Page images
PDF
EPUB

located in the district of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Daniels, a member of this subcommittee.

Would you care to speak further in introducing Dr. Kamel?

Mr. DANIELS. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Dr. Kamel to this committee:

Dr. Kamel is a very, very distinguished educator who comes from Cairo, Egypt.

He holds the degree of doctor of philosophy from Rennes University, France, and also is doctor of science of Lausanne University in Switzerland.

I understand that the last degree is one of the highest that can be obtained in this particular field.

He is a member of an international organization known as the Penal Reform on Juvenile Delinquency, as well as a French_international organization known as the International Society of Educational Instructors on Juvenile Delinquency.

In Egypt he was chairman of the philosophy department of Teachers College and also the chairman of the psychology department of Coptic University.

Because of the course of political conditions which have arisen in his home country Dr. Kamel is in this country, traveling on an educational visa and is now teaching as assistant professor of social sciences in psychology at Jersey City Teachers College.

Perhaps Dr. Kamel would like to further supplement that introduction by furnishing additional information to the committee as to his background.

Dr. Kamel.

STATEMENT OF DR. MAHER KAMEL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCES IN PHYCHOLOGY, JERSEY CITY TEACHERS COLLEGE, MEMBER OF PENAL REFORM ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF EDUCATIONAL INSTRUCTORS ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

Dr. KAMEL. I would like to mention that the problems of juvenile delinquency are developing into a serious status not only in the United States, but all over the world. If we study the cases of juvenile delinquency in some other countries, such as France, England, Belgium, Switzerland-and I studied these in person-I find that we should not fear much for the aggravating problem as we consider it in the United States. These problems exist everywhere as far as has been manifested with the development of civilization.

But at the same time it is our duty to stop this aggravation or to hinder it as much as we can, as far as we are concerned with the prosperity of our countries.

Nothing can counter criminal tendencies so effectively as forceful and wise legislation concerning children who, whether they have already come up against the law of the country or not, live under such conditions or show such character that it must be feared that they will take to crime.

I maintain that my proposals for public control including where necessary education for the child is not only a duty coming from the community, from the interest for the community's sake, but it is a duty imposed for the benefit of any country.

I would say that it is a duty for the welfare and the sound development of the next generations, so I would submit some proposals which have already been tried in some foreign countries and they proved successful in these countries.

For example, we find in some countries that there is a trial to establish in every school a child guidance clinic. This is an ideal which needs a lot of money, and we cannot step forward immediately for establishing such child guidance clinic in every school, but all we can propose for the moment is to establish a child guidance clinic for a center of schools where every school can send her child or her problem children to that center in available degree; and at the same time not to impose a big number of problem children on the specialized person in such a center; we mean that it should be possible for such clinic to study the number of cases referred to it.

For the establishment of such child guidance clinics we need certain grants for training personnel and for specialized people in each area to study both physiological factors, social factors and social history, psychological history for each case. For that the minimum of personnel for such child guidance clinic is to have a physician specialized in glands, physician specialized in nervous system, psychologist and psychoanalyst and a social worker. This is the minimum of people who should be in every child guidance clinic.

Now, considering the factors that should be studied in every case, in every individual case of problem children or juvenile delinquent cases, we find that it is preferable to take some preventive actions, not only in the field of the school but also in the field of the society.

For example, we should as much as possible establish a film censorship. This film censorship should have the right to impose for every film not to be seen by individuals less than the age of 16 or 17. This film censorship is very important because the child in the puberty period is so open to suggestion by it, it is so powerful in the formation of his personality that the personality could be completely disturbed by one film. I am not exaggerating in showing the impact of some films on the personality of the child, but I have some cases which I studied personally in France and in Switzerland and I found that the main factor, not the only factor, but the main factor in these cases were the identification of the child with some personalities in the films. I would stress this film censorship to the extent that I would propose that any movie that permits the child to see a prohibited film should be, I would say, punished by completely or entirely closing. It should be closed partially or entirely, completely because they, for gain in money, push or they damage the personality which is to be evaluated by much more than any amount of money we appropriate. Again I would propose that the press should not be permitted to write or picture or publish by any way any case of juvenile delinquency for the public. This has some disadvantage. I know that. But if we appreciate that publishing these cases influences also the personality of some child and pushes them to take delinquent actions, I think that we should really narrow the scope of publishing any story of juvenile delinquency or any case in courts or under study or that already happened in the society in any field, because this may suggest to some other children that they follow the same line. For that there should be a censorship for the press in this action as well as for the TV cases, the TV novels or radio stories. These should

be censored and no stories should be projected on the TV unless with the permission from that censorship.

I would propose also to establish a league for the protection of young girls. This exists in some countries, such as Belgium and Switzerland, where we find members well equipped on serving the young girls in stations, in streets, in any center, in any public center, and trying to help these young girls and to orient them. As a matter of fact, many girls need such help, especially when they are strangers from their homes. You can find many girls, for example, in need of advice in any station, in any public center, in any committee meetings and so forth. These girls need equipped women to advise them to take certain action after knowing their own status, their own case, even the members of the league of protection for young girls should have the right to ask for identity card of any girl at any time.

We miss the value of identity cards for these girls. Any girls or any boy from the age of 12 should have an identity card, as in some countries, and this identity card helps in solving the problem. For example, any girl going to a hotel with any man, under the age of 21, should be asked to show her identity card.

This will solve many problems and will help not to aggravate the question. This is just an example.

Well, assuming the responsibility for the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency on a more comprehensive scale than institutional placement alone, State departments should be encouraged to organize special divisions or bureaus devoted to this task. Their services are mostly advisory to local agencies dealing with the delinquency program in the other countries.

Again, the proposals I am presenting now include the establishment of observation periods. If we are going to release any child from any working school or any reformatories he should pass by an observation period.

This needs to establish a certain budget for observation officers more than what is existing today in the United States, because every child should be in direct contact with observation officers, he and his family, to study all the conditions and this will help to rehabilitate the child to his new status in the free society.

I am ready to submit another project for the establishment of school homes which is not existing also today in the United States. It is a special institution which should be completely different from any court of law. It should be invested with extensive powers and children should be educated in these school homes at the expense of the State, either in special school homes or in private school homes, audited by the State and by the judge of the area.

Children are to be placed in these schools under the following provisions of the law:

If the child has committed a punishable offense which indicates its moral corruption or if it is uncared for and if such treatment is considered desirable with a view to its improvement or in order to prevent recurrence; or if owing to the depravity or negligence of its parents or other persons in charge of its education it is found to be uncared for or ill treated or has fallen or is in danger of falling, I mean in falling in a state of moral corruption.

If a warning is not considered an adequate form of correction or also if because of the child's bad conduct against which both home and

school influences have proved inadequate, or if because of other undesirable circumstances, it is considered necessary to place a child in an establishment as mentioned above in order to save it from moral corruption.

These school homes are of two types:

Compulsory homes which are observation homes, where the child welfare counsel can watch him and take action in controlling his deviations and knowing exactly his unconscious tendencies and tendencies toward delinquency.

The other type is not compulsory. It is just what I call normal school homes. These normal school homes include, or should include, children from 9 to 18 and can be kept up till 21.

In England the foster schools can keep the children till the age of 23, not only to 21, and even this period could be followed by an observation period.

Compulsory schools and normal school homes should be boarding schools and free for nothing, and this will impose on us a certain budget, but money has no value in comparison with saving certain personalities.

The creation of special closed sections in these school homes should be permitted by the Congress, not any school home can create these closed sections for the turbulent children, for certain cases which should not be permitted to be in contact with other children. I mean for isolation cases.

These cases should be isolated in sections in these schools but not as a punishment, but as a period for further study. In these sections children should not sleep in dormitories with others but be completely isolated even in sleeping. This is to be considered especially for cases of sexual disturbances, for example, where if he is permitted to be in contact with other children he might be a danger for other cases.

The appointment of directors of schools homes also must be approved by the government of the state and supervised. He is not completely free, but supervised by a commission of education, including doctors, guidance officers, and members of the school home counsel themselves. Like that we reach a democratic direction for the school and we avoid any tendency of prejudice toward any case.

These are some of the proposals I am interested in presenting to the honorable members of the committee.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much, Dr. Kamel.

Are there any questions?

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. ELLIOTT. The gentleman from New York.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. Do you want to start, Mrs. Green?

Congresswoman GREEN. You have been very silent this morning; go ahead.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. First of all, I think that unfortunately 90 percent of what he says is all too true, but all too infeasible in the society in which we live.

It would be impossible, sir, under the political world in which we live to provide the kind of film censorship you suggest. It was with a great deal of difficulty that our society was able to impose on the grown-up public the Hayes Bureau some 30 years ago.

The thought now of being able to determine what is or is not desirable on television and the theater poses an overwhelming problem, both State and locally, even though you may be right and it is desirable, for the simple reason that the great problem comes in determining what could and could not be shown because one type of film might disturb someone who may be ready to be disturbed and have no effect whatsoever on someone you and I might consider perfectly normal in both movements, desires, and ambitions, so where do you draw the line? Those are some of the more technical problems that you would arrive at with film censorship, forgetting the political problems of almost insuperable nature that would be forthcoming. So much on film censorship.

The idea of card carrying is particularly repugnant to this society because it smacks of the middle thirties in the Fascist and totalitarian nations and in the Communist society today wherever human beings must identify himself by some form of document, and to pick out a particular class of society, young girls, and say that they all should carry an identification card, I just think would meet with the most overwhelming obstacles, no matter how desirable it may be.

I could take each one of your points one by one and go down them but there are far more experienced members of the committee than I am here who undoubtedly would like to comment or ask you some questions.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Mrs. Green.

Congresswoman GREEN. Well, I have great respect for my colleague from New York. I might differ a little bit on the film censorship. We have had film censorship out in Oregon. We have films where the notice is posted that this is not to be shown to 18 or 21, I forget which, but people under a certain age.

Mr. WAINWRIGHT. How do you administer it, though? I have a 16-year-old child who looks considerably older and who can pass for

18.

Congresswoman GREEN. This is one of the difficulties and I think there are not enough teeth in the law as far as enforcement. I think if we had more desire on the part of the owners of the theaters it could be enforced better than it is. I am not sure that the abuses or the weaknesses in enforcement destroy entirely the desirability. I think some of the films that we allow youngsters to go to are pretty horrid.

I was interested in your comments on other countries and I remember sitting in on a juvenile court bench in London for 4 hours one day and was much impressed by the lawyers who were representing the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

As a Member of Congress I have letters from people who are ter ribly disturbed by the cruelty to animals. I have yet to receive, I think, a letter from any individual on the cruelty to children. This morning I read in my paper of a newly born baby who was wrapped in newspaper and thrown in a trash can. I will be interested if there is any group in this city that is concerned about cruelty to such a child.

Could you tell me how many other countries have that National Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children as England does?

« PreviousContinue »