na recydywę – aspekty psychologiczne i prawn

92%

Jakubowski T., Friedrich W.

Społeczeństwo i Edukacja. Międzynarodowe Studia Humanistyczne

|

2016

|

issue 1(20)

185-199

EN

The paper deals with sex crimes against minors, focusing on the offenders and their social stigmatization. We discuss their characteristics, examining selected interpretations and classifications of the phenomenon of pedophilia. It is presented here from two perspectives, psychological and legal. First, pedophilia is presented as a complex psychiatric disorder which can cause “behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child” (DSM-V). Second, legal regulations concerning sexually-based crimes against minors are discussed as they are formulated in the Polish Criminal Code. Presenting the psychological and legal characteristics of this type of sex crime, we try to find the reasons for frequent recidivism among the offenders (stigmatization is believed to be one of them).

4

Proč měřit recidivu nebinárně?

92%

Drápal J.

Česká kriminologie (Czech Criminology)

|

2017

|

vol. 2

|

issue 2

1-11

EN

Reoffending is generally measured in a binary way: certain event (crime, arrest, conviction) has happened or not. Since the aim of any intervention is a crime reduction, which is best achieved by lowering the frequency and seriousness of crime committed, it seems to be important to consider these non-binary approaches to measuring recidivism. This is also supported by other problems, such as the process of desistence, incapacitation or evidence of chronic offenders. The article therefore discusses why binary indicators of reoffending are often preferred over the non-binary indicators, what benefits of non-binary approach there are and why it has been only rarely used by the academic community so far. This article also suggests what reasons there might have been for other researchers to use the binary indicators of reoffending. It is, however, argued that criminologists should prefer to measure reoffending in a non-binary way by incorporating the frequency and seriousness of crime into recidivism measures.

5

Empirical Analysis of the Rate of Reversion to Crime of those Given a Suspended Prison Sentence

81%

Kotowski A., Ważny A.

Internal Security

|

2013

|

vol. 5(1)

121-136

EN

In this paper the authors present an evaluation of the effectiveness of suspended prison sentences, as measured by the rate of reversion to crime in the period of probation. The study was designed so that the history of individual offenders could be traced within a large and representative research sample. The analysis begins with a presentation of quantitative data of the sample’s criminal history including that related to their suspended prison sentence. This is followed by conclusions and a summary of the empirical data. On the basis of the covariance analysis the authors conclude that suspended prison sentences have a moderate impact on the prevention of further offences by the criminal. The study was conducted by the Institute of Justice in Warsaw in 2012 using a data sample of 1894 criminal convictions. It is worth mentioning that within this study there was a maximum follow-up period of five years after the imposition of a suspended sentence. The survey also obtained initial data on the convicted criminals given the suspended sentence so it was possible to observe and assess their criminal activity even over several years. For this reason, the research may claim to be longitudinal.

6

Rozmiary recydywy u nieletnich podsądnych sprawców kradzieży

80%

Strzembosz A.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1974

|

issue VI

140-155

EN

The subject of this work are the findings of studies of the follow-up period intended to establish the further fate of 343 juvenile delinquents aged 10-16, who had been guilty of theft while still under 17. In 1961 detailed, criminological research was initiated in the Juvenile Court of Praga – one of the districts of Warsaw – (records were studied, interviews undertaken in the environs, homes and schools were conducted), which embraced all the 180 juvenile delinquents between 10-16 years, living in that district, who during the course of one year had been found guilty of theft. Further a study was made of the criminal records of 178 juvenile thieves from two other districts of Warsaw, all the juvenile delinquents who had been tried for theft by courts during the period from August 1961 to May 1962 being investigated in turn. In this way was obtained a total of 358 juvenile delinquents who had been found guilty of thefts. The idea was to find out how many of them were recidivists in the follow-up period. 33% of these juvenile delinquents were under 13 and 67% were between 13 and 16 years. The division into these two groups was justified because of the different approach of the Polish penal code to minors up to the age of 13: as regards such juvenile delinquents, the court may apply educational measures only: reprimand, supervision by parents, probation and placing in an educational institution. As regards delinquents between 14 and 16, the court may also apply correctional measures – i.e. approved schools. In the present work, the author accepts as basic criterion for defining the recidivist the fact that he has faced in a Juvenile Court a new charge of theft. The category of those not considered as recidivists includes only delinquents charged once with theft. Each juvenile delinquent who has been charged (usually by the police) a second or third time with theft already figures as a recidivist with 2, 3, 4 and more appearances in court. Moreover, it was possible during the investigations, combined with detailed interviews in the homes of the delinquents, additionally to qualify as recidivists such juvenile delinquents shown to have stolen though not brought before a court. Taking into account the variety of criteria applied to recidivists, they have been divided into the following categories: (a) first of all, formal criteria were applied: considered as recidivists were those concerning whom the court had previously applied educational and correctional measures. Here, the percentage of recidivists amounted to 37.7; (b) this percentage increased to 48.6 when considered as recidivists were all those who had been charged at least twice with theft, including those concerning whom the court had not considered it relevant to apply any new measures; (c) this percentage was still higher (61.2), when listed as recidivists were all those whom the court had found guilty of at least two thefts; (d) interviews in the environment conducted as regards 180 juvenile delinquents in a single district revealed in addition that these data too were not entirely reliable in defining recidivists. Data from interviews showed that the percentage of delinquents who had committed more than one theft amounted to as much as 78.5. It was also found that, when applying the first, formal criterion recidivists among the older delinquents (46%) were far greater in numbers than among the younger (20%). The second criterion – at least two thefts – showed that the difference between older and younger delinquents as regards the percentage of recidivism among them (82.2% 73.2%) was only slight. These data indicate that the formal criterion for recidivism, used by Juvenile Courts, does not reflect the actual extent of this phenomenon. This is the more important since, the latter, broader definition, was found to be the most satisfactory for prognostic purposes. It was established that during the two-year follow-up period a substantially larger number of juvenile delinquents previously listed, according to the first formal definition, as not being recidivists (47%), faced charges than was the case with those listed according to the second definition (17.6%). Criminological investigations – combined with interviews conducted in their families – of 180 juvenile delinquents from a single district, revealed that juvenile delinquents charged with theft are as a rule socially maladjusted children, showing the first symptoms of social maladjustment even in the first grades of primary school. With 62% symptoms of demoralization were recorded with children between 7 and 10 years of age. A typical phenomenon with these juveniles is a considerable lag in their school studies, found as regards 95% of older and 76% of younger juveniles. A lag of at least two years was found with 77% of the older and 37% of the younger individuals investigated. The majority of these systematically played truant; 37% of the younger and 70% of the older juveniles had run away from home. Only as regards 33% was it not found that they consumed alcohol; 26% drank at least once a week; 25% of the recidivists were heavy drinkers. On the basis of data obtained from mothers during interviews (and for 50% of the cases also from child guidance clinics, institutions etc.) it was possible with 60% of the older investigated delinquents to establish various types of personality disorders; 26% were suspected of having suffered organic disturbances of the central nervous system; data indicating such diseases in the past were more frequently found with recidivists (37%) than with those who were not recidivists (13%). Those investigated were for the most part brought up in an unsatisfactory family environment. It was found that in 46% of the families fathers or step-fathers systematically drank alcohol to excess; delinquency of fathers was noted in 31% of the families, and in 9% the mothers were suspected of prostitution. As many as 67% of the brothers revealed symptoms of demoralization and 47% had committed theft. Recidivists differed markedly from non-recidivists as regards such negative features, characterizing the family environment as: systematic abuse of alcohol, unhappy married life of the parents, children very poorly cared for. Of all the 358 thieves investigated, a mere one-third were as juveniles (under 17) charged only once: thus they were not recidivists according to the criteria accepted in the investigation; 21% had twice faced a court; 11% – three and 34% – four or more times had been charged before a Juvenile Court. The differentiated groups of the youngest and oldest among those we investigated did not differ markedly as regards the number of appearances in court while under age. Consideration was next given to further delinquency during the period when the investigated were young adults i.e., when they were between 17 and 20. New offences were noted during that period with 50% of the former defendants who, previously had been juveniles. It also emerged that the number of charges preferred while they were under age was of essential significance for recidivism during the period when those investigated were already young adults. Among those who had been charged only once as juveniles, only 27% were afterwards convicted between the age of 17 and 20; among those charged twice – 48%; beginning with 3 charges, the percentage of later recidivists amounted to 65.8, and with 4 and more charges – to as much as 78.7%. The number of convictions while juveniles indicates a correlation not only with the actual fact of recidivism when those concerned were still young adults, but also the intensification of recidivism between 17 and 20. The majority of those who while juveniles had only one case against them, were subsequently convicted only once. But of those who while juveniles were charged at least three times, the majority (64%) had multiple convictions between 17 and 20. Typical of offences committed by those who had been charged with theft as juveniles, continued to be theft; close on half of those investigated, however – and this should be emphasized – were convicted for offences against the person, officials or the authorities, and these as a rule were offences committed while intoxicated. One-third of the subjects spent in prison at least half of the four-year period, while they were young adults. In 1972, when the last follow-up period was studied, ten years had elapsed since the beginning of the investigation of the delinquents who had committed theft while juveniles. The younger among them were at that time 20 to 23 years old; the older – 24 to 27 (the average age being about 26 years). As regards these 243 older investigated individuals, it was possible to examine not only the period when they were young adults, but also the later period, after they were already 21 years old; this later period was in their case sufficiently to make it possible properly to evaluate whether during that time they had ceased committing offences or whether they continued to do so. Further delinquency of the older among those investigated during the period after 17 until their average age was about 26, was as follows: – It emerged that only 38% had not been convicted at all after the age of 17. The overwhelming majority of them (83%) had been charged only once or twice while under age. – 17% had been convicted only between 17 and 20, while 13% had been convicted only after 21. – 32% were convicted as young adults as weil as later after the age of 21. In this group, the majority (73%) had been charged before a court at least three times as juveniles. As regards the older among those investigated for the entire follow-up period, it was confirmed that the majority showed a correlation with what happened during their juvenility: further delinquency as well as persistent recidivism was found more frequently with those who were more frequently charged as juveniles. During the entire follow-up period, 19% of the older individuals were convicted only once, l3% – twice, and 30% – at least three times. The category with multiple convictions, recidivists convicted at least four times amounted to 20%, which certainly is a substantial figure, having regard to the relatively long prison sentences passed on those convicted two and three times. It should be added that though interviews in the environment during the follow-up period were lacking, making impossible a proper evaluation of the social adjustment of those investigated who during that period had no new convictions or were convicted only once, the data obtained enable the drawing of conclusions which are important for social policy. Note that even frorn among the investigated juveniles who were charged only once before a court, as many as 42% were later convicted after 17; this points to the necessity of a thorough examination of even apparently minor cases of theft involving those under age who previously had not been convicted. The extent of persistent recidivism revealed demonstrates the poor effectiveness of methods used as far in dealing with juvenile delinquents who revealed symptoms of marked social maladjustment.

7

Dalsze losy nieletnich i młodocianych sprawców przestępstw

70%

Batawia S., Żabczyńska E., Strzembosz A., Szymanowski T.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1974

|

issue VI

126-127

EN

Three follow-up studies were published, dealing with juvenile delinquents and young adult offenders, based on a random sample and material on: ‒ 100 boys charged with larcency, who during the period of the investigation in 1966 were barely 10-11 years old. This research concentrated in turn on all the 10-11 year-old boys charged with larcency and brought before a Juvenile Court in Warsaw; the follow-up period embraced 5 years; ‒ 358 former juveniles (10-16 years old) charged with theft in three districts of Warsaw and brought before a Juvenile Court in 1961-1962, whose further fate was investigated during the period when they were 17-20 years old and from among the same 243 former juveniles 13-16 years old, who in 1972 were already 24-27 years old; ‒ 17-20 year-old young adults released from 40 prisons throughout the country, after having served their sentences for various offences and whose subsequent recidivism was established during the course of 10 years from their release from prison in 1961. Two works, discussing the further recidivism of the juvenile delinquents, convicted for larcency obviously differ markedly regarding the age and follow-up period. The first work deals with the investigated up to the age of 15-16 only, the second also embraces the time when the former juveniles are already approximately 26 years old. However, both works unanimously emphasize the fundamental significance of early initiation of social maladjustment and demoralization for the prognosing of the rapidity and extent of recidivism. They stress the necessity to make use in practice as the only criterion for recidivism of juveniles, each new charge brought before a court and the number of times theft has been committed, being the subject of a given trial. Simultaneously these works reveal unanimously, that the majority of the juvenile delinquents charged with larcency, are brought up in families, which are unable to guarantee them the proper conditions for normal development and that in these families also many brothers of the juvenile delinquents charged with larcency revealed symptoms of social maladjustment and committed offences. The results of the studies under discussion also are unanimous as to the fact that with the majority of the juveniles could be found personality disorders. The material under discussion deserves special attention as regards the juvenile delinquents of the younger age groups. It is of great significance that many of the investigated 10‒11-year-olds charged with larcency committed theft already before. Long years of research, conducted by the Department of Criminology, Institute of Legal Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences, testify to the fact that the majority of the juvenile delinquents charged with larcency and brought before Juvenile Courts are boys who already previously committed larcency more than once. Disturbance of the socialization process with these juveniles, usually reaches back to their early childhood, requires early discovery and interference at the earliest possible time in the form of surrounding the parents, brothers and sisters of the juvenile delinquent with care and also of controlling them. The results yielded by follow-up studies of the recidivism during a period of 10 years of the 17-20 year-old young adult offenders, released from prison in 1961, concentrate on young people whose recidivism is undoubtedly connected with serious social maladjustment already during their juvenility. Obviously one cannot identify these young adults released from prison with all the 17‒20-year-old young adults convicted by courts who received various sentences. The results of the follow-up studies of the young adult prisoners should contribute to the initiation of systematic, individual research regarding young adults convicted and receiving various prison terms and to the change of certain guiding lines of the penal and penitentiary policy in regard to young adult offenders.

PL

Publikacja posiada następującą strukturę: Wstęp I. Ewa Żabczyńska: Dalsze losy 100 chłopców mających sprawy o kradzieże w wieku 10-11 lat II. Adam Strzembosz: Rozmiary recydywy u nieletnich podsądnych sprawców krażeży III. Teodor Szymanowski: Rozmiary recydywy u młodocianych więźniów po upływie 10 lat od ich zwolnienia z zakładów karnych

8

Wielokrotnie karani recydywiści w wieku 26-35 lat w świetle badań kryminologicznych

70%

Archiwum Kryminologii R.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1969

|

issue IV

7-10

9

Socio-psychological issues of resocialization of convicts to imprisonment: Domestic and international experience

70%

Yosipiv A., Kuzan H., Berezhnytska H., Boiarchuk O., Maslak N.

Polish Psychological Bulletin

|

2022

|

vol. 53

|

issue 1

10

Efektywność nadzoru ochronnego (wyniki badań 232 recydywistów poddanych nadzorowi ochronnemu)

61%

Rzeplińska I.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1983

|

issue X

55-85

EN

1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.

PL

1.The 1969 Penal Code introduced a new system of sanctions for offences committed by habitual criminals in special circumstances. Two new categories of special recidivism are here introduced: special basic recidivism (Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code), and special multi-recidivism (Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code). The legal consequences of a conviction under Art. 60, § 1 or § 2 are as follows: 1) longer terms of imprisonment, 2)the application of special measures: protective supervison and commitment to a social readaptation centre, These measures take effect after the prison sentence has been served. Under the protective supervision system, the habitual offender is free, but supervised for a period of 3-5 years. The readaptation centre is a closed institution. The habitual offender is sent there for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of five years. After two years the penitentiary court may free the recidivist if it thinks he is unlikely to commit another crime after regaining his freedom. The conditions under which a person is sent to a readaptation centre differ, according to whether he or she was sentenced under Art. 60, §1 or Art. 60, § 2 of the Penal Code. A recidivist may be sent to a readaptation centre by either the criminal court or the penitentiary courts. The decision to apply these measures may be taken at diverse stages of the juridical and penitentiary process: 1) when the sentence is pronounced (by the criminal court), 2) towards the end of the prison sentence (penitentiary court), or 3) during the period of protective supervision (penitentiary court). In the first of the three stages mentioned above, the recidivist senrenced under Art. 60, § 1 of the Penal Code may or may not be put under protective supervison. It is not obligatory. In the case of a person sentenced under § 2 of Art. 60 of the Penal Code, it is obligatory either to put him under protecive supervision or to send him to a social readaptation centre. The decision to send a recidivist to a social readaptation centre (a more severe measure) is taken only if the court is of the opinion that protective supervision would be insufficient io prevent a return to crime. In the second of the three stages mentioned above, towards the end of the recidivists's sentence the penitentiary court takes the following decisions: 1) it may put the habitual criminal under protective supervision if that was not done in the sentence of the criminal court; 2) it may alter the decision of the criminal court and put the offender under a protective supervision order instead of sending him to a social readaptation centre. The third and last stage in which decisions are taken about the application of special measures, is when the offender is actually under the supervision of a Probation Officer. If the supervision is not working out satisfactorily, the recidivist may be sent to a social readaptation centre. 2.The habitual offender is supervised by a Probation Officer after he has served his prison sentence. No person who is under protective supervision may change his place of residence without the consent of the court. He is obliged to appear in court if summoned, and to carry out the court's recommendations (Art. 63 of the Penal Code). The court may order the recidivists: 1. to perform an obligation incumbent on the sentenced person to provide support for another person; 2. to perform specified work for a social purpose; 3. to perform remunerated work, pursuing an education or preparing for an occupation; 4. to refrain from abusing alcohol; 5. to submit to medical treatment; 6. to refrain from frequenting specified surroundings or places; 7. other appropriated behaviour in the period of protective supervision, if it may prevent the commission again of an offense. During the protective supervision period, the court may issue orders, or extend or alter those already given. During the protective supervision period the recidivist comes under the supervision of a Probation Officer appointed by the court, who at the same time is responsible for organizing the resocialization of the person being supervised. Protective supervision ceases: 1 when the appointed period of probation is at an end, and when probation has been successful, 2) Or aerlier, if the person being supervised fails to carry out the orders and obligations placed on him, or if he makes it impossible or difficult for the purpose of the protective supervison order to be attained (e.g. by committing a crime when under supervision, which means that the supervision was unsuccessful, 3) owing to causes which bring supervision to an end (e.g. death of the supervised person). 3. The study reported here dealt with one of the two special measures mentioned above - protective supervision. The main problem examined is the effectiveness of protective supervision. Protective supervision is a system which has two goals: one is to keep the supervised person from committing another crime (here we may speak of the restraining function of supervision), while the other is to resocialise the person on supervision (in this case we may speak of the resocialising function of probation). The key question asked by anyone who examines the effectiveness of some penal measure is: whether, and to what extent, does it attain its aims? With this definition in mind, the effectiveness of probation was examined in two fields. In the first (narrower) field, the author asked if there had been a juridical improvement in the behaviour of persons put under supervision. In the second (wider) field, success was measured by the extent of the supervised persons resocialisation - that is, an attempt was made to find out how the supervised person functioned in society, that is, whether he kept to the basic social norms that society expects,of its members. In both fields, the moment of time when effectiveness of supervision was assessed was that at which supervision ceased. Those who successfully completed their period of probation were checked again at the end of 38 months, to see whether or not they had reverted to crime. The group studied here consisted of all male recidivists in Warsaw who were put under a protective supervision order in 1971-1972. There were 232 persons in the group. Two research techniques were used. ln the first, the relevant documents were studied (documents concerning previous criminal caces, prison documents, records of the course of protective supervision, data, about previous convictions, as well as about periods spent in penal institutions and in remand). In the second, the recidivist was interviewed on the basis of a questionnaire. 4. Out of the 232 persons investigated, 43.1 % completed the supervision period successfully, 53.3% failed to do so, and in 3.4% of the cases death intervened. In this group of recidivists who had been put under supervision the author differentiated three groups: Group I - taken as having been resocialised during the supervision period, and as having successfully completed their supervision. This group consisted of 57 men (26% of the total number studied). Group II – regarded as not having been resocialised, but that completed the probation period successfully, without ill consequences for themselves. Group II consisted of 43 men (19% of the total). Group III, consisting of men who were not resocialised, and who as a result suffered the additional ill effect of being isolated in the social readaptation centre; this group failed to complete their supervision successfully. In this group were 124 men (55% of the total). Some of the unresocialised men in Group III did not carry out any of the duties or orders given them. Some reverted to crime even although for a time they carried out their duties and orders. Some did not carry out their duties and orders, and reverted to crime. In this group the supervision system failed to fulfil the functions expected of it. With regard to those who did not carry out their obligations and orders it failed in its resocialisation function, while with regard to the others, who committed a crime while under supervision, it failed in both its functions: restraint and resocialisation. The following characteristics were found in Groups I, II and III. Group I consisted mostly of the youngest men (only one-eighth of the group were over 40). They were educated at least up to elementary school standard (approx. age 14-15). During the probation period they carried out work that called for skills. They were physically healthy. In their case the supervision period was one in which their lives were financially more stable (they had paid jobs). They also had stable family lives, and started their own a families. Of all the groups, they had the fewest convictions up to the time the probation period began. They had mainly committed offences against property, but a significant number had been gauilty of crimes of a predominantly aggressive nature. Drunkenness was not noted among them during the supervision period. The men in this group declared that after they had come out of prison and been put under protective supervision they had no special trouble in beginning life again in freedom. They also said they were pleased with life. Group II consisted of men who, judged from the formal point of view, completed their supervision period successfully. But their behaviour during supervision, and above all their heavy drinking, does not justify us in regarding them as having been resocialised. These were habitual criminals who when put under supervision were older (mostly over the age of thirty), as compared witn the men in Group I. As many as a quarter of the men in Group II were habitual criminals aged forty and over. Compared with the men in Group I, they were less well educated, and worse qualified for jobs. Among them various types of physical complaints were found, possibly because they were older, and possibly also because they had a longer career of crime. Fewer of them were married. They seemed to make little effort to achieve financial stability. During the supervision period they frequently changed their job - often because of some infringement of discipline, or because they arbitrarily threw up their job. When they began probation, they had more convictions behind them than the men in Group I. Group II had the lowest number of men who had committed serious crimes against property, or serious aggressive crimes. They were guilty mostly of petty crimes. Above all the habitual criminals in this group are the most awkward ones from the social point of view. They were the ones who mostly said they were dissatisfied with their lives. While on supervision they did not give up heavy drinking. Moreover, although ordered to take a "drying-out" cure , they did not go for treatment at all, or did so irregularly. Before their conviction they had worked irregularly, with gaps in between jobs, but during the whole supervision period they worked. Groups III: protective supervision was a failure with group. As compared with the other groups the men in this one had more previous convictions - the average number of previous convictions being nearly six. More of them, as compared with the men in the other groups, went in mainly for crimes against property; the minority went in for crimes of a predominantly aggressive character and crimes of diverse types. Half of the men in Group II came into the 21-30 age group when ,they began supervision, while the other half were older (moreover, one-seventh were habitual criminals aged over forty). Even at the beginning of supervision the men in this group were in a worse situation than the others - especially as compared with the men in Group II, for they were worse educated, and worse prepared for earning living. The majority of the men in this group were single. Only one in five was married. Their health was noticeably poorer than that of the men in the other groups. Most of the men in this group drank heavilly during the supervision period. The men here confessed that immediately after getting out of prison they had trouble in getting back to a normal life. The main obstacles were lack of money, and the difficulty in finding a job. When questioned they said that on the whole they were not happy about their lives. The majority (72.6%) had reverted to crime while on supervision. The others had been taken out of supervision because they did not carry out their obligations ot the orders or the probation officer. 6. In this study of men put under protective supervision, one in every four is reckoned to have been a success. it was noted that during the supervision period factors that made for success were: setting up a family, having a regular skilled job, and avoidance of heavy drinking. In view of the above, it is the youngest habitual criminals who have the best chance of completing their supervision period successfultry. Age is in their favour, they have a better chance of a stable family life, they are better educated, better fitted for a job, they do not show the symptoms of social degradation associated with alcoholism, Because of these factors they are more likely to be able to return to a normal life. 7. During a period of 38 months from the end of the each man's supervision period, a check was kept on whether or not these men had further convictions. The men covered by this part of the study were those in Groups I and II, that is, those who successfully completed their probation. Thirteen men from Group I and twelve men from Group II (that is, twenty-five men altogether), had subsequent convictions. They constituted 25% of the two groups. It may therefore be stated that the majority (three-quarters) of the men in Groups I and II had no convictions during the thirty-eight months following the end of their supervision period. 8. In the supervised groups studied here, we took one quarter as having been resocialised by the end of supervision, one-fifth as having at most improved formally, and over a half as not having been resocialised - in their case supervision ended in failure. On the basis of this study it may be stated that the chief criterion on which the man on supervision was judged (and on which the success of the supervision proces was judged) was whether or not he carried out the instruction to have a paid job. This was due to two reasons: in the first place, if the man was in paid employment, it mean that he was fulfilling at least the minimum of the demands made on him during the supervision period (this minimum was: to earn his own living). Secondly, it was easy for both the Probation Officer and for the man he was supervising to check whether this order was being carried out, and how. The implementation of their instructions was treated as being of less importance. The main one was to have paid employment. If the man being supervised was in a job, but failed to carry out other instructions given to him, the Probation Officers did not ask for him to be taken off supervision. At the present moment, when reform of the criminal law in Poland is under discussion, one of the problems being examined is that of the penal liability of people who revert to crime, and the question of what legal penalties should be imposed on them. It has been pointed out during this discussion that the severe legal penalties imposed on habitual criminals during the last ten years have not been effective. Consequently the question still remains open: whether we should not apply the special measures described above - protective supervision or commitment to a social readaptation centre after the prison sentence is served. What we have learned from the use of a closed institution such as a social readaptation centre shows that it is completely ineffective. As for protective supervision, it has been postulated that this way of controlling the behaviour of habitual criminals should be transferred from the sphere of penal measures to the sphere of social security measures. It has been suggested that within the framework of post penitentiary care, specific medsures to help, which would be carried out by the probation officers, would be available to habitual criminals after coming out of prison.

11

Prawo jako jeden z mechanizmów wzrostu przestępczości

61%

Płatek M.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1985

|

issue XII

37-45

12

Perspektywa efektywności w resocjalizacji

58%

Sztuka J.

Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana

|

2018

|

vol. 21

|

issue 1

85-105

PL

Weryfikacja podejmowanych działań jest najistotniejszym etapem procesu zmian. Dzieje się tak również w procesie resocjalizacji, którego celem jest powrót resocjalizowanej jednostki do społeczeństwa oraz uzyskanie takich zmian w jej zachowaniu, aby przestrzegała ona obowiązujących w nim zasad i norm oraz właściwie wypełniała przypisane jej role społeczne. Taka perspektywa zakłada szereg systemowych oraz zindywidualizowanych działań zmierzających do wyposażenia osoby resocjalizowanej w umiejętność autostymulacji do samorozwoju oraz rozwiązywania sytuacji problemowych innowacyjnie i odmiennie od dotychczasowych sposobów. Niniejszy artykuł jest próbą prezentacji bogatego dorobku opracowań oraz różnorodności podejmowanych perspektyw badawczych efektywności, która od lat stanowi przedmiot interdyscyplinarnego zainteresowania, mobilizując pedagogów do poszukiwania kryteriów ustalania jej poziomu, determinantów oraz wyjaśniania znaczenia samego pojęcia.

EN

Verification of activities undertaken is the most significant phase of the process of change. This is also applicable to the resocialization process, aimed at returning a resocialized individual to society and changing the individual’s behavior in a way to make the person observe social norms and regulations and correctly fulfill one’s social role. Such a perspective assumes the use of numerous systemic and individualized activities aimed at equipping a resocialized person with the ability to stimulate self-development and solve problematic situations in an innovative way. The following article is an attempt to present the richness of a prolific scientific study on the topic of effectiveness, which has been an object of interdisciplinary interests for years, mobilizing scholars to search for criteria that could be used to determine the level of effectiveness, its determining factors and clarify the meaning of the term itself.

13

Współczesne problemy resocjalizacji

58%

Kopczyńska-Wisz J.

Roczniki Pedagogiczne

|

2019

|

vol. 11(47)

|

issue Numer specjalny

257-270

PL

Zagadnienia dotyczące współczesnych problemów resocjalizacji wskazują, że proces resocjalizacji jest bardzo złożony. Czynniki egzogenne i endogenne w dużym stopniu utrudniają podejmowanie działań zmierzających do ponownej socjalizacji osób dotychczas niedostosowanych społecznie. Podkreślić należy, że mimo to resocjalizacja się odbywa i niejednokrotnie przynosi pożądane efekty. Osoby resocjalizujące dokładają wszelkich starań, by pomimo utrudnień, osoby, które są poddawane działaniom resocjalizacyjnym zrozumiały, że tylko życie zgodne z normami prawnymi prowadzi do rozwoju, zadowolenia i sukcesów.

EN

Issues related to contemporary problems of resocialization make us realize that the process of resocialization is very complex. Exogenous and endogenous factors make it very difficult to undertake actions aimed at re-socialization of people who have not been socially adapted to date. It should be emphasized that despite this, rehabilitation takes placeand often brings the desired results. Resocializing persons make every effort to ensure that despite impediments, people who are subjected to rehabilitation activities understand that only living in accordance with legal norms leads to development, satisfaction and successes.

14

Współuzależnienie w relacji z recydywistą

58%

Jarzębińska A.

Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana

|

2023

|

vol. 26

|

issue 3

185-206

EN

Codependency, understood as a dysfunctional and learned pattern of coping with stress, occurs in a variety of relationships, including in women living with repeat offenders. This particular context of codependency is poorly explored by researchers. The purpose of this study was to determine what features described as characteristic of codependency in a relationship with an alcoholic occur in women’s relationships with repeat offenders. The material for the study consisted of discussions in online forums in which women described their experiences of living with repeat offenders. The discussions were examined using the content analysis method. It was found that partners of repeat offenders followed behavioral scripts typical of women living with alcoholics. In particular, these included trying to stabilize and control the man’s criminal activity, giving him unconditional help and support, using psychological defense mechanisms to lift his responsibility for the crime committed, and distorting reality by activating a system of illusions and fantasies. As a result of these behaviors, women created a cycle that was difficult to break, which resulted in negative experiences, such as loss of self-esteem, illness, separation from their social circles, and in some cases, it meant problems with the law for the partner. Due to the fact that women’s pathological attachment to repeat offenders is a barrier to their partners’ withdrawal from criminal activity, it is worth offering repeat offenders serving their sentences appropriate educational programs.

PL

Współuzależnienie rozumiane jako dysfunkcyjny i wyuczony wzór radzenia sobie ze stresem występuje w różnych relacjach, w tym u kobiet żyjących z recydywistami. Jest to kontekst zjawiska słabo rozpoznany przez badaczy. Celem podjętego badania było ustalenie, jakie własności opisane jako charakterystyczne dla współuzależnienia w relacji z alkoholikiem występują w związkach kobiet z recydywistami. Materiał do badania pochodził z dyskusji na forach internetowych, w których uczestniczyły kobiety z doświadczeniem życia z recydywistą. Dyskusje zbadano metodą analizy treści. Ustalono, że partnerki recydywistów stosują skrypty zachowań typowe dla kobiet żyjących z alkoholikami. Były to zwłaszcza: podejmowanie prób stabilizowania i kontrolowania przestępczej aktywności mężczyzny, udzielanie mu bezwarunkowej pomocy i wsparcia, stosowanie psychologicznych mechanizmów obronnych w celu zniesienia jego odpowiedzialności za przestępstwo, zniekształcanie rzeczywistości przez uruchomienie systemu iluzji i fantazji. W następstwie tych zachowań kobiety tworzyły trudny do przerwania cykl, który skutkował dla nich negatywnymi przeżyciami, m.in. spadkiem poczucia własnej wartości, chorobami, separowaniem się od własnego środowiska społecznego, a na niektóre z nich partner ściągnął problemy z prawem. Ze względu na fakt, że patologiczne przywiązane kobiety do recydywisty jest barierą w odstąpieniu przez niego od działalności przestępczej, warto zaoferować recydywistom odbywającym wyroki odpowiednie programy edukacyjne.

15

The Impact of Relapse into Crime on the Degree of Offender’s Guilt in Canon Law and Polish Law

58%

Cichawa K.

Biuletyn Stowarzyszenia Absolwentów i Przyjaciół Wydziału Prawa Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego

|

2019

|

vol. 14

|

issue 16 (2)

155-166

EN

Relapse into crime is disturbing for two reasons. First of all, it highlights the ineffectiveness of the penalty imposed on the perpetrator. Second, it is a violation of legal norms and legal order, which should be observed in every community. Both the ecclesiastical and secular legislator acknowledge the need to regulate the institution of recidivism. Both legal orders formulate criteria to be met for recidivism to occur. Both in canon law and Polish penal law, these criteria are cumulative. However, in canon law, recidivism is a circumstance that may aggravate the penalty for a prohibited act. Whether to increase the penalty will therefore depend on the judge’s prudent assessment. The secular legislature, on the other hand, does envisage higher penalties for re-offending but based on the type of recidivism in place. If it is ordinary special recidivism, whether to tighten the punishment is left to the judge’s discretion. In the case of multiple special recidivism, to mete out a more severe penalty is mandatory.

PL

Powrót do przestępstwa jest zdarzeniem niepokojącym głównie z dwóch powodów. Po pierwsze świadczy o nieskuteczności zastosowanej kary wymierzonej sprawcy przestępstwa. Po drugie jest obrazą norm prawnych i porządku prawnego, które powinny być przestrzegane w każdej społeczności. Zarówno prawodawca kościelny, jak i świecki dostrzega potrzebę regulacji takiej instytucji. W obu porządkach prawnych zostały określone przesłanki konieczne do zaistnienia recydywy. Zarówno w prawie kanonicznym, jak i polskim prawie karnym są to przesłanki łączne. Jednakże na gruncie prawa kanonicznego recydywa jest okolicznością, która może zwiększyć karę za popełniony czyn. Zwiększenie dolegliwości kary będzie zatem zależało od roztropnej oceny sędziego. Ustawodawca świecki natomiast uzależnia wymierzenie większej kary 166 od rodzaju recydywy, której dopuścił się sprawca. Jeśli była to recydywa specjalna zwykła zaostrzenie kary pozostaje fakultatywne. W przypadku recydywy specjalnej wielokrotnej wymierzenie surowszej kary jest obowiązkowe.

16

Analiza przestępczości wielokrotnych recydywistów

51%

Szelhaus S.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1969

|

issue IV

11-58

EN

1. The first part of the paper deals with the data from criminal records, pertaining to the delinquency of all thb 440 prisoners recidivists who within a two-year period entered the Warsaw Central Prison and who corresponded to the previously mentioned criteria. 42% out of the total of these recidivists were aged between 26 and 30, 58% - between 31 and 35, their average age being about 31. Two-thirds lived in the Greater Warsaw area, 15% in small towns and settlements on the outskirts of Warsaw and 7% in nearby villages. The average number of convictions after 17, amounted to 6,7 in regard to 440 recidivists. 40% were convicted 4-5 times, 35 - 6-7 times, 25% - 8 times and more. As far as their stay in prison is concerned it can be stated, that 26%, of the recidivists stayed in prison only four times,44% - 5-6 times and 21% - 7 times and more. Investigating the age of recidivists at which they were first brought to courts after 17, it was established that 20% were first tried at the age of 17, 18% at 18 and 29% between 19 and 20. Only 33%, of recidivists were first convicted when they were 21 or older. The beginning of delinquency with respect to persistent recidivists was however much earlier; results of detailed investigations relating to 220 out of those 440 recidivists revealed a considerable percentage of subjects commiting thefts when they were not older than 17 (these data are quoted below together with the results of investigations on the 220 recidivists). Taking into account all the offences for which 440 recidivists were convicted and for the perpetration of which they were suspected (if they were remanded in custody awaiting trial), it can be asserted that 59%, out of 3,862 were offences against property of which thefts amount to as many as 75,6%. Offences against person constitute 15% ot the total of offences. Most of them did not involve any serious consequences for the victim, - minor assaults constituting 43%, light bodily injury 24%, maltreating his wife and children by an alcoholic recidivist - 17%. Assaults on public officers (nearly always committed in state of inebriety) constitute 12% of all the offences. Out of 3,862 offences only 201 (5%) may be classified as serious acts of aggression, 148 of which were robberies. Although 150 (34%) recidivists committed these 201 serious acts of aggression, the overwhelming majority were convicted only once for the perpetration of that type of offence. Only 41 recidivists (9%) committed two or more offences connected with aggression; out of those 41 offenders 23 were convicted for the perpetration of robberies. The 440 recidivists were divided into categories taking into account the kind of offences they committed; it appeared, that two-thirds of the recidivists were convicted for the perpetration of different offences. Only 24% were convicted for the perpetration of offences against property exclusively and only with 28% such offences distinctly outweighed any other offences. A category of recidivists (9%) convicted several times for offences against person exclusively and for insulting or attacking public officers (mostly policemen) is also worthy to be mentioned as well as such recidivists (16%) with whom these offences connected with aggression distinctly outweighed any other offences. By comparing the length of time during which, since they were 17, the persistent recidivists stayed in prison with that during which they were at liberty it has been established that about 30% of them stayed longer in prison than at liberty; nevertheless, about 32% stayed at liberty for at least three-fourths of the entire period after they were 17. The rate of recidivism is reflected in the data relating to the average stay at liberty of 440 recidivists. Almost half of them (46%) stayed at liberty for a relatively short time - less than a year - (with 13% it did not exceed 6 months). In 40% of cases the average stay at liberty lasted from one year at least to less than two years and only with 14% it lasted at least two years. Worthy of mentioning are also the following data on the longest stays at liberty, indicating that the rate of recidivism was formed in different ways. Only 12,5% of recidivists did not stay longer at liberty, between arrests, than 1 year while 23% stayed at liberty for 3-5 years at least once in their lifetime, counting from their release from prison until the new arrest. 10% stayed at least once at liberty for as long as 5 years. 2. The above data on delinquency of 440 recidivists, based exclusively on the information contained in registers, will be now completed by essential, additional data from judicial records, obtained during detailed investigations on 220 out of the 440 recidivists. In the beginning however, it is necessary to give the results of investigations concerning the origins of delinquency of recidivists when they were under 17. These results are based on data revealed in Juvenile Courts and on information received from the recidivists themselves and from their mothers. If only such cases are taken into account on which objective information could have been obtained from Juvenile Courts (136), it appears, that 63% of recidivists were found guilty by the courts already under 17 or else confessed to repeated perpetration of thefts for which they had not been tried. On the other hand, basing on the incomplete data on all the 220 recidivists it was ascertained that at least 57% committed offences (thefts) as juveniles, 37% were found guilty by the courts and 20% committed unrevealed thefts. The delinquency of 25% of recidivists began already under 13 (this percentage is in fact undoubtedly higher). Thus, the results obtained from investigations on persistent recidivists aged between 26 and 35 correspond to the results of previous investigations carried out on recidivists under 26, most of whom began committing offences also at the time of their juvenility On the basis of judicial records one may characterize the type of offences and the manner of committing them by the investigated 220 recidivists, after their 17th year. As far as thefts are concerned the percentage of burglaries amounts to 40% while burglaries into shops and stores do not exceed 25% and into houses 23%. Among thefts perpetrated without burglaries a fair number constitute thefts committed in private houses, petty thefts in places of work and stealing from drunkards. Pocket thefts are only 5%. The value of stolen property did not exceed 500 zł in 3% of the thefts and 2,000 zł in 61% of cases. Losses exceeding 10,000 zł were stated only in 10% of the total of thefts according to the material under investigation. It should be emphasized that the analysis of judicial records and investigations of recidivists have shown that a large majority of them commit various types of thefts and cannot be classified as thieves with a definite specialization. Even among recidivists who committed several burglaries only 5 could be classified as offenders committing a definite type of theft. The number of recidivists convicted for three or more burglaries is after all very small as it amounts to 29 (scarcely 16% out of the total of the investigated recidivists). Investigating robberies committed by the recidivists it was first of all ascertained that only 23% were committed by sober offenders (besides, the victim was sober only in 45% of cases). 65% of robberies were committed in the streets (or in parks). Only 21% of robberies were planned and carefully prepared (robberies in houses of well-off persons). 32% constitute robberies in the streets, parks etc. on persons unknown to the offender. Victims of the remaining robberies were persons with whom offenders were drinking alcohol before (the victims were often previously convicted). It should be mentioned that 80% of victims did not sustain any bodily harm whatever. Examining offences against person, committed by the investigated recidivists (90% of which constitute offences of no serious consequences to the victims) it can be asserted that almost all offenders acted under the influence of alcohol and that nearly half of the offences (46%) were committed by two persons at least. Regarding motives of those offences, there were no motives at all in 35% of cases; hitting a passer-by in the street or beating him up was done by an inebriate offender for no reason. There were some insignificant reasons in the remaining cases but the reaction of the inebriate offender was distinctly inadequate to the circumstances of the incident. Similarly, insulting or attacking the policemen was perpetrated by inebriate recidivists only. For the most part (47%) these offences were connected with arrests of the recidivists for some misdemeanours (i.e. drunkenness, disorderly behaviour), rarely for committing an offence (30%). In 23% of cases assaults on policemen were connected with establishing the identity of an inebriate recidivist in the street. Already the analysis of the material contained in judicial records testifies to the fact that frequent alćoholization plays an important part in the etiology of the recidivism and that individłals abusing systematically of alcohol appear in large numbers among the recidivists. 3. An attempt to isolate definite categories of offenders from among 220 of investigated recidivists gave the following results: A. 70% out of the total number of recidivists constitute those recidivists, whose offences against property (thefts as a rule) outweigh considerably any other offences they ever committed. B. 29% of them constitute such recidivists who either did not commit any offences against property at all or committed them only exceptionally. The first category of recidivists (A) comprising 152 prisoners could be divided into two separate groups of recidivists: A1 - a group of recidivists (93) who could be defined as professional offenders, since their chief or only source of maintenance were gains from offences, and A2 - a group of recidivists (59) who perpetrating almost exclusively offences against property, nevertheless have also other sources of stable income. Group A1 - could be divided into two sub-groups (of a similar number of men) consisting of recidivists who commit serious thefts (and robberies) and recidivists who commit only petty thefts as a rule. Recidivist from both sub-groups classified as professional offenders, began committing offences as a rule already in their juvenility (over 80%). As many as 59% abused of alcohol in large quantities already under 21. The percentage of alcohol addicts amounts to 42% in the first sub-group. and up to 69%, in the second. The highest percentage of recidivists (75%) who spent the larger part of their life in prison, appeals among recidivists classified as professional offenders perpetrating serious offences. They are characterized by a more rapid recidivism as compared with other groups of recidivists since their average stay at liberty between subsequent arrests did not exceed six months in 41% of cases and in 85% of cases lasted less than a year. Already these data testify to the fact that although these recidivists were classified as professional offenders since as a rule they had no other sources of maintenance than gains from offences they committed, they nevertheless differ substantially from genuine professional offenders, who usually stay at liberty for long periods of time. Besides, they differ substantially from genuine professional offenders also in that that there are no such recidivists among them (with a few exceptions) who would possess a definite specialization in stealing and would perpetrate a definite sort of theft (pocket thefts, burglaries etc.). Although this sub-group of recidivists were isolated because of the serious thefts they had perpetrated, nevertheless a majority of the thefts did not cause any considerable losses. The second sub-group of recidivists, also defined by the term of professional offenders, in even smaller degree resembles the type of a genuine, professional offender. There is not even one recidivist among them who would commit thefts of a definite type; they commit petty thefts as a rule and some of them live on gambling, illegal trade or fencing. In contrast to the recidivists of the first subgroup (professional offenders committing serious thefts), the recidivists committing petty offences against property stayed at liberty for a much longer time - only 36% stayed in prison for more than half the period of time which elapsed since they were 17. The rate of their recidivism is much slower as only in one-fourth of cases the average stay at liberty between subsequent arrests did not exceed 6 months (in the former group as many as 41%). Finally it should be mentioned that recidivists classified as professional offenders (from both sub-groups) committed, besides the offences against property, also offences against person and police when under the influence of alcohol. Offences against property amount to 75/" of the total of perpetrated offences in the first sub-group, while in the second they amount only to 59% The A2 recidivists committing offences against property, which does not constitute their main source of maintenance, do not form a uniform population of offenders. There are recidivists among thęm who work more or lęss systematically and who committed thefts not connected with the abuse of alcohol, as well as recidivists (and they constitute a majority among the A2 recidivists) who commit petty thefts connected with their alcoholism (the percentage of alcohol addicts in this group is the highest and amounts to 80%). With regard to these recidivists the beginning of their abuse of alcohol preceded the beginning of perpetration of offences and a considerable percentage of thefts is committed in state of inebriety. 56% ot these recidivists began abusing of alcohol already under 17. An altogether separate category of recidivists constitute offenders isolated as recidivists B (29% of the total of investigated recidivists) who committed offences mostly with the use of aggression (against total strangers as a rule), qualified as hooligan offences. Thefts, which they commit very rarely, constitute rather a secondary or even episodical phenomenon in their life, and are usually perpetrated occasionally, without any definite plans. The category of recidivists B now under consideration, contains a small (23) group of recidivists who committed several thefts (3,3 per person); almost all (83%) began committing offences and abusing of alcohol as juveniles (81% of them abused of alcohol already under 19). In general, their way of life could be defined as parasitic. The percentage of alcohol addicts amounts tp to 73%. Other recidivists belonging to the same category of offenders persistently committing aggressive offences (qualified as hooligan offences), against person or police, perpetrated almost exclusively offences of that sort (the average number of thefts per person amounting only to 1,5). They began committing offences much later (hardly 19% committed them as juveniles), and as many as 50% were first tried at 21 or later. The percentage of alcohol addicts amounts in this category to 50%. Almost all of them began abusing of alcohol early, only 32% started at 19 or later. This group contains recidivists with the smallest number of convictions - half of them were convicted only 4 - 5 times. Some 60% worked rather systematically. In this way, persistent recidivists constitute a vęry varied population of offenders. Recidivists committing exclusively offences against property do not exceed 27%. It is also significant that as many as 25 recidivists, committing thefts exclusively, can be found in 4 different groups of recidivists. A typical occurrence is the perpetration, under the influence of alcohol, of offences against person, not involving any serious consequences for the injured. Similarly, very significant is the fact that among the investigated persistent recidivists there are virtually no representatives of the type of a genuine, professional offender; most offences against property involved only trifle losses. Considering the intensity and rapidity of thę recidivism one is confronted with following questions: why penalties inflicted on the persistent offenders have proved ineffective; did recidivism occur as rapidly after short penalties as after the long ones; was long imprisonment inflicted on thęm also at the beginning of their delinquency, etc. This work could not dwęll at length on the above problems. We may merely content ourselves with quoting the following essential results of investigations concerning penalties inflicted on 400 recidivists. An analysis of their stays at liberty after they had served all the sentences which amounted up to 6 months, from 7 to 11 months, from 1 year to less than 2 years, from 2 years to less than 3 years and from 3 years upwards - revealed, that a long prison term of at least 3 years has not proved more effective than a short one up to 6 months. Moreover, it appeared that long prison terms are followed by shorter, on the average, stays at liberty than the short ones. Even in case whęn high penaities involving 2-3 year imprisonment were inflicted at the first, the second or the third trial, results were not any better than in case of short-term penalties. The analysis of penalties inflicted on 44 recidivists, classified as professional offenders committing serious offences against property, revealed, that although nearly half of them were sentenced, at least once, to 5 years or more, the rate of their recidivism did not prove less rapid than after much shorter prison terms. It should be recalled, that only 25% of these recidivists stayed longer at liberty than in prison after they were aged 17. Thus, the results of investigations confirm the experience of many other countries indicating, that with regard to those recidivists who were seriously maladjusted and anti-social since their juvenility, mere imprisonment which is usually resorted to, irrespective of its length, has proved as a rule disappointing.

17

Przestępczość nieletnich w Polsce w latach 1961-1967 (rozmiary, struktura przestępczości, orzeczone środki)

51%

Jerzy J.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1969

|

issue IV

149-202

EN

1. Problems related to juvenile delinquency have always been a subject of vivid interest of both scientific circles and the community at large. Consequently, juvenile delinquency has probably become a criminological problem given a most profound consideration and any studies which concern that type of delinquency get a vivid response also outside a nanow expert community. Among such studies, modest though and certainly not foreground place is occupied by analyses of statistical materials. Since the results of the analyses mentioned “grow old” much quicker than do the results of individual, more advanced studies, it seems purposeful, therefore, to make efforts in the direction of bringing them more up-to-date. At least one problem seems to demand such up-dating most specificaliy, i.e., the problem of the assessment of the general data obtained from the police and judicary statistics since such data can be one of juvenile the bases for determining the extent of delinquency. Having considered that within the meaning of the criminal law juveniles and adults are, in an arbitrary manner, demarcated merely by age limit (before or after 17 years of age at the moment an offence was committed) whose artificiality is somehow shocking from the criminological point of view, it seemed also advisable to-include in this study other questions related to the extent of delinquency of young adults as well as to consider its situation against the background of the adult population. Another group of questions discussed is connected with the structure of delinquency; also special attention has been paid to questions of place the suspects or those found guilty (and young adults, too) herd among the total numbers of suspected or convicted adults. Finally, there is the third group of questions given special consideration in this study, namely the educative and correctional means adjudicated upon juveniles. Although there is a good deal of information on that particular topic as well as more or less detailed papers concerning the analysis of these kind of data nevertheless the material in question has not so far been analysed in terms of an adequately long period of time which would permit to seize certain clearly-cut tendencies in adjudication of particular kinds of means, especially against the background of various fluctuations of numbers of juveniles appearing in the court. In that chapter of this essay, the studies have been considerably extended to include 1951-1967 instead of 1961-1967 as in the remaining ones. 2. 1. In analysing various kinds of contexts in which, particular authors mention the range of juvenile delinquency - especially when they are alarmed by its increase or whenever they are pleased to note its stabilization or decrease - one may easily see that the authors usually have different things in mind. Sometimes their opinions are based on more and sometimes on less founded assumptions or estimations concerning the number of juvenile offenders themselves, sometimes on the number of their offences, the importance of such deeds or their frequency rate, the degree of social depravity in juveniles appearing in courts, and finally, together - on a series of the abovementioned instances (and also on ones not mentioned there). Anyway, always where one or another adequately justified opinion on the extent of juvenile delinquency is found, the reader is able either to know at once or to trace back what in ęach particular case was the measure of the extent in question. The purpose of the present study is to show different ways for the determination of the detected extent of juvenile delinquency and to present certain groups of data which might serve as the most appropriate criteria for the evaluation of the dimensions of delinquency; furthermore, the intention of the present author is to show that at least some of the criteria are by no means of competitive nature but that they rather permit us to grasp different aspects of the problem of juvenile delinquency. It would be difficult therefore to forejudge about the superiority of one criterion over another as they concern different aspects of the samę problem and as such may have a different impact for our analyses, depedent on the line of our research. 2. A relatively large number of juveniles found among the total number of suspected or convicted individuals may sometimes incline us towards making certain far-reaching statements concerning the extent of juvenile delinquency. Some people hold the opinion that whenever juveniles (or sometimes juveniles and young adults) constituted a considerable portion of the total number of offenders, the range of their delinquency should be recognized as significant, if only on account of their share in delinquency. The author is doubtful about the rightfulness of such an opinion if it were only for a specific character of the juvenile delinquency structure, the importance of offences or also for other than in the case of adults, aims of prosecution (in the broadest meaning of that word). It does not mean, however, that it would not be worth while what is the place the known now in Poland juvenile offenders hold among the total number of individuals convicted. In 1961-1967, juveniles under 13 years of age constituted merely 2-3 per cent of the total number of individuals convicted (similar percentage was noted in the last decade 1951-1960). Together with 13-16 year-old offenders, the juveniles constituted only a group of several per cent - and in recent years - a dozen-or-so per cent group. The number of very young and young that had been found guilty (i.e., juveniles and young adults) was bigger but stin did not exceed 1/5-¼ of the total number of the individuals convicted out of which half were almost 30 or older at the time they committed the offences. It is fitting to note at this point that in a number of countries, persons under 21 years of age constitute 1/2 and sometimes 2/3 of the total number of the individuals convicted or suspected. It may then be said that from the point of view of a relative quantity of juveniles found in the total number of the individuals convicted, that juvenile delinquency in poland may still be estimated as a highly moderate one. 3. Out of all the available methods that can be employed for the evaluation of the extent of juvenile delinquency the simplest one is that which bases on the statistical data concerning the number of juveniles found guilty, or more broadly juvenile adjudgments, or even still more broadly - the number of cases in which a juvenile was suspected of an offence. The limitations involved in the use of such a criterion are quite evident since in applying such a criterion we fail to consider any consequences of the fact that the number of adjudgements or findings of guilt is hardly synonymous with the number of juveniles adjudicated or found guilty (which could after all be justified), but - and this is less acceptable - such a number does not bear any relation to the wider population - events or individuals - against whose background it occurs. However, from one point of view this criterion is important, namely it provides relatively accurate information about one of the quantitative aspects of risks faced by the police and the court of law, involved with the conduct of proceedings and with the adjudication upon the offences committed by juveniles. This criterion becomes particularly important whenever we tackle with organizational problems of courts for juveniles, or the needs for staff or institutions. For the last seven years, the total number of adjudgements increased from about 47 thousand to 71 thousand (i.e. by 52 pet cent). As compared with 1951 (abo 26 thousand), the total number of the adjudgements in 1967 was almost threefold. Close to the latter was the number of juveniles suspected by the police of offending the law (for the last four years past, it was 53 to 70 thousand a year). Out of the total number of the adjudgements, the findings of guilt held similar place (54 to 56 per cent) slightly lower than in 1951-1960 when the proportion was about 56 to 61 per cent. In the seven-year period discussed, the proportion of discontinuations of legal proceedings evidently increased: at the present moment, 33 to 34 per cent of juvenile cases are dismissed, in 1951-1960 on the other hand, the proportion having been 20 to 30 per cent. Various categories of juveniles are involved therein. Acquittals are a particular category of adjudgements; the absolute number of acquittals was on an approximate level (2,300-2,800) but owing to the simultaneous increase in the total number of adjudgements, the percentage of acquittals decreased to 4 per cent. Perhaps it is worth while remembering that acquittals were as many as 11 per cent of adjudgements in 1951, but already in 1952 and onwards, the proportion had been stabilized on the 6 to 7 per cent level. The fact that it is so low now should perhaps be recognized as a positive phenomenon; it seems to give evidence that magistrates, who but certainly conduct also preparatory proceedings, do not send cases too hastily for hearing where the juvenile's guilt seems insufficiently made probable to them. It may be asked upon how many juvenile suspects educative-or correctional means are adjudicated following a finding of guilt. A summary of the data obtained from the police or court statistics may supply an answer. As was said before, cases of almost 60 per cent of suspected juveniles end up with a finding of guilt, that proportion being slightly lower in boys than in girls and in lower age groups rather than in older. Very few suspects of 7 to 9 years of age are found guilty (7 per cent). Those proportions increase rapidly already in 10 year-old suspects (47 per cent) and grow up to 13 yearsage-group (62 per cent) showing then a stabilization on a similar level. According to the information mentioned, in 1961-1967 annual numbers of findings of guilt were 27 to 38 thousand. Those numbers included, of course, a majority of findings of guilt by juvenile courts and also sentences of ordinary courts. The latter were concerned with cases when a juvenile was 17 years of age prior to the beginning of the hearing or when he or she acted together with an adult and when according to the prosecution's decision “for the benefit of the administration of justice” their case should not be transferred to the juvenile court. The proportion of findings of guilt by ordinary courts of law was about 9 to 11 per cent in 1961-1967, having been slightly lower than in 1951-1960 when sometimes it reached even 13 per cent. This is probably connected with some lowering of the mean age of juveniles found guilty for the last few years as compared with that observed in 1951-1960. 4. The number of juveniles upon whom judicial.educative or correctional means had been executed provide information about another side of the quantitative aspect of work facing the juvenile courts. The number of juveniles under court control due to a committed offence increased from 34,520 in 1951 to 58,005 in 1967 and that is by 68 per cent. This seems to be an effect of not only an increase in the number of juveniles found guilty but also of a prolonged average duration of execution of means. That considerable number of juveniles upon whom means were executed should perhaps be further increased. So, for instance, in 1965 45.055 children and youth were placed under juvenile court control, established according to civil proceedings, and under ordinary court control there were another 23,699. As for some portion of the number of such juveniles, court control was certainly connected with manifestations of their social maladjustment, with behavioural disturbances not varying in nature from those for which other juveniles were found guilty. Also in some of those cases, the way of carrying out the control did not differ significantly from the means usually applied, such as supervision order, probation or approved school. 5. Since in the hitherto discussed ways of understanding the range of the detected juvenile delinquency the main stress was laid on absolute numbers, in the present analysis of the standards some attention may be paid to relative numbers resulting from a reference of the number of findings of guilt to some population of individuals concerned or of the number of juveniles found guilty to some broader population of which they were a portion. The objective of such an analysis is to illustrate the degree to which the phenomena of delinquency have been spread throughout the juvenile population. This will lead to quite a different manner of appreciating the juvenile delinquency range. It will not be considered weighty e.g., when the number of findings of guilt will reach some definite level but when the number of juvenile offenders in the juvenile population will be sufficiently high. The most common standard of that kind is represented by delinquency which, if applied for analysing data of court statistics with regard to juvenile delinquency, is represented by the number of findings of guilt as one pro mille of the entire juvenile population. As compared with absolute numbers, the above listed rates give the following picture: between 1961 and 1965, a slight (a few-per-cent) increase in the number of findings of guilt was observed, however, considering that this was accompanied by a much higher increase in the number of i0-16 year-old juveniles, the rates showed a decrease. During the following two years; there was a significant change of that situation, the increase in the number of findings of guilt was then so high that it brought about also an increase in rate values which in 1967 became 15 per cent higher than those in 1961. The increase in rates was by no means equal in all age groups of juveniles concerned, some were not involved at all. The rates in all age groups of girls were found on similar level as in 1956-1960. Thus, the increase in the number of findings of guilt in girls was proportional to the increase in the total population of 10-16 year-old girls. The annual average was one finding of guilt per 1,000 girls in that particular age group. With boys, the situation was different; here we had to deal with a general increase in rates as compared with that observed in the preceding five-year period. The increase in rates was very high in 14-16 year-old boys (by 19-23 per cent), approximate level was maintained in12-73 year-old boys and a decrease was observed in 10-11 year-old ones (by 5-10 per cent). An average rate of 196l-1967 for the total population of boys was 12,2 and showed that an annual average in the discussed seven-year period was one finding of guilt per 82 boys between 10 and 16 years of age. In our earlier discussion of the rank that the findings of guilt in juveniles held among the total number of such findings in 1961-1967, also young adults were mentioned. There were more findings of guilt in young adults although the latter belong only to four age groups (17, 18, 19 and 20) while the juveniles - to seven age groups at least. The above listed findings show first of all a systematic decrease in numbers of convictions in young adults (1961 -1964) followed, as compared with the 1961 level, by an increase (1965-1967) by 9 per cent in made and by 2 per cent in female offenders. This movement of absolute numbers of convictions in young adults was accompanied by simultaneous but considerable decrease in rates which although failing to increase after 1964, have maintained thę level of that year. Consequently, the relevant rates, as compared with 1961, were in 1967 - 30 per cent lower in men and 33 per cent in women. These changes were caused by a few independent agents whose effects were partially accumulated. Therefore it must be said that the rates in young men and women in 1961-1963 were on an approximate level. Its rapid decrease took place in 1964, which was undoubtedly connected with the Act of Amnesty of 20th July 1964 whose bearing on the number of convictions was certainly felt in 1965, too. At the same time, the effect of another diminishing agent was felt: according to the Decree of 28th March 1963, a certain number of young adults ceased to be subject to ordinary court proceedings since the conscription age limit was lowered to be 19 instead of 20 Years of age. In 1967, a successive agent appeared on the scene to have a bearing on the number of convictions in that category of individuals concerned (as well as of the adult population, too). Namely, in accordance with the provisions of the Decree of 17th June 1967, a series of minor offences were classified as non-indictable offences having at the same time become subject of administrative and not judicial proceedings; minor speculations or theft had been involved. As far as the rates were concerned, an additional element started functioning; it was a process of leaving the young adult age group by individuals born during the war (law quantity year groups) on one hand and of entering into that particular age of very numerous year groups of those born after the war, on the other. Prospectives for an extent of young adult convictions for the next few years to come should perhaps be worth while mentioning now. As a result of a thorough analysis of the young adult conviction rate in 1961-1965, of legislative changes and of foreseen changes in numbers of the total young adult population (which will still be increasing for another few years) - the author had drawn the following conclusion. In 1970, the number of convictions of male young adults will probably be about 38 thousand while the rate will reach about 28.0; the relevant figures for females will be 5.5 thousand and 4.0 respectively. In closing our remarks on an evaluation of juvenile and young adult known delinquency extent, made in terms of rates, it might be said that analogically to earlier rates based on the numbers of convictions, also other ,,rates" might be established, where data on numbers of juveniles on whom educative or correctional means had been executed by juvenile courts, could be utilized. A reference of the number of such juveniles to the total number of 10-16 year old ones would lead to the following findings: in 1961, they were 8.7 pro mille of all juveniles of 10-16 years of age but after 7 years - they were 11.8. Thus, as per 31st December 1967, out of each 86 juveniles of 10-16 years of age group, one was under a juvenile court control a subject of executed educative or correctional means. 6. So far, analyses of a degree, to which known juvenile delinquency had spread among youth, were based on information about findings of guilt, however, there is also a possibility to define it by reference to the number of juveniles found guilty. To do so, one has to know how many juveniles, out of those born during one calendar year were found guilty for offences committed by them at thęir juvenile age, exclusively between 11th and 17th years of age. By making use of the data on findings of guilt in 1950- 1960, one could see that for each year group of juveniles born in 1941, 1942, 1943 or 1944, the number of individuals found guilty were 14.1 to 14.9 thousand; their percentage, related to the total number of those born in the said year groups' was 3.5 to 3.8 per cent (for boys only - 6.3 to 6.8 per cent). Thanks to the fact that complete data on findings of guilt have now been available for 1961-1967, an extention of the analysis with respect to few further year groups could be possible. As it may be seen, the numbers of juveniles found guilty, born in the successive years just after the war, increased rapidly (from about 15 to 28 thousand). That increase, however, took place with a simultaneous considerable increase in general quantities of those particular year groups. In the entire population of those of 17 years old, the percentage of juveniles found guilty was approximately on similar level (on a slightly.higher levęl than in the case of those born during the war). Although such a percentage was low in girls, in boys it grew up as high as 6,7 to 7,5 per cent. This means that approximately every thirteenth - fourteenth young adult of 17 years of age born between 1945 and 1951 had already been found guilty for an offence committed at his juvenile age. Analogical attempts to define the number of found guilty within some longer period of time, where findings of guilt could be referred to not only to one but to a sequency of years - in young adults - are more difficult than in juveniles. It is because of relevant shortage of statistics in Poland. By way of analysing data on convictions in 1951 -1963, I had defined some approximate number of young adults, born in 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942, covicted, at whatever moment of the entire four-year period when they were young adults (between I7 and 20 years of age). In the population of 21 year-old men (born in the above mentioned years) there were about 15 per cent of those who had once been found guilty at their young adult age. This means that approximately every seventh man at that particular age had been convicted at his young adult age. Should the entire eleven-year period between 10th and 21st year of age be taken into account, one would have to accept that every sixth had been found guilty. The above mentioned figures seem very high, indeed. This calls for a thought to be given as to whether or not the penalization extent in this country is not too much expanded or whether or not penal means are too hastily applied when - without prejudice or even to some purpose - they could be given up. 7. So far, data of twofold nature were used for defining standards of known juvenile delinquency extent: numbers of individuals (found guilty) or numbers of events, such as findings of guilt, adjudgements or cases in which a juvenile was a suspect. Let us mention another type of dates which in its character is approximate to the latter category: numbers of offences where juveniles were suspects. Relevant information is provided for by police statistics. According to data of that kind, numbers of offences where juveniles were suspects were 99,588 in 1956 and 110,892 in 1967. 8. Also various ways of interpretation of known juvenile delinquency extents as well as various standards of such extents were discussed. In dealing with legal order endangered by juveniles, attention will first of all be paid to the numbers of offences where juveniles were suspects, especially, so if that standard would adequately be enriched by data concerning the kind or importance of such offences. If interest is taken in quantitative aspects of tasks facing ouf courts of law, the juvenile delinquency extent will be looked at through a prism of the number of adjudgements (especially - of findings of guilt) as well as of the number of subjects under the juvenile court control due to execution of educative or correctional means adjudicated. In that particular area, the extent of juvenile delinquency for the recent seven-year period considerably increased, what might to a certain degree be related to a general increase of the youth population in this country in that period. If one wants to know the degree to which manifestations of known to the police major juvenile depravity has bęen spread, delinquency rates should be used or - what even allows for a broader look at that problem - the percentage of those found guilty for offences committed at their juvenile age in relation to the young adult population born in particular year groups. The abovementioned rates as well as - though to a minor extent - the percentages seem to show that the known juvenile delinquency in this country increased, especially for the last few years. 3. A definition of the delinquency structure is usually understood to include the elements delinquency is composed of and the numerical ratio of delinquency groups differentiated either from delinquency as a whole or from its particular categories. If so understood, in analysing the delinquency structure it is only natural to use a body of information in which offence is a unity. This may be data on the total number of offences committed in a selected area at a certain definite time, irrespective of the method of its evaluation; this may also be a body of data on known offences, on offences where a suspect had been determined in the course of preparatory proceedings or, finally, a body of information about offences where offenders had lawfully been convicted or found guilty. In most cases no such data are available (except perhaps for the second of the mentioned bodies of information which is a fundamental section of police statistics). However, where interest is taken in the delinquency structure, related to a definite category of offenders - to juveniles, the analyser is as a rule compulsed to search for material of different kind. Such material would usually include data on findings of guilt, enriched as they are with information about the nature of offences concerned. An analysis of such data leads to the following conclusions: A considerable increase in the number of findings of guilt in 1961-1967 failed to produce any substantial changes of the juvenile delinquency structure. It is still offences against property (86 to 89 per cent) which are dominant in juvenile delinquency - mostly including theft of things of minor value. Besides, a somewhat numerous group embraced offences against the person (5 to 7 per cent), in which slight bodily harm (about 1/3 of cases), assault (1/5 of cases) and battery or grievous bodily harm dominated. Annually, there were 5 to 11 juveniles found guilty for murder and 21 to 35 for manslaughter. In 7967,614 juveniles were found guilty for sexual offences (1.7 per cent of the total number of findings of guilt in that very year); rape was found in more than a half of cases, the remaining ones having been fornication with juveniles below 15 years of age. About one per cent of cases included offences against public order officers. Offenders of other categories were few. A higher than average increase in the number of findings of guilt for housebreaking or burglary, for damage done to property, a series of offences against the person and for rape has been noted since 1961. This was accompanied by an increase of the mean age of juveniles found guilty annually - from 13,8 years in 1961 to 14,3 years in 1967. It is no wonder then that first of all an increase in the proportion of offences committed by juveniles of older year groups has been observed. A peculiarity of the.juvenile delinquency structure becomes clearly-cut, indeed, when compared with the young adult and adult delinquency structures. Differentiation of only 4 delinquency groups (against property, against the person, sexual offences and those against public order officers) is sufficient to embrace a) almost the entire juvenile delinquency (93 to 96 per cent), b) a considerable proportion of young adult ddlinquency and c) but only below 60 per cent of adult delinquency. The fact that a great majority of juvenile delinquency are related to offences against property (chiefly theft) of minor importance must by no means stipulate that such a delinquency should be neglected. On the contrary, the effects of commitments of various, often slight, offences turn out too often to be serious. This may not be clear when only single cases are considered but when the developing process of juvenile social depravation is taken into account whose that sort of offerences are but a fragment only. According to findings of individual studies, the extent of juvenile offenders demoralization shows either a slight or no connection with the objectively evaluated specific gravity of offences ascribed to juveniles. 4. The activities of juvenile courts or of ordinary courts of law with regard to the adjudication of educative or correctional means upon juveniles in 1951-1967 was the last question discussed in the study. A salient feature of the adjudication by our courts upon juveniles is their very considerable caution in applying means connected with separation of a juvenile from his or her familial community and sending them to an institution. The percentage of juveniles upon whom approved school or borstal had been adjucated was between 10 and 14 per cent, in recent years having been stabilized as l0 to 11 per cent. From that fact a conclusion can hardly be drawn that it was only every 9th or 10th juvenile upon whom an institutional order was considered necessary. Because it should always be remembered that the adjudication in that particular subject is influenced not only by an evaluation of the degree of juvenile social depravity, of educational valours represented by the juveniles' environment, of needs of the juvenile's himself, but also by the realistic possibility of execution of such an adjudication since there is chronic lack of placements in approved schools and very often felt lack of placements in borstals. With respect to further 15 to 24 per cent of juveniles found guilty, eventual need for applying institutional treatment must have been felt by the courts since executions of relevant adjustications had been suspended and 3/4 of cases were placed on probation. Probation was the most frequently applied means with respect to juveniles. That particular means was applied almost in 1/3 of all juveniles found guilty, the proportion of such adjudications having considerably increased in 1951-1967, i.e from 23.2 per cent to 32.2 per cent, so that the yearly number of juveniles placed on probation augmented threefold. Supervision order is another kind of means which used to be more frequently adjudicated early in the fifties and now it is adjudicated upon every 4th-5th juvenile. Most probably, the observed changes regarding preference of adjudication of probation is caused by development of such services enabling probation of increased numbers of juveniles found guilty. Admonition was a mean whose application seemed to be decreasing (it was adjudicated upon 23 per cent of juveniles in 1951 and only upon 14 per cent in 1967). A rapid decrease in the number of juveniles upon whom the courts were satisfied by applying that particular single act a few years after 1951, was probably due to a simultaneous rapid growth of the mean juvenile defendant age progressing according to a rise of the age limit of juvenile responsibility from 7 to 10 years of age (1954). On the other hand, the recently observed considerable decrease in proportion of such adjudications is undoubtedly closely connected with advising the courts in terms of limitation of means to be adjudicated upon juveniles of younger year groups. The choice of adequate educative or correctional means was no doubt influenced not only by the court having been convinced as to which was the best mean for the juvenile's re-education but also what were the realistic possibilities to get the mean executed. An open question is to what extent the changes of the structure of adjudicated means are a result of changes in categories of juveniles appearing at the courts.

18

Wielokrotni recydywiści w świetle badań kryminologicznych i psychologicznych

51%

Ostrihanska Z.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1976

|

issue VII

7-139

EN

This work presents the findings of studies of offenders, whose offences were time and again revealed, who had been frequently tried and many times been imprisoned. Studies were made of prisoners, convicted at least four times and who found themselves in prison at least for the fourth time, being of the age between 26-35 (the average age being 31). Studies were conducted in 1965-1966 in the Warsaw Central Prison. Selected from among the 440 prisoners there at that time, whose age and recidivism was in accordance with the above mentioned criteria, were those, who had domiciles in Warsaw or the voivodship of Warsaw and who possessed closest family members (as a rule father or mother), who could supply information about them. Making the successsive selection for studies, efforts were nevertheless made to take into account in the studied group those persistent recidivists who were convicted of robbery; this was due to the intention to take into account all the cases of recidivism, involving more serious offences. In connection with this departure from the principle of random samples, this group contained considerably more offenders convicted of robbery than was the case in the remaining group of persistent recidivists which was not subject to thorough investigation. The subject of thorough studies were half of the persistent recidivists, which at the time under discussion, were inmates of the Warsaw Central Prison, namely 220 prisoners. Studies concentrated on: collection of data about the convictions of the offenders, checking at the juvenile court records, whether they had been brought before a court while they were minors, collection of extracts from court records (regarding the most recent as well as prior convictions), efforts to obtain, by means of interviews and questionnaires, information about the work of the studied persons in various enterprises, where they had been employed, the drawing up of extracts from prison records, collection of medical documents of those prisoners who had received treatment in psychiatric outpatient clinics, in anti-alcoholic outpatient clinics or who had been in psychiatric hospitals; interviews conducted with the closest family members of the offenders, psychological examinations conducted with the prisoners of the group selected for studies (psychological interviews, the Wechsler-Bellevue scale, Sachs’s and Levy’s Sentence Completion Test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Buss-Durkee inventory). In addition to this 60 recidivists underwent psychiatric examinations. The studies were conducted by a team with the participation of Professor S. Batawia, who also headed the entire research; in the work of the team participated in addition to the author of this article: M. Kiezun- Majewska, S. Szelhaus and D. Wojcik. ; The average number of convictions per recidivist amounted to 6.5; the average number of stays in prison to 6.0. A persistent recidivist committed on an average 10.1 offences for which he was convicted, of these: 6.8 offences against property, 3.0 offences against the health or public authorities and offices as well as 1.3 other offences. One of the striking features of the offences committed by multiple recidivists was the variety of their offences: as many as two-thirds were convicted of offences of various types, only 27% were convicted exclusively of offences against property and a mere 9% were convicted exclusively of offences against the health as well as against the authorities and public offices. What is striking even in the case of those who were convicted exclusively of offences against property, is the heterogeneous nature of their offences and the lack of specialization in this respect. Violent offences (against the health or public authorities and offices) were committed by the overwhelming majority of those studied (71%). Almost all of the offences, and also the majority of the robberies were committed while they were intoxicated. Persistent recidivists are relatively rarely convicted of serious offences. Only 12.5% of those investigated could be considered dangerous because of frequent serious violent offences (including also robbery) and besides this only 12% could be qualified as people causing serious material damage. According to statistics concerning the whole of Poland every twenty-fifth persistent recidivist only was in 1973 convicted of an offence qualified according to the penal code as a felony (statutory minimum of punishment - 3 years). According to this study, a typical persistent recidivist is a person whose offences have caused not only social damage, but also serious damage to the perpetrators themselves, because the offences committed as a rule did not bring him any greater material advantages, but gave rise to consequences, due to which he spent a considerable part of his life in prison: 69% spent after the age of 17 more time in prison than out of prison. Almost half of them were less than a year at liberty between two successive convictions. These studies aimed at obtaining the possibly most allround information about the persistent recidivists and about their life histories. Special stress was laid on the problem of the early maladjustment of these people and the age when their first offences were committed, their professional work and attitude to their family, on the very essential problem of habital excessive drinking on their part, and also on personality disorders. Information on the family milieu from which the prisoners indicates that the majority of their fathers (77%) worked systematically (mainly as unskilled workers) and a mere convicted. However, fathers drinking to excess were a serious problem in the families of the sampled prisoners. When the prisoners were children approximately 27% of the fathers were heavy drinkers, in addition 25% were alcoholics. It is also interesting that alcoholism was found with almost half of the families of the parents of the investigated prisoners, involving their fathers or brothers. The social behaviour of the mothers of the sampled group was more positive. While half of the fathers were considered socially negative (due to excessive drinking, frequent convictions or unsystematic work), only 16% of the mothers deserved such an opinion. About 10% of the mothers drank systematically to excess, 6% had been convicted and 3% were suspected of being prostitutes. Only 41% of the recidivists lived, while being minors, within a complete family, in the cases of 48% of the families one of the parents had died (most frequently the father); in half of the cases the family was broken up when the studied prisoners were below 15 years. Connected with a disturbed family structure were changes regarding the educational milieu. 40% of the group changed their homes in their childhood, in the case of about one-fourth of them many changes were found: they brought up at least in three different homes. The marital relations of the prisoners’ parents were often (50%) very bad. The frequent breaking up of the family and work of the mothers to earn a living was often combined with the neglect of the children, found in as many as two-thirds of the families of the recidivists. On the basis of statements made by the studied group and their mothers the material conditions during their childhood were in 55% of the families very difficult, preventing the satisfaction of the most basic needs. The sampled recidivists relatively frequently came from families with many children: in 38% of the cases these were families with at least four children, in 21% these were families with three children. The brothers and sisters of the recidivists often, just as the latter themselves, had gaps in their primary school education (in 39% of the families there are found among the brothers and sisters persons who have not finished primary school education) and also had similar shortcomings regarding professional skills (over half the brothers had no vocational training at all). But the recidivists who were studied also had (though only in few cases) brothers and sisters by far outdistancing them as regards education. In as many as two-thirds of the families it was found that there were socially maladjusted brothers; in 44.5% of the families somebody from among the siblings had committed theft, had been brought before a court, while still being a minor, or had been convicted after having reached the age of 17; in as many as one-third of the families brothers were recidivists. The negative educational ditions in the families of the recidivists thus found their reflection in substantial social maladjustment of their brothers and sisters. The intensification of this maladjustment was, however, with the sampled group higher than was the case with their brothers, only one-fifth were families where all the brothers were recidivists. Studying the extent to which the sampled individuals were socially maladjusted While being juveniles, questions were asked during interviews regarding their early childhood. According to data obtained from mothers, neurotic symptoms could be noticed in many of the sampled recidivists (two-thirds). Though the percentage of those who showed such symptoms during the school period was slightly smaller (58%), there nevertheless were still many with such symptoms as bed-wetting (13%) and stuttering (17%). Half of the studied group of recidivists, who showed neurotic symptoms in school, displayed a number of such symptoms. During the investigation in prison 58% of the respondents admitted some neurotic symptoms, mainly disturbances of sleep and special fears. Striking was the frequent fact of stuttering (16.5%), found during inations in prison (on the basis of observation). A large group of persistent recidivists revealed a striking durability of neurotic symptoms from their childhood on till adulthood. Half of the recidivists of this group were defined by their mothers as ‘’difficult to bring up” during childhood (very disobedient and stubborn), while 44% were much more aggressive than the other children in the family. The childhood of the recidivists was marked by considerable disturbances at school: 16% of them finished no more than 3 grades of primary school, 25% -4-5 grades and 15% - 6 grades. A total of as many 56% did not finish primary school education. These shortcomings in primary school education were found especially often with those individuals among the group who had a lower IQ (IQ below 91), and those who had been brought up in negative family milieux, as well as those whose school years were during the war period and those who had revealed early social maladjustment. Two-thirds of this group of recidivists repeated the same class in school, 44% systematically played truant, in many cases (60%) it was found that the teachers had complained about their behaviour in school. While still being minors 41% of them had run away from home. Two-thirds maintained that during their childhood they spent much time outside their home, running the streets in the company of colleagues, who were stealing and drinking alcohol. Worth special attention is the fact, that close to half of the sampled group (46.8%) began already as minors to drink alcohol to excess, and there is information regarding 22%, indicating that when being barely 13-14 years old, they already were drinking wine or vodka at least once a week. On the basis of interviews and information obtained from juvenile court records, it was found that at least 36.2% of the recidivists from this group faced courts at an age below 17, while 21.3% were sent to approved schools. Taking into account also additional information regarding theft that was not found out, it has appeared that as many as at least 57% of the persistent recidivists were stealing or brought before a court while they were still under age. They belong to the category of former juvenile delinquents who are recidivists and whose offences are of a most persistent nature. Those recidivists whose delinquency started while they were still adolescents, more frequently than the remaining ones, came from negative family milieux. In interviews and tests results more frequently data found among them testifying to personality maladjustment: aggressiveness during school attendence and aggressiveness during the period when these studies were conducted (found on the basis of the opinions of psychologists and questionnaires according to the Buss-Durkee inventory, MMPI profiles with a markedly raised F scale). In addition to those of the group who committed offences while minors, there were still 53 (25%) of them who, though they had, as it was found, not committed offences at that time, nevertheless revealed considerable social maladjustment. Only in the case of 17% of the recidivists studied, no such symptoms were found. These recidivists were during the period when the studies were conducted in many respects better than the remaining ones: they more often possessed professional skills, had worked more systematically, more rarely been in prison and had longer intervals between the successive convictions. The first convictions of these individuals after the age of 17 started later, more among them had their first trials only after the age of 21. But as regards alcohol drinking they did not differ from the other recidivists. This is a very important fact, since in the genesis of offences committed by recidivists who as minors had not shown symptoms of social maladjustment, drinking of alcohol in excess played a larger role than was the case with the remaining recidivists and the entire character of the offences committed by them later was connected with habitual drinking of alcohol. Recidivists in whom no symptoms of social maladjustment were found while they were adolescents, nevertheless came, just like the remaining recidivists, relatively frequently from negative family milieux and often data were found concerning them, which pointed to early personality disorders; thus they were especially susceptible to unfavourable social conditions. In the life histories of these recidivists can be clearly noticed the significance of unfavourable situations for the genesis of their delinquency; the lasting aspect of this delinquency is later combined with alcoholism and difficulties encountered in the social functioning of individuals, who have already been in prison. Data from the juvenile period of persistent recidivists indicate that they entered adult society already with substantial gaps in their education, without the habit of systematic work and without any vocational training. Only three from among the studied group had finished vocational school, and at the time the study took place 55% had no professional qualifications whatsoever. This lack of vocational skill was especially often typical of those, who in connection with their lower intelligence quotient had objective difficulties at school, were lacking sufficient motivation to learn a trade and those, who had stayed at liberty only for a very short period. The studied group started to work at an early age (41% already below 16), which was connected with their difficult material conditions and the early dropping out from school. When being young adults half of the sampled group had worked relatively systematically (at least during half the period they stayed at liberty and were able to work). Later in their life can be noticed a distinct decline in systematic work. During their last stay at liberty 43% did not work at all; among the remaining individuals, 40% of those who started to work, were longer without work than with work. During the entire period since they reached the age of 17 only one-third of them worked more than half the time they actually could have worked, while the majority worked very little, of these 35% less than 25% of the time they would have worked. Unsystematic work was often combined with certain* personality traits of these individuals, such as agressiveness and inability to submit to discipline combined with a lack of professional qualifications and also with social derailment. In 30% of the recidivists degradation in the performance of their professional work found expression not only in the decrease of systematic work, but also in the shifting from work, requiring certain professional skill, to unskilled labour. This was partly connected with a complete lack of interest in the trade they had learned and above all with degradation due to alcoholism. Not without significance were undoubtedly also difficulties in obtaining a job, connected with prior stays in prison. Those recidivists to whom offences were almost the only source of maintenance, accounted for 17.7%. As many as 19% earned their living partly by committing offences and partly by getting help from their families. Thus, a 'total of over one-third were recidivists who lived above all from offences and work was not their source of income. 29% of the recidivists got the means to cover their expenses through work and by committing offences against property. For 34% of the studied individuals delinquency was most probably not the main source of their income: either they earned their living only through work (16%) or through work and by partly being kept by the family (10%) or they were exclusively maintained by the family (8%). The data gathered indicate that the recidivists studied here were frequently a burden for their families, that many of them had not established a family of their own, those who were married frequently did not perform their duties in regard to their families, and many of the marriages broke up. Their behaviour and relations with the family were characterized by substantial maladjustment to the requirements of family life. The percentage of bachelors among the sampled group was twice as high as is the case with their age group in the whole of Poland’s population of men and amounted to 40%. As many as 20% were divorced and 40% married. But only 20% lived during the period before their last arrest together with their wives; as many as 44% lived with their parents (mainly with their mothers). More than half of the married couples were marked by marital discord. Very bad relations with the wife were often connected with frequent imprisonment of the recidivists, with alcoholism and also the fact that their wives often were women whose personality and mode of life could contribute to the unstability of their married life. The majority of the recidivists completely neglected their children, one-third carried various objects out of the house and afterwards sold them to buy vodka. 18% were convicted of offences harmful to the family. Almost half of them received material help from their families. After release from prison only one-fourths of the studied group can live with their wives. Over half counted on living with their parents and on material help from them, the remaining 25% could not count on anybody's material help, 17% of them even had nowhere to live after their release. While they were at liberty the recidivists studied here drank alcohol as a rule to excess, much more than the average of men does in the towns of Poland. Almost 88% drank at least a quarter of a litre of vodka three times and more a week. The systematic drinking of alcohol to excess was typical not only of the persistent recidivists, of the studied sample, but also of other populations of recidivists studied in Poland. It was found that among this group of recidivists there were many individuals, who were alcoholics already at an advanced stage. In the case of 117 of them (53%) a syndrome of symptoms was found, typical of alcoholism. With the majority of them the abstinence syndrome could be established, 21% had gone through an alcohol psychosis. The recidivists started to drink alcohol to excess very early, half of them already before they were 17 years old, 20% at the age of 17-18, 10% from 19-20 years and only 15% - at the age of 21 or later. Combined with the early drinking of alcohol to excess, were distinct symptoms of alcoholism appearing at an early age. They could be noticed with the majority of the alcoholics after at least eight years from the time they had started systematically to drink alcohol to excess. However, this period would be shorter, if one took into consideration the periods of imprisonment, which were for the recidivists enforced breaks in their systematic drinking. In 25% of the recidivists, who were alcoholics, distinct symptoms of alcoholism appeared already at an age below 25 years, 36% - it started between 25 and 27. Symptoms testifying to an advanced stage decreased tolerance and abstinence syndrome appeared according to the recidivists around the age of 27. Systematic drinking of alcohol to excess already at a very early age thus led to early appearance of symptoms of alcoholism. The genesis of the progressive process of demoralization and delinquency, as a rule, had its source not in the abuse of alcohol. Drinking of alcohol to excess usually began already when people started to go astray or to commit offences. Those of the recidivists who drank alcohol to excess from the -time they were still under age, were already at such an early period more socially maladjusted than the remaining recidivists and 'drinking alcohol to excess was at that time one of the elements of their mode of life within a group of demoralized adolescents. For those who started to drink alcohol to excess as young adults (as a rule being also socially maladjusted while still under age), the beginning of abuse of alcohol was often combined with work to earn a living and opportunities to drink at work. Though abuse of alcohol did not play an essential role in the genesis of the process of social maladjustment in the case of this group of persistent recidivists and in the genesis of their delinquency, it nevertheless exerted a distinct influence on the intensification and nature of their further offences. This influence can be noticed in the heterogenity of the offences committed by them and also in the fact that there are only few among the persistent recidivists who have committed offences exclusively against property; connected with the abuse of alcohol is the considerable percentage among the recidivists of those who have committed violent offences. Connected with drinking alcohol to excess are also short periods of being at liberty between the successive convictions. Two categories can be distinguished among the persistent recidivists, where systematic drinking alcohol to excess played a major role regarding their delinquency; this was the group of 41 recidivists, convicted almost exclusively for violent offences in a state of drunkenness and a group of 33 individuals who committed theft while drunk, the motive being as a rule to obtain in this way money to buy alcohol. In the case of the investigated from these two groups, as a rule abuse of alcohol precedes substantially the beginning of delinquency; there are more skilled workers among them, who first used , to work systematically, but later degradation in professional work sets in; among these groups are more recidivists who were first convicted at a later age (above 20 years). Among those who committed petty theft connected with alcoholism, a type of alcoholic already in an advanced stage of alcoholism can be often noticed. He is passive, with a low educational level and a lowered intelligence quotient. Those who commit assaultive offences while drunk, are especially often characterized by bad tolerance of alcohol; an analysis of the individual cases reveals that the patterns of demoralization of these offenders are most varied. Though 40% of the recidivists who are alcoholics started treatment against alcoholism, while at liberty, they usually gave it up again after a few visits at the outpatient clinics. Only 10% of the alcoholics were treated in psychiatric hospitals in connection with alcoholism; they were sent there because of symptoms of alcoholic psychosis. Dealing with the problem of personality disorders of this group of recidivists the research concentrated on finding answers to the following problems: - whether and in what respect results of the psychological examinations of persistent recidivists differ from the results obtained through studies of the average population and studies of prisoners who are not persistent recidivists. Differences were taken into account in the intelligence level tested with the Wechsler-Bellevue scale and in the personality measured by the MMPI; - what the findings of psychiatric examinations were (examinations to which 59% of the recidivists were subjected); - the setting apart and analysis, on the basis of the entire material, of some of the personality determinants in behavioural deviations of these individuals. The Wechsler-Bellevue scale was administered to 211 of the persistent recidivists. The results obtained testify to the fact that they markedly differ from 'the average population and the level of their intelligence belongs to the lowest as compared with the results of various other studies of prisoners. As many as 44% of -them had a lower IQ (IQ below 91), 27% were dull (IQ 80-90), 11.8% of boderline intelligence (IQ 66-79) and 5.2% were mentally deficient. The percentage of individuals with the above average intelligence was among those studied here small (9.0%). Though the level of education and the acquired professional qualifications were as a rule very low in the group under investigation, they were particularly low in the case of those recidivists, who had a lowered IQ. The lowered level of intelligence thus made it for many of the recidivists difficult to obtain primary education and to learn a trade. The majority of those with a low level of intelligence were individuals who had not even graduated from primary school, who had learned no trade and revealed substantial shortcomings in reading and writing. (As many as 44.5% of those investigated were rather bad in reading and writing). The results obtained through intelligence tests also make one reach the conclusion, that most probably the deterioration of certain intellectual functions noticed with the recidivists under investigation were connected with their alcoholism. Though it was not established (which is in accordance with the results of a number of studies) that the recidivists who revealed symptoms of alcoholism and a lower IQ than the remaining prisoners, it nevertheless was found in the case of alcoholics that more frequently the verbal scale outdistanced the performance scale; besides, tests of alcoholics revealed more frequently profiles with symptoms, according to Wechsler, typical of alcoholics in an advanced stage of alcoholism. No significant differences in intelligence level were found between recidivists, depending on the 'type of offences committed by them. But it was found, that recidivists, who were for the first time convicted when already older than 20 years, revealed a lower IQ than recidivists, who had prior convictions at an earlier age. Among recidivists with a later start of convictions is a particularly large number in the genesis of whose delinquency alcoholism played a role and their inability independently to perform the basic tasks in life, which may be connected also with their low IQ. MMPI was administered to 148 recidivists serving according to its authors’ intentions to evaluate the most important personality traits, influencing the personal and social adjustment. The results obtained indicated marked personality disorders in the case of persistent recidivists as compared with other groups of people, studied with the same inventory, who did not commit offences and did not reveal mental disorders, and also in comparison with prisoners with a lesser degree of social degradation. Among the profiles obtained from these recidivists very frequently high-ranging profiles could be found (48%), where at least one scale reached 81-100 points.High profiles were rarely found in other Polish research. The average profile of the recidivists studied here shows a predominance of scale 6 (Pa) and 4 (Pd) and high too are scales 8 (Sc) and 2 (D), pointing to considerable hostility on the part of the sampled individuals, their suspicious attitude to and lack of confidence in their environment, irritability, shallowness of emotional reactions, alienation, lack of positive family ties and defiance of moral norms. Typical of this group is also a considerable moodiness, low self-esteem, lack of belief in one’s own possibilities and mental demobilization. The average profile of this group is similar to a psychopatic profile, but (as is the case in certain other Polish studies of prisoners) with a substantial paranoid and schizoid component. The results obtained point to greater personality disorders in recidivists, revealing symptoms of alcoholism than in those, where such symptoms were not found. Alcoholics obtained higher scores than non-alcoholics in all the clinical scales. There were, however, found no differences in the shape of the mean profile, which in both compared groups is similar and characterized by elevation of the same scales. Alcoholics revealed higher scores in all the scales; the differences noticed reached a level of statistical significance in all the scales with the exception of scales 4 (Pd) and 2 (D). This result is interesting, because in various foreign studies on alcoholics it was found that precisely these two scales differentiated in a statistically significant manner in the case of alcoholics and non-alcoholics. But in the population of persistent recidivists, characterized in general by marked psycho-social maladjustment, dating back to childhood, and alcoholism of some of them has its roots in this maladjustment, it was found, that alcoholics failed to differ significantly from non-alcoholics in scale 4 (Pd). The life situation of all the recidivists studied (within prison walls because of convictions) undoubtedly exerted its influence on the scores in scale 2 (D), in the case of alcoholics as well as non-alcoholics. Expert psychiatric opinions (regarding various periods of the life of the persistent recidivists) and/or results of psychiatric examinations conducted during this survey were collected for 60% of the cases. These data show that only in 10% of the examined recidivists neither personality disorders nor any other mental disorders were found. In as many as 70% of the recidivists, subjected to psychiatric expert examination, personality disorders of various etiology were discovered: psychopathy in 48%, encephalopathy in 22%; in 40% alcoholism was found, appearing as such or jointly with other disorders. Data regarding the remaining recidivists, not embraced by psychiatric examinations, indicate, that the majority (as many as 63%) of them were marked by advanced alcoholism, or had suffered from brain damage or psychological examinations revealed mental deficiency. After having studied data related to the remaining 37% of cases not subjected to psychiatric examination, it turned out, that though the above mentioned disorders were not found, nevertheless the majority of them were people, whose behaviour was marked by considerable agressiveness as well as self-aggression and only in 9% of the recidivists, not subjected to psychiatric examinations, no such behaviour patterns were found. The entire information about all the prisoners who were persistent recidivists - those who underwent psychiatric examinations as well as those who did not - indicates that individuals who revealed no distinct psychopathological symptoms are rare among them, amounting according to estimates to around 10% (taking into account the established percentage among those who underwent psychiatric examinations), and to 20%, if one would take into consideration also data about recidivists who underwent no psychiatric examinations, taking into account their mental deficiency, alcoholism and brain damage. The last mentioned percentage (20%) would, however, decrease markedly, if one would take into account data about certain behavioural disturbances of the recidivists, above all about their aggressiveness and self-aggression. When discussing the entire material special attention should be drawn to the fact that in one-fifth of the group encephalopathy (disturbances connected with brain damage) was diagnosed and in another 9% encephalopathy was suspected, since it was 'to a considerable degree justified by the entire aspect of the data stemming from the interview. In additional 25% it was found during interviews that they had suffered from concussions of the skull, combined with loss of consciousness. But in these cases (there nevertheless, was a lack of sufficient data, confirming this information. Data regarding the age at which the recidivists suffered from brain damage or diseases of the central nervous system indicate, that in the case of 40% of them such diseases took place during the earlier period of their - life (complications of delivery, traumas or meningitis at preschool age), with only one-third it occurred when they were already young adults or adults. Those recidivists who suffered from brain damage, frequently distinguished themselves by substantial impulsiveness, they were aggressive, committed acts of self-aggression and badly adjusted to prison conditions. Thus, those who had suffered from brain damage obviously had difficulties in social adjustment. However, with approximately half of those who had suffered such damage, the process of social maladjustment had already begun before they had suffered such damage. On the basis of the entire aspect of data about the behaviour of the recidivists during various periods of their life - in prison as well as at liberty - a psychopathological characteristic outline was drawn up for each one of them. Included in this characteristic outline were those personality traits appearing with special intensity, which according to the psychologists, conducting the survey in prison, were of special significance for social maladjustment in each case. A comparison of the above-mentioned characteristic traits yielded a picture, similar to that obtained in surveys conducted with MMPI. The majority of the recidivists were defined as touchy, quick-tempered, incapable to make systematic efforts, with insufficient resistance to cope with the difficulties of life. They often revealed a deep conviction of having been wronged and in connection with this strong resentment, directed against their environment. As many as 45% of the recidivists were defined as showing substantial disturbances in their emotional attitude towards their surroundings: of these 29% - as being unable to establish lasting, positive emotional ties with their milieu, 16% had completely broken all ties with their nearest family, due to intensified conflicts with them. Relatively frequently (52%) could be isolated a type of a passive recidivist whose passivity was partly being explained by his constant lack of achievements, not only in the sphere of approved social activity, but also in the sphere of delinquency. 59% revealed marked impulsiveness; these were individuals, whose behaviour was characterized by shortrange activity, without any more distant goals, lack of giving any thought to the consequences of their own conduct, an attitude aimed at getting temporary, immediate pleasure out of it. The impulsiveness was particulary striking in two types of behaviour patterns: in aggression and self -aggression. Three-fourths of the recidivists were defined as aggressive (such who time and again, in various situations and in regard to various individuals had behaved aggressively and those who revealed generalized, great hostility). Among the aggressive ones one-third were those, who behaved aggressively only when /not sober. In the case of a considerable part of the aggressive individuals information about their aggressiveness was from a period, when they were still of school age. More frequently aggressive were those who showed symptoms of alcoholism than those who did not. Frequently, acts of self-aggression were sombined with aggressiveness. Acts of self-aggression were committed by 56%. Many of such acts were not some specific reaction to prison situations, the majority of the perpetrators had committed acts of self-aggression while at liberty (28% of them committed self-aggression only when at liberty, 41% - while at liberty and in prison, too). More frequently alcoholics committed acts of self -aggression than those who showed no symptoms of alcoholism. The biographies of recidivists indicate that significant for the genesis and the deepening of their social maladjustment was a negative family milieu, during their childhood as well as personality disorders revealed by them, which grew in intensity in connection with later experiences in life and also with their alcoholism. A comparison of persistent recidivists, coming from families, evaluated as negative, with the remaining persistent recidivists, revealed a number of essential differences among them. Recidivists from negative family milieux began more frequently to commit theft while still under age, more frequently revealed aggressiveness during their school period, more often did not graduate primary school, began at an especially early age to drink alcohol to excess. In individuals brought up in a negative atmosphere and deprived of care, the early symptoms of maladjustment revealed considerable durability. Alcoholism - having its roots in the social maladjustment of the recidivists studied here - deepened existing disorders, proof of which are the results, presented above, pointing to lowering of certain intellectual functions with some of them and personality disorders in the case of those recidivists who showed symptoms of alcoholism. This testifies to the fact that alcoholics were more frequently marked by passivity, impulsiveness in action, aggressiveness and self-aggression. The data collected indicate that multiple stays in prison intensified the alienation of the recidivists and hampered their attempts at social readjustment. Imprisonment weakened the anyhow already weak ties with the family and limited their social contacts to other prisoners only. In regard to the prison officers the recidivists revealed considerable hostility, which, as it seems, could not remain without an influence on their attitude towards other people representing the authorities. Though terms meant for 'the persistent recidivists a compulsory break in prison drinking, this, however, did not prevent, as results from their statements, the further drinking of alcohol to excess immediately after their release from prison. These studies reveal that persistent recidivists are not a homogeneous population. There could be noticed distinct differences between those among them (who account for 70.4%) who had early convictions after the age of 17, when still being young adults and those (29.6%) who had their first conviction at a later age, when 21 years old and more. Those “late” recidivists are less socially degraded, they committed rather petty offences, most frequently connected with drinking alcohol to excess.Though the “late” recidivists do not suffer substantially from the “early” recidivists as regards the number of those showing symptoms of alcoholism and though they started later th&n the “early” offenders to drink too much alcohol, there nevertheless are more individuals among them, whose delinquency is already of a secondary nature, making its appearance in their life later than systematic abuse of alcohol. In the case of “late” recidivists it was found more often than in that of “early” ones that they had a lower IQ, but there were among them fewer individuals considered aggressive and more rarely individuals guilty of self-aggresion. The data presented before, point to the heterogeneity of the offences committed by persistent recidivists. First of all there should be set apart among the recidivists those (approximately one-fourth of the total) who, on the basis of the offences committed by them may be listed as “serious” and the remaining ones who should rather be considered perpetrators of petty offences. In addition to this there can be set apart 27% of the perpetrators of offences exclusively against property and 9% of recidivists who were exclusively guilty of offences against the person. The majority of the recidivists were, however, the perpetrators or a variety of offences, which was undoubtedly due to drinking alcohol to excess. Those who committed theft, under 'the influence of alcohol committed assaults, some of those who committed offences against the person started in connection with their growing habit of drinking alcohol to excess, to steal, in order to obtain the money needed for alcohol. Though the abuse of alcohol effaced the differences of delinquency of the various categories of recidivists, it was possible to establish that those among them, who committed exclusively or mainly offences against the person (27.6%) more frequently had in the past suffered from brain damage. Those individuals studied, who were almost exclusively perpetrators of offences of an assaultive nature (18.7%), differed from the remaining ones by an essentially smaller degree of social maladjustment, the later start of delinquency (more often only above the age of 20), by more systematic work at 'the time they were still adolescents, and the fact that more often they had learned a trade and spent less time in prison. Often poor alcohol tolerance was found with these individuals. Proof of the heterogeneous nature of the population of persistent recidivists are the results, pointing to the significant differences among those of them, who were convicted for the first time when above twenty years old and those, who were brought before a court and convicted much earlier, between the perpetrators of offences against the person and the remaining persistent recidivists. To the heterogenous features of the examined population point also the previously mentioned results, indicating significant differences among recidivists, revealing symptoms of alcoholism and those where such symptoms were not found.

19

Wielokrotni recydywiści o wczesnym i późnym początku karalności

51%

Ostrihanska Z.

Archiwum Kryminologii

|

1969

|

issue IV

59-104

EN

This part of the work presents an analysis of the process of social degradation regarding prisoners, persistent recidivists (convicted not less than four times and imprisoned for at least the fourth time), aged between 26 and 35. The investigations embraced 220 prisoners whose delinquency was closely examined. This work however takes particular note of those, who relatively late (only after 21) had their first trial in the Court of Justice. First of all, it was important to determine whether they were less socially maladjusted in their childhood than the recidivists whose trials began earlier (between 17 and 20), what were the origins of their delinquency and what factors influenced the etiology of their recidivism. Those recidivists whose first trials began at 21 or later constitute a relatively small group of 29,6%, among the 220 recidivists investigated. The remaining recidivists of 26-35 years of age had their first trials earlier. 1. On the basis of the interviews and after a check in Juvenile Courts it has been established that among the late recidivists (convicted for the first time at the age of 21 at least) only about one third (30,7%) were those who committed offences (thefts as a rule) as juveniles (under 17). Among the early recidivists (convicted for the first time at the age of 17-20) such subjects constituted 60,0%. In general, among the late recidivists, those who stole or committed other offences as juveniles constituted 33,8% while among the early recidivists such subjects constituted as many as 65,1%. These figures show that more of the early recidivists than of the latę recidivists committed offences (thefts as a rule) as juveniles. There is a statistically significant correlation between the perpetration of offences by the subjects when they were juveniles and the early beginning of their trials after they were 17 (dependence at the level of significance 0,001). Thefts committed by the late recidivists in their juvenility were in general less frequent and less serious than those committed at that period by the early recidivists. Only 43,8% of the late recidivists of whom it was possible to obtain some data relating to the places of thefts they had committed as juveniles, were stealing outside their homes and schools. Among the early recidivists such persons constitute as many as 80%. 24,5% of the early recidivists were tried at least twice in Juvenile Courts while among the late recidivists such persons constituted merely 6,1%. The division of the subjects into two groups according to the age at which they were first tried after they were 17 is then justified by the ascertainments of the actual beginnings of their delinquency when they were juveniles. Among the late recidivists, the subjects who started committing offences as juveniles and continued to do so until their first trial when they were at least 21, constitute only 13,8%. The remaining late recidivists, who committed offences as juveniles (20%), did so only sporadically or altogether stopped to commit them but recommenced in connection with their later abuse of alcohol. 2. The fact that despite a late, in general, beginning of their actual delinquency the late recidivists were repeatedly convicted and repeatedly imprisoned, may be connected with the circumstance that the subjects who were socially maladjusted already as juveniles constituted two thirds of the total. However, the late recidivists manifested social maladjustment in their juvenility less often than early recidivists, among whom as many as 90,8% were socially maladjusted at that time. (Social maladjustment was established in 83% of cases of the total of the investigated persistent recidivists). These late recidivists who did not display any symptoms of social maladjustment in their juvenility began, in general, to commit offences in connection with their abuse of alcohol, and their entire delinquency as adults is connected with alcoholism: they commit chiefly aggressive offences in the state of inebriety, also thefts, the proceeds of which are immediately spent on alcohol. 3. The childhood of the subjects was characterized by considerable disturbances of their study at school. Only 43,6% of the investigated (47,7% of the late recidivists and 42,5% of the early recidivists) finished the 7-grade elementary school. The education of the investigated recidivists is lower than that of the total of prisoners. 16,5% of the subjects finished three grades, at most. Those who did not reach the sixth grade of the elementary school constitute 41,4% of the total of recidivists (40,0% among the late recidivists and 42,5% among the early recidivists). Similar gaps in elementary education have also been established through investigations on juvenile recidivists, previously conducted by the Department of Criminology. It has been established that the subjects did not finish the elementary school on account of their having been brought up in a negative family environment, lower of their intelligence, social maladjustment in their juvenile years and war-time difficulties of some part of the subjects. About two thirds of the subjects repeated some grades. Truancy was systematically practised by 54,6%, of the investigated (40,4% of the late recidivists and 60,4% of the early recidivists). In 60% of cases the subjects stated that teachers had often complained of their bad behaviour at school. About half of the subjects declared that they had considerable difficulties at school. 50,6% of the subjects drank liquor as juveniles at least once a month or wine at least once a week. (36,5% of the late recidivists and 57,0% of the early recidivists). 41,1% of the subjects ran away from home (21,5% of the late recidivists and 49% of the early recidivists). The subjects (60,0%) often kept company, as adolescents, with friends who committed thefts (38,6% of the late recidivists and as many as 68% of the early recidivists). In this way, the late recidivists less often than the early recidivists displayed as adolescents particular symptoms of social maladjustment. 4. The subjects' family environments revealed in majority of cases a syndrome of factors which were negative from thę educational point of view. Family environments, evaluated negatively because of alcoholism in the family, lack of systematic work of the father or delinquency, constituted no less than 60,3% (50% among late recidivists and 64,4% among early recidivists). Systematic abuse of alcohol by fathers was often (52,4%) established in the families of the investigated (46% of the fathers of the late recidivists and 61,4% of the fathers of the early recidivists). The percentage of fathers who systematically abused of alcohol even before birth of the investigated is also considerable and amounts to 43%. (35% of the late recidivists and 48,3%, of the early recidivists). Alcoholism was established in a fairly considerable percentage of families of parents of the investigated, namely their fathers or brothers (55,6%). The late recidivists were for the most part brought up in only one educational environment, i.e. they had only one home and were under constant care of at least' one and the same person (73,8% of the late recidivists). During the childhood of the early recidivists, changes of their educational environments were established more often (45,5% of cases). Nearly one third of the early recidivists were brought up in at least three educational environments while such frequent changes of educational environments regarding the late recidivists were established in only 13% of cases. Family homes of the late recidivists were educationally more advantageous than those of the early recidivists. Educationally negative factors such as alcoholism or delinquency of fathers were established less often. Similarly, changes of educational environments during their childhood were less frequent. 5. The percentage of those subjects who came from large families was considerable: 36,4% of the investigated had three or more brothers or sisters. Brothers and sisters of the investigated either displayed similar lacks in elementary education but some of them were on a much higher educational level. In 36,4% of cases the investigated had brothers or sisters who did not finish elementary school. As many as 28,5% of the investigated had somęone in the family who graduated from a vocational school. Higher education appeared in families of the investigated in 7,2% of cases. In many families there were brothers without any professional qualifications whatever (53,7 % of cases). It is significar that many persistent recidivists had brothers who displayed symptoms of social maladjustment' committed offencęs or were judicially convicted. Social maladjustment of at least one brother was established in two-thirds of cases, 44,7% of the investigated had someone in their families who committed unrevealed thefts or was tried by Juvenile Courts or Courts of Law for thefts and other offences. Percentages of the late recidivists with socially maladjusted siblings did not differ from similar percentages of the early recidivists. 6. At the time of the investigations 41,8% of the investigated were bachelors, which constitutes a percentage twice higher than the established percentage of the total of men in Poland aged between 25 and 34. Bachelors appeared more often among the early recidivists (45,8%) than among the late recidivists (32,3%). However, most marriages contracted by the late recidivists were subsequently broken (54,5%). In the period preceding their arrest only 28,6% of the investigated stayed with their wives. 19,5% lived outside their family circle at that time. Wives of the investigated often came from the ranks of socially maladjusted women. 28,8% of them were abusing of alcohol. 18% were convicted by Courts of Law. 8% of the wives of the late recidivists and 17,5% of the wives of the early recidivists were suspected to practice prostitution. In two thirds of cases within the family backgrounds of the wives there could be found brothers or fathers who were abusing of alcohol. A relatively good family life of the actually married recidivists was established only in 36,3%, of cases. In the remaining families there occurred constant quarrels and rows, mostly provoked by the investigated in the state of inebriety. It has been established, that as many as 57% of late recidivists and 52,9% of early recidivists were aggressive to their families in the state of inebriety. 46% of late recidivists and 31,6% of early recidivists took things and money from their homes and spent them on alcohol. 21,5% of the late recidivists and 10,3% of early recidivists were tried at least once for maltreating their families in state of inebriety. The situation of children brought up in such families is certainly very unfavourable. 63% of late recidivists and 50% of early recidivists had children and relatively often they presented serious educational difficulties, had difficulties at school or displayed neurotic symptoms. Appearance of any of these symptoms was established in 58,6% of the families of the late recidivists in children over 7 and in 70% of the families of the early recidivists in children of the same age. 7. One of the most important questions which revealed itself at the examination of the social adjustment of the investigated during the period when they were over 17 was the course of their professional work and particularly the appearancę among them of individuals who either did not work at all or worked only by snatches. Most of the investigated did not have any profession at all (56,1%), not even such, which could be acquired at a short course or at work. Only few of the investigated had professional qualifications acquired at vocational schools (8,2%-13,8% among the late recidivists and 6% among the early recidivists). The late recidivists more often had a profession (55,4%) than the early recidivists (40,4%). Many late recidivists however, who had some professional qualifications had with time stopped working in that profession (58,4% already did not work in their profession at the time preceding their last arrest). Usually, it was due to a degradation caused by the abuse of alcohol. Since the investigated recidivists were of different age and spent different periods of time in prison, it was ascertained, that it would be best to compare the duration of their respective work by means of percentages (the duration of work done in their life beginning at 17 - in relation to the whole period during which the investigated were at liberty and were able to work). Already at the time when the investigated were 17 -20 a distinct difference in the duration of work of the early and the late recidivists has become manifest. Among the late recidivists, more frequent are cases of such subjects who at the age of 17 - 20 worked longer than half the time in which they were able to work while among the early recidivists, more frequent were cases of working less than half that time (statistical dependence significant on significance level 0,001). Differences in the duration of work of the early and the late recidivists become evident also at the examination of the entire period of their life, beginning at 17. The investigated who worked more than half of the time in which they were able to work, constituted 30% of the total of the investigated recidivists (27% among early recidivists and nearly half of late recidivists). Only few recidivists worked longer than three-quarters of the time in which they were able to work (merely 11,5%). In this way, a considerable majority of the investigated recidivists worked only unsystematically or did not work at all. As many as 35% of the investigated worked only less than one-fourth of the time in which they were able to work. The irregular character of their work was due to their early social maladjustment. Those investigated who worked very little in their life were more often maladjusted as juveniles than those who worked for longer periods (dependence statistically significant on the significance level 0,001). Besides, in the origins of the subjects' attitude to work, the absence of vocational training, connected with the unfinished elementary school and the lowered intellectual level, constituted the essential element. This lack of professional qualifications was an obstacle in getting a job of a certain social status. To simple, physical work, demanding considerable physical effort, the majority of the investigated had a decidedly negative attitude. Systematic abuse of alcohol was another factor which contributed to the irregular character of their work. For instance, according to the evidence given by their employers, the subjects often drank alcohol during working hours. Only for 16,4% of the investigated their wages constituted their sole source of maintenance. However, the investigated whose sources of maintenance were exclusively legal (wages or help of the family) constituted 34,1%. Living on various sorts of offences exclusively (i.e. besides thefts also other offences against property, cheating at hazardous gams, illegal trade, etc.) was established only with 17,7%, of the investigated; recidivists living exclusively on committing offences appeared more often among early recidivists 20,6%) than among late recidivists (10,7%). The percentage of persistent recidivists living only on thefts was merely 8,6% of the total. The fact, that a relatively large percentage (36,8%) was supported, even partly, by parents or wives deserves consideration. 8. Among the investigated persistent recidivists an immense majority constitute men, who systematically abuse of alcohol (89,5%) whilst more than a half of the investigated (53,2%) are alcohol addicts. 50,6% of the investigated, already as juveniles, began drinking wine at least once a week or vodka at least once a month. 51,3% of the investigated drank at least a quarter-liter of vodka three times a week or more, before they were 21. Similarly, the investigated persistent recidivists early displayed first symptoms of alcoholism (61% of recidivists, who were alcohol addicts displayed distinct symptoms of alcoholism already under 28). A distinct abstinence syndrome was established in regard to 76% of alcoholic recidivists; it became evident already at the age of 27. The investigated who already suffered from alcoholic psychosis, delirium tremens for the most part, constitute among alcoholic recidivists a percentage as high as 21,4%. The average age of the subjects showing first symptoms of alcoholism is very young, much younger than that established in various investigations of alcohol addicts. 40% of the investigated alcohol addicts were treated at least once, usually under pressure of their families, in out-patients clinics, but very soon they interrupted the treatment and did not return to the clinic any more. The long process of systematic drinking of alcoholic beverages beginning almost at the time of their juvenility doubtlessly strengthened the symptoms of social maladjustment and personality deviations displayed by persistent recidivists. Data relating to the beginnings of the abuse of alcohol show that late recidivists began drinking alcoholic beverages later than early recidivists and they did it less often as juveniles (36,4% of late recidivists and 57,5% of early recidivists abused of alcohol as juveniles). However there is no difference in percentage of alcohol addicts among late recidivists and early recidivists. Regarding late recidivists the systematic abuse of alcohol plays, despite its later beginnings, a much more important role in the etiology of their delinquency than with the early recidivists. In general, in case of early recidivists, perpetration of offences preceded their systematic drinking of alcoholic beverages. On the other hand, in case of late recidivists, systematic drinking of alcohol and subsequent alcoholism constitute factors of the greatest importance regarding the origins of their persistent recidivism. It is fitting to mention, that considerable percentages of offenders systematically drinking alcoholic beverages in large quantities were already established by investigations previously conducted by the Department of Criminology, on juvenile and young recidivists (57% and 75%). In this connection, the creation of special institutions for treatment of alcoholic offenders should be acknowledged as an urgent social demand. 9. Over 17, the delinquency of late recidivists is less serious than that of early recidivists. There are more perpetrators of small thefts among late recidivists who seldom steal objects of greater value. Also there are less perpetrators of robberies among late recidivists (20%) than among early recidivists (34,8%). Late recidivists represent an altogether different type of offender than early recidivists. There are less “professional” (24,6%) offenders among them while such offenders constitute as high a percentage as 44,6% among early recidivists. Offenders, committing thefts in connection with their alcoholism, appear more often among late recidivists as well as offenders committing almost exclusively offences of the so-called hooligan character: against persons or public officers (mostly the insulting or attacking of the policemen). The subjects belonging to those two groups constitute 53,8% of the late and only 24,4% of the early recidivists. The difference in the gravity of offences committed by late and early recidivists is made evident also by penalties which were imposed upon them. There are more investigated among late recidivists sentenced exclusively to less than two years of prison (50,7%), whilst among early recidivists they constitute merely 20%. 10. When discussing the problem of juvenile delinquency we cannot bypass the subjects' personality disorders dating in many of them as early as their childhood. These disorders are made evident by biographies of the investigated and by dimensions of their social maladjustment as well as by a characteristic structure of offences, among which prevail offences against property, relatively unimportant, while offences connected with aggression constitute a considerable percentage. They are also shown by the fact, that a relatively considerable percentage of the investigated recidivists stayed in prison longer than at liberty. This work does not examine in detail problems of personality disorders (it will be the subject of a separate work). Nevertheless, certain matters should be touched upon. It has been ascertained on the basis of interviews that in 18,3% of cases there existed a justified suspicion that the investigated had a brain injury at birth. Besides, it was often ascertained that the investigated displayed neurotic symptoms in their childhood (in 66,2% of cases), particularly enuresis (24% of the investigated) and stuttering (15%). On the basis of the information supplied by the mothers and by the investigated themselves who confirmed that they had frequent fights at school and were pestering their siblings at home, it has been established that 44,9% were aggressive during their childhood. This aggressiveness had been found to be more frequent in cases of the early recidivists than in cases of the late recidivists. (The correlation between the early age at the first trial and the aggressiveness in childhood was statistically significant at the significance level 0.01). The percentage of those subjects who had ever suffered from illnesses in the central nervous system or who had suffered concussion of the brain was relatively considerable and amounted to 28,6%. The psychiatric expert evidence found in the records of 76 investigated, contained diagnosis of encephalopathy in regard to 20% of recidivists. In connection with the fact that many investigated were tried for committing aggressive offences, the problem of aggressiveness of persistent recidivists was given particular attention. In the first place those investigated were considered aggressive, whose behaviour was often aggressive (physical aggression) as well as those, who showed evident hostility to their environment. The investigated considered aggressive, constituted a considerable percentage (60%); moreover, 14,8% were aggressive only in the state of inebriety. Late recidivists were less often aggressive (45,1%) than early recidivists (66,4%). 50,3% of aggressive recidivists committed acts of self-aggression. The correIation between committing self-aggression and aggressiveness was statistically significant (on significance level 0,001). It is remarkable that various acts of self-aggression were established with 43,2% of the investigated (49,7% of early recidivists and, 27,7% of late recidivists). As many as 34,1% of the total of the investigated recidivists committed self-aggression when they were at liberty. Low professional qualifications of the investigated and non-graduation of the majority of them from elementary schools were partly connected with a relatively large percentage, in the investigated group, of men with a lowered level of intelligence. 44,1% of them, tested by Wechsler-Bellevue scale attained intelligence quotients below 91, while 17,1% were below 80. Examining these results it is necessary to take into consideration the fact, that the investigated group displayed a marked mental deterioration (the deterioration of over 20% was established in cases of 42,8% of the investigated). This may be connected with alcoholism of the investigated.

20

Partnerki życiowe recydywistów i ich rola w powstrzymywaniu aktywności przestępczej.

47%

Szczepanik R.

Profilaktyka Społeczna i Resocjalizacja

|

2015

|

vol. 26

35-57

PL

Pojęcia i relacje opisane w niniejszym artykule zostały wygenerowane z biografii mężczyzn odbywających karę pozbawienia wolności w więzieniu dla recydywistów (więcej niż trzeci raz). Analizie danych towarzyszyły procedury metodologii teorii ugruntowanej. W artykule podjęto się próby opisu pewnych typów kobiet oraz nadania znaczenia relacjom, jakie łączą ich z recydywistami w kontekście osłabiania aktywności przestępczej mężczyzn. Zainteresowaniem objęto jedynie te kobiety, z którymi recydywista nie pozostawał w relacji z powodu więzi biologicznych, a które pojawiły się w jego życiu w okresie, gdy „kariera przestępcza” była już ugruntowana. Okazuje się, że dla recydywistów, którzy po opuszczeniu zakładu karnego podejmują próby zerwania z wizerunkiem przestępcy, relacje z pewnym typem kobiet stanowią kluczowy czynnik sukcesu. To właśnie tego rodzaju związki (stanowiące narzędzie kontroli społecznej oraz źródło motywacji do zerwania z przestępczym stylem życia) i kobiety je tworzące znajdują się w głównym polu analiz podjętych w artykule.

EN

Concepts and personal relations discussed in this paper have been generated based on biographies of men who have served their prison sentence (more than three times) in the reoffender penitentiary center. Data analysis has been performed following the methodology of the grounded theory. The paper attempts at featuring the “profiles” of women and at making meaningful their relations with reoffenders, and in particular at determining their impact on reducing their criminal activities. The study covers solely those women who are in relations with reoffenders for reasons other than biological kinship, and who entered their lives when their “criminal career” had been in full bloom. The analysis shows that for reoffenders who, after leaving prison, try to leave behind their image of criminal, the relations with a “specific type” of women are a key factor of success. These relationships (as a tool of social control and a source of motivation to leave behind the criminal lifestyle) and women who get involved are the main research topics discussed in the paper.

Refine search results

Rozmiary recydywy u młodocianych więźniów po upływie 10 lat od ich zwolnienia z zakładów karnych

Criminology versus criminal law - selected theoretical and practical aspect.

Wykluczenie społeczne sprawców przestępstw seksualnych wobec dzieci a jego wpływ na recydywę – aspekty psychologiczne i prawn

Proč měřit recidivu nebinárně?

Empirical Analysis of the Rate of Reversion to Crime of those Given a Suspended Prison Sentence

Rozmiary recydywy u nieletnich podsądnych sprawców kradzieży

Dalsze losy nieletnich i młodocianych sprawców przestępstw

Wielokrotnie karani recydywiści w wieku 26-35 lat w świetle badań kryminologicznych

Socio-psychological issues of resocialization of convicts to imprisonment: Domestic and international experience

Efektywność nadzoru ochronnego (wyniki badań 232 recydywistów poddanych nadzorowi ochronnemu)

Prawo jako jeden z mechanizmów wzrostu przestępczości

Perspektywa efektywności w resocjalizacji

Współczesne problemy resocjalizacji

Współuzależnienie w relacji z recydywistą

The Impact of Relapse into Crime on the Degree of Offender’s Guilt in Canon Law and Polish Law

Analiza przestępczości wielokrotnych recydywistów

Przestępczość nieletnich w Polsce w latach 1961-1967 (rozmiary, struktura przestępczości, orzeczone środki)

Wielokrotni recydywiści w świetle badań kryminologicznych i psychologicznych

Wielokrotni recydywiści o wczesnym i późnym początku karalności

Partnerki życiowe recydywistów i ich rola w powstrzymywaniu aktywności przestępczej.