Criminal Justice

Developmental Criminology

• A theoretical model that attempts to link life transitions and developmental processes with patterns of offending behavior over time

• Notion is that involvement in crime closely resembles a legitimate career with a beginning, an ascension, a peak, a decline, and an exit

• Examines persistence and desistance of criminal behavior (why do people keep committing crime and why do people stop?)

• Described as “dynamic” rather than static • Interactive(?)

Example

• Terrie Moffitt’s Dual Pathway Developmental Theory

• Demonstrates existence of adolescent limited (AL) offenders and life-course persistent (LCP) offenders

• Both have very different pathways in and out of crime, start criminal careers at different ages, both commit different types of crimes, and both have very different psychological and family profiles

Key findings from developmental study of crime

• Most offenders will desist quickly • Many will desist without any criminal justice system

involvement • Some, a small percentage, will persist over a long

period of time (these are the career criminals, habitual or chronic offenders) – This small percentage (between 6-8%) is responsible for a

large percentage of crime committed over time (the 80/20 rule) • Wolfgang study – found 6% of the cohort studied committed more

than 50% of the crime over time • Orange County, CA – found 8% of young offenders responsible for

nearly 60% of crime totals over time

The 8% solution: Preventing serious, repeat juvenile crime

• The Orange County, CA Probation Department’s research staff tracked two groups of first-time juvenile offenders for three years and found that a small percentage (8%) of the juveniles were: – Arrested repeatedly (a minimum of 4 times within a

3-year period) (These are PERSISTERS) – Responsible for 55% of arrests – Could be identified reliably at first contact with the

juvenile justice system – What characteristics do you think these kids had

compared to the 92% that were DESISTERS?

8% solution • These 8% enter system with complex set of problems or

RISK FACTORS which were identified as: – Involvement in crime at an early age – A multi-problem profile including:

• Significant family problems (abuse, neglect, criminal family members, lack of supervision and control)

• Problems at school • Drug and alcohol abuse • Behaviors such as gang involvement, running away and stealing

– Many of these features make desistance more challenging (web of problems)

– Given these findings, if you were a judge . . . – What would you do with the 92% that would desist quickly? – What about the 8% to make desistance happen quickly?

8% Intervention Program • Created the “8% Early Intervention Program” to serve first-time

offenders who were no older than 15.5 and who exhibited at least three of the four risk factors in the multi-problem profile

• Goals included: – Increase structure, supervision, and support for families – Make kids accountable – Make school more important – Promote prosocial values, behaviors and relationships – Develop new interventions in the community – Bottom line: Identify the “persisters” and help them at an early age – Young Juvenile Offender project here in Virginia (Functional Family

Therapy, intensive home-based therapy) – Fast Track Project (page 328 of textbook)

How does desistance happen?

• Two theories of desistance – Sommer – Shover

• How do you think desistance happens?

Stages of desistance – Sommer (gradual process)

• Stage 1 – Catalysts for change, making decision to stop offending – Socially disjunctive experiences - hitting rock bottom,

tiredness, illness, fear of death, aging, perception of risk/certainty of punishment increases

– Delayed deterrence - increasing severity of punishment with multiple charges (3 strikes); increasing fear of punishment; harder to do time

– Assessment – reappraisal of life and goals, psychic change, role of religion?

– Decision – Decision to quit and/or initial attempts at desistance; usually a conscious decision to stop

Stages (continued) • Stage 2 – Discontinuance

– Public announcement of decision to end criminal participation, claim to a new social identity (beginning of certification process)

• Stage 3 – Maintenance – Ability to successfully renegotiate identity, support of significant others,

integration into new social networks, ties to conventional roles, stabilization of new social identity

– THIS IS THE CRITICAL STAGE – Likely to be episodic with occasional relapses interspersed with longer periods

of good behavior – Typically a slowing down process, deceleration (fewer criminal events) – Involves a successful certification process (pronouncement by others that you

have moved from “offender” to “law-abiding citizen”

– If you were an offender going through this process, what factors do you think might help you be successful?

Factors that impact success at Stage 3

• Access to legitimate opportunities, employment opportunities • Social support (family, friends, neighbors, programs like OAR) • Ability to be involved in legitimate activities • Ability to shun criminal world (gangs) (Move away?) • Formal treatment programs that provide ties to people (AA and

sponsors; drug treatment courts) • Success of certification process

– Appear in legitimate locations; importance of family; “appearing” normal (remove tattoos, piercings); having an address and phone number

• Reduce negative stigma of probation and parole supervision (A CORRECTIONAL PARADOX)

• Prison-based self-improvement programs

Shover’s Model of Exiting

• A five-pronged process rather than a three-point stage – Aging Process – Orientational Change (new perspective of self,

growing awareness of time, changing aspirations and goals, growing sense of tiredness)

– Interpersonal Change (ties to another person, ties to a line of activity)

– Modified Calculus (risks now outweigh the reward – rewards of crime now seen as minimal)

– Reduction in Criminal Behavior

Laub and Samson study “Shared Beginnings and Divergent Lives”

• Main finding: Found support for Shover’s exiting process. Three main determinants of a “knifing off” of criminal activity included: – Joining the military – Getting married – Finding legitimate employment – Religion also played a role (although minor) – Other findings:

• Did not observe a process but a quick change for some • Desistance did not seem to depend on perceived risk of legal

punishment • Conditions necessary for exiting life of crime are largely outside the

correctional system’s control • Argues that the CJS does little to make desistance happen – may

actually make persistence in crime more likely – HOW? • What policy implications does this approach have if we want to make

desistance happen sooner rather than later?