6% F 19% D 34% C 24% B 17% A

Basic Concepts/Questions Developmental Theories Policy Implications

Arrest Rate Age at Arrest ,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 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 )  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 = stability  Turning Points = opportunity for change

Context Poverty Neighborhood Others Parenting Supervision Discipline Social Bonds Family School Delinquent Peers ChildhoodAdolescenceAdulthood Individual Differences Temperament Conduct disorder diagnosis Delinquency Social Bonds Marriage Good Job Length of Incarceration 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 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)