Criminology

Criminology

DAVID P. FARRINGTON

Introduction

John Gunn has always been very concerned to carry out and foster high-quality research in criminology, and I cannot possibly review all his criminological contributions today. However, 20 years ago, he and I edited a book on Abnormal Offenders, Delinquency and the Criminal Justice System (Gunn & Farrington, 1982) that included chapters by psychologists and psychiatrists on the causes of crime, legal processes, the treatment of offenders, and the criminal justice system. John took a tremendous amount of care in editing these chapters and was always striving to achieve the highest possible standards of scholarly excellence. Indeed, he went so far as to rewrite some chapters by Americans where he thought the jargon was too impenetrable!

We edited two subsequent volumes in the 1980s, on Aggression and Dangerousness (Farrington & Gunn, 1985a) and Reactions to Crime (Farrington & Gunn, 1985b). Again, I was very impressed by the amount of care and time that John put into these volumes in trying to reach the highest possible standards.

We hoped that these volumes would lead to a journal on psychology, psychiatry, crime and the law, in order to advance research and knowledge in these fields, and in 1991 the first volume of Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health was published, edited by John Gunn, Pamela Taylor and myself. Happily, in 2002, we have now reached volume 12. Again, John has put an enormous amount of time into editing this journal, and its high standards are a tribute to his remarkable efforts, and indeed his remarkable altruism.

John made a major contribution to my research in 1984–87 by providing inspiration and office accommodation in the Institute of Psychiatry for my researchers working on the age 32 follow-up of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, and he supported this research in numerous ways. John has also played a full part as a member of the steering committee directing our current age 46–48 follow-up, along with, Jeremy Coid, Clive Meux,

S10 Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 12, S10–S16 2002 © Whurr Publishers Ltd

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S10

Temi Moffitt, Donald West and myself. In recognition of his great interest in and major contribution to this prospective longitudinal survey, I will spend the rest of my time summarizing its major results.

The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development

The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development is a long-term follow-up study of South London males. It was begun by Donald West in 1961, and I joined him to work on the study in 1969 and took charge of it in 1982. A main aim of the study was to describe the development of criminal behaviour in urban males, and to establish how far there was continuity or discontinuity over time in antisocial behaviour. A second aim was to investigate why offending began, why it continued and why it ended, to see how far offending could be predicted in advance, and to establish the relative importance of different predictors of offending. A third aim was to study the correlates of criminal behaviour at different ages and the effects of life events on the course of devel- opment. Generally, we were not concerned to test one particular theory, but to test many different hypotheses concerning the causes and correlates of offending, and concerning different mechanisms and processes linking risk factors and antisocial behaviour. For summaries of the main results, see Farrington (1995, 2003).

Methods

The Cambridge Study has followed up 411 South London males from age eight to age 48. These males were originally assessed in 1961–62, when they were in the second forms of six state primary schools and were aged 8–9. Hence the most common year of birth of the males is 1953. The males are not a sample drawn systematically from a population, but rather the complete population of boys of that age in those schools at that time. The vast majority of the boys were living in two-parent families, had fathers in manual jobs, and were White and of British origin.

The study males were interviewed and assessed eight times between age eight and age 32, and are currently being interviewed at age 46–48. We have been very successful in keeping in contact with them; for example, 95% of those still alive were interviewed at age 18, and 94% at age 32. We have so far interviewed 90% at age 46–48. The assessments in schools measured such factors as intelligence, personality and impulsiveness, while information was collected in the interviews about such topics as living circumstances, employment histories, relationships with females, leisure activities such as drinking, drug use and fighting, and of course offending behaviour.

We also interviewed their parents about once a year from when the boys were eight until when they were 15. The parents provided details about such

Criminology S11

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S11

matters as family income, family composition, their employment histories, their child-rearing practices (including discipline and supervision) and the boy’s temporary or permanent separations from them. Also, the boys’ teachers completed questionnaires when the boys were aged about eight, 10, 12 and 14. These furnished information about such topics as their restlessness or poor concentration, truancy, school attainment and disruptive behaviour in class. We also searched the criminal records of the males, of their biological relatives (fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters), of their wives and cohabitees, and of any person who ever offended with any of our males. The latest searches were in 1994, when most of the males were aged 40.

Criminal careers

About one in five of the males was convicted as a juvenile (under age 17 at the time), while 40% were convicted up to age 40. Most convictions were for theft, taking vehicles, burglary, deception or violence; minor offences, such as traffic infractions, drunkenness or common assault, are excluded from these figures. The peak age of conviction was 17, while the average age of conviction was 21. The average criminal career began at age 19, ended at age 26, and included 4.6 offences leading to convictions.

There was considerable continuity in offending over time. Three-quarters of juvenile offenders were reconvicted at 17–24, half were reconvicted at 25–32, and a quarter were reconvicted at 33–40. Roughly a third of offenders committed only one offence, another third had a criminal career lasting less than 10 years, and a third had a criminal career lasting more than 10 years. While 40% of males were convicted, only 6% of them (the ‘chronic’ offenders) committed half of all crimes leading to conviction, and they also committed substantial proportions of the undetected (but self-reported) offences. Generally, the boys first convicted at the earliest ages (10–13) had the longest criminal careers and committed the most offences. Most juvenile offences were committed with others, but co-offending declined with age. In most cases, the boys committed offences with other boys of about the same age living close by.

Offending tended to be concentrated in families. While 40% of study males were convicted, this was also true of 28% of their fathers, 13% of their mothers, 43% of their brothers, 12% of their sisters, and 9% of their wives. In the 400 families of origin, there were on average 1.5 convicted persons out of 5.5 persons per family (or about 600 convicted persons out of 2200 searched). While two-thirds of families contained at least one convicted person, only 6% of families accounted for half of all the convictions of all family members.

The conviction careers of fathers and mothers (up to an average age of 70) were very different from those of the study males. Contrary to the view that offending is heavily concentrated in the teenage years, the average age of conviction was 30 for fathers and 35 for mothers. Contrary to the view that

S12 Farrington

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S12

most people who are going to offend begin before age 20, the average age of onset was 27 for fathers and 33 for mothers. One-quarter of convicted fathers did not start offending until after age 35, and one-quarter of convicted mothers did not start offending until after age 42. Contrary to the view that most offenders ‘grow out’ of crime in their twenties, the average age of desistance was 36 for convicted fathers and 38 for convicted mothers. One-quarter of convicted fathers did not stop offending until after age 45, and one-quarter of convicted mothers did not stop offending until after age 48. Contrary to the view that criminal careers are relatively short, their average duration (excluding one-time offenders) was 16 years for fathers and 15 years for mothers (compared with 10 years for study males). Hence, when complete criminal careers are studied, officially recorded offending is far more persistent than previously thought.

Syndrome of deviance

Offending was only one element of a larger syndrome of antisocial behaviour. Most convicted males had committed crimes of dishonesty, but they differed in many ways from the unconvicted males. For example, at age 18 the convicted males were more likely to have low-status jobs and unstable job records including periods of unemployment. They were more likely to have taken prohibited drugs such as cannabis or LSD, although few were convicted of drug offences. They tended to be heavy drinkers, heavy smokers, heavy gamblers and drunk drivers (driving after consuming 10 units of alcohol or more). They were also more likely to have convictions for minor motoring offences and to have been involved in road accidents.

The convicted delinquents at age 18 were more likely than others to have had sexual intercourse, especially beginning at an early age and with a variety of different girls, but they were less likely to use contraceptives. They tended to hang around the streets in groups of four or more males, and they tended to get involved in group violence or vandalism. They also tended to be impulsive, tattooed and expressing anti-establishment attitudes (negative to police, school and bosses).

At age 32, the males had generally become more conventional, but those who were still being convicted were still relatively deviant. The convicted males were more likely to be living in poor quality accommodation rented from the local authority, and they moved frequently. They were as likely as others to have married but were more likely to have divorced or separated and assaulted their wife or cohabitee. They were also more likely to be separated from their children and to have poor relationships with their parents.

At age 32, the convicted males tended to have poor employment histories and low-paid jobs. They were still relatively deviant in binge drinking and in using hard drugs (heroin and cocaine), both of which had increased since age

Criminology S13

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S13

18. They were also relatively deviant in their involvement in fights and in their anti-establishment attitudes, both of which had decreased since age 18. Hence, there was relative stability superimposed on absolute change in behaviour.

Childhood risk factors

Before anyone was convicted, at age 8–10, the future delinquents differed from the non-delinquents in many respects, and similar results were obtained whether offending was measured using convictions or self-reports. The key risk factors fell into six major categories, each of which independently predicted later offending: (1) disruptive child behaviour (troublesomeness or dishonesty); (2) criminality in the family (a convicted parent, a delinquent sibling); (3) low intelligence or low school attainment; (4) poor child-rearing (poor discipline, poor supervision or separation of a child from a parent); (5) impulsiveness (daring or risk-taking, restlessness or poor concentration); and (6) economic deprivation (low income, poor housing, large family size).

To give some idea of how far convictions might be predictable in advance, we developed a combined measure of vulnerability at age 8–10, based on low family income, large family size (five or more children), a convicted parent, poor child-rearing and low IQ (90 or less). Of the 63 boys with three or more of these adverse factors, 48 (76%) were subsequently convicted. The unconvicted boys were said to have few or no friends at age eight, suggesting that social isolation might be a protective factor against offending.

Effects of life events

We investigated the effects of numerous life events on the course of devel- opment of offending. In particular, going to a high delinquency-rate school at age 11 did not seem to amplify the risk of offending, since badly behaved boys tended to go to the high delinquency-rate schools. However, getting convicted did lead to an increase in offending, according to the boys’ self-reports. Unemployment also caused an increase in offending, but only for crimes leading to financial gain, such as theft, burglary, robbery and fraud. There was no effect of unemployment on other offences such as violence, vandalism or drug use, suggesting that the link between unemployment and offending was mediated by lack of money rather than boredom.

It is often believed that marriage to a good woman is one of the most effective treatments for male offending, and indeed we found that getting married led to a decrease in offending compared with staying single. Also, later separation from a wife led to an increase in offending compared with staying married. Another protective life event was moving out of London, which led to a decrease in offending. This was probably because of the effect of the move in breaking up delinquent groups.

S14 Farrington

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S14

The current follow-up

The males are now being given a social interview at about age 46–48 to assess their current and recent self-reported offending and their current success in different aspects of their lives (accommodation, employment, debts, illnesses and injuries, relationships, children, drinking, smoking, drug use, aggressive behaviour and attitudes, and current personality). Questions are also being asked about the use of health and social services, to permit an economic analysis of costs to society, and about problems of the men’s children such as lying, stealing, truancy, disobedience, bullying and restlessness.

The men are also being given a medical interview to assess their current mental health and their lifetime history of psychiatric disorders. Questions in both interviews, together with file data, make it possible to score each man on the Psychopathy Checklist. At the end of the medical interview, biological data are collected: saliva to measure testosterone, height, weight, waist circum- ference, pulse rate, blood pressure and respiratory function. Questions on physical health and illnesses are also included, and medical records are being collected.

In addition, the men’s female partners are being personally interviewed to collect information on household income, children, her child-rearing attitudes, relationships with the man, family violence, her physical and mental health, her antisocial behaviour (including debts, offending, drinking and drug use), his antisocial behaviour, his personality, characteristics of the neighbourhood, and household victimization.

The main aims are to investigate offending in the forties, characteristics of late-onset offenders, and how far men who have stopped getting convicted are still involved in deviant behaviour. In addition, the social interview will establish how far former juvenile delinquents, and former chronic offenders, are living successful lives in their forties, in such areas as accommodation, employment, relationships, drinking, smoking and drug use, so that protective factors can be studied. The medical interview will establish the relationship between offending and adult mental health problems, including antisocial personality disorder. The partner interview will establish the prevalence of different types of family violence and how far it can be predicted by risk factors in childhood and adolescence.

Conclusion

I find it hard to believe that John Gunn has retired. He is too young and too full of energy to be retired! He has dominated British forensic psychiatry like a Colossus for so many years, and if he ever did really retire he would be sorely missed. I am certainly very grateful to John for all the inspiration and help he has given me over the years. He has always been a wonderful role model for

Criminology S15

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S15

younger scholars, and I have learned a great deal from him. It has been a remarkable privilege to work with him.

References

Farrington DP (1995) The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from childhood: key findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36: 929–964.

Farrington DP (2003) Key results from the first 40 years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In Thornberry T P, Krohn MD, eds. Taking Stock of Delinquency. New York: Kluwer/Plenum, pp. 137–183.

Farrington DP, Gunn J (eds) (1985a) Aggression and Dangerousness. Chichester: Wiley. Farrington DP, Gunn J (eds) (1985b) Reactions to Crime: The Public, the Police, Courts and

Prisons. Chichester: Wiley. Gunn J, Farrington DP (eds) (1982) Abnormal Offenders, Delinquency, and the Criminal Justice

System. Chichester: Wiley.

Address correspondence to: Professor David Farrington, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, 7 West Street, Cambridge CB3 9DT, UK.

S16 Farrington

CBMH 12_Supp(4)_crc 4/8/03 12:27 pm Page S16