ABSTRACT
In Chapter 6, in(1), an attempt was made to draw the line of demarcation between, first, follow-up studies, which are mainly interested in the subsequent fate of groups of offenders who have undergone various forms of correctional treatment; secondly, descriptive studies of the evolution of criminal careers, which are also concerned with groups of offenders, but not necessarily in relation to their correctional experiences (of which there may be none); and, thirdly, individual case studies which concentrate on the life of one individual. There is, naturally, a great deal of overlapping between these three categories; the difference in emphasis, however, should be clear. As far as the object of individual case studies is prediction they have been dealt with in Chapter 7, v. Prediction, however, is by no means their only purpose; they are also indispensable to provide the basic material for a better understanding of motivation, causation, and of the place of the criminal in the world surrounding him. In the words of Earnest Hooton, 2 they are ‘absolutely essential as the primary sources from which general deductions may be drawn’. He rightly objects, however, to the way in which the case study method has often been exploited, i.e. by producing highly selected and therefore unrepresentative illustrative cases in order to prove a particular point. The highly selective nature of case studies of homosexuals in particular has been stressed by Glover who writes: 3 ‘The case-history, valuable as it undoubtedly is, constitutes merely a classroom diagram concerning such cases as have been indiscreet (or compulsive) enough to have brought detection and punishment on themselves or at most have felt that their homosexual organization is a distressing abnormality or handicap calling for treatment.’
