PATTERNED OFFENDERS: SAMPLE
We realize that certain uncontrolled variables might result in arti-factual rather than actual differences between incidental and patterned offenders. For example, being a patterned offender might in large measure be the consequence of simply being older and having had more time in which to repeat offenses. Consequently we have examined a number of variables so that their effects may be taken into account. Age at interview seems not to be important; the incidental offenders were somewhat older than the patterned offenders in three of the six groups and the reverse was true in two instances. The differences were never more than five years.
The sources from which the case histories were obtained represent another variable meriting attention. There is no question that a much larger percentage of the patterned offenders were interviewed in California prisons and mental hospitals. This situation is chiefly the result of a selective process—the more repetitive offenders were likely to be found in the felony institutions or mental hospitals (i.e., our California sources) than in the Indiana prison which amounted to a county jail. Also, the interviewing process improved over the years and the California prison records were more detailed. Both these conditions would tend to result in our finding more patterned offenders in the California institutions.
The educational differences between the incidental and patterned offenders are consistent: in every instance the average (median) patterned offender had gone farther in school than the incidental offender. In all the incidental groups the median falls between the seventh and eighth grades, whereas among the patterned groups it lies between the ninth and tenth. The differences range from one year in the case of the incest offenders vs. children to three years in the case of the exhibitionists. The differences reflect the increasing emphasis on education (our California interviews were done years after those in Indiana), but what impact the differences have on our findings is unclear.
Yet another variable which might confuse our comparisons is that of marital status. In three groups the percentages of ever-married males are essentially the same for the incidental and patterned offenders; in two groups (the peepers and aggressors) the incidental offenders include considerably fewer ever-married males and in one group (offenders vs. children) the reverse is true.
While the variables we have discussed in the last few paragraphs may becloud the issue to some degree, there appears to be no consistent and serious bias which would render invalid our comparisons between incidental and patterned offenders.
*388\161\2*
