CRIMINAL STATISTICS DO NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN FATHER-DAUGHTER (THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF PARENT-CHILD INCEST) AND SIBLING INCEST CASES. THIS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED BY EXAMINING COURT RECORDS FOR THE 102 INCEST CASES REGISTERED FOR 1951 AND THE 177 CASES REGISTERED FOR 1961 IN ENGLAND AND WALES. THESE REPRESENT ABOUT HALF OF THE CASES BROUGHT TO POLICE ATTENTION, THE REMAINDER BEING HANDLED THROUGH COUNSELING OR OTHER ALTERNATIVES. THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARENTAL AND SIBLING OFFENDERS AND THEIR TREATMENT. THE MAJORITY OF THE FATHERS ARE FIRST OFFENDERS (61 PERCENT). ONLY ONE OF THE FATHERS HAD A PREVIOUS CONVICTION FOR ANY TYPE OF FELONY. ONLY 12 PERCENT OF THE FATHERS HAD ANY SUBSEQUENT CONVICTION. SOME 13 PERCENT OF FATHERS HAD PRIOR SEXUAL OFFENSES, USUALLY INDECENT EXPOSURE OR INDECENT ASSAULTS, AND AMONG THESE WERE THE FEW THE COURT CONSIDERED A SERIOUS MENANCE. HOWEVER, OVER 90 PERCENT OF THE FATHERS RECEIVED HEAVY PRISON SENTENCES. AMONG SIBLING INCEST OFFENDERS, 60 PERCENT WERE UNDER AGE 20, 54 PERCENT HAD PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS FOR CRIMES (GENERALLY THEFT, BURGLARY, AUTO THEFT), AND 49 PERCENT RECEIVED SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS IN LATER YEARS. YET 74 PERCENT RECEIVED NONCUSTODIAL SENTENCES. THE REASON FOR THIS ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SIBLING INCEST AND CRIMINALITY IS UNCLEAR. IT MAY BE THAT THE INCEST CAME TO ATTENTION OF SOCIAL WORKERS OR PROBATION OFFICERS AS A RESULT OF THE OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. IT MAY BE THAT SIBLING INCEST IS MORE COMMON IN CROWDED SLUM CONDITIONS. ANOTHER EXPLANATION MAY BE THAT SIBLING INCEST IS PART OF A LARGER SEXUAL MALADJUSTMENT PROCESS WHICH REVEALS ITSELF IN ANTISOCIAL ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN ACTUAL SEXUAL CONVICTIONS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT EMOTION RATHER THAN LOGIC DETERMINES HANDLING OF INCEST CASES. SUPPORTING TABULAR DATA AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)