To the psychiatrist it is a matter of common occurrence to see the mentally diseased not only dissimulate very ingeniously and tactfully mental symptoms so that it is frequently impossible to convince a jury of laymen of the existence of mental disorder, but at times, when the necessity arises, they consciously accentuate their symptoms or frankly malinger.

There is nothing strange about this. There is absolutely no reason why the insane, in his desire to gain expression for his wishes and strivings, should not avail himself of the same means that normal man uses.

The following case illustrates this very clearly:—

W. J. C., a well-educated, fairly efficient newspaper reporter, after a period of indefinite, vague, neurasthenic complaints lasting several weeks and which brought about his discharge from the staff of a local newspaper, awoke one July morning, picked up his infant child and, throwing it against the opposite wall of the room, inflicted fatal injuries upon it. After this he turned his face to the wall and remained quietly in bed. There was no ascertainable cause present for this act. The child was in the habit of entering the patient's room every morning and playing with him before he arose from bed. It was apparently on the same errand on this fatal morning. Shortly after getting up the patient wanted to leave the house in his night clothes, but was prevented from doing so and held until the police arrived. Six and one-half hours later,—i.e., on July 27, at 12.30 P.M.,—he was seen by me at the Government Hospital for the Insane.

On admission to the hospital he was very restless and anxious, walked up and down the room, hands in his pockets, would sit down for a few minutes, then walked the floor again. Later in the day he was visited by a newspaper reporter, a friend of his, with whom he conducted a clear and coherent conversation, and when told by the latter that the child was dead he assumed a markedly depressed facial expression. In reply to my questions intended to bring out his attitude towards the whole affair, he usually stated, "I don't know," and on one occasion in a very agitated manner said, "So help me God, doctor, I don't know anything about this." Later in the day he gave a clear and coherent account of his past life, and a detailed mental examination failed to bring out any gross mental disorder. He showed, however, considerable uncertainty about the length of time certain events of the preceding day consumed. He could not tell exactly when he retired the previous evening. He remembered, however, going to bed, likewise that his wife came to his room sometime during the night and asked him to fill the babe's milk bottle. He didn't remember whether he did this or not. The next thing he remembered was sitting in the parlor of the house, sometime in the morning, and was able to describe accurately those who were present.

During the remainder of the afternoon he was morose and depressed, refused to eat his supper, and continued in a restless state. He was again seen by me at 7.30 in the evening in company with two other physicians. The patient approached one of the physicians, extended his hand to him, and in a familiar manner said, "Hello, Mr. C." When told that this was not Mr. C., patient exclaimed "Oh!" in a confused and astonished manner, said, "Where am I?" and reeled over on the floor as if in a swoon. He was told to sit up in the chair, which he did.

"What date is this?" "August 26, 1910" (July 27, 1910).

"How long have you been here?" "Since July 25, 1910."

"How long a period would that make?" "One month—oh no, one day; this is August 10, 1910."

"What were you sent here for?" "Don't know."

"Who brought you here?" "Don't know—oh yes, two policemen."

"What is your babe's name?" "Don't know."

"What is your wife's name?" "Don't know."

He was then given a newspaper clipping in which the whole affair was fully described. He read the account through, but without exhibiting the slightest emotion, and said, "Isn't that awful, doctor?"

"How do you feel about this affair of your babe being dead?" "I don't know anything about it."

"How much is 2 times 3?" After considerable delay and in an absorbed mood he said, "70."

"How much is 6 times 7?" After a long pause he said, "Don't know."

"Which is the largest newspaper in Washington?" "Don't know." (Patient was on the staff of a local newspaper.)

When we remember that only several hours before this the patient gave a coherent account of his past life and showed nothing grossly psychotic, the foregoing symptoms, such as the lack of knowledge of his wife's or babe's name, inability to solve problems such as 2 times 3, the fainting spell, etc., must be looked upon as unquestionably malingered. When examined the following day he showed still further signs of malingering, the detailed account of which must, however, be omitted on account of lack of space, and yet this man was unquestionably insane; the act itself (the infanticide) was unquestionably an insane act, as will be shown later. We have mentioned the fact of his neurasthenic symptoms and how as a result of these he lost his position. The physical examination of the patient revealed certain neurological signs, such as exaggeration of the patellar reflexes, lateral nystagmus of both eyes, which determined us to look further into the question of his physical state, especially in view of a history of luetic infection five years before. A spinal puncture was accordingly performed, and the spinal fluid findings were as follows: Fluid clear, pressure moderately increased, Noguchi butyric acid reaction positive, a rather uncommonly heavy granular type of precipitate, cells per cubic millimeter 129. Differential cell count: Lymphocytes, 94 per cent; phagocytes 2.2 per cent; plasma cells, 0.25 per cent; unclassified cells, 2.25 per cent. Wassermann reaction with spinal fluid negative, both active and inactivated. Wassermann reaction with the blood-serum negative. This, however, became positive later on in the disease. The above findings indicate unquestionably that he was suffering from cerebral syphilis.

It is not necessary to enter into further detail concerning the progress of this case. Suffice it to say that with proper treatment he entirely recovered and was so discharged on June 14, 1911.

There can be no doubt that this man malingered mental symptoms, neither need there be the slightest doubt about his having suffered from an actual mental disorder. The motive for his malingering is perfectly obvious. Finding himself suddenly confronted with a charge of infanticide, and rent by the various conflicting emotions which a realization of this carries with it, he resorted to the common weapon of defense, malingering of mental symptoms. We have seen that he deceived no one but himself; that in reality he was a very seriously affected individual. It was fortunate for him that because of some lucky turn of events he landed in a hospital instead of in jail.

A more or less similar case recently received the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for manslaughter. In this instance the case was chiefly observed by jail officials instead of physicians in its early course.

The foregoing case, it seems to me, illustrates very well that, while we are fully justified in assuming a relationship of cause and effect in many cases of malingering, in many others malingering and actual mental disease are concomitant phenomena, having a common root in the same diseased soil. Thus Pelman[10] holds simulation in the mentally normal to be extremely rare, and he always finds himself at a loss to differentiate between that which is simulated and that which represents the actual traits of the individual. My own experience prompts me to agree with Pelman. This confusion and difficulty of differentiation between actual mental disease and malingered symptoms may manifest itself in two ways. The same individual may be suffering at one time from a frank mental disorder, and at some later period, finding himself in a stressful situation, malinger a psychotic state, or, as we saw in the preceding case, malingering of symptoms may manifest itself during the course of a frank mental disorder, as will be further illustrated in succeeding cases. Pelman's statement, however, applies most forcibly to that mass of border-line cases which will be discussed later.

T. W. was admitted to the Government Hospital for the Insane from the United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kan., on June 16, 1910, at the age of twenty-nine. He was serving at the time a sentence of eight years for post-office robbery. His own version of his family and past personal history is unreliable. He claimed to have suffered from a paralysis of both arms from March, 1904, until March, 1906, and that he was at that time confined to a sanitarium. He would not give the name of that institution, and the whole story may have been fictitious. At any rate, if he did suffer from this paralysis it was very likely functional in type, as at the time of his admission here, four years later, he showed no traces whatever of this. He admitted having been arrested several times before for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. His industrial career was very irregular.

The onset of the present attack, as described in the medical certificate which accompanied him on admission, was as follows:—"On the evening of April 17, 1910, patient suddenly began to shout, sing, and pray, claiming that the spirit of God had entered his heart and that he had a mission to perform. This mission was to go among the prisoners and preach the Gospel. He then manifested this in a very erratic manner; ideation was disturbed and disconnected, and there was present psychomotor restlessness. A probable diagnosis of manic-depressive psychosis was made by the prison physician."

On admission to this hospital the patient was well nourished physically, talked readily and coherently, was clear mentally, although he stated he did not know the nature of this hospital, adding spontaneously that he knew it was not an insane asylum. His productivity was chiefly of a religious nature. He stated he was the real Elijah III, the real prophet; that the vision of Jesus Christ came to him in his cell, handed him a cross, and told him to pick up his clothes and follow Him. The warden at the penitentiary was jealous of his ability to preach the Gospel, and in consequence tried to get two men to kill him, but these could do him no harm, because he had the spirit of God in him. The warden also tried to poison him. He complained of a fever in his stomach from the food the warden gave him, stated he could see crosses in the corner of his room, and was continually mumbling something to himself in a low voice. He rested well on the first night of his sojourn here, and the following morning told the attendant that he had seen God standing behind him at intervals during the night. On June 28, 1910, he developed a marked religious excitement, preached loudly while out in the yard, and wildly gesticulated in a manner as if he were addressing someone above. He continued intermittently excited until the early part of August, 1910. It should be noted here that at this time there were two other cases confined in the same building, two cases of dementia praecox, who manifested similar religious excitement. It is of importance to note this, inasmuch as suggestion plays a considerable role in the choice of the malingered symptom, and because one of the characteristics of the type of individuals under consideration is a high degree of suggestibility.

In his conduct in the ward he was quiet and orderly, frequently talked in a rational and coherent manner, but invariably brought into the conversation his delusional ideas. In his demeanor towards me he was very evasive, suspicious, and showed a marked disinclination to enter into a protracted interview. Soon after an unsuccessful attempt to examine him more thoroughly he handed me a letter addressed to Judge Landis at Chicago, in which he ordered said Judge to remove Voliva from Zion City and turn the latter over to him, the patient, as the rightful heir and the only real Elijah III. Following this there was another tranquil period, during which the patient's conduct was quite good. About a month later another attempt was made to examine him in detail, but so soon as he noticed my intention to take notes of the examination he became very suspicious and evasive and absolutely refused to cooeperate. This episode was likewise soon followed by a letter as follows. The letter was addressed to the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kan., and he requested that it be mailed immediately, as it was very important. It was correctly dated and read:—

"DEAR SIR: When you receive this letter you will immediately take steps to have me returned to the penitentiary, where I have a divine mission to perform. You old ... do you realize that you are fooling with the prophet Elijah, the Lord's chosen? Have you no fear of the wrath that God shall bestow on you if you even dare to offend His divine servant? Don't you ever for a minute think that you can connive to beat me out of my property in Zion City, you and that interloper, L. L. Voliva. I shall have it all just as the Lord meant I should, and I shall carry on the work just as the Divine Master meant I should. For what matter it if the world is against us, so long as God is for us? Now, you old reptile, on receipt of this you will immediately discharge the chaplain; he has no business there. When I get back I'll take his place, for I am Elijah III, the Lord's anointed.

(Signed) "T. W. ELIJAH III, Station L, Washington, D.C."

In the meantime it was noted that the patient was very shrewd in his various schemes for making his escape from the hospital; that he very ingeniously managed to manufacture all sorts of weapons, and that he seemed to be especially delusional when in conversation with the hospital officials.

Soon after the patient planned and executed a very daring escape, taking with him two other patients, but was soon apprehended and returned to the hospital. All of this led me to suspect that the patient was simulating a good many of his symptoms, and that, at any rate, he was very much exaggerating his psychotic state.

However, there was a certain element of contradiction, a certain lack of consistency, present in his behavior which is entirely atypical of the pure malingerer. His explanations of his ideas were flat and somewhat dilapidated, and resembled to a certain extent the explanations of a dementia praecox case. In other words, there was no doubt that the patient malingered, but there was likewise no doubt that he suffered from a psychosis. On several occasions he refused to take nourishment for several days at a time in reaction to his delusional ideas.

Upon his return from his elopement it was felt that, owing to his dangerous tendencies, a more thorough attempt at evaluating the relative importance of the genuine and the malingered in his case ought to be made with a view to returning him to the penitentiary.

He was accordingly again thoroughly examined on April 8, with the following results: He reiterated his delusional ideas substantially as given above. He insisted that he was not insane; that he was railroaded to this hospital because the warden of the penitentiary and other United States officials are trying to rob him of his property in Zion City. "God Almighty meant that Zion City should belong to me." This was decided on the night when he saw the cross.

"How many months in a year?" "Twelve."

"How many days in a week?" "Seven."

"Name the months." "March, April, June, July, August, October, November, December, January, and February."

"What is the last month of the year?" "October."

"What is the first month of the year?" "March."

"Which is the Christmas month?" "I'm not certain, but I think it's January."

"How does vinegar taste?" "Sweet."

"How does a lemon taste?" "Sweet."

"What is the color of an orange?" "Blue."

"Count from 1 to 20." Counts very slowly and deliberately, omitting 11 and 15.

"4 x 2 = 8; 8 x 4 = 28; 9 x 3 = 27; 7 x 4 = 24; 6 x 4 = 22; 6 + 7 = 13; 19 + 11 = 30; 7 + 8 = 14; 3 x 3 = 9; 4 x 2 = 12; 6 x 4 = 14; 5 x 2 = 10; 1 + 9 = 10; 9 + 11 = 21; 11 + 9 = 18; 50 + 5 = 11; 8 / 2 = 4; 27 / 9 = 4."

"Name the days of the week." "Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday."

"Name them again." "Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and Monday."

In repeating a very simple story he changed the content entirely, and omitted some of the most important details of it.

When we remember that this man was far from being as ignorant as some of the above answers would suggest, and that, while he unquestionably suffered from a psychosis, his state of consciousness was altogether too clear to justify a degree of lack of touch with his environment such as his replies would indicate, it becomes quite obvious that he malingered. This, together with his dangerous tendencies, determined us to return him to the penitentiary, which was done on April 11, 1911.

He reached the penitentiary on April 13, and on the night of April 20 he began preaching in a loud tone of voice, claiming that he was the son of David, and that he was called upon to go forth and preach to the world. He was removed from his cell to the isolation building, where he refused to take nourishment until April 23. During this period he spent most of the time preaching and singing religious songs, and at times would hold long and heated arguments with some imaginary person, always on religious topics. From the above date until his transfer to the Government Hospital for the Insane on September 24, 1911, he continued in a very disturbed and destructive state, refusing food frequently for several meals in succession, preached, sang, and cursed in turn, gave voice to the various delusional ideas manifested above, and gave objective evidence of suffering from hallucinations. Throughout he strongly maintained that he did not want to return to the hospital at Washington, as there was nothing wrong with him mentally.

The prison physician who examined the patient at the penitentiary before his second admission to this hospital made the following notation in the case: "The mental examination of T. W. reveals inconsistencies that are strongly suggestive of simulation, and I believe there is in this case a degree of malingering, frequently associated with prison psychoses, yet that there is a psychosis, in my opinion, there is no doubt."

Upon his return to this hospital he became involved in fistic encounters, on the way to his ward, for which there was very little provocation. For several weeks following this he was very surly, dissatisfied, moody, and inaccessible, but showed no other psychotic symptoms. Four days after admission he subscribed to a local newspaper, which he read regularly and kept himself well informed on ordinary topics. He was clear mentally, well oriented in all respects, and adapted himself readily to his new environment, except that he absolutely refused to eat the regular food furnished the patients. For about three weeks he lived practically on fruit and candies which he purchased, persisting in his determination to starve himself unless he were given a special diet. This was furnished him, and he had no further dietetic troubles. No delusions or hallucinations were manifested, intellectual examination revealed no intelligence defect (gross), and, aside from his surly mood and his tendency for rather frequent endogenous depressed periods, he showed no abnormal manifestations.

In this state he required no special hospital treatment, and, as he promised to conduct himself properly if he were returned to the penitentiary, he was transferred back on February 20, 1912.

Upon his return he continued, however, to manifest periodic excitements, with destructiveness, always, however, in reaction to some environmental irritation. He nevertheless managed to remain in the penitentiary until the termination of his sentence.

It is highly doubtful whether proper means will ever be evolved to enable one to differentiate accurately between that which is genuine and that which is malingered in cases like, for instance, the foregoing.

This man unquestionably suffered from a psychosis, and yet there is likewise no doubt that he malingered. The question of the accurate differentiation between the genuine and the shammed seems to me, however, to be strictly an academic one and of very slight practical importance. What is of importance is the recognition that malingering and mental disease are here the expression of the same diseased soil, and that the same source should perhaps be also attributed to this man's criminalistic tendencies. Crime, mental disease, and malingering should perhaps here be looked upon as different phases of a mode of reaction to life's problems which belongs to a lower cultural level, which is largely infantile in character.

That this infantile way of facing reality is dependent upon some constitutional inherent anomaly is attested to by the circumstance that these individuals practically always react in this manner when forced to form new adjustments, new adaptations. This repeated recourse to mental disease as a refuge from a stressful situation is amply illustrated in a series of cases reported elsewhere.

The other form in which malingering may be so intertwined with actual mental disease as to render accurate differentiation quite impossible is where the individual may be suffering from a psychosis at one time, and at some later period, finding himself in a stressful situation, malinger a psychotic state. In these cases the danger of ever committing a habitual criminal to a hospital for the insane is especially apparent.

Finding, as these individuals do, a successful and convenient refuge in a psychosis, it is but natural for them to again seek this refuge when they find themselves in conflict with the law. But that which was at one time a spontaneous, unconsciously motivated mental reaction may later become a conscious volitional act, an only available means of escape—malingering of mental symptoms.

J. E. M., aged twenty-seven on admission, June 15, 1912. Family history obtained from the patient four days after admission is quite unreliable. He knew nothing of his grandparents, who died in Ireland. Father was living when last heard from, four or five years ago. He is moderately alcoholic; a stableman by occupation. Mother died at fifty-five in Bellevue Hospital, New York City, from some unknown cause. One brother was drowned. One sister died of tubercular adenitis. No instance of epilepsy, insanity, or nervous disorder in any form is known to have existed among his relatives.

Patient stated that he was born in Ireland on October 12, 1884. He never attended school, but has learned to read and write a little. Childhood was uneventful, so far as known. He came to this country at the age of four, and at twelve or thirteen years of age began selling newspapers in the streets of New York. His occupational career since then has been chiefly that of a steamboat and longshoreman laborer along the docks of New York City. He said he enlisted in the Navy in 1907 or 1908, was not quite certain as to which year, at San Francisco, Cal. He served on the U.S.S. Buffalo as coal-passer; was dishonorably discharged for drunkenness. He then reenlisted and served as fireman, first class, on the Milwaukee for about three and one-half years. Says he got along well on the Milwaukee, until he got into his present trouble. He was convicted of sodomy and sentenced to prison for ten years, January 15, 1911. Patient did not see the discrepancies in the dates as given by him, but, as stated before, the history is quite unreliable.

A letter received from the War Department on June 28 requested identification of J. E. M. for the purpose of detecting whether or not he is the same man who under the name of Lee deserted from the Army, January 14, 1909. The photograph accompanying the letter was that of the patient.

He had measles and mumps during childhood, from which he made good recoveries. Gonorrhoeal and syphilitic infection were denied. (Wassermann with the blood-serum negative.) During a bar-room brawl in Panama he was struck on the head with a table leg and rendered unconscious for fifteen or sixteen hours. This was some time in 1908. He thinks there was nothing more than a scalp wound, requiring no treatment beyond a simple dressing. For about a year after, headaches were present almost continually, occipital in location and of a tingling sensation. There was likewise a reduction of tolerance for alcoholics, since then two glasses of whisky being sufficient to intoxicate him. He does not know whether there was any change in his mental make-up or faculties following this injury, as he paid no attention to this. He commenced to indulge in alcoholics at the age of eighteen or nineteen. He cannot give a detailed account of the extent, but, as a rule, he spent all his money not needed for living expenses for whisky. He would become intoxicated every time he went ashore, stating that there was nothing else to do and no place to which he could go. Practice of onanism was denied. He claimed to have begun normal sexual intercourse at about the usual age. Strenuously denied sexual perversions, in spite of the fact that he is now serving a ten years' sentence for sodomy. He denied the guilt of this offense; insisted that he was never arrested before in his life, and believed the present conviction to have been a trumped-up affair because they must have gotten sore on him, although he cannot figure out why. Following his conviction for the above offense he was sent to the State Penitentiary at Concord, N.H. For a short while after he got there he got along well; was kept continually at work in the chair factory. He did not like this work, as he was subjected to the inhalation of the dust and shavings, and feared he would develop tuberculosis from this, and asked to be transferred to some other place. This request was finally granted him, and he was put to work in the kitchen. He states he did not get along well there; very soon got into some sort of trouble and was put into a dark dungeon, where he thinks he remained for about twelve months, strapped to the bed. He never saw the daylight during this time. He does not know why these strict measures were taken with him, but it is a fact that he was tied down. He had no idea of the onset of the present trouble, but stated that he complained frequently to the doctor of headaches and vomiting. The headaches were occipital in nature and severe at times. He could not recall his transfer to this institution nor the events which transpired during the first two or three days after his arrival here.

The medical certificate which accompanied him here stated: "Patient has been convicted of sodomy and is at present serving sentence for same. First symptoms became manifest about February 6, 1912. Came under the care of prison physician at Concord, N.H., State Prison with severe headaches. Previous to above date it is said there were the following records at above prison in regard to this patient: April 15, 1911, and August 10, 1911, he had convulsions. These are not described in detail. The prison physician at the time noted that patient showed symptoms of organic brain disease. On February 26, 1912, he became violent, and has had to be restrained since then. For some time previous to that he had acted peculiarly. The symptoms immediately preceding his transfer to this institution are as follows: Has to be restrained to prevent violence to himself and others. Frequently suspicious when food and drink are offered him. At times noisy when he desires food and it is not given to him at once. Probable cause unknown. There is a vague history of head injury aboard ship in the tropics. Homicidal tendencies were present when the disease first became manifest."

Patient was admitted to this institution June 15, 1912, at 10.30 A.M. On admission he was carried in by two employees. His legs were shackled and he had wristlets on his hands. He was apparently unable to stand unassisted, and, when support was removed, fell to the floor. Pupils were widely dilated; internal strabismus of the right eye was present. Facial musculature was distorted, and he mumbled to himself in a low, indifferent tone of voice, over and over again, "Give me something to eat. I can't do it. Give me something to eat," etc., in a rapid monotone. He appeared to be in a deep stupor. He did not seem to realize his whereabouts, and attention could not be gained. He was totally inaccessible. When put to bed he became quite restless, rolled out on the floor, and was unable to assist himself back into bed. Musculature of legs was in a constant mild clonus, and the right foot was kept in position of talipes equinovarus. Pins pushed deeply into the skin all over the body caused no reaction. When food was brought to him he leaped upon it and finished the meal with extreme rapidity, stuffed his mouth full, never taking sufficient time for mastication or swallowing, and food was frequently expelled forcibly, probably from irritation of the air-passages. Questions addressed to him remained unheeded, but he kept up a constant mumbling in a low monotone, as described above. He was totally unable to stand on his feet unsupported, but when lying down his legs were moved about quite freely in an indifferent manner. When alone in the room he remained quietly in bed, head and face covered up with a blanket, but as soon as the room was entered he became restless, grabbing to those about him and holding on tenaciously. During his first night in the institution he slept well and was clean in habits. The following morning he was still inaccessible. He ate his breakfast quite voraciously, mumbling to himself all the time, "Give me something to eat" or "Give me something to drink." When water was brought to him he would endeavor to gulp the entire contents of the vessel at one effort.

During the day of June 16, the day following his admission, he was frequently seen sitting on the side of the bed with quite a pleasant facial expression, rubbing his arms and legs. When his room was entered, however, he at once began mumbling to himself similar phrases as those given above, became quite restless, grabbing at those about him and not paying any attention to questions put to him. The following day, June 17, he showed marked improvement; was very much quieter in behavior when approached; walked back and forth in his room quite unassisted and in quite a steady manner; was seen looking out of the window into the yard for about fifteen or twenty minutes. Upon being approached by any one his gait seemed to become definitely less steady, and diffused twitchings of the thigh and leg were noted. The strabismus which was present on the day of admission had entirely disappeared; pupils slightly dilated. In the forenoon of the 17th he asked for his clothes and to be allowed to go out in the courtyard for a walk. A few questions addressed to him were answered coherently and relevantly. He said, in answer to direct questions, that his name was J. E. M.; that he did not know his age; that he came off some ship. Said the name of the ship was Washington; that he did not know how long he was on that ship, but thought it was a good long time. Asked where he was now, he said he was in the brig. "Where?" "Don't know." Asked if he were crazy, he said, "No, sir." When he came here? "A year ago." Asked what was the matter with him. "Nothing, sir. They kept me tied up too much." Asked when his bowels moved last, he said, "About a week ago."

On June 19 he gave a coherent and connected account of his past life. He talked freely and cooeperated in every way with the interviewer. Requests were obeyed promptly and intelligently. Physical examination on that date showed him to be a well-built, well-developed white male. Face slightly asymmetrical. Skin was soft and smooth, free from eruption, and covered with numerous elaborate tattoo marks. Linear depressed scar in the occipital region. Muscle tone was good. Muscular power was good in upper extremities. On first being tested in the lower extremities said he could not resist very much passive movements; upon suggestion, however, the muscular power of the lower extremities became much stronger and equal to that of the upper extremities. Grip was strong and equal on both sides. Station and gait were unimpaired when a steady and erect attitude and firm gait were suggested to the patient; left alone, he was inclined to be slightly unsteady on his feet. With eyes closed and feet together, there was considerable swaying present; said he felt like falling over. Voluntary movements were performed well. He described accurately a circle, a square, and triangle in the air with either hand. Movements were steady and accurate. Cooerdination was slightly impaired in f-f and f-n tests; the termination of the act was accompanied by a slight tremor. The musculature of thighs showed a more or less constant clonic twitching. When attention was called to this he was able to control it to a certain extent. Upon assuming a sitting posture the twitchings ceased. He said it was due to weak ankles. There was no tremor of protruded tongue or lips when showing teeth; fine tremor of the extended fingers and forearm when extended; no tremor of facial musculature. There was no paralysis, but there seemed to be a slight weakening of the lower extremities. No atrophies or hypertrophies noted. The triceps and radial reflexes were definitely exaggerated. Upon tapping, the quadriceps tendon caused a brisk marked contraction of thigh muscles, followed by mild clonus. Tapping of one knee tended to set musculature of opposite knee in mild clonus of short duration. Knee kicks were definitely exaggerated. Tendo Achillis exaggerated. No ankle clonus. Muscular irritability to mechanical stimulation increased. Superficial reflexes were normal, except plantar defense reaction was slight. Cutaneous sensibility was unimpaired: heat and cold readily distinguished. Light touches of pin pricks were felt and localized all over the body. Sense of position normal. No astereognosis in either hand. No excessive sweating. Eyes clear; irides brown; pupils round and regular, moderately dilated, reacted readily to all tests; eye movements well performed in all directions; no nystagmus nor strabismus. Vision—20/30 in each eye, improved by glasses. Skin of vitreous clear; slight weakness of external recti; cornea clear; field of vision normal for white; both fundi normal except for slight hyperaemia. Smell, taste, audition, and speech unimpaired.

Mentally the patient was clear. He comprehended readily what was said to him, and his replies were prompt and relevant. He was disoriented for time. He stated that he knew the nature of this place; that he was told it the day before by a patient. Claimed to have total or almost total amnesia for several months past during the year he was confined in the dungeon of the Concord Penitentiary. He had no idea of the trip from there down to this hospital. He did not remember his arrival, nor how he acted the first two days here. Stated that on June 17 he first began to notice things about him and to realize faintly where he was. Delusions or hallucinations could not be elicited as having existed at that time. He spoke of having been bothered at the penitentiary; of having been chloroformed; that they put stuff in his food, tried hard to get him out of the way, and because they could not do it sent him down here. Said the doctor poured ether down his neck. He does not know the doctor's name, but he knew it was ether, he smelt it, and that is the reason he could not use his legs on arrival. He had no idea why he should have been treated thus, but thought perhaps they had it in for him. Auditory hallucinations could not be elicited. When asked if he ever saw anything, he said it was pitch dark in the dungeon and no one could see anything. Said the food tasted bad all the time, and sometimes made him vomit. On one occasion he noticed some powder in the beans. No electricity, no shocks, no outside influence was used on him. He did not know how long he was tied down in the dungeon, as half the time he did not know anything at all. Said they put needles in him, and pointed to some marks on his arm as a result of hypodermics. Facial expression denoted perfect satisfaction; said he felt fine and did not worry about anything, as he is not of the worrying kind. Said he had been treated well here. Insight was imperfect. When asked directly if he had been insane, he replied "No." When the various symptoms which he manifested on admission were described to him he was inclined to agree that if he did show these symptoms he must have been out of his head. Remote memory was not impaired, so far as could be determined. There was an ill-defined amnesia extending over several months past, and up to June 17, when he claimed to have first realized his whereabouts. Attention was unimpaired. He reacted well to the intellectual tests, with the exception of the arithmetical problems, which he did poorly. Replies to ethical questions showed a rather low grade of morality, perhaps due somewhat to ignorance more than to anything else. In his conduct on the ward he was absolutely normal following June 17. He spent his time reading and in conversation with the other patients. He was perfectly satisfied in his surroundings, frank in his conversation with those about him, and gradually gained more and more insight into his condition. He still persisted, however, in his statements that ether was poured down his back. Said he remembered this distinctly as having taken place while confined in the dungeon. He was then, however, inclined to think that probably they did not have it in for him, and probably they did what they thought was best. In conversation with him today, on June 19, four days after admission, he showed perfectly normal behavior in every respect. Was frank in his statements, spoke of the amnesia mentioned above, and no delusions or hallucinatory experiences or physical symptoms present on admission could be detected.

When finally confronted with the picture sent from the War Department for his identification he showed some degree of emotional reaction, stated that the picture was his, but persistently denied ever having been a recruit in the army. On the whole, he took the matter rather lightly and good-naturedly.

The history of this attack illustrates a typical case of hysterical psychosis. The marked stupor and confusion, the numerous and varied neurological symptoms, the sensory disturbances, especially the profound anaesthesia to pin pricks, the amnesia and rapid recovery after change of environment, all point to this diagnosis. It is a form of reaction frequently seen in prisoners, and has been designated, for want of a better term, as prison psychosis. At any rate, there can be no doubt as to the genuineness of the symptoms presented by the patient.

If we keep in mind that such a type of psychotic reaction is the result of the mutual interaction between an unstable, highly vulnerable psyche and an unfavorable environmental situation—in this instance prison environment—we understand the more readily the later history of this case.

On July 16, 1912, he was discharged recovered and turned over to the naval authorities to be returned to prison. Soon after his return to prison he was noted to be melancholy, uncommunicative, was not interested in condition of self or surroundings, had unsystematized delusions of persecution. Physically he was noted to be anaemic, showed general tremors when undergoing examination, reflexes were exaggerated, positive Romberg was present. The physician who accompanied patient to the Government Hospital for the Insane on his second admission stated that on the trip from Portsmouth Prison M. tried to assault a waiter in a restaurant in Boston, accusing the latter of following him. To the physician he said, while on the train, "Take your d—— eyes off me, or I'll brain you."

He was readmitted to the Government Hospital for the Insane on February 6, 1913. Physical examination on this admission was negative, except for some impairment of vision, for which he was given eye-glasses. Mentally he was found to be disoriented for time, though perfectly clear mentally, as was shown later in the examination; he said he did not know the name of the institution, though a minute later he gave correctly the name of the building in which he was located. He spoke in a very vindictive manner of the naval officials, who he said were persecuting him in various ways, and who he reckoned were then working to send him to some other d—— prison. On February 7, the day after admission, he wrote the following letter to the Secretary of the Navy:

HOWARD HALL, January 29, 1913.

MR. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY: Rev. Sir.—Will you kindly have some investigating, as I cannot have my life endangered. It is continually in my food, and times I have found the compounded powders in the air of my room choking me. Please let me know if you will do so, and I shall close.

Respectfully yours, J. E. M., H. H. 5, Station L.

No hallucinations could be elicited, and his delusional ideas were confined to the naval officials. These, he said, were persecuting him; they sentenced him unjustly in the first place, and threatened to get even with them. He answered the intelligence tests fairly well, but the examining physician noted that frequently he gave expression of consciously giving erroneous replies to questions put to him. Emotionally he was at first somewhat depressed, but later this disappeared. In his conduct he was inclined to be very troublesome, easily irritated, and fault-finding.

This disorder of conduct, however, became consistently more aggravated whenever he was in the presence of the physician. While he gradually became quite friendly with the attendants and willingly assisted with the ward work, he became quite abusive whenever an attempt was made to examine him by the physician. This became especially evident in December, 1913, when the physician who had him in charge during his first sojourn at the hospital again assumed charge of him. At that time the patient had been on excellent behavior for a number of months, and in his daily conduct showed no evidence of a psychosis. He continued, however, to air his delusional ideas whenever the physician attempted to examine him.

Everything went well upon the return of his former physician until December 22, 1913, when the latter attempted to examine him. The patient became very abusive and threatening in his attitude, began to air all sorts of bizarre persecutory ideas, and for about a month he continued in an excited and destructive state. At the expiration of this period he apologized to the physician for his conduct, said that he could not help going on a rampage once in a while, as it is all due to his mean disposition, and promised to conduct himself in an excellent manner if he were not returned to prison. This was early in January, 1914, since which time he has been a model patient in every respect. It is needless to say that he has not been given, since that time, any occasion for the development of another tantrum, and accordingly he remained free from psychotic manifestations.

He was a model patient after this, assisted willingly with the ward work, and on one occasion prevented the successful culmination of a daring plot on the part of several patients to escape from the institution.

Upon the recommendation of the hospital authorities and Dr. Sheehan, the naval officer stationed at this hospital, the remainder of this man's sentence was commuted, and he was accordingly discharged on June 29, 1914. For about six months prior to this his conduct was exemplary, and, though through a considerable part of this period he enjoyed freedom of the grounds, he never showed the slightest inclination to abuse these privileges.

The salutary effect of the commutation of this man's sentence is quite obvious. On the other hand, I am equally certain that had this particular individual been returned to prison we would have had him again before long as a very seriously ill patient.

This case is extremely interesting from many points of view. In the first place, it gives us some insight into that highly inflammable, hair-trigger, emotional type of individual who, when thrown into a stressful situation, is very likely to go to pieces mentally. It is a type which is always very difficult to manage under a prison regime, and which in my estimation requires some intermediary place between a hospital for the insane and a penal institution. It is likewise quite irrational in our judicial disposition of these cases to impose a definite sentence. If our prisons are to function as reformatory institutions, it is quite clear that in this particular case no one can possibly foretell how long a period it would take to bring about a reformation. It is as if a man suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis were told that he must go to a place set aside for such as he and stay there, say, five years, irrespective of whether he is well at the end of that time, or whether he might have recovered long before the expiration of that period.

In this particular instance we were led to recommend a commutation of the unexpired term of the sentence by the following considerations: First of all, I cannot consider sodomy a crime punishable by imprisonment, unless the act was performed on a subject who either is incapable of giving his consent or becomes a party to the act against his will, by force. Anomalies of the sexual function are not crimes, but diseases, and as such should come under the purview of the physician, and not the agents of the law. In the second place, this man served in the navy with an excellent record for about two years, and, so far as we know, is not inclined to habitual criminality, and therefore deserved at least another chance. But these considerations are somewhat beside the issue under discussion. The case, to my mind, illustrates very well how closely malingering of mental symptoms is related to actual mental disease, how both manifestations are expressions of the same underlying diseased soil, and how difficult, nay even impossible, it is to tell in a given case which of the symptoms are real and which shammed. On his first admission this man suffered from a grave mental disorder, from which, so far as anybody could determine, he made a complete recovery. Thrown back into the same stressful situation, he again finds himself unable to cope with it, becomes melancholy, suspicious, and mildly delusional. There is, however, considerable doubt in my mind as to the genuineness of these symptoms; unquestionably genuine is only the psychopathic make-up of this individual, which under stress permitted the development in one instance of a grave psychosis, in another of malingering.

Cases like the foregoing are by no means exceptions in criminal departments of hospitals for the insane. It is on account of this type of prison population that penal institutions furnish us with ten times as many insane as free communities.

Whatever convictions I possess concerning the subject of malingering were gained from a fairly extensive experience with insane delinquents at the Government Hospital for the Insane, and when I assert that I have yet to see a malingerer who, aside from being a malingerer, was likewise normal mentally, I do so with the full consciousness that my experience has been a more or less one-sided one. I mean to say that the material observed by me came to my notice within the confines of a hospital for the insane, and that my failure, therefore, to see the so-called pure malingerer is probably due to this circumstance. I shall not argue this point further, but merely state that it is true I have not had experience with the detected and convicted malingerer in the jail and court-room. I have had ample opportunity to study this same genus later as a patient in the hospital.

It would be an extremely interesting study to follow up the later careers of the so-called detected malingerers who are sent to prison and see how many of them later find their way to hospitals for the insane. A setting forth of these figures—and I doubt not for one second that the number is not at all inconsiderable—would not in the least have to be construed as a criticism of the diagnostic acumen of the original investigator. It would simply substantiate the truth of our contention that in the malingerer we see a type of individual who is far from normal, and in whom malingering as well as frank mental disease is not at all a rare phenomenon.

I have no doubt whatever that a considerable number of suspected malingerers are annually sent to penal institutions, there to be later recognized in their true light and transferred to hospitals for the insane; else it would be difficult to account for the fact that mental disease, according to many authors, is at least ten times as frequent among prisoners as it is among a free population. Certainly this cannot be attributed to environment alone, especially not to that of our modern, well-conducted prisons. The reason lies chiefly in the type of individual who populates our prisons. A number of them are either insane when sent to prison or potentially so, and when thrown into a more or less difficult situation, such as imprisonment, readily develop a mental disorder. We see this illustrated very well in the highly beneficial effect which transfer to a hospital for the insane has upon these individuals. I am convinced that one would not be wrong in agreeing with the opinions quoted below, that malingering, as such, is a morbid phenomenon and always the expression of an individual inferior mentally. It may be looked upon as a psychogenetic disorder, the mere possibility of the development of which is, according to Birnbaum[11] and others, an indication of a degenerative make-up, a defective mental organization. Siemens[12] says: "The demonstration of the existence of simulation is not at all proof that disease is simulated; it does not exclude the existence of mental disease." Pelman holds simulation in the mentally normal to be extremely rare, and he always finds himself at a loss to differentiate between that which is simulated and that which represents the actual traits of the individual. Melbruch[13] holds that simulation is observed solely in individuals more or less decidedly abnormal mentally, because in the great majority of cases, if there does not actually exist a frank mental disorder, these individuals lack in a marked degree psychic balance and are constantly on the verge of a psychosis. Penta, in a most thorough study of the subject of malingering, likewise comes to the conclusion that it is always a morbid phenomenon. It is a tool almost always resorted to by the weak and incompetent whenever confronted with an especially difficult or stressful situation. It is, therefore, almost exclusively seen in hysterics, neurotics and other types of psychopaths, in the frankly insane, and in grave delinquents.

With these remarks concerning malingering in the supposedly mentally normal, we may turn to a discussion of that large group of borderland cases which furnishes, outside of the frankly insane, the great majority of malingerers. I am tempted here to borrow Bornstein's classic description of the type of personality to which I am referring. According to him, these individuals come into the world with the stamp of a hereditary taint, with certain somatic anomalies (ears, palate, formation of skull, growth of hair, etc.), and already as children show those psychic characteristics which are decisive for their individuality. They are, above all, characterized by a marked hypersensitiveness and by a lack of harmonious relationship between the various psychic functions. This disharmony finds its expression chiefly in the predominance of the emotional element over the intellectual and in the entire subordination of the latter to the former. Their feelings, furthermore, express themselves in an abnormal manner, both as regards their intensity and duration. The emotional reaction is either excessively strong or, on the other hand, disproportionately weak compared with the stimulus, and in spite of the extravagance of the expression it quickly passes over or remains with an excessive obduracy for a disproportionately long time. Notwithstanding the apparent intensity of the outbreak in the former and its tediousness in the latter case, these emotional upsets almost always lack real depth. They are usually very superficial, insufficiently grounded, rather dependent upon accident; transitions from one extreme to the other make up the daily experiences of these individuals—from intense love to burning hatred, from deepest reverence to an irreconcilable disgust, from unshakable loyalty to brutal treachery. They lack energy and initiative, are undecided, vacillating, and inclined to self-reproach. The domination of the emotional sphere and the frequent incongruity and discord between the various forms of emotional expression frequently lead to the development of morbid doubts, morbid fears, a morbidly exaggerated egotism, and sensitiveness which leads them to scent everywhere personal injury and insult. Finally, they frequently show an overdevelopment of the sexual instincts and various deviations from normal sexual development. Many of them seem to lack totally in the power of reason, but act entirely upon impulse, upon the mere feeling that this or that proposition is true. Many others show a pronounced tendency to a metaphysic brooding and day-dreaming and to the transformation into fact of the dreamed air castles, without any regard to the iron logic of life which they cannot satisfy, with which they either will not or do not know how to reckon. Turning their backs upon the demands of life, centered in self, given up to the kaleidoscopic play of their emotions, which are of short duration, imperfect as to depth, varying in intensity, and depending upon any and every external influence, these individuals are very uncertain in their opinions, judgments, and motives for action. They go through life without any direction, without any guiding idea, without initiative, and without will, incapable of any kind of systematic labor, yet at times ready, under the influence of a temporary affect, to sacrifice everything in order to carry out what later on proves worthless and vain. Lacking in sure criteria and guides, they are slavishly dependent upon momentary external influences, and under unfavorable conditions of life suffer want and misery and give way to temptation, frequently falling into a life of vagabondage, drunkenness, and crime. In prison they often develop mental disorders, are looked upon as malingerers, and oscillate between prison and the insane asylum, only to begin the old game over again so soon as they again come in contact with life.

It is little wonder, then, that the psychiatrist in dealing with these unfortunates frequently finds himself at a loss to tell where health leaves off and disease begins. The psychoses which these individuals develop are in the great majority of instances purely psychogenetic in character, one of the many distinguishing features of which is a marked susceptibility of the symptoms to be influenced by external occurrences. This tendency of the symptoms to shape themselves in accordance with occurrences in the immediate environment frequently leads to the suspicion of malingering, because there seems to be altogether too much discretion displayed by these alleged insane.

I have elsewhere[14] reported a series of these cases and entered into a detailed discussion both of the personality and the nature of the psychoses from which these individuals suffered. Most of my cases had been both in prison and in hospitals for the insane on more than one occasion, every arrest and imprisonment having been apparently sufficient to bring out a fresh attack of mental disease.

The following case is fairly illustrative of this type:—

J. H., white male, age twenty-seven on admission, November 13, 1913. While serving a year's sentence at the Portsmouth Naval Prison for fraudulent enlistment the patient told the authorities there that on August 7, 1909, he had murdered a girl in Rochester, N.Y. He described the murder in great detail, stated that he met the girl in one of the Rochester cemeteries, attempted a sexual assault upon her, and when she resisted he choked her to death. He stated that he did not mean to kill his victim, but that he had inflicted the fatal injury before he was aware of it. It was remorse, he said, and the desire to expiate his crime which prompted his confession. He persisted in this confession until the naval authorities were persuaded to discharge him and turn him over to the civil authorities of Rochester, N.Y. Upon arriving there an alibi was easily established, freeing the patient of all suspicion of the murder, whereupon it took a good deal of investigation on the part of the authorities to establish the patient's real legal status. It was finally decided that he belonged to the naval authorities, and he was accordingly returned to prison and was given an additional sentence of a year for this fraud, which he began to serve on December 13, 1909. While awaiting this new sentence he assaulted a master-at-arms, who he claimed abused him, and for this offense he received an additional five years' sentence. He served this sentence until his first admission to this hospital on July 16, 1913, on the following medical certificate: First symptoms became manifest in 1910. The patient manifested fixed delusions of having murdered a girl on August 7, 1909. Present symptoms: Fixed delusions of a self-accusatory nature, delusions of persecution; accused a medical officer whom he had never seen before as being among those who were hounding him. Becomes excited, violent, profane, incoherent and obscene in speech, and attempted to assault the officer. He attempted suicide on February 15, 1910, while at Concord, N.H., State Prison.

During the patient's first sojourn at this hospital he conducted himself in an orderly manner, and, aside from the expression of mild persecutory ideas with reference to the prison personnel, he was free from psychotic manifestations. On only one occasion was he involved in some trouble while here, which was entirely his own fault. He was discharged on September 23, 1913, diagnosis "Not insane, psychopathic constitution," and returned to the U.S.S. Southery Prison Ship. Upon his return there it was noted that he was suffering from a double benign, tertiary, malarial infection, which it was maintained he had contracted in this hospital.

He was readmitted here on March 15, 1914, on a medical certificate which stated that the patient said he snuffed cocaine prior to admission to the navy; that the murder he believes he committed was due, according to his statement, to the refusal of the victim to permit sexual intercourse. The patient has at present the same fixed delusion of having committed this murder in 1909. He wants to expiate his crime to escape those who are continually hounding him. When irritated he flies into a rage, cries, tries to do himself injury, and talks incoherently. For no cause, while working in the yard, he struck a fellow prisoner and pursued him with a shovel. During maniacal attacks he can be restrained only with much difficulty, smashes furniture in his cell, and is slovenly in habits. Complains constantly of numbness and needle-like pains in vertex. As a probable cause, prison routine was given. It will thus be seen that the same fraud about the murder, which served at one time to bring him an additional sentence of a year, was considered at another time one of the symptoms which justified his return to this hospital. The patient's version of the reason for his return is as follows: Soon after his transfer to Portsmouth the guards began to annoy him, calling him crazy guy, hard guy, etc. He also got into trouble with the sergeant because the latter cursed him, began to express the same ideas about the murder, and thought this was the reason they sent him back.

The mental examination and physicians' notes made during his second admission showed no gross psychotic symptoms. The patient still maintained that he actually committed this crime in Rochester, and related it in great detail. He stated that when he was confined in Portsmouth Prison he became remorseful over this crime and decided to confess. His conduct during his second sojourn here was exemplary. He appeared at conference on April 20, 1914, and a diagnosis of psychopathic character was made. The opinion was expressed that it was extremely difficult to pick out the truth from the abnormal elements in the patient's story, and that there were a great many things in the general emotional reaction of the patient that fitted into the story. It was believed that the patient had a sort of determination to get into difficulties for the sake of posing as a martyr and all that fits in with the grandiose element of his character. Being oppressed, he is taking it in a way that is very satisfying to his feelings of importance. Later during his sojourn here the patient became rather anxious to be returned to the penitentiary, stating that he had given up all the ideas which he had expressed on admission, and assured the physician that he was malingering on both occasions of his transfer to the hospital. He stated that his chief anxiety which led him to malinger was that he might be given additional sentences for his inability to get along in the penitentiary, and he thought the only way to avoid this would be to be pronounced insane. Patient was discharged from here to be returned to the penitentiary on July 9, 1914.

The patient was readmitted to this hospital on November 13, 1914, on a medical certificate which states: Diagnosis—Constitutional psychopathic state, not in line of duty, existed prior to enlistment. He was in the Government Hospital for the Insane in Washington for about four months this year. His condition is not improving. A sudden outburst occurred two days ago and he has been under close confinement since. He struck a recruit and after confinement in a cell destroyed a chair and had to be restrained. His retention in the prison in these barracks is not deemed desirable.

Nothing essentially new has developed in the case during this admission. The patient has from the first been quiet, well behaved, a willing worker in our industrial department, and free from signs of mental disorder. Of course, he again blamed the guards at the prison for the trouble which he became involved in and which necessitated his third admission to this hospital. A letter received from the naval medical officer stationed at the marine barracks, Norfolk, Va., the place of the patient's last confinement, was to the effect that while under observation there the patient made the impression of being a good worker, and normal in every way, except that he had a quick temper, and that the only difficulty they had noted was on the occasion when he assaulted the man at the prison, who appeared against him at the mast, and that after this scene he was put in the brig, where he threatened to kill any —— —— man who came near him. The medical officer was impressed with the fact that the patient was feigning insanity.

The patient's version of the circumstances which led to this last admission is as follows: He was reported to the commanding officer by a guard for some alleged minor infraction of discipline, of which he claims not to have been guilty. After the guard was through making his report the patient asked the commanding officer whether this alleged offense would prevent his release in July of this year, as he had been promised if he conducted himself well. The officer replied that it certainly would, upon hearing which he could not restrain himself, became quite overwhelmed with anger, and struck the guard who reported him. His behavior which necessitated his readmission took place following this episode. The patient dwells upon the fact that prior to this episode he behaved in an excellent manner under the prison regime for about four months, and that during his sojourn there he was practically a model prisoner, which was true.

He certainly has manifested no signs of mental disorder during his present admission, and still insists that he malingered all of the symptoms which led to his former two admissions because he feared more punishment at the hands of the naval authorities unless he was considered insane.

Anamnesis.—The patient comes from a family of farmers in mediocre circumstances. Grandparents are in Bohemia, and he knows nothing concerning them. Father died of Bright's disease; was alcoholic. Otherwise family history negative.

Patient is uncertain about the time and place of birth, but believes he is about thirty years of age at present. He entered school at seven or eight, but proved to be a confirmed truant, and his father finally had to take him out of school entirely. He was in the habit of running away from home and school, to wander about the country, where he would stop at different farm houses, claiming he was an orphan and without a home, until his father would discover him and bring him back home. After giving up school definitely he worked as a farm hand, earning the ordinary wages paid for this labor. He changed places frequently, was a spendthrift, and assisted his parents financially very little. This mode of existence he led until 1904, when he forged his father's name to a $25 check and received a five-year term of imprisonment, part of which he spent in the Minnesota State Reformatory and part at the State Penitentiary. In the fall of 1907 he was paroled, but broke his parole by enlisting in the army, under the name of Kimlicka, at Fort Snelling, Minn. About a month later the fraud was discovered through his father. He was given a dishonorable discharge and sent back to the penitentiary, where he remained about six months. At the end of this time (December, 1907) he was granted another parole, and went to work for a man named George Hall, on a farm in Minnesota. He was there nearly two months, when he cut his foot while chopping wood. He says that after this accident he was not able to do much work, and his employer did not seem to like to have him hanging around, so he went back to prison, which he says paroled prisoners were supposed to do when they lost their jobs. As his time was up in two months, the prison authorities made no effort to get him a new job, but kept him there until his sentence expired. He left the penitentiary in March, 1908, and went home for a couple of weeks. He then went to Minneapolis and enlisted in the navy under the name of James Hall, but did not tell the recruiting officer about his prison or army experiences. About four months after he enlisted he was caught with another sailor in civilian's clothes in Newport, R.I. This was against the navy regulations. Patient says he did this because they did not allow him in dance halls, theaters, etc., in sailor's clothes. He used to keep his civilian's clothes in the Y. M. C. A. building in town, and would change there. He received a dishonorable discharge for this escapade. He says he had one court-martial before that, in July, 1908. He then went to Providence, R.I., and enlisted in the army under the name of Herman Hanson. In Fort Andrews, Boston Harbor, patient was caught in civilian's clothes again, and got into a brawl with a sergeant. Patient says the sergeant was drunk and provoked the quarrel. As a result the patient was put in the guard-house, receiving a sentence of six months and dishonorable discharge. Two months of this sentence he served at Fort Andrews, and the rest at Governor's Island. After being discharged, he hung around New York City for a week, and then went to Rochester, N.Y. This was in May, 1909. Here he worked on a farm for Mrs. McCale, and the following month, June, 1909, he enlisted in the Marine Corps under the name of Vilt. He was sent to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, but after a week's sojourn there he got into trouble on account of not having his rifle cleaned. He feared that he would be reported for this and his previous frauds might be discovered, and he decided to desert. He returned to Rochester, worked for Frank Little and Roy Fritz. Soon after he enlisted in the army, this time under the name of James Hall, but was rejected on account of some nasal defect. This was at Columbus Barracks. After being rejected in the army he enlisted in the navy and was sent to Norfolk, Va. He was here likewise rejected on account of this defect, and while awaiting his discharge papers it was discovered that he had fraudulently enlisted. He was court-martialed and given a year. This was on November 20, 1909. His career following this has already been outlined.

If one takes into consideration the entire life history of this individual he will have little cause for surprise at the resort to malingering by this man when he found himself under an especially stressful situation. That he malingered every frank psychotic symptom which he manifested is beyond doubt a fact, even though he would not have admitted so much himself. But one would commit a serious error if on this account he would consider the man normal mentally. From childhood on this man has manifested traits of character which are absolutely psychopathic in nature. Among these may be especially emphasized the confirmed truancy and running away from home, the aimless, constantly-changing industrial career, the inability to pursue any line of endeavor towards a definite goal, the early criminalistic tendencies, the repeated commission of military offenses in spite of the frequent punishments, and, lastly, his total inability to adjust himself to the prison regime, resulting in serious mental upsets which necessitated his admission to a hospital for the insane on three different occasions. It is perfectly natural that he should resort to malingering of mental disease in his last attempt at evading a stressful situation. Malingering is frequently the only means of escape for such as he, unable as they are to meet life's problems squarely in the face.

It is of no particular value to add more cases illustrative of the type of mental make-up which leads to malingering, especially since there exists a more or less complete unanimity of opinion on the subject among present-day psychiatrists.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions which may safely be drawn from the study of malingering as it is manifested in criminal departments of hospitals for the insane are as follows:—

1. The detection of malingering in a given case by no means excludes the presence of actual mental disease. The two phenomena are not only not mutually exclusive, but are frequently concomitant manifestations in the same individual.

2. Malingering is a form of mental reaction manifested for the purpose of evading a particularly stressful situation in life, and is resorted to chiefly, if not exclusively, by the mentally abnormal, such as psychopaths, hysterics, and the frankly insane.

3. Malingering and allied traits, viz., lying and deceit, are not always consciously motivated modes of behavior, but are not infrequently determined by motives operative in the subconscious mental life, and accordingly affect to a marked extent the individual's responsibility for such behavior.

4. The differentiation of the malingered symptoms from the genuine ones is, as a rule, extremely difficult, and great caution is to be exercised in pronouncing a given individual a malingerer.

REFERENCES

[1] BRILL, A. A.: "Artificial Dreams and Lying," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol. ix, No. 5.

[2] DELBRUeCK, ANTON: "Die Pathologische Luege," Enke, Stuttgart, 1891.

[3] FERRARI, L.: "Minorenni Delinquenti," Milano, 1895.

[4] PENTA, PASQUALE: "La Simulazione della Pazzia," Napoli, Francesco Perrella, 1905.

[5] WILMANNS: "Ueber Gefangnispsychosen," Halle, S. 1908.

[6] BONHOEFFER: "Degenerationspsychosen," Halle, S. 1907.

[7] KNECHT: Quoted by Penta.

[8] VINGTRINIER: "Des Alienes dans les Prisons," Annales d'hygiene et de med.-legale, 1852-53.

[9] JONES: Introduction to "Papers on Psycho-analysis."

[10] PELMAN: "Beitrag zur Lehre von der Simulation," Irrefreund, 1874, and Arch. de Neurolog., 1890.

[11] BIRNBAUM, K.: "Zur Frage der psychogenen Krankheitsformen," Zeitsch. f. d. ges. Neur. u. Psych., 1910.

[12] SIEMENS: "Zur Frage der Simulation von Seelenstoerung," Arch. f. Psych. und Nerv., xiv, 1883.

[13] MELBRUCH: Quoted by Penta.

[14] GLUECK, BERNARD: "Catamnestic Study of Juvenile Offender," Journal of Am. Inst. Crim. Law and Crimin., viii, No. 2.



CHAPTER V

THE ANALYSIS OF A CASE OF KLEPTOMANIA

Introduction.—The past two years have been very profitable ones for the science of criminology, as they have brought to light two books on the subject which concretely reflect, on the one hand, the dying out of the old statistical method of studying the criminal, a method which will never tell the whole story, and on the other hand, the birth of a new kind of approach to the study of the criminal, namely—the characterological approach. The study of crime or antisocial human behavior from this newer standpoint at once becomes a study of character, and demands a scientific consideration of the motives and driving forces of human conduct, and since conduct is the resultant of mental life, mental factors at once become for us the most important phase of our study. Both of these books represent epoch-making culminations of years of hard labor and scientific devotion to criminology by two eminent students—Drs. Goring[1] and Healy.[2]

Dr. Goring's book, "The English Convict, a Statistical Study", appeared in 1913, and is the result of an intense statistical study of 4000 English male convicts, to which the author devoted about twelve years of his life. Dr. Healy's book, "The Individual Delinquent", which appeared in the early part of this year, reflects the results of thoroughgoing scientific studies of about 1000 repeated offenders, during the author's five years' experience as Director of the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute in connection with the Juvenile Court of Chicago. Numerous reviews of these two books have appeared in medical and criminologic literature, and we shall only touch very minutely upon the difference in the methods of approach to the subject of these two authors as they concern the subject under consideration in this paper. I can do this no better than by quoting from a critical review of Goring's book by Dr. White,[3] as it happily touches upon our very subject—namely, stealing. "Take the more limited concept of 'thief', for example. One man may steal under the influence of the prodromal stage of paresis who has been previously of high moral character. Another man may steal under the excitement of a hypomanic attack; another may steal as the result of moral delinquency; another as the result of high grade mental defect; another under the influence of alcoholic intoxication, and so forth, and so on, and how by any possibility a grouping of these men together can give us any light upon the general concept of 'thief' is beyond my power to comprehend."

When one remembers that the 4000 units with which this really marvelous statistical machinery has worked for twelve long years had nothing more in common than the fact that they were English male convicts—the force of White's argument becomes quite apparent. I need not state that this view of Goring's work is not intended to detract one iota from the full measure of credit which this author deserves. His work will stand forever as one of the monumental accomplishments of the twentieth century.

Our views concerning Healy's contribution to the science of criminology will be reflected in the course of this chapter, which will indicate, I trust, in a way, his mode of approach to the problem, though he may not agree with me concerning the details of my interpretation of the case I am about to report.

Definition.—Like many another I dislike the term "kleptomania" and would much prefer the term "pathological stealing" to denote the condition under consideration. Pathological stealing is not synonymous with excessive stealing as one would gather from the sensational use of the term in the lay press. Neither is Kraepelin's dictum that Kleptomania is a form of impulsive insanity, necessarily correct. It is obviously, however, a form of abnormally conditioned conduct. Healy's criterion of Pathological stealing is the fact that the misconduct is disproportionate to any discernible end in view. In spite of risk, the stealing is indulged in, as it were, for its own sake, and not because the objects in themselves are needed or intrinsically desired. This definition at once excludes all cases of stealing from cupidity, or from development of a habit. It furthermore excludes stealing arising from fetichism, pronounced feeblemindedness and mental disease, such as is for instance illustrated in the automatic stealing of the epileptic.

According to Healy, the vast majority of all instances of pathological stealing are those in which individuals, not determinably insane, give way to an abnormally conditioned impulse to steal.

The Psychoanalytic Study of Anti-Social Behavior.—In introducing the term "Psychoanalysis" into this chapter I am fully conscious of the task I have set before me, of writing clearly and convincingly in a work of this nature on that vast and highly important subject which one at once links with this term. To strip it of its highly technical considerations, psychoanalysis is primarily and essentially a study of motives, intended to bring about a better understanding of human conduct. We shall leave out from consideration the very intricate technique which this method of approach to the study of human behavior employs except to indicate the chief source upon which it relies for its information, namely, the individual's unconscious, that is, that part of the individual's personality which is outside of the realm of his moment-consciousness, and which is inaccessible either to himself or to the observer except through special methods of investigation. It would be highly desirable, indeed one would say almost imperative, to give a full discussion of the "unconscious" before a proper and sympathetic understanding of what is to follow can be made possible. This, however, is obviously out of the question in a limited chapter like this. Volumes have been written on the subject. I will only ask my readers to agree with me for the sake of gaining proper orientation with reference to the subject under discussion, in the conclusion which I quote from a masterly paper on the "unconscious" by White.[4] "We come thus to the important conclusion that mental life, the mind, is not equivalent and co-equal with consciousness. That, as a matter of fact, the motivating causes of conduct often lie outside of consciousness, and, as we shall see, that consciousness is not the greater but only the lesser expression of the psyche. Consciousness only includes that of which we are aware, while outside of this somewhat restricted region there lies a much wider area in which lie the deeper motives for conduct and which not only operate to control conduct, but also dictates what may and what may not become conscious." The foundation upon which the method evolved by the psychoanalytic school rests has been aptly summed up by Healy, namely, that for the explanation of all human behavior tendencies we must seek the mental and environmental experiences of early life. One of the chief aids in gaining that knowledge we have in the study of the dream and symbolic life of the individual. The reasons given for our necessarily limited discussion of the unconscious, are likewise true of the dream and symbolism. Both of these subjects would require for a proper elucidation considerably more space than this chapter affords.

Through the dream the unconscious betrays itself;—the dream represents the fulfillment of wishes and cravings which because of psychic and social censorship have become repressed into the unconscious. During sleep these barriers are in abeyance, and the unconscious psyche is given the opportunity for full play, albeit in a disguised and highly symbolic form. The proper interpretation of dreams presupposes a knowledge of the nature of symbolism in the life of man.

When we come now to a consideration of the facts brought to light through the psychoanalytic study of man we are confronted with a still greater difficulty of presentation. There is so much that is of vital importance in this new psychology that we hardly know where to begin. As I am addressing those who are primarily interested for the moment in criminology, I may do well to begin with the subject of psychic determinism. In contrast to the common sentiment of all people in favor of free will in mental processes, the facts elicited by psychoanalysis point to a strict determinism of every psychic process. Psychoanalytic investigations have shown that in mental phenomena there is nothing little, nothing arbitrary, nothing accidental. In his book on the Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Freud[5] has thrown very convincing light on this subject. Certain apparently insignificant mistakes, such as forgetting, errors of speech, writing and action, etc., are regularly motivated and determined by motives unknown to consciousness. The reason that the motives for such unintentional acts are hidden in the unconscious and can only be revealed by psychoanalysis is to be sought in the fact that these phenomena go back to motives of which consciousness will know nothing, hence were crowded into the unconscious, without, however, having been deprived of every possibility of expressing themselves. Thus we see that no mental phenomenon, and by the same token no part of human behavior, happens fortuitously, but has its specific motive, to a very large extent, in the unconscious.

The question may suggest itself here "why this extensive participation of the unconscious in mental life", which brings us to a discussion of the principles of resistance and repression.

In speaking of the "unconscious" I purposely left out from consideration the way in which the sum total of its content was separated from the conscious mental life of the individual, in order to bring it in alignment with the discussion of the principles of resistance and repression. The content of the unconscious, broadly speaking, is brought about through the activity of these two principles. If one endeavors to unearth by means of psychoanalysis the pathogenic unconscious mental impulses, or if one endeavors to bring to consciousness some instinctive biologic craving which may be responsible for the individual's conscious behavior, one regularly encounters a very strong resistance on the part of the patient, a force is regularly betrayed whose object it seems to be to prevent them from becoming conscious and to compel them to remain in the unconscious. This is Freud's conception of the principle of resistance and from its constant coming to the fore whenever an endeavor is made to penetrate into the unconscious, Freud deducts that the same forces which today oppose as resistance the becoming conscious of the unconscious purposely forgotten, must at one time have accomplished this forgetting and forced the offending pathogenic experience out of consciousness. This mechanism he terms repression. We spoke of an offending pathogenic experience, or in other words what has been termed a psychic trauma. But the same principle holds true of certain instincts which because of their peculiar nature become engaged in a kind of struggle for existence with the ethical, moral and esthetic attributes of the personality and are thrust out of the conscious mental structure as one might say by an act of the will.

We are especially concerned here with these inacceptable instincts, for the elucidation of which a brief review of Freud's theories on sexual instinct is essential.

Thoroughgoing and painstaking dissection of the human soul, such as has been practiced by Freud for nearly a quarter of a century and by many followers of his theories in the past decade, revealed to him a number of unmistakable facts from the developmental history of the individual which forced him to postulate his very radical and revolutionary theories of the sexual instinct in man. Recent behavior studies in the higher anthropoids have likewise revealed very interesting facts concerning the sexual instinct of these animals. Freud was led to make certain assertions from his painfully acquired experience, such as the unfailing sexual agency in the causation of neurotic manifestations, and that his experience of many years has as yet shown no exception to this rule, which quite naturally provoked a good deal of bitter and fanatic criticism not only from lay people but from experienced physicians. The cause for this lies in the nature of the thing itself, that much tabooed subject of sexuality. Unfortunately, as Hitschmann[6] says, physicians in their personal relations to the sexual life have not been given any preference over the rest of the children of men and many of them stand under the ban of that combination of prudery and lust which governs the attitude of most cultivated people in sexual matters. Especially unsavory appears to most people Freud's theory of infantile sexuality, a subject which has heretofore been looked upon chiefly from a moralistic standpoint, and was spoken of by others merely as odd or as a frightful example of precocious depravity. It is somewhat strange that of all the frightful depravities, if we wish to call it so—inherent in man, of the marked criminalistic components universally present in man which psychoanalytic studies have revealed—the sex depravity should have provoked the most fanatic attacks. Indeed to those who are accustomed to look at man with the psychoanalytic eye, Rochefoucauld's incisive statement does not at all sound strange. He said, "I have never seen the soul of a bad man; but I had a glimpse at the soul of a good man; I was shocked." I therefore crave the indulgence of those of you who are not familiar with psychoanalytic literature for what I am about to quote briefly from Freud's theories on the sexual instinct in man.