MISCELLANEOUS FACTORS: GAMBLING
Risk-taking is a characteristic of the lives of most men; changing jobs, getting married, even crossing the street—all involve some risk, The job may not turn out, the marriage may fail, one may be struck by a car; all these are negative consequences of a life of risk. It is, therefore, not incongruous that men should risk their money on various games and activities where there is an element of fortune or chance, The difference between the racetrack and the stock market as a speculative enterprise may only be a matter of moral opprobrium and social class (which are often the same thing). People who plunge .into either of these two risk-taking ventures run the danger of losing all.
Gambling has a series of characteristic types. There are those who never gamble, those who gamble moderately as a social or leisure activity, and those who derive a substantial share of their income from gambling. Gambling as a social or leisure-time activity may be penny-ante poker among friends, a few dollars spent at the racetrack, or a wager on the outcome of some future and uncertain event. The stakes are small, the risk exciting and stimulating, and, win or lose, the life of the wagerer goes on. Gambling as a systematic source of income is something else again. Even as a professional gambler the individual runs against the odds and losses may be very serious. (The activities of the syndicated or corporately organized gambler are, of course, an entirely different matter.) Besides the professional gambler there are those who take large risks to the limit of their income and who either gain or lose a great deal. These two groups combined, even though different in motivation and skill, may be characterized as those for whom gambling is a major source of income.
For the purposes of this study the stock-market speculator and other risk-takers of a socially approved (or at least not disapproved) type will be eliminated from consideration as gamblers, and we shall focus our attention on those whose risk-taking is in the form of cards, policy, the racetrack, or handbook and other gambling paraphernalia. Roughly two fifths to three fifths of our comparative groups did not gamble. In three of the four tripartite groups there were more gamblers among those who offended or aggressed against children than among those who chose older sexual partners. The same is true not only of gambling in general, but of serious gambling—that is, gambling as a substantial source of income.
In terms of the proportion who gamble, and particularly the proportion who gamble seriously, the prison group outstrips the sex offenders, most of whom in turn exceed the control group. In all but three of the sex-offender groups the proportions of serious gamblers fall between the control group’s 10 per cent and the prison group’s 29 per cent, and these three exceptions are at the low end of the scale.
Measurement of gambling reveals some curious variations: some tripartite groups are homogeneous while others are quite heterogeneous in this respect. For example, all three aggressor groups have nearly the same proportions of serious gamblers. On the other hand, the homosexual offenders vary widely, the percentage of serious gamblers ranging from about 7 per cent up to 20 per cent.
It appears that gambling, like the use of drugs, is not directly related to specific sex-offense behavior.
*352\161\2*
