6% F19% D34% C24% B17% A

Basic Concepts/QuestionsDevelopmental TheoriesPolicy Implications

Arrest Rate

Age at Arrest

10 20 30 40 50

4000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Property Crimes, peak age = 16

Violent Crimes, peak age = 18

The Age-Crime Relationship

Data is AGGREGATE It could hide subgroups of offenders, or

“offending trajectories”Data is Cross-Sectional

Doesn’t track stability/change over timeData is OFFICIAL

Cannot tell us about the precursors to official delinquency (childhood antisocial behavior)

COHORT STUDIES = CHRONIC 6% Correlation between past and future criminal

behavior ranges from .6 to .7 (very strong) Lee Robins- Studies of cohorts of males

Antisocial Personality as an adult virtually requires history of CASB

CASB as early as age 6 related to delinquency

More severe behavior has more stability “Early onset delinquency” powerful indicator of

stability

1/2 of antisocial children are never arrested

The vast majority of delinquents desist as they enter adulthood (mid 20s)

OLD: Crime is the province of adolescents; theories of delinquency most important

▪ Easier to find/survey adolescents too! New (Considering

stability/development ) Central causes of delinquency lie in childhood

▪ Theories of adolescent delinquency are at best incomplete

Lifecourse Questions▪ Why do some age out of crime while others don’t?▪ Why is criminality so stable over time?▪ What causes crime at different stages of life?

“Career Criminal” Paradigm Early roots in criminology—studies of

robbers, fences, and so forth Crime as an occupation specialization,

escalation, etc. Empirical evidence = little

specialization, crime not as an “occupation” Developmental Criminology replaces

“Career Criminal” paradigm in 1980s

Must explain why there is stability (continuity) in antisocial behavior

Must explain childhood precursors to offending (childhood antisocial behavior) Severe (age inappropriate) temper

tantrums Deviant/criminal behavior

Must explain desistence, or “change” Antisocial children, but not adults Adults that “age out”

Types of Lifecourse Theories

1. Continuity Theories (Trait—G&H)2. Continuity and Change Theories

(Sampson and Laub)3. Continuity or Change Theories

(Moffitt)

Some “thing” that is stable over time and related to crime Gottfreson and Hirschi Low self-control

▪ Becomes very stable by age 8▪ Causes crime and other nastiness

Problem? ▪ Why do people desist? Explain “childhood recoveries”

or adult desistence?

G&H ▪ People desist –it’s a “law” or “constant” like gravity,

which doesn’t’ need explanation

Important/Popular book: Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life

First to fully outline “lifecourse” criminology

Put forth a lifecourse theory Use “Glueck data” to test theory

Pathways = stabilityTurning Points = opportunity for

change

Context•Poverty

•Neighborhood•Others

Parenting• Supervision• Discipline Social Bonds• Family• School•Delinquent Peers

Childhood Adolescence Adulthood

Individual Differences

•Temperament•Conduct disorder diagnosis

Delinquency

Social Bonds•Marriage•Good Job

Length ofIncarceration

Adult Crime

Stability of Trajectory Individual differences (traits) possible Cumulative Continuity

▪ Delinquency/crime has effect on “adult social bonds”

▪ Delinquency/crime can lead to incarceration, which also has effect on adult social bonds

▪ These bonds, in turn, have effect on future crime

Because I care…

Turning Points = Adult Social Bonds Quality Marriage Quality Employment

Why would these things reduce crime? S&L: they increase informal control (bind

individuals to society, give them something to lose)

Other explanations (spend less time with criminal friends, etc.)

New Book/Articles based on follow-up data from Gleuck sample Followed until age 70

Similar to original theory Employment, marriage, military service

More complex-why a “turning point?” Knife off past from the present/future Supervision/monitoring (control) but also

opportunities for social support/growth Change to structure/routine activities Opportunity for identity transformation

Desistence by Default No conscious decision to “stop offending”

▪ Rather, roles, structure, social context changes Human Agency

Vague concept that implies people have some say in the matter. ▪ Not same as “rational choice” nor is it a “trait”

▪ Interaction = land a good job but still must want to keep

Theoretical Importance▪ Lives do not “unfold” in predictable sequences▪ Desistence more difficult to explain than onset or

persistence

A Stability or Change TheoryArgument:

There are 2 different “kinds” of offenders in the world

These types can be characterized by their unique “offending trajectories”

Failure of Mainstream Criminology? During adolescence, these two groups

look rather similar

LCP’s Early Start, Stable over lifecourse, 5% of

general population (small group) Therefore…

▪ Why start so early? Why so stable? AL’s

Late starters, desist in adulthood, very prevalent in population

Therefore….▪ Why start so late? Why desist right away?

Presence of “Neuropsychological Deficits” Where do they come from? Why do they matter?

INTERACTING WITH Ineffective Parenting

Monitoring, supervision, etc.

This “dual hazard” puts them on bad path…however…

What in the environment is affected? Peer Rejection School Failure Parenting

THEREFORE Cumulative continuity Contemporary continuity (still have N.P.

Deficit, personality traits)

Maturity Gap Knifing off Bonds as “rewarding”

Mimic

Why do AL’s desist?However, some may exhibit

continuity “Snares” as another example of

cumulative continuity

Why do we need 2 theories?How does she account for stability

and change?Specific explanations of LCP and AL

offending

The seduction of the chronic 6%The promise of early interventionTheory Specific Implications

Moffitt causes of neurological deficits, effective parenting, other?

S&L family context, parenting, bonds (child and adult)