charge could be a violation of Sec. 288A, the charge is often reduced to a simple "vag-lewd." Husbands and wives can commit this crime, but the police would not likely be peeking into bedroom windows according to Mr. Otash.

Mr. Selwyn divided sex crimes into direct, where the sexual organs are involved, and indirect, where burglary or arson, etc., are the crimes but frequently motivated by sexual conflicts.

Dr. Ziferstein reacting to Mr. Otash's definition of a "sex criminal"-namely anyone who broke the penal code in this regard-said "yes, the penal code regarding sexual acts would make nearly every American citizen a sex criminal." However, he felt that a great error was involved and that the term. sex criminal should only apply to those who used sex as a means of perpetrating harmful acts upon other persons.

Dr. Graves concurred with Dr. Ziferstein.

Mr. Bradley asked-are all homosexuals sex criminals and why do they receive special consideration?

Mr. Otash explained-all homosexuals are sex criminals by the letter of the law. Further, in his opinion, this was rightly so. He felt that homosexuals went about breeding more homosexuals, simply by contact. According to Mr. Otash they could not keep to their own kind but "preyed on normal men" and converted them to their way of life. He added, "You may call them homosexuals; I call them 'fags.'

Mr. Selwyn said that he would leave the question to the psychiatrists as to whether a homosexual could convert a "normal man" to a homosexual simply with one or two casual sex experiences. However, he was most interested in the manner in which the police got their evidence and their "homosexual sex criminals." He denounced the peep-hole techniques in latrines and the quasientrapment methods widely used by the vice-squad. In the former, he felt that while the men involved were indiscreet to have sexual acts in a public place, that nevertheless it could hardly be assumed that they were other than consenting adults and that this should not be penalized with as much as 15 years in jail. In the latter, the technique consisted of playing up to a homosexual's weakness, getting him to make "a pass," and then flashing a badge. Mr. Selwyn took a very dim view, indeed, of this latter practice.

Mr. Otash appeared to be stung at this bald statement of police tactics and said that while he was one of those who had been staked out at peep-hole sights in public "commodes" at Venice, Calif., that the police did not do this without complaints-that complaints had come in that homosexuals were seducing children and propositioning normal men in the latrines—further that the police investigated, found this to be true and took to jail the offending homosexuals.

Mr. Selwyn felt all sex crimes should be divided into three parts: those perpetrated by force, those involving children, and those involving consenting adults. The latter group he felt should be removed from the category, altogether. He did not believe that the percentage of homosexuals that molested children to be nearly as high as the percentage of heterosexuals that molested children from the simple fact of there being not more than 5-10 homosexuals per 100 of population.

Dr. Ziferstein felt that all this "peeping and prying" only gave evidence and a continuing climate to the undercurrent of feeling that there is a special dirtiness about sex in general.