Publikacja posiada następującą strukturę: Wstęp I. Stanisław Szelhaus: Sprawcy przestępstw o charakterze chuligańskim II. Elżbieta Łojko: Sprawcy wykroczeń o zakłocenie spokoju publicznego w stanie nietrzeźwym III. Stanisław Batawia: Osoby niejednokrotnie przebywające w izbie wytrzeźwień IV. Stanisław Batawia: Wnioski wynikające z badań

Investigation has covered 100 recidivists between the ages of 18 and 21, serving their term in jail; its purpose was to bring to light the scope of social misfitting and delinquency of the individuals with whom delinquency and recidivism seem to be of recent origin. Investigation has covered the individuals domiciled in Warsaw, who have been punished for at least the second time after having reached the age when penal responsibility begins (i.e. their seventeenth year of age) and have gone to jail for at least the second time. The investigation, started at the end of 1956 and finished in the middle of 1958, was conducted in two Warsaw jails and three provincial ones. All young adult recidivists with a condemning sentence who were at that time in jail were investigated, without making any selection of the cases, apart from the criteria enumerated above. The investigation, however, has taken into consideration data from judicial records and prison records, as well as from the Convicts, Register. Talks with the mothers of the convicts have provided material concerning the family home, the diseases which the convicted person had gone through, his pre-school and school days, way of life, etc. Psychological and medical examination has also been carried out. Young adult recidivists have been examined on an average, from four to five times within a few hours. In the case of those of the investigated who have been released from prison before December 1st , 1958, follow-up studies were carried out, to comprise a period of from six months to one year. 1. In investigating 100 young adult recidivists past record it was established that as many as 79 of them had been previously tried by a juvenile court (even though the law-court which tried them after they had completed the seventeenth year of age knew about that in a mere 23 cases). Apart from that, another 12 had committed thefts during their minority without being prosecuted before the law-courts. Consequently a mere 9 of all the investigated began to commit criminal offences after they were 16. The beginnings of delinquency took place in 19 per cent of the cases before the tenth year of their rives, and in 68 per cent before the thirteenth; it is highly probable however, that in reality the beginnings of their delinquency were earlier than that. Investigation into the further destinies of 79 investigated persons who had been tried while still minors has established the fact that 85 per cent of their number found themselves in jail before the lapse of two years from the moment of being released from a house of correction, or from their last trial before a juvenile court. As far as the 43 investigated. persons are concerned who had previously been in institutions for delinquent boys (training schools), as many as 27 were arrested before the lapse of six months from their release from such an institution, 12 remained at large for periods ranging from six months to one year and only 4 from one year to two years. The total of the data concerning the number of trials before both juvenile and ordinary courts looked as follows: out of 100 recidivists 13 had been tried twice, 20 - 3 times, 29 – 4 times, 17 - 5 times, 11 - 6 times, 10 - 7 or more times. Consequently 67 per cent of the investigated had already been tried 4 or more times, and every fifth one of them - 6 or more times. As far as their first term in jail is concerned, 16 of the investigated found themselves in jail before having attained the age of criminal responsibility, as a rule owing to their having given false birthdata at the time of their arrest, 55 at the age of 17, 26 at the age of 18 and a mere 3 at 19 years of age. Nearly one half of the recidivists had spent more time in jail than at large (from the moment of having reached the age of criminal responsibility), while the longest spell at large between one arrest and the next amounted to: below six months with 49 per cent of the investigated, from six months to one year with 33 per cent, while it was more than one year with a mere 18 per cent. Taking into consideration the kind of offences committed, we may divide the material under investigation into the following groups: A. Young adult recidivists punished exclusively for offences against property (as a rule, thefts) - 39 cases. B. Young adult recidivists punished exclusively for offences against life and health (grievous injury to the body, and slight bodily harm, brawls, infringement of bodily inviolability as well as for insulting a functionary of the police). There were only 10 offenders who committed such offences out of ,,hooligan" motives only, among all those investigated. C. Young adult recidivists punished for offences against property as well as for grievous injury to the body and slight bodily harm, brawls, infringement of bodily inviolability and insult to police functionaries - 51 cases. A. As for the persons investigated who had been punished only for offences against property (nearly exclusively for theft), they began to commit offences at the age of from 9 to 12 years, i.e. earlier than the rest. The first thefts, as a rule, took place in the family home. The majority of the perpetrators had been punished several times for theft by a juvenile court; one half of these, recidivists are criminals whose principal source of income are thefts, and, all of them had spent more time in jail than at large. It should be emphasized that both recidivists belonging to this group and the remaining ones had, in an overwhelming majority of cases (91 per cent), lived in their parents', or else their mothers’, homes, and were able to have their meals at home (70 per cent). B. The beginnings of delinquency with the persons investigated who have been punished only for infringement of bodily inviolability, damage to the body, brawls and insults to police functionaries are considerably later and take place about the thirteenth to the sixteenth year of age. Similarly, the rate of penalties inflicted is smaller, and the spells of liberty much longer than with the thief group. Nearly all such acts (accosting and beating up a passer-by in the street, insult by word of mouth or beating up a policeman, etc.) were committed while under the influence of drink. Nearly All of the investigated who belong to this group systematically abuse alcohol, and their delinquency is closely connected with their drunkenness. C. The most numerous group of persons convicted, those punished both for theft and for damage to the body, brawls, infringement of bodily inviolability and insult to a policemen, may be divided into two sub-groups: Sub-Group One, 30 strong, consists of individuals who commit more thefts then other offences. They do not fundamentally differ from the individuals who belong to the thief group, either as to the objects of theft and their value, or as to the method of committing their crime. Here, too, we have to do with individuals for whom thefts constitute their principal source of income. Sub-Group Two, 27 strong, is composed of the individuals who commit more offences of injury to the body, insulting policemen and similar offences commited out of so-called hooligan motives, than thefts. This group approaches the individuals discussed in point B. It is characteristic of them that 11 (out of a total of 15 recorded in our materials) of perpetrators of robbery are to be found in this group. In the material investigated by us robbery goes hand in hand almost exclusively with offences committed from hooligan motives. When we evaluate the general degree of social misfitting of 100 of the investigated we may state that as many as 82 per cent of them belong to the category of manifold recidivists, who, as a rule, work only, if at all, by fits and starts, and are in close connection with the criminal environment. Particularly bad in this respect was the case of 35 of the investigated. 2. In so far as the family environment of young adult recidivists is concerned, we meet with a large percentage (53 per cent) of half-orphans; out of that number in 39 cases it was the mother who took care of the person investigated, in 5 cases - the father, while in the remaining 9 cases there was a stepfather or stepmother. 79 of the fathers were workers (of which 34 unskilled ones), 16 – clerical workers, 5 had their own artisan workshops. The majority of the mothers also earned their living, as a rule, as unskilled workers. The extent of alcoholism in the families under investigation is very considerable: 38 of the fathers can be considered drunkards - for many years they have been systematically drinking, they get drunk several times a week, spend their wages on drink. In the remaining families 29 fathers drink, on the average, from twice to three times a week, while 32 drink only sporadically and do not get drunk. Taking into consideration the educational atmosphere of the home, as well as the state of care and control in the environment during the period of the minority of the persons investigated, it was established that in 58 families the whole set of educationally definitely harmful factors was present. 3. The data obtained during the investigation concerning the personality of young recidivists speak in favor of the view that the latter are characterized by features which prove their low psychical maturity, and, in particular, a domination of impulsive reactions, a considerable and uncontrollable thoughtlessness, acting in the wake of motives responsible for the desire to make the most of life, in the form of continual entertainments and adventures, and a desire to impose on one’s coevals. A striking thing here is a lack of planning, absence of reflections on their future life, as well as of any more serious considerations for work, which, with them, is not identified with the idea of any definite trade; there is also a failure to appreciate critically the effects of one's own behavior. As far as the level of intelligence is concerned, only 11 of the investigated showed signs of mental deficiency. There were 18 individuals of more than average intelligence. A psychological and psychopathological analysis of the investigated shows that 39 of those recidivists are to be included in the category of persons with personality disorders, who are usually described by the name of psychopaths. Yet it does not seem possible, on the basis of the investigation, to delimit the cases which could be diagnosed as psychopathic from such in which the normal development of the personality has suffered serious disturbances, mostly as a result of serious psychical shocks and psychical conflicts during their childhood. There can be no doubt, however, that the psychical qualities of the investigated cannot be squeezed within the framework of even a broad norm adopted, that their personality has pathological traits which exert an essential influence upon their behavior. In comparison with this most numerous group of 39 of the investigated, who are usually approached from the point of view of psychopathy, other pathological cases are not numerous in the material under investigation: with 6 of the investigated we have to do with encephalopathy after skull lesions, with 4 - with psychical changes after an 3 encephalitis, while 3 of the investigated suffer from epilepsy. In analyzing the abnormal personality traits with these 39 recidivists, the following re-occurring psychical qualities and reaction attitudes (incidentally mentioned in conversation by the investigated themselves) have been met with: a great irritability, lack of self-control, a tendency to provoke conflicts owing to an impulsive pattern of behavior, considerable difficulties in trying to subordinate oneself to various kinds of discipline, frequent states of depression and bad feeling, o tension and anxiety. It ought to be emphasized that out of 39 recidivists with serious personality disorders there were as many as 30 cases of very bad family environment in childhood. Besides, in all this material in which the family home so frequently assumes a negative outlook, it is noteworthy how many of young adult recidivists showed no emotional attachment whatsoever to their parents, including a large percentage of individuals of a very aggressive attitude. Among 47 young adults of a definitely aggressive attitude there were 30 lacking any emotional ties with the family home, and among the others there were only 10 free from an aggressive attitude. It is a significant thing that it is precisely with those of the investigated, revealing clear tendencies to aggression, over-impulsive, uncontrolled, that, in comparison with the other investigated, the various emotional conflicts appear much more conspicuously conflicts going back to childhood days, caused by an atmosphere in the family home (a feeling of loneliness due to the lack of manifestations of any tenderer feeling on the part of the mother, jealousy of a brother or sister, because the father liked them better, experiences of fear evoked by the brutality of a drunken father and an ambivalent attitude towards him, etc.) 4. As far as their mode of life was, concerned, only 16 of the investigated, who worked systematically, led a life similar to that of the generality of young people of the same age and of similar social environment. With the remaining ones we find a definitely negative attitude to work, while 32 of them worked very unsystematically, and 52 did but odd jobs or did not work at all. An overwhelming majority of the investigated spent most of their time strolling about the town, sitting in restaurants or nighthouses etc. Alcoholism reached big proportions with 56 of the investigated. They drink at least four or five times per week and frequently get drunk, while the majority of this group drink, and get drunk, every day. All the sons of alcohol addicts belong to this group. 27 of the investigated drink alcohol from once to three times per week, and it is only of 17 of them that it can be said that they either do not drink at all, or else drink only on rare occasions. 5. In our investigation, problems concerning the penalty and prison have been taken into consideration, first and foremost, under two of their aspects: whether or not, and if so, to what extent, the penalty of imprisonment does act, as a deterrent upon the persons investigated, according to their own opinion, and what influence a spell in prison had previously exerted upon them. Nearly all of them (70 answers have been obtained) believe that a penalty of imprisonment can act as a deterrent only on those who have not been in prison yet. Afterwards, that deterrent action ceases, since the prisoner comes to the conclusion that ,,you can get used to anything and bear any conditions". All the investigated also think that a spell in prison, so far from favouring their reformation, derailed them even further. Questioned whether after serving their present penalty they would go on committing criminal offences, 45 of the investigated answered indecisively, while admitting the possibility of their further committing offences, 15 declared bluntly that they would go on stealing, and a more 10 asserted that they would never again appear in the dock (their previous offences had, as a rule, to do with alcoholism). After the investigation was terminated, the further destinies of the 100 young adult recidivists who had been investigated were checked and it appeared. That 42 of them still served prison sentences, 29 had been released and remained at large, while another 29 had been once more arrested after their release for the commission of a new crime. Of the latter group, 17 remained free less than six months, 9 - from six months to one year, and only 3 for more than one year. It ought to be emphasized that out of the 29 investigated persons who were not arrested again after having been released from prison, 10 had been free for only about six months at the time of the last follow-up study. The results of the investigation bear witness to the fact that 80 per cent of young adult recidivists systematically commit criminal offences and belong to the category of the socially entirely depraved. The fundamental conclusion boils down to the following questions: The prophylaxis of young adults recidivism is closely connected with the problem of the recidivism of juvenile delinquents and with the problem of the earliest possible interception of the process of the juvenile's demoralization. With regard to recidivists aged from 17 to 20 the imprisonment penalty ought to be altogether eliminated and long-term educational-cum-correctional methods applied, similar to those used with older juveniles with a high minimum term (two years). Young adult recidivists ought to be submitted to detailed psychological and psychiatrical examination in order to find and apply the appropriate, individualized methods of re-education.

In the years 1957/1958 the Department of Criminology of the Polish Academy of Sciences carried out a research in prisons concerning 100 young-adult recidivists aged 17-20. Qualified for the research without any selection were prisoners of tłrat age, convicted by law courts at least twice after the completion of their 17th year of age (regardless of the kind of the offence committed), and serving their term in prison for at least the second time. Their residence in Warsaw or in the environs of Warsaw and their having at least one parent constituted additional criteria. No other information concerning these recidivists was available at the time they were qualified for the research and thus it was not known whether they committed any offences before the completion of their 17th year of age or whether they were tried by the courts at all. At the time of the research in prisons the average age of recidivists was about 20. 50 % of them were convicted twice after the completion of 17 years of age, 25 % were convicted three times and 23 % four times and more. A check in the Juvenile Court revealed. that 80 % of those recidivists underwent trials in Juvenile Courts for thefts as a rule before they completed 17 years of age. Moreover, 11 % of them repeatedly committed thefts as juveniles (under 17) for which they were not tried by the courts. At least 54 % out of 91 recidivists become delinquents under 13 years of age and only 12 % began cornmitting theft at the age of 15 and over. 44 % of recidivists stayed at correctional institutions (as a rule only at a time when they were 15-16 years old). Already during the investigation in prisons in the years 1957/1958, when the average age of recidivists was merely about 20, it was stated that 82 % of them were seriously demoralized. Their subsequent destinies were further investigated in the course of 6 years until the end of 1964. The average age of these 100 recidivists amounted recently to 26 years and six months. Below are presented data relating to their delinquency from the age of 17 to 25-28 years of age. That period comprises 8-11 years, on the average 10 years. 65 % stayed longer in prisons than on liberty, with 36 % staying in prison even longer than two thirds of that entire period. The average period of their staying on liberty between alternate arrests was up to 6 months for 48 % of recidivists, below a year for 80,5 %, and one year and a half and over for 5,4% only. On the average there are 8.3 proved offences for one recidivist (the number of offences for which they were convicted is actually much higher, as not all judicial records could have been examined; the register of the convicted persons does not contain competent information in this respect). Among 830 offences for which 100 recidivists were convicted the offences against property constituted 63 % (among them thefts – 83 %), offences against authonities 16 % (mostly against policemen), offences against the person 13 % and various other offences 8 %. 37 % of recidivists were convicted exclusively for offences against property, and with 27 % the convictions against property outnumbered those against authorities and against the person. 27 % were convicted for various offences with the preponderance of convictions for offences against authorities and against the person. 9 % of recidivists were convicted exclusively for offences against authorities and against the person. The most antisocial offenders, who as a rule since the completion of their 17th year stayed in prison longer than on liberty, for committing thefts for the most part, constitute 50 % among recidivists ąged 25-28. Only 13 % of recidivists can be considered resocialized. Since their last discharge from prison they have remained on liberty for at least 6 years. They work and lead a normal life, they do not abuse of alcohol often. Those 13 recidivists already in their youth displayed the lowest degree of demoralization, most of them were only twice convicted after the completion of 17 years of age and the average number of offences for which they were tried in courts was merely about 4. The inefficacy of imprisonment with regard to young-adult delinquents is dealt with in the final part of this work. During the period of about 10 years after the completion of 17 years of age, the recidivists were jointly sentenced to imprisonment in 466 cases. Imprisonment, not exceeding 6 months time, constituted 31 % of the total, below 1 year – 52 %, below one year and a half – 66 %, below 2 years – 73 % of the total. An analysis of the material shows that penalties inflicted on the now most antisocial recidivists do not differ from those inflicted on recidivists who have not committed any offences at all for the last six years. AIso there is no relationship whatever between the wight of penalty inflicted by the courts and the succession of convictions. The average penalty inflicted does not show any relationship to the rate of recidivism: as regards recidivists convicted three times only, the average penalty amounted to 16 months of prison, for six previous convictions to twelve months, for seven and more convictions - to 13 months of prison. The average penalty is then lower for the recurrent recidivists already convicted six and more times than for the offenders convicted only three times, despite the fact that the most antisocial recidivists, committing thefts for the most part, constitute 83 % of the offenders convicted six times and more. Moreover, the research has shown, that there is no significant relationship between the length of imprisonment and the length of the subsequent stay on liberty before a new arrest. Recidivists discharged after having served a six months term in prison were arrested again before the lapse of half a year in 44 % of cases; recidivists discharged after a term of three and more years, found thernselves in prison again before the lapse of half a year in 63 % of cases. Application of long-term imprisonment does not prevent further recidivism. It is necessary to apply special sanctions during the recidivists' minority and up to 21 years of age with the sole aim of their resocialisation.

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.

Publikacja posiada następującą strukturę: I. Stanisław Batawia: Problematyka wczesnego alkoholizmu II. Stanisław Szelhaus: Wyniki badań recydywistów alkoholików o początku przestępczości po ukończeniu 25 lat