The aggressors vs. adults had a rather substantial record of juvenile convictions: 22 per cent, the fourth largest proportion. Five per cent, a moderate figure, had been convicted for juvenile sex offenses.
These aggressors came into conflict with society more rapidly than most sex offenders, essentially paralleling the prison group up to age twenty and then outstripping them. By age twenty-six some 87 per cent had been convicted for some crime—a figure exceeded only by the aggressors vs. minors. By age thirty the proportion had risen to 96 per cent—the largest proportion recorded by that age. Compared with other groups, many of these aggressors were convicted of serious crimes; by the time they were twenty-six over two-thirds of them had committed at least one offense that cost them a full year or more of prison time. Again, only the aggressors vs. minors surpass this figure, and no other group comes near equaling it.
Approximately half of the convictions were for sex offenses and slightly fewer were for other offenses; this is a somewhat, though not markedly, low percentage of sex offenses. One third of the men had only sex offense convictions, and again this is a relatively small percentage; the aggressors rank one, two, and three in having fewest “pure” sex offenders.
With this relative stress on nonsex offenses one might expect to find the aggressors vs. adults specializing in some type of antisocial activity, but actually their convictions show no marked concentration. However, they do show, like other aggressors, a predilection for crimes against the person: in these they rank fourth, with 14 per cent of their convictions being for such behavior, and the per capita incidence being 0.27. Again like other aggressors they had few crimes against order.
Considering now the other sex offenses committed by these men, one finds that aside from aggression against adult females the most frequent offenses were against willing or acquiescent females (27 per cent), exhibition (21 per cent), and peeping (19 per cent). Only rarely was there aggression against minors or children; these men were strongly oriented toward adult females. As we mentioned in discussing the aggressors vs. minors, the proclivity to exhibit is not incompatible with aggression, since exhibition may in these cases be a hostile act designed to shock and frighten. Similarly, the stereotype of the timid, harmless peeper need not interfere with our finding that nearly one fifth of these aggressors’ sex-offense convictions were for peeping: after all, a certain amount of reconnaissance is necessary in selecting the object, time, and place for rape.
Concerning recidivism for all types of crime the aggressors vs. adults are remarkable in only one respect: few (17 per cent) were not recidivists. However, they are far less recidivistic than their brothers, the aggressors vs. children, and are more like the aggressors vs. minors.
While the aggressors vs. minors were quite distinctive in the incidence and intensity of response to nonphysical stimuli such as sight and thought, the aggressors vs. adults were undistinguished in all except one of our measurements. This one exception, appropriately enough, was response to pictures or stories of sadomasochistic activity. In the proportion of men reporting sexual arousal from this source (15 per cent), the aggressors vs. adults were second only to the aggressors vs. minors. Similarly a relatively large number (7 per cent, fourth in rank-order) stated that their arousal was strong or frequent.
*114\161\2*
