First prison admissions with juvenile histories and absolute first offenders: Frequencies and MMPI profiles

Abstract

PROBLEMThis paper considers two questions: (1) of the men who are serving their first prison sentences (first "termers"), what proportion have prior histories as adjudicated juvenile offenders; and (2) of the first "termers," how do the AlAlPI profiles of those with prior histories as adjudicated juvenile offenders compare to the AMPI profiles of absolute first offenders (first adjudicated offense). There is a main study and a short replication study.Sutherland and Cressey(6* p . 272) question the popular assumption that "problem children become delinquent children, and delinquent children become criminal adults. While there is some possibility that this is true, it has not been adequately demonstrated."This theoretical assumption has practical consequences. If one assumes that most adult criminals were first adjudicated juvenile offenders, one can argue that treatment resources should be concentrated a t an early stage of the process. For example, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice(4) supports this position on the basis of this assumption.The second purpose is to compare the AIXPI profiles of two subgroups of first offenders known to differ on degree of criminality'"'. Many studies have shown that AIXPI profiles are related to degrees of criminality in that those who are serving their first prison sentences present MMPI profiles that are different from the AIAIPI profiles of recidivists('). The present study attempts t o further this line of research. METHOD Subjects.A man who enters the Illinois correctional system is received a t one of the two reception and diagnostic centers. One, at Joliet (near Chicago), receives S5-90yo of Illinois admissions. The social history investigation routinely covers official records. Schools, relatives, military, and employers also are contacted. Those who meet the following definitions are included in the study: first prison sentences with confirmed record of adjudicated juvenile offense and first prison sentence with no previous adjudicated offense. There are cases in which the records are not clear or are unavailable. A third group of "possible juvenile offenders" is counted for the purpose of determining minimum and maximum relative frequencies. However, IIRIPI scores represent confirmed juvenile offenders only.I n the main study, the S pool consists of all first "termers" received a t Joliet Over a 2-year period. I n the replication of the I'IA/lPI scores, the sample consists of 100 successive absolute first offenders and 100 successive men who were serving their first prison sentences who have confirmed histories as adjudicated juvenile offenders. RESULTSJuvenile Oflenders. Of the 3044 men who were serving their first prison sentences, 35yo are absolute first offenders, and 12% have confirmed histories of adjudicated juvenile offenses. Another 14% possibly have histories of adjudicated juvenile offenses.At most, 26% of the men who were entering prison for the first time have histories of adjudicated juvenile offenses. These data do ...

The MMPI as a primary differentiator and predictor of behavior in prison: A methodological critique and review of the recent literature.

“…(He did not select a cutoff score, however.) Adams (1976;2) also reexamined the HC scale and found that it effectively differentiated recidivists from first offenders, as did its parent scales Pd and A p. Flanagan and Lewis (1974;2) found that offenders with juvenile records scored significantly higher than "absolute first offenders" on the F, Pd, Pa, Sc, and Ma scales and significantly lower on the Responsibility (Re) scale. Christensen and LelJnes (1974;1) used the Prison Adjustment Scale (PAS) in addition to the conventional scales, but they failed to achieve any significant differentiations with respect to recidivism.…”

Personality Correlates of Extent versus Type of Antisocial Behavior among Adult Offenders: A Mulitvariate Analysis

“…Concomitantly, numerous studies have been clonducted in which there has been an attempt to identify associaltions between personality patterns and criminological variables. Especially frequent have been efforts to differentiate among offenders who have been classified according to the type or seriousness of their most recent antisocial behavior (Blackburn, 1968 ;Ruck & Graham, 1978;Carroll & Fuller, 1971;Davis C Sines, 1971;Deiker, 1974;Holland & Holt, 1975 ;McCreary, 1976 ;Megargee & Meindelsohn, 1962;Panton, 1958;Persons & Narks, 1971;Rader, 1977), although studies of first offenders versus recidivists (Bauer & Clark, 1976;Christensen & LeUnes, 1974;Clark, 1948;Dunhxm, 1954;Flanagan & Lewis, 1974;Panton, 1959Panton, , 1962a and probationparole violators versus nonviolators (Gough, Wenk, & Rozynko, 1965;Jacobson & Wirt, 1969;Mack, 1969;Mandel & Barron, 1966;Panton, 1962b ;Smith & Lanyon, 1968) have also often been reported.…”

The PD subscales: An empirical evaluation

“…Correctional research that has employed the MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1967) has focused on the clinical Psychopathic Deviate scale (PD), either alone or in combination with several other MMPI scales. Often, its application has been to assess criminal offenders with respect to hostile and aggressive behavior (Davis & Sines, 1971;Holland, Beckett, & Levi, 1981), management problems (Panton, 1973), and recidivism (Adams, 1976;Flanagan & Lewis, 1974).…”