Transcript Developmental Criminology

Developmental criminology
Age, life course and crime


THE DATA
– Crime rates rise rapidly through adolescence
– Peak in late teens to early twenties
– Decline steadily afterwards
How does this square with criminological theory?
– Most theories propose that biological, psychological or social
factors cause crime
– Developmental (age-based) theory suggests that different factors
may have different effects at different ages
 When a person begins to commit crime
 Whether a person continues to commit crime or stops
Two explanations for the data –
criminal propensity and criminal career


“Criminal propensity” view – Hirschi and Gottfredson
– Differences between individuals shape their propensity to commit crime
– Propensity fairly stable after age 5; may be affected by external
circumstances / opportunities
– As offenders age their numbers stay the same, but they slow down
 Commit fewer crimes
 May mature out of crime
“Criminal career” view – Blumstein and Cohen
– Small proportion of offenders commit the majority of crime
– Different variables may explain behavior at different ages
 Whether (yes/no) someone commits crime
 Frequency and duration of criminal activity
– Number of offenders goes down over time
 Those who keep offending (become career criminals) commit crimes at
the same rate as before
Research approaches


Criminal propensity -- cross-sectional research
– Since age/crime relationship does not vary (after age 5) no need to
track individuals over time
– Cross-sectional research
 Use existing data
 Compare individuals one time, retrospectively
Criminal career -- longitudinal research
– Follows individuals over time
– Allows better study of causation
 Cross-sectional only allows correlation studies
– Longitudinal establishes order of variables -- which came first
 Did a factor believed to affect crime (e.g., age, grades in
school, etc.) come before changes in offending?
Early research findings


Criminal propensity
– Propensity -- number of offenders stable, but they slow down
– Findings #1 (Rowe et al) -- criminal propensity trait closely
resembled the actual distribution of crime in four cities
– Findings #2 (O’Brien et al) -- Differences in homicide rate for youths
between 1960 and 1995
 explained by high proportion of births to unwed mothers and
few resources available to children
 crime thereafter followed the age-crime curve
Criminal career
– Career -- number of offenders declines over time, but a small pool
(career criminals) keeps offending at the same rate
– Findings (Simons et al) -- changes in parenting, quality of schooling
and association with delinquent peers come before changes in
behavior
Cambridge Study -- Piquero et al.


British longitudinal study of 411 males born in 1953
– Followed 30 years, from 1963 to 1993, ages 10 to 40.
Findings (published 2007)
– By age 40 most had desisted from crime
 Consistent with criminal propensity position
 Did not find small subset with permanent high crime rates
(note: this was a very small group)
– Four key variables distinguish between offenders and others
 Low achievement
 Poor parental child-rearing
 Impulsivity
 Poverty
– Early prevention crucial
Thornberry’s interactional theory –
Combines control and social learning




Most theories flawed because unidirectional
–
Thornberry makes them recursive  and time-dependent
Controls operating through social constraints are most important
–
Attachment to parents, commitment to school, belief in conventional values
–
An interactive setting where crime is learned, performed and reinforced
–
Association with D’s, adopting D values, engaging in D behavior
Delinquent behavior is reciprocal
–
“Delinquency eventually becomes its own cause”
 Delinquency negatively influences attachment, commitment and belief
Few disparities as children age
–
Early adolescence (11-13): None
–
Middle (15-16)
 Attachment to parents plays smaller role
 Delinquent values may solidify – gain influence
–
Late (18-20)
 New control issues in effect
 Commitment to conventional activity (work, college, military, family, kids)
Sampson and Laub –
Age-graded theory of informal social control





Data from Glueck’s 40-year cohort of 500 D’s and 500 non-D’s
Explanation for delinquency centers on family
–
Erratic and harsh discipline
–
Mother’s lack of supervision
–
Parent/child acceptance/rejection
Family factors may be influenced by structural variables
–
Low SES, crowding
–
Parent’s criminality
–
Family size and disruption
Delinquency “closes doors”
–
Reduces opportunities for positive life changes
–
Reduces likelihood of positive adult social bonds
Delinquency best predicts adult criminality, but most delinquents don’t become criminals
–
Interaction between crime & informal social controls continues into adulthood
–
Change of life course (jobs, marriage, new friends) can lead to increased “social
capital” and overcome delinquency’s “closed door” effect
–
Developing strong social bonds as an adult reduces likelihood of crime and deviance
Tremblay - developmental origin of
physical aggression




Concern with preadolescent development
Aggression develops in first two years of life
– Increases substantially from nine months to four years, then rate
decreases for most
– But for a minority the rate keeps increasing
Theory: aggression may be innate
– It’s non-aggression that must be learned
Children must learn alternatives when very young
– Not tolerate physical aggression
– Reward pro-social behavior
– Improve ability to delay gratification
– Improve verbal skills