170 likes | 187 Views
Week 14. Developmental Criminology. What do we know?. There is a very strong correlation between past and future criminal behavior Adult antisocial personality virtually requires a childhood of antisocial behavior
E N D
Week 14 Developmental Criminology
What do we know? • There is a very strong correlation between past and future criminal behavior • Adult antisocial personality virtually requires a childhood of antisocial behavior • BUT: Half of antisocial children are never arrested and never become antisocial adults • AND: The vast majority of delinquents desist as they enter adulthood (recall the age crime curve)
What do we want to know? • Is criminality stable over time? • Why do some people age out of crime (desistance)? • Does behavior change over time? How? • INDIVIDUAL focus • LONGITUDINAL research techniques
Sampson and Laub • 1980’s - Life Course Criminology • Age/crime debate – the curve doesn’t apply longitudinally to individuals… • “Age Graded Theory of Informal Social Control” • Definitions • Age graded/differentiated • Informal social control
Sampson and Laub • Based on extremely famous dataset – Gluecks’ research (500 delinquents and non-delinquents in MA born in 1920s and 1930s) • Gluecks’ finding: “all you need to know about an offender is what happened to them as a child” • S&L: “maybe there’s more to it…”
Sampson and Laub • Different factors (forms of behavior or experiences) have different effects on individuals at different stages of development. The level of appropriateness changes over time: • (having a baby as a teen v as an adult) • (losing a parent as a child v as an adult)
Sampson and Laub • REALLY important concepts: • Trajectories • Long term patterns or sequences of behavior • Transitions • Changes due to specific events (short term) • Turning points • Transitions that change a person’s trajectory
Sampson and Laub H1 • The Structural context is mediated by informal family and school social controls, which in turn explains delinquency in childhood and adolescence • Structural variables have an indirect influence on offending based on how they affect family process variables
Sampson and Laub H2 • There is continuity in antisocial behavior throughout the life course • Connects delinquent and adult behavior to childhood characteristics and adult socialization • Antisocial behavior takes on a variety of forms throughout life • Weak social bonds/social capital
Sampson and Laub H3 • There is evidence for both stability and change in behavior throughout the life course • Importance of informal institutions vary over life • Impact of early life experiences can be counteracted by ‘salient life events’ • Bad childhood doesn’t necessarily spell disaster
Sampson and Laub • Research: • Lots of support • Big Contribution: books etc. also, looks at whole life course, not just focused on teens • Critique: • Unique sample (white males born 1920s) • Order? Social bonds crime… or crime social bonds
Moffitt • Dual Taxonomy Theory • Causal factors are different for different people – there are two types of offenders: • Life Course Persisters (LCPs) • Adolescent Limited (ALs)
Life Course Persisters • 5% of offenders • Early onset (childhood) • Continue throughout life • Difficult to control early in life (biting drinking burglary) • At risk for biol/psych problems and birth defects/injury • Reactive or proactive • Etiological chain of ASB: negative responses from environment cut off from prosocial opportunities become ensnared in ASB (early pregnancy or drugs)
Adolescent Limiteds • 90% of offenders • Later onset (14-15 yo – adolescence) • No childhood ASB Hx or cog/personality probs • Learn to be criminal with their peers • Situational component makes it integrated • MATURITY GAP and SOCIAL MIMICRY • Minor, petty crime • Desist with the onset of adulthood
Cumulative Consequences time-out in preschool detention in grade school expulsion in high school dishonorable discharge (army) divorce from marriage Narrows one’s options for change
Critique • Generally supported by research • Accounts for crime over the life course • Best attempt so far at integrating biol/environ/psych/soc variables • Not everyone fits into two neat groups • Says LCPs can’t or won’t change • Complex model, difficult to test
G&H argue that a teen with low SC is locked into a life of crime. What would S&L say? What individual traits foster ASB? Why is it impt to study continuity AND discontinuity in offending? S&L was considered a developmental theory, now it’s considered a control theory. why? Discussion Questions