Search results

A generation of research studies that were conducted in multiple states and covered different time periods has found evidence that individuals who kill white victims encounter a greater risk of facing the death penalty than killers of black victims. More recently, research has also examined the likelihood of death penalty processing for black defendants who kill white victims in comparison with other defendant–victim race groups. In particular, a study in Maryland conducted by Paternoster et al. (2003) found evidence that offenders in black defendant–white victim cases were more likely to be death noticed by prosecutors and to receive a death sentence than other offenders. A recent analysis by Berk, Li, and Hickman (2005) raised questions about some of these findings. In this article, we conduct new analyses and conclude that black defendants who kill white victims face a greater risk of adverse treatment than other types of defendants.

In a paper previously published in Criminology (Paternoster and Brame, 1998), we used data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development to investigate the association between criminal activity and a set of so‐called "analogous behaviors" (i.e., excessive drinking, smoking, gambling, involvement in accidents, etc.). Our reading of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) self‐control theory led us to hypothesize that both of these outcomes should depend on self‐control. It seemed to us that the implication of this position is that self‐control should explain any association that exists between involvement in criminal activity and involvement in analogous behaviors. Our analysis suggested that the association between criminal activity and analogous behaviors persisted even after conditioning on our measure of self‐control. We drew the qualified conclusion that this result constitutes negative evidence for Gottfredson and Hirschi's self‐control theory. In this paper, we reexamine the analytic framework on which we relied in our earlier work.

It is possible to distinguish between broad‐domain theories that offer an explanation for all phenomena of interest to a discipline and narrow‐domain theories that attempt to explain a subset of those phenomena. In criminology, this distinction has prompted theorists and researchers to confront the question of whether the same etiological process can explain variation in all types of criminal offending behavior or whether it will be necessary to adopt different theories to explain variation in different kinds of criminal behavior. One broad‐domain theory, advanced by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), contends that a variable called "self‐control" can account for variation in all kinds of criminal conduct as well as variation in many acts that are "analogous" to crime in some ways but are not actually criminal. Analogous behaviors include, among other things, smoking, drinking, involvement in accidents, gambling, and loitering. Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (N = 369 males), we attempt to define operationally the concept of self‐control with a set of variables measured at ages 8–9. We then examine the empirical association between this self‐control measure and self‐reported involvement in a variety of criminal and analogous acts during adolescence. In support of Gottfredson and Hirschi's position, our results indicate that self‐control is associated with both outcomes and that the strength of the association is approximately equal. Contrary to the expectations of their theory, however, was our finding that the covariance between criminal and analogous behaviors could not be explained entirely by variations in self‐control. This finding suggests that factors other than time‐stable differences in criminal propensity do matter for criminal and legal, but, risky behaviors.

General and developmental theories take very different approaches to the study of crime. General theories, like Gottfredson and Hirschi's recent theory of self‐control, assume that crime can be explained with reference to a single or very limited set of explanatory factors. In addition, some general theories, like Gottfredson and Hirschi's, adopt a very static approach to causality. They presume that prior offending has no causal effect on current offending once time‐stable criminal propensity is controlled, and they assume that the relationship between changes in life events and changes in offending are spurious. Recent developmental theories, like those proposed by Moffitt and Patterson, stand in stark contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory. These developmental theories are far more complex because they relax the assumption of general causality and adopt a more dynamic position about the relationship between changes in life circumstances and changes in crime. In this article we examine whether the added complexity of a developmental theory of crime is preferable to the more parsimonious general/static theory of Gottfredson and Hirschi. We find that the evidence is not faithful to either a pure static/general model or a pure developmental model of crime. Our findings appeal to a theoretical middle ground that assumes that pathways to crime are more similar than different and that allows for a causal effect of past offending and life experiences on future criminality. When viewed in the context of previous studies that have assessed offending over the life course, our results suggest that further theoretical development can profit from studying issues of measurement and sample composition.

An ongoing debate among criminologists concerns the merits of studying different dimensions of offending, such as initiation, frequency, and duration. One critical point of contention is whether separate models are necessary to explain different aspects of offending. The current study uses empirical data to assess whether different models are required to explain initiation and continuation of delinquent behavior. Using the first four waves of the National Youth Survey, we focus on the predictive ability of variables central to social control, labelling, differential association, and urbanism perspectives. We find many similarities and some differences between models for initiation and continuation of delinquency. We discuss the relevance of these results for developing a more comprehensive understanding of criminal behavior.

There is a long‐standing debate in criminology about the relative impact of static versus dynamic factors on criminal behavior. Researchers interested in estimating the impact of dynamic factors like prior offending or association with delinquent peers on criminal offending must control for static factors like intelligence, family background, or self‐control, which could plausibly be correlated with criminal offending and the dynamic factor itself. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, it is not possible to observe all of these static factors. Statisticians and econometricians have shown that it is possible to identify the collective effect of static factors even though they cannot be observed. To achieve this objective, however, it is necessary to account for stable, unobserved individual characteristics through the use of "fixed‐effect" or "random‐effect" estimation. Criminologists often use random‐effect estimators in these situations. We describe some of the assumptions that are necessary to develop valid inferences when time‐varying covariates are used. Then, we use simulation evidence and an empirical application to show that bias can result when they are violated.

Criminological theorists and criminal justice policy makers place a great deal of importance on the idea of desistance. In general terms, criminal desistance refers to a cessation of offending activity among those who have offended in the past. Some significant challenges await those who would estimate the relative size of the desisting population or attempt to identify factors that predict membership in that population. In this paper, we consider several different analytic frameworks that represent an array of plausible definitions. We then illustrate some of our ideas with an empirical example from the 1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort Study.

Two conflicting definitions of desistance exist in the criminology literature. The first definition is instantaneous desistance in which an offender simply chooses to end a criminal career instantaneously moving to a zero rate of offending (Blumstein et al., 1986). The second definition views desistance as a process by which the offending rate declines steadily over time to zero or to a point close to zero (Bushway et al., 2001; Laub and Sampson, 2001; Leblanc and Loeber, 1998). In this article, we capitalize on the underlying assumptions of several parametric survival distributions to gain a better understanding of which of these models best describes actual patterns of desistance. All models are examined using 18 years of follow‐up data on a cohort of felony convicts in Essex County, NJ. Our analysis leads us to three conclusions. First, some people have already desisted at the beginning of the follow‐up period, which is consistent with the notion of "instantaneous desistance." Second, a three‐parameter model that allows for a turning point in the risk of recidivism followed by a long period of decline fits the data best. This conclusion suggests that for those offenders active at the start of the study period, the risk of recidivism is declining over time. However, we also find that a simpler two‐group model fits the data almost as well and gains superiority in the later years of follow‐up. This last point is particularly relevant as it suggests that the observed gradual decline in the hazard over time is a result of a compositional effect rather than of a pattern of individually declining hazards.

Criminologists are often interested in examining interactive effects within a regression context. For example, "holding other relevant factors constant, is the effect of delinquent peers on one's own delinquent conduct the same for males and females?" or "is the effect of a given treatment program comparable between first‐time and repeat offenders?" A frequent strategy in examining such interactive effects is to test for the difference between two regression coefficients across independent samples. That is, does b1= b2? Traditionally, criminologists have employed a t or z test for the difference between slopes in making these coefficient comparisons. While there is considerable consensus as to the appropriateness of this strategy, there has been some confusion in the criminological literature as to the correct estimator of the standard error of the difference, the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of coefficient differences, in the t or z formula. Criminologists have employed two different estimators of this standard deviation in their empirical work. In this note, we point out that one of these estimators is correct while the other is incorrect. The incorrect estimator biases one's hypothesis test in favor of rejecting the null hypothesis that b1= b2. Unfortunately, the use of this incorrect estimator of the standard error of the difference has been fairly widespread in criminology. We provide the formula for the correct statistical test and illustrate with two examples from the literature how the biased estimator can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Criminal propensity theorists argue that the causes of variation in offending behavior can be traced to variation in one or more causal traits. Other theorists contend that there is actually more than one type of offender and that more than one causal mechanism operates to explain offending behavior. In this article, some of the implications of these two positions are considered. Then, their congruence with recidivism data from a cohort of post‐age‐16 North Carolina institutional releasees (N = 848) is assessed, The analysis focuses specifically on whether the correlates of offending persistence are similar across two categories of individuals: those who experienced their first adjudication at an early age and those who were first adjudicated at a later age. In support of both positions, some similarities and some differences in the correlates of persistence were discovered. The differences, however, were only evident when the threshold for late first adjudication was set to age 12. When this threshold was raised to higher ages, the differences disappeared.

The extent to which local life circumstances influence criminal activity has been the focus of much theoretical debate. Although empirical research has been initiated, it remains limited. Herein, we use data on 524 serious offenders from the California Youth Authority for a seven‐year post‐parole period to examine the relationship between changes in local life circumstances and criminal activity. We extend previous research by employing a statistical model that accounts for the joint distribution of violent and nonviolent crime during the late teens and twenties in order to present information on patterns of criminal activity during a newly recognized developmental period of the life course, "emerging adulthood."

Recidivism reduction is an important objective of many correctional programs. Recent survey data suggest that boot camp prisons (also referred to as shock incarceration programs) are no exception. In this study, we examine recidivism among boot camp completers in eight states during community supervision. We then assess these recidivism patterns in light of how one or more comparison groups in each state perform. For most states, two or more recidivism measures (such as arrest and revocation) are employed. The analysis suggests that those who complete boot camp do not inevitably perform either better or worse than their comparison group counterparts. Rather, program effectiveness has to be judged on a state‐bystate basis.

Offending specialization has received considerable attention in past research on criminal careers. Relatively little attention has been given to examining the relationships between various sub‐group differences and the extent to which individuals tend toward specialization or versatility in their criminal careers. In the present analysis, we examine hypotheses derived from Moffitt's recent developmental theory that bear directly on offending specialization. Our analysis examines direct relationships between gender, onset age, persistence and offending specialization as well as the interaction of these influences and offending specialization. Our findings reveal results that are both consistent and inconsistent with Moffitt's dual taxonomy of offending behavior.

A large body of research has consistently found that intensive employment during the school year is associated with heightened antisocial behavior. These findings have been influential in prompting policy recommendations to establish stricter limits on the number of hours that students can work during the school year. We reexamine the linkage between first‐time work at age 16 during the school year and problem behaviors. Our analysis uses group‐based trajectory modeling to stratify youths based on their developmental history of crime and substance abuse. This stratification serves to control for preexisting differences between workers and nonworkers and permits us to examine whether the effect of work on problem behaviors depends on the developmental history of those behaviors. Contrary to most prior research we find no overall effect of working on either criminal behavior or substance abuse. However, we do find some indication that work may have a salutary effect on these behaviors for some individuals who had followed trajectories of heightened criminal activity or substance abuse prior to their working for the first time.