1.  Subject of discussion will be such families of alcoholics (involving mothers and fathers) from the area of Warsaw, where the necessity arose to curtail, or suspend parental authority or deprive parents of such rights completely. The families investigated can be divided into the following categories: families where only the father was an alcoholic — 95 families (49.5%), families in which the father as well as the mother were alcoholics 64 families (33.3%) and families where only the mother was an alcoholic 33 familes (17.2%).* Note in the material studied here that as many as 54.5% of the mothers were considered to be alcoholics, and in this case 46% of these mothers-, alcoholics were registered as prostitutes. The mothers who were alcoholics had in 39% of the cases been convicted by courts (those who were not alcoholics in about 20% of the cases). Data regarding fathers who were alcoholics, whose average age in 1973 was 44 years, testify to the fact that the majority of them had no prior convictions or were only once convicted (57%): those with multiple convictions (four times and more) accounted for 20%. In the delinquency structure of the fathers was a predominance of violent offences committed when intoxicated. The majority of the fathers (57%) did not work or worked only on and off . The material conditions in these families of alcoholics were very unfavourable. 68% of these families lived in misery and want. Complete neglect of the children was found as regards the overwhelming majority of the fathers (62%) and a large number of mothers (41%). Especially adverse was the situation in families where the mothers were alcoholics and where misery and want was found in as many as 80%, complete neglect of the children by mothers in two-thirds of the families. As results from the above-mentioned data the situation of children in the families examined (especially in families where the mothers were alcoholics) was very bad; the criminality on the part of the fathers was, however, not a special problem here. 2. In 200 of the families of alcoholics, surveyed here, 487 children below the age- of 18 were brought up — 258 boys and 229 girls. Among these children, 20% were of pre-school age, 39.8% between 7 and 12, 38.2% between 13 and 17 years. The follow-up period was studied, regarding 487 children and juveniles from these families until the oldest among them (being at the beginning of the study above 10 years old) had reached the average age of 20 years. It should, however, be borne in mind that during the follow-up period only those data were at the disposal which could be obtained from official records, which contained information about cases brought before a court and arrests of these individuals by the police. Thus, an essential shortcoming, connected with the impossibility to conduct environmental interviews, is the lack of information about other facts, besides those in the records, such as symptoms of social maladjustment or whether the investigated individuals possessed professional qualifications and whether they had worked, in which milieu they had lived, whether they had systematically drunk alcohol to excess, etc. But data found in the records of the guardianship court, regarding the school period of the juveniles exactly characterize the extent of their social maladjustment. Significant is above all the fact that the sons of alcoholics (fathers and mothers) were often delayed in their studies at school. Among the boys below ten years one-third were already delayed in their studies: at the age between 10 and 12 half of them, however above 12 three- fourths. Among the latter there were 63% delayed by two or more years. Among girls below 10 years 14% were delayed, at the age between 10 and 12—44%, and above 12 — as many as 69%. Among girls aged above 12—43% were delayed by two and more years. Among older boys as well as older girls approximately half were children, systematically playing truant. Note data, pointing to the fact that as many, as 35% of the girls between 14 and 17 showed symptoms of sexual demoralization. In 1975 when 270 boys and girls were already above 18 years old, and their average age amounted to 20 years, it turned out that 22% of the boys had already been tried by juvenile courts, 18% had been brought before juvenile courts as well as the ordinary court and 16% only before an ordinary court. Thus generally speaking, those who faced trials during their juvenility or were convicted after having reached the age of 17, accounted for as' much as 55%. Those convicted when over 17 accounted for 34%, in addition to this 12% were indicted, which gives a total of 45% of young adults who committed offences that were reported when they were over 17 years of age. The percentage given above (55%) of those who were tried when still juveniles or convicted after the age of 17, should be considered as a high one. But the degree of delinquency disclosed is small (62% of the convicted individuals were convicted only once); it should, however, be borne in mind that only three years divided them from the age of amenability to law. To the above mentioned data should be added information regardin arrests by polic because of intoxication — as many as 61% of those convicted (or tried) had already been arrested before because of insobriety, and among those without court records — 12%. However, information regarding the delinquency of daughters of the investigated families testifies to the fact that only 15% of them had court appearances (taking into account also the period when they were juveniles). None of the girls was registered as a prostitute. Worth emphasis is the fact that children brought up in families where the mothers are alcoholics were not more frequently convicted or. arrested because of intoxication, than those where only the father was an alcoholic. The entire aspect of data related to the follow-up period of children from families of alcoholics up to the time when they were on an average 20 years old indicates that approximately half of the boys (45%) were neither convicted nor arrested by the police because of intoxication and that 79% of the girls were neither convicted nor arrested by the police. These data, due to the lack of detailed environmental interviews, as already mentioned before, do not permit identification of this category of juveniles with young adults showing no symptoms of social maladjustment. Examining the entire aspect of the studies under discussion it would be worth while to mention the results of research, conducted under the guidance of Professor Swięcicki in the years 1967—1968 on children of families of alcoholics, who underwent treatment in several outpatient clinics to cure their drinking habit, results which showed, that in these families there were twice as many pupils repeating the same grade in school and young persons between 18 and 27, maladjusted to life in society, than in families of control groups from the same social milieu. Simultaneously a significant fact was noted, namely that in families belonging to the category with the worst expectations a considerable part of children did not reveal symptoms of social maladjustment. One may assume that to a considerable extent this depends on the biogenetic and psychogenetic features of the children partly being modified by sociogenetic factors, be noticed themselves, which are only in our studies, too, could a considerable group of young adults, not convicted arrested in an inebriate state by the police, youngsters who perhaps did not reveal symptoms of social maladjustment, something which could, however, be established only on the basis of detailed studies of the milieu.

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.

No abstract

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