Seit dem Nachkriegsende lassen die durch Einzeluntersuchungen vermittelten Befunde, insbesondere die exakte Untersuchungen Hans Thomaes, erkennen, dass sich die Jugendlichen von heute auf dem Gebiet ihrer koerperlichen Entwicklung beschleunigen, dagegen in ihrer geistrigen Reife relativ nachhinken.

In der vorliegenden Abhandlung wollen wir uns darueber auseinandersetzen, wie Verhaeltnisse von Reifung und Kriminalitaet methodologisch befasst werden sollen. Der einheitliche psychologische Entwicklungsprozess erscheint in zwei Formen; Reifung und Lernen. Freilich sind sie eng und innig miteinander verschmolzen, aber sie voneinander abzugrenzen ist theoretisch wichtig und praktisch-paedagogisch bedeutsam. Unter Reifung wollen wir einen Entwicklungsvorgang verstehen, dessen Determinanten hauptsaechlich und ueberwiegend der Dynamik der angelegten inneren Systembedingungen entstammen.

Wenn wir die geistrige Reifung von dem psychologischen Standpunkt aus untersuchen wollen, so muessen wir die Reifungsabnormitaet von unseren Untersuchungsgegenstaenden ausschliessen; eine in Anlagen schlechten Erbfaktoren entstammte Reifungsstoerung, eine pathogenetische Faktoren belastete Anlage, lokalisierte Symptome des Gehirns und verletzte organische Stoerung des Gehirns.

Und was ist Kriminalitaet? Unter Kriminalitaet wollen wir nach Ansicht J. Abes einen Prozess des Verhaltens verstehen, das eine bestimmte Persoenlichkeit einen schlechten Einfluss, der als das sich gegen den gesetzlichen Massstab empoerende Verhalten durch die zusammenfassendste oeffentliche Kontrollkraft gesellschaftlicher Einheiten bestaetigt wird, auf eine andere Persoenlichkeit oder eine Gemeinschaft ausuebt. Wir koennen aber nicht gerade aller Taeter erwaehnen, weil der Hauptzweck unserer Untersuchung darin liegt, die Zusammenhaenge von Reifung und Kriminalitaet zu erklaeren. So muessen wir unsere Gegenstaende auf die jenige beschraenken, die im engen Zusammenhang mit dem Reifungsprozess das Gesetz uebertreten: der Entwicklungstaeter. Er ist nach unserer Meinung der Taeter, dessen subjektive Funktionen seiner Persoenlichkeit in der deliktbildenden Situation nach objektive Funktionen der Wertmassstaebe des Sozialsystems in der positiven Richtung wirksam, oder in der weder positiven noch negativen Richtung funktioniert, und in dessen grundlegenden Ego die Tatbereitschaft noch nicht fixiert ist.

Wir wollen in unseren naechsten Untersuchungen mit der oben erwaehnten Methode Verhaeltnisse von Reifung und Kriminalitaet ermitteln, indem wir den folgenden Grundsatz im Kopf behalten: Aeussere Ursachen wirken ueber die inneren Bedingungen.

For the treatment, correction and diagnosis, to clarify the degree and characteristics of delinquecy is essential and unavoidable in our daily classification work.

The purposes of this study are:

1) to make a questionnaire to discriminate delinquency,

2) to testify the possibility and the effectiveness of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is consisted of 121 questions which are concerned with his personality and outlooks or attitudes to his family, friends, work and life.

Through this questionnaire, the degree of delinquency of each juvenile is expressed in figures and profile style.

I have been able to get a suspectedly satisfactory result as a preliminary stage of this method.

I will continue the survey on this problem furthermore.

The present study was designed to test the clinical validity of the MJPI (the Ministry of Justice Personality Inventory) for prediction of some types of problem behaviors in the correctional institutions.

125 subjects were selected from among about 800 male delinquent youngsters in Osaka Juvenile Detention and Classification Home. All of them consisted of those whose problem behavior had been judged to be remarkable and typical, and were classfied into 4 sub-groups according to 4 criteria of problem behaviors, which respectively corresponded to 4 test profile patterns by K. Hayashi’s factor analysis of the MJPI.

Behavior Type I was composed of 32 cases, rated as markedly “neurotic tendency,” Type II of “impulsive tendency,” 31 cases, Type IV of “lack of independency,” 62 cases, Type III of “paranoid tendency” was not subjected to further examinations because no case was found this time.

Since each Behavior Type corresponds to one of test profile patterns of the MJPI, it would be possible to conclude that the MJPI is valid and useful in dealing with the problem behaviors, if we could find a high agreement between behavior types and test profile patterns.

At first, the mean scores of 13 MJPI scales calculated for each Type were converted into T scores by means of the measure standardized for 400 non-delinquent youngsters, and examined whether there was some agreement between scales with higher T scores (T score≥55) and those of corresponding test profile patterns.

In two of these 3 Types, i.e. Type I and Type IV, there was a high agreement. Moreover, the average test profiles of these two showed a remarkable contrast and ensured possibility in discriminating Type I from Type IV. Test profile of Type II, however, did not show distinctive features as expected.

The t-test was applied between each of 3 sub-groups and contorl group on the mean scale scores in order to illuminate the features of each Type.

Although there were significant differences in both Type I and Type IV on 3 of 13 scales respectively, the scales of Type II did not show any meaningful differences from those of control group. In short, these results were almost similar to the findings reported above.

In previous studies, we had found that on several scales of the MJPI, particularly on X (Explosive) scale, delinquent group showed significantly lower scores in comparison with non-delinquent group. From these findings, it will be assumed that the failure to grasp the distinctive features of Type II depends on ego defense mechanism of delinquents.

To confirm this assumption and to grasp the features of Type II, further examination was conducted on the basis of the mean T scores of each Type by means of the measure standerdized for 200 juvenile inmates. By this method, Type II was discriminated.

In conclusion, the clinical validity of the MJPI was almost confirmed. It is, however, noteworthy that we can not obtain any significant features in Type II until the measure standardized for juvenile inmates is introduced. For the future research, we must, therefore, pay much more attention to such specific factors as are connected with delinquency and detention reactions.