The Persistent Offender and his Family*
Bruno Cormier**
Lydia Keitner
Miriam Kennedy
This paper is a report by the McGill Clinic in Forensic Psychiatry
of the present stage of research on the Persistent Offender and his
Family. It
is not intented as a detailed study nor will precise
statistical findings be presented; it is rather an outline of some of
the general trends that were found striking in our recent work.
In the field of criminology there has been a progressive shift
in thinking from the crime to the offender, then to the family, and
now the total problem is seen in relation to society. Following this
logic, the study of the families of the persistent offender enters
the realm of contemporary criminology.
The persistent offender is the man who is repeatedly in trouble
with the law, who associates mainly with other criminals, spends a
large part of his life in prison and whose record shows him to be
a prison and penitentiary recidivist, who seldom if ever works for
a living. The persistent offender is a man who lives by the proceeds
of crime.
For research purposes the families have been divided into those
which produce one habitual criminal, (the black sheep family) and
those which produce many, the multi-delinquent family. This paper
will limit itself to an examination of multi-delinquent families.
The study of the multi-delinquent family involves the investigation
both of individual members and of the family group as such. To
broaden our understanding of the persistent offender and his family,
we have gone beyond one generation. The central core of this study
is the persistent offender and his delinquent and non-delinquent
siblings. This central group of siblings is referred to as Generation II.
Generation I is the preceding one and consists of the parents, the
uncles and aunts. Generation III contains the children of Generation
A paper presented at the 5th Research Conference on Delinquency and
Criminology, March 31st and April 1st, 1967, Montreal, Quebec.
A report on on-going research on the family carried out by the McGill
Clinic in Forensic Psychiatry, Montreal, Quebec.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 13
II. We are thus studying parents, children (the subjects of this
research and their siblings and spouses) and grandchildren.
With this genealogy in mind some statistics, implications arising
from them, and trends which require further investigation will be
presented. An attempt will also be made to consider three important
questions:
A. When and where do delinquency and criminality start and
cease in multi-delinquent families?
B. Why do these families produce persistent offenders?
C. What can be done?
Methodology
This is an on-going clinical research, and interviews have been
the principal means of securing information. The subject, his parents,
siblings and other family members have been interviewed, and home
visits made when possible. Information was obtained from accomplices,
penitentiary records, after-care and social agencies and other sources.
The histories are longitudinal, not only because they are chron-
ological, but much has been added from year to year as the inmates
have been seen in and out of prison. What can be obtained through
clinical interviewing over a long period
is the changing family
picture, the changing quality of relationships, important changes of
feeling. In some cases there has been a contact of seven and eight
years. This kind of information cannot be duplicated in question-
naires no matter how carefully they are devised.
Since the aim was to trace the roots of criminality in multi-
delinquent families what was important was to evaluate beyond the
present ties to whatever family remains of the past. It should be
noted also that this evaluation refers to its conditions during the
childhood and adolescence of the subject to the present.
The information given to the researcher by the persistent offender
and by the family frequently did not tally. A visit to the family or
interviews with other members often revealed that there were in-
accuracies, the story was a projection of a subjective conflict with
parents and/or siblings. It was frequently deformed by rationalization
or paranoid thinking; there were memory distortions due to the
passing of time.
At the Third Montreal Research Conference on Criminology and
Delinquency in 1962, we reported on fifty multi-delinquent families.
The present report deals with 115 documented families and includes
the original fifty. The information on these 115 confirms findings
and trends described in 1962.
No. 41
PERSISTENT OFFENDER AND HIS FAMILY
603
With few exceptions these families are underprivileged and belong
to the well-defined group of multi-problem families. Contemporary
social theories have contributed to the understanding of the socially
and economically underprivileged. We will examine whether these
theories provide practical solutions. This aspect will be covered in
the third question: “What can be done?”
A. When and Where Do Delinquency and Criminality Start and Cease
In Multi-Delinquency Families?
This study confirms an important earlier finding that in the
multi-problem, multi-delinquent families, the three classic etiological
determinants of criminality, the constitution or endowment, the
environment and the acquired or psychological factors co-exist in
the majority. They not only co-exist but mutually feed one another,
and in severe cases it is difficult to determine which factor is
dominant. What has been said about the fifty multi-delinquent
families applies to the 115 and, we quote –
“In a multi-delinquent
family, which is invariably a multi-problem one, we find a variety of
symptomatology, physical, mental and behavioural in the individual
members. While some may be limited to one dominant pathology, others
may present at various times in their careers an alternating sympto-
matology, running the gamut from psychosomatic ailment to neurosis,
to psychosis, to sociopathic behaviour. Thus, all forms of pathology
may be seen in different members and many forms may co-exist in
one individual. These physical, emotional and behavioural disorders
are pathological ways of adapting to life. They are alternate means
of dealing with stress.”
In this study the focus is mainly on the criminal sons. However,
some comments on the daughters will be made to clarify the family
picture. There has been some investigation on the delinquency of the
daughters about which we will report in the future.
One hundred and fifteen multi-delinquent families produced 760
children, of whom 495 were sons and 265 daughters. There is a
notable discrepancy in the distribution of the sexes, the males out-
numbering the females in a ratio of about three to two. It can be
expected that in multi-delinquent families sons will outnumber
daughters. The incidence of delinquency is higher among males and
it is logical that the multi-delinquent families are recruited from
those with many sons.
One way to measure the malignancy of the processes which
create criminality is to group these families according to the number
of criminals
they produce. In ten families with males only,
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[-Vol. 13
having 42 children, all were delinquent. In 32 families with 124
male and 55 female offspring all the males became delinquent, as
in the ten families above. Thus 42 families produced 166 criminals
representing 100% delinquency among the males. The 166 criminals
coming from these 42 extremely pathological families contained 52%
of the 317 delinquents. Thus 32% produced 52% of the criminals in
these families.
Of the remaining 73 families with 539 children, 329 males and 210
females, 151 were known criminal. This 67% of families produced
48% of the delinquent sons. These statistics reflect the wide extent
of criminogenic potential in such families.
To the question of where delinquency begins in these multi-
delinquent families, we must say that it is engendered in Generation I.
If Generation II was born and raised in underprivileged conditions,
it is because their parents were either themselves born into poverty
or sank to that level. What is important is that in most cases these
conditions prevailed during the early formative years. Noteworthy is
the fact that in this sample none of the parents are persistent
offenders. Here and there we find a criminal record consisting either
of an incidental offence or offences such as drunkenness or non-
support. Many of these offences are the type which should be dealt
with in family courts.
Alcoholism, heavy drinking and its complications which disrupt
family life, are very commonly encountered. (It is not an unusual
phenomenon
to find a similar pattern among the brothers and
sisters of Generation I, that is the uncles and aunts of persistent
offenders. We know offhand of 15 families, collaterals of Generation
I which are multi-problem and multi-delinquent families).
As mentioned, the criminality encountered in the sons of Gener-
ation II finds its roots in the parents who started in the main as
underprivileged and have remained underprivileged. Years may
have elapsed since their children first became delinquent, but the
parents are still living under substandard conditions. Many under-
privileged are capable of working their way out and do. Others remain
chronic problems or deteriorate.
It must be emphasized that not all multi-problem families are
either multi-delinquent themselves or give rise to multi-delinquent
families, and though we have no statistical data, our impression is
that most underprivileged and multi-problem families are not in
fact multi-delinquent. To determine which underprivileged family
will rise, which will remain static and which will sink is beyond the
scope of this paper. A problem as vast as this should be explored in its
psychological, biological and social dimensions.
No. 4]
PERSISTENT OFFENDER AND HIS FAMILY
605
Among the underprivileged, the multi-problem, multi-delinquent
family is perhaps the severest pathological manifestation and the
fate of these families is one to which we have given some thought.
Having attempted to trace the sources of persistent criminality
its outcome. From this and other
in these families, let us look at
studies (we have fully documented information on over 300 persistent
offenders) some trends can be discerned and some conclusions reached.
The following trends emerged with regard to the marriages of
persistent offenders and their siblings.
Persistent offenders ap a group show a markedly low rate of
marriage. In our studies 72% who are of marriageable age are single.
This statistic will probably decrease with time as more will marry.
Having followed persistent offenders over many years we would be
more than surprised if the rate goes down sharply, and the most
optimistic projection is that it may decrease to about 65%. To the
question as to where criminality ceases for this group of the non-
married (the majority), it can be said that criminality is extinguished
within their generation.
Of 28 % married persistent offenders, the marriages are with few
exceptions short-lived, characterized by early separation, divorce or
desertion. Few children are born of these unions. Because of the
breakdown of the marriages the fathers are out of reach, and the
children depend on the mothers who usually maintain contact with
them. They either keep the children with them taking full respon-
sibility for their upbringing, or place them temporarily. A number
remarry and bring the children into another family. No matter what
arrangements are made for the children and where they are placed,
it is as a rule superior to the family setting in which their criminal
father was raised.
The conclusions,
tentative as yet on the outcome for these
children, is that they do not follow in their fathers’ footsteps but
are integrated into society. Of Generation III (the children of per-
sistent offenders) some of the sons who have reached the age where
they could became persistent offenders have so far remained non-
criminal. Others are too young to report on; others’ whereabouts are
unknown.
Another way to illustrate that persistent offenders do not engender
persistently criminal sons is to mention that out of the 300 known
to us, in only 5 cases are we certain that a father who is a persistent
offender had a son who was also a persistent offender.
We have, however, information on many fathers and sons who
are offenders, some of whom have even worked together as partners.
606
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 13
These fathers were not persistent but incidental offenders entering
into the group of late comers to crime, or marginal individuals
involved in petty criminal activity, the type already mentionned and
frequently encountered as the head of the multi-delinquent family.
The sons of such fathers often become persistent offenders outdoing
their fathers in criminality. We conclude that the chance that a
persistent offender will be the father of other persistent offenders
is minimal but on the other hand the chance that a father who
indulges in incidental or marginal offences with a multi-problem
family will give rise to a multi-delinquent family is great.
The Non-Criminal Sons
For a full picture of a multi-delinquent family and its outcome,
information on all family members should be included, the non-
delinquent as well as the delinquent. The essentially non-criminal
sons, contrary to their delinquent siblings, follow a normal pattern
of marriage, have an average number of children and appear to
make a conventional adjustment. Furthermore, in the multi-delinquent
family not every son becomes a persistent offender; some are inci-
dental or episodic. The trend is for these latter to marry like their non-
criminal siblings. Though the non-criminal sons who marry make con-
forming marriages on the whole, this does not exclude the possibility
that some of their children may become delinquent and eventually
criminal, but we have no reason to believe that the incidence of delin-
quency and criminality in these families is much above the average.
The contamination of collateral who are criminal cannot be ignored
and this impression may in time be modified.
The Daughters
It is not intended here to enlarge on the delinquency of the
daughters but some comments are in order to complete the picture
of the evolution of the multi-delinquent family. If the delinquency
of the girls is to be judged by juvenile court appearances, placement
in reform schools, behavioural problems such as promiscuity, pros-
titution and children out of wed-lock, then a large proportion of these
girls are delinquent. It is generally accepted that behavioural problems
in girls tend to be short lived, and even when acute decrease sharply
with maturity and marriage.
A pregnancy, though undesired, is a deep human experience and
sometimes promotes maturation. Though the shorter course
in
delinquency can hardly be explained by a single factor, attention
should be paid not only to the difference in pattern between delinquent
No. 4]
PERSISTENT OFFENDER AND HIS FAMILY
607
is
boys and girls but also to the similarities. Behaviour which
considered delinquent in girls such as early sexual experiences is
overlooked in boys and compulsive stealing is common to both.
Whether or not they are delinquent at some period in their life,
the daughters in multi-delinquent families as a rule marry. The
marital histories show the following patterns:
a) A number, because of their close association with their
delinquent brothers and friends, married criminals. Multi-problem,
multi-delinquent families congregate in delinquency areas and there
is a good deal of intermingling. In the 115 families of this study
we have information about ten intermarriages and there are many
others.
What happens to these marriages? The girls are married to
persistent offenders –
separation and divorce and few children. The marriage is broken very
early in its career and the wives generally remarry or from other
unions.
and the result has already been described –
b) There are daughters who made completely non-criminal
marriages, similar to their non-criminal brothers. A contact has been
established with some of these daughters because they are often very
important to their criminal brothers. They represent the best element
in the family, stability, a good value system and security. This is the
sister to whom they look for help between sentences. She is often
described as the mainstay of the family.
c) There is a third group of daughters who whether married
or not cannot be clearly defined because of their early departures
from the family or the unsettled quality of their lives. Information
from other family members reveals that they have left the home
and that the relationship to the family has broken. Some are said
to be prostitutes living in a criminal milieu, but such information is
often subjective; when testing it may turn out to be inaccurate or
highly coloured. Some, again according to hearsay, have made
remarkably good adjustments and they have moved out of the
under-privileged class.
Tentatively, with regard to the daughters and their role
in
contributing to the furthering of criminality, the impression is that
those who make less healthy adjustments form families likely to
become multi-problem and in danger of becoming multi-delinquent.
The latter, however, appear to be in the minority. Most of the
daughters in the face of considerable stress and behavioural difficulties
seem to have overcome many crises, particularly severe during their
adolescence and early maturity and may have eventually stabilized.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 13
B. Why Do These Families Produce Persistent Offenders?
A final, all encompassing categorical answer is hardly possible to
this crucial question. Of the many leads we have followed we will
limit ourselves here to two concepts which permit the process to be
seen clinically and sociologically.
Survival
Disruptive forces within many of these multi-delinquent families
are so strong that as we have already noted, the members who become
persistent offenders, fail to reproduce. Their capacity to carry on
delinquency ends with them. This is only one part of the picture; no
matter how stringent the conditions, humans do not easily accept
annihilation and they look for ways out. In these family groups which
suffer from socio-economic and what we describe as “human poverty”,
delinquency and criminality are a means of survival. For the children
and the adolescents, delinquency has meaning in itself, but it is
also utilitarian. Some parents, though being within the law them-
selves, profit from the thieving of their children.
The drive for the material possessions and the status which the
more fortunate have is understandable. Man needs more than the
barest means of survival but wants access to sources of satisfaction
which make life worthwhile. This becomes for these under-par families
a right as well as a need, a means of self-esteem. As they cannot,
because of their inherent and acquired handicaps, gain their ends
through socially and legally desirable means, it is inevitable that
they will become receptive to illegal means. Delinquency is thus not
necessarily an acceptable value but an expedient for day to day
survival –
a way out, a means of gaining what they feel are their
rights. In this process of survival they become unconcerned about
society, not to say hostile, and the persistent offenders in these
families are antisocial.
Accommodation
Another concept is one of accommodation. Here step by step there
is a gradual assimilation of delinquent values, involving more than
one generation. Such families accustom themselves to delinquency
in gradually increasing doses. Generation I was not overtly delinquent,
nor probably were their parents. Starting with marriage, however,
there is an increasing acceptance, first of poor social norms, then
of deteriorating values which result in permissiveness of delinquency
for their young, a toleration of disregard for law. Delinquency
infiltrates and becomes slowly part of the family fabric. In this
No. 4]
PERSISTENT OFFENDER AND HIS FAMILY
609
accommodation to delinquent values, there is more than a value
change. The image of what is law and what is justice becomes
blurred, to the point where justice is felt as injustice. They reject
a social justice which is indifferent to their hardships; they become
more and more entangled in an on-going struggle with legal justice
where they feel unprotected and unequal. These are the families
who cannot buy legal assistance when their sons are in trouble.
To be noted is that most young offenders appear undefended on
their first appearance at Court.
In the struggle for survival and in their abiding sense that
their position is not only unjust but that they cannot work their
way out by any allowable means, delinquent values are ultimately
accommodated.
C. What Can Be Done?
Merton, in applying his concept of anomie to the problem of
delinquency, lays much stress on cultural values, aims, and expecta-
tions, in contrast to a social structure which provides few opportunities
and means for the underprivileged to achieve these desires and
expectations. In commenting on Merton’s views Clinard says: “In
American culture for example, the ends are symbols of status based
on the possession and display of economic goods. But such goods
are not available to every one. This contradiction results in a break-
down of a pattern of complying with legal and social norms in order
to obtain these objectives”. This is undoubtedly an over-simplification
of Merton’s theory whose implications go far beyond the problem
of delinquency. Nevertheless, we can hardly ignore the great influence
of Merton on the problem of delinquency, especially in North America.
His concept is contained in many of the policies and measures under-
taken in the “war against poverty” which is now engaging so much
attention. This poverty refers almost exclusively to economic poverty
rather than what we describe as “human poverty”, that is, poverty
of constitutional endowment, poverty of human potential undeveloped
or under-developed or damaged to the point of being irrecoverable,
or which can only be partially restored with appropriate means.
To create opportunity for the under-privileged is necessary and
would in some cases be the solution to needless poverty. But such
opportunities are a solution only to the extent that the under-
privileged are physically, mentally and psychologically in a position
to take advantage of them. Many criminals enter into such a category,
but we have great reservations as to whether the “war against pover-
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
(Vol. 13
ty”, no matter what ways and means are employed, can cope with the
greater challenge of “human poverty”. We are forced to conclude
that no matter what opportunities are created for the most seriously
damaged described above, it is highly doubtful that they will be able
to use them well.
Most studies on the family and delinquency seldom provide a
dynamic picture of a group but rather limit themselves to a particular
individual in a family, without taking sufficiently into account that
the total picture consists of people who interact. The persistent de-
linquent belonged first to a family and only after became an individual
in society; many developed their fixated delinquent patterns well
before they discovered in themselves the psychological meaning and
reality of society.
As clinicians engaged in the problem of persistent delinquency
we take objection to theories which explain criminality only as a
conflict between individual aspiration and social opportunity. We be-
lieve that it was not Merton’s intention to offer this as a total ex-
planation of criminality and we would go along with his thinking
provided it is limited to the type of delinquent individual who can
make use of available opportunities. It is our belief that the greater
number of persistent offenders, particularly those from multi-prob-
lem and multi-delinquent families are in no position to take advantage
of such opportunities. Though some of the underprivileged families
we have described are the product of predominantly social and eco-
nomic stresses, there is strong evidence that the majority do not fall
into this group. This confronts us with a dilemma and challenge which
require new theories, new concepts both for understanding and practi-
cal action.
Before entering into this discussion let us reiterate that the most
pathological of the multi-problem, multi-delinquent families cannot
benefit from the solutions which emerge from Merton’s theories. No
one would seriously question that regardless of the number of oppor-
tunities, a man will be able to avail himself of these only to the degree
that he possesses the potential. Here lies a basic human problem not
to say an existential problem. Some do not have the capacity, and this
incapacity, this “human poverty”, is not related to adverse social and
economic factors though socio-economic poverty creates added com-
plications and underprivileged status. “Human poverty” goes beyond
the poverty of endowment; it involves physical or psychological defect
resulting from a lack of growth which may in whole or in part be
irreversible. The individual is therefore unable to use during his whole
or an important part of his life the opportunities he greatly requires.
We are here obviously no longer in the realm of poverty or under-
No. 4]
PERSISTENT OFFENDER AND HIS FAMILY
611
privileged status which can be defined in socio-economic terms but
at the heart of the most depriving poverty. This “human poverty”
must be studied in the three areas which are the sources of crimi-
nality; the constitution or what one is born with; the acquired, a
concept which should include what has not been acquired or has been
ill-acquired; and the psychological make-up which emerges from the
other factors.
It should be stressed that the fact of “human poverty” does not
take away from the sufferers the wish and the urge to participate,
to possess what is enjoyed by the average and the more privileged.
However, the “human poor” cannot take advantage of the means
available to others nor can they use the special means designed for
those whose poverty is mainly related to environmental conditions.
To help them, new concepts for action are in order. Here clinical
medicine may be of value.
Prolonged, perhaps chronic invalidism is recognized as a medical
condition and it is taken for granted that when it exists medical, and
if necessary material assistance are provided. This recognition of a
state of invalidism is accepted for psychiatric conditions as well as
for purely medical, and a psychiatric patient can be maintained in
society and receive medical and financial assistance if his condition
permits, in lieu of confinement to a mental hospital. Though often
related to social problems, subsidy for invalidism for medical reason
is generally justified by specific medical conditions. When, however,
the physically handicapped in our society who cannot compete are
subsidized, we begin to approach a kind of invalidism which is not
justified by medical reason alone, but includes the social. This permits
us to introduce a concept which we call “social invalidism”. The
recognition of a state of social invalidism would enable relief for
the human poverty we have found in the multi-problem, multi-de-
linquent families. The term social invalidism is used to refer to
individual or family groups who for an accumulation of reasons, not
necessarily medical are from the start not on a par with others in
the community, cannot live within the norms prescribed by society,
and are not in the position to reach the minimum expectations of
that society. When individuals or family entities lack the essentials
to attain minimum standards they must be treated as invalids and
given necessary assistance at every level. The concept of social in-
validism would provide for them in the same way that the chronically
ill or handicapped are helped, if necessary on a permanent basis.
Once identified, however, and their lacks supplemented, there is reason
to believe that they could use what strengths and resources they
possess to their best advantage.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Val. 13
Many psychiatrically ill now live in the community with help,
and for these people mental hospitals no longer put out of sight a
problem which society is reluctant to face and wishes to forget.
Penal institutions of every kind remain in our western world, a kind
of receptacle of the effects of human poverty, where the socially
deviant who are the result of this human poverty are relegated and
only too often forgotten. This is a strong statement, but in the light
of what the multi-problem, multi-delinquent family is in terms of
its own misery and what it produces, we will allow you to decide
whether prison is a solution and where we should begin to look for
solutions.
CONCLUSION
Certain findings have been established in this research and some
trends can be discerned. The logical questions which follow are where
we go from here and can practical implications be drawn from the
present research material.
1. In the past, studies on the family and criminality were usually
based on the point of view of one member who saw the others
through his own subjective veil and personal conflicts. Though valu-
able and providing useful leads in clinical work, this approach is
partial and one-sided. To understand the interaction between the
family and delinquency in all dimensions requires a study of a total
family group, in at least two generations. The case approach will
remain our main focus and technique.
2. We have until now concentrated on the criminality of the sons
in these 115 families. The next step is to find what happened to the
daughters. All the siblings and their inter-relationships should be
accounted for. In the average family brothers and sisters influence
one another greatly. In the multi-problem, multi-delinquent family
such influences and inter-relationships exist and contribute their
share towards the outcome of the many pathological formations, one
being criminality.
Great emphasis is put on the differences between the delinquency
of boys and girls. These undoubtedly exist and should be further
investigated. There is no better place to begin a study of similarities
and differences between
the sexes than in the multi-delinquent
family.
3. Once the delinquency of a family as a whole is studied, parents
and siblings including the daughters, the question presents itself:
No. 4]
PERSISTENT OFFENDER AND HIS FAMILY
613
why in a certain family do some members become criminal and
why do others escape? Where does the resistance come from in the
particularly disadvantaged family, and why in a large family where
most of the offspring do well, do only two members end up as habitual
criminals? From such comparative studies in depth, further leads
should be possible.
4. Another source in such a research are psycho-physiological
and biological studies. One that holds out some promise is the use
of EEG. Till now encephalographic studies on “psychopaths” were
usually group studies taken on the one occasion. These have indicated
the presence of immaturity tracing. As there is both theoretical and
clinical evidence that delinquency abates with time, the next step
would be a series of EEG studies over a period of years from many
subjects. As persistent offenders spend many years in prison this
is a practical undertaking. Furthermore, brothers of multi-delinquent
families are often in prison at the same time and -it would thus be
possible to have information on more than one member of a family.
It would, of course, be desirable to include the non-delinquent mem-
bers in such a study. This is possible -in the case of some families
with whom we have established an on-going contact.
There are other significant advances in the field of genetics. There
is a possibility that chromosomal studies may reveal differences
between the antisocial and the noncriminal. These investigations
are still at their earliest beginning but they give promise that it
may be possible to clarify the obscure area of the consititutional
hereditary factors in criminality. Again a logical place to carry on
such studies is the family.
5. How can this partial knowledge be put to practical use in
correctional institutions, probation and parole services? Customarily,
the families of Generations I and II are investigated as a resource;
sometimes a temporary return to the family is a condition of parole.
In multi-delinquent families it is doubtful whether such a return
should be encouraged. The ties of persistent offenders are often lim-
ited to their delinquent families and criminal associates. The problem
is to permit the return to a family which could not prevent delinquen-
cy in the past and may be in no better position now. To forbid contact
is logical but in fact not practical. We are in contact with persistent
offenders who are on parole and with family members and are giving
serious thought to this problem. The most careful consideration
must be given in every case to make certain that the family can
help without endangering itself.
