Health News. Lots of resources and information

The aggressors vs. minors had much the largest number of juvenile delinquents—some 56 per cent had juvenile records, and a full third (again by far the largest proportion recorded) had been committed to some juvenile institution for at least six months. This is a precocious criminal development, especially when one notes that the equivalent figures for the prison group are 24 per cent and 16 per cent—i.e., about half as large as those for the aggressors vs. minors. Their future was foretold by the fact that almost one fifth committed juvenile sex offenses, again the largest percentage to be found in all our comparative groups.

The aggressors vs. minors became involved with the law extremely rapidly. Close to one third had been convicted by age sixteen, four fifths by age twenty, and 93 per cent by age thirty; in this respect they outstripped all others including the prison group. The offenses were for the most part serious, as is evidenced by the fact that by age thirty over three quarters of the men had had one or more convictions resulting in incarceration for a year or more.

The average aggressor vs. minors was first convicted of any offense when he was seventeen; his first conviction for sexual aggressions against a minor female came later, when he was twenty-three, which is young compared to the average age of others at the time of their first sex offense.

All of the aggressors display a high number of convictions per capita, the aggressors vs. minors ranking sixth (below the other aggressors) with 3.9 convictions per man. The prison group had, it should be noted, 3.5 convictions. Over half of the convictions were for sex offenses—a proportion not unlike that of many other groups. However, relatively few (27 per cent) were “pure” sex offenders in the sense that they were convicted only for sex offenses; in this respect they are again like the other aggressors.

Examining the nonsex offenses, one sees that the aggressors vs. minors had the largest proportion of offenses against property (45 per cent) of any group except the prison group, which boasts 48 per cent. In offenses against person, these aggressors are undisputedly in first place with 18 per cent; the other aggressors are three to four percentage points less. In other sorts of offense they are either nondescript or low.

Their sex offenses were not always ones of aggression. Sometimes their sexual partners were willing—actually 28 per cent of their sex offenses involved voluntary heterosexual contact. Such offenses were committed by about 19 per cent of the men. In 24 per cent of the cases, involving about 26 per cent of the men, their aggressive offenses were not against minors but against adults. Thus far the “crossing over” from one type of offense to another appears logical and predictable. However, slightly over one third of the offenses were exhibition, which is surprising, though these were committed by only three men (i.e., 11 per cent of the aggressors vs. minors). On reflection, a certain amount of exhibition and aggression can be expected to be associated, since some exhibition constitutes a hostile act directed against females. This was recognized by a few exhibitionists themselves even before the therapists suggested such an interpretation.

The aggressors vs. minors were strongly recidivistic. Only 11 per cent, a small proportion, had one criminal conviction, whereas 26 per cent had three—the largest proportion of any group. The youthfulness of the group at the time we interviewed them explains in part why they did not have more numerous convictions, but even so some 15 per cent had been convicted seven or more times, a percentage surpassed by only three other groups.

*98\161\2*