Basic Concepts/Questions
Developmental Theories
Policy Implications
The Age-Crime Relationship
Arrest Rate
4000
3,000
Property Crimes, peak age = 16
2,000
Violent Crimes, peak age = 18
1,000
0
10
20
30
Age at Arrest
40
50

Data is AGGREGATE
 It could hide subgroups of offenders, or
“offending trajectories”

Data is Cross-Sectional
 Doesn’t track stability/change over time

Data 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 )
 Theories of adolescent delinquency are at best incomplete
▪ Central causes of delinquency lie in childhood
▪ Chronic offenders still may desist during adulthood
 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.
2.
3.
Continuity (Trait) Theories (G&H)
Continuity and Change Theories (Sampson
and Laub)
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 = stability
Turning Points = opportunity for change
Childhood
Context
•Poverty
•Neighborhood
•Others
Individual
Differences
•Temperament
•Conduct
disorder
diagnosis
Adolescence
Parenting
• Supervision
• Discipline
Social Bonds
• Family
• School
•Delinquent Peers
Delinquency
Length of
Incarceration
Adulthood
Adult Crime
Social Bonds
•Marriage
•Good Job

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
Chicago Bears
Green Bay Packers
Minnesota Vikings
Detroit Lions
W
L
Pct
PF
PA
7
6
5
4
1
3
4
4
.875
.667
.556
.500
236
239
204
192
120
187
197
188
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 Theory
Argument:
 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 intervention
Theory Specific Implications
 Moffitt  causes of neurological deficits, effective
parenting, other?
 S&L  family context, parenting, bonds (child
and adult)