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


Transitions


Long term patterns or sequences of behavior
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
Discussion Questions


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?