1. Life-Course Criminology Age-Crime Relationship Stability and Change in Offending

2. Arrest Rate Age at Arrest 10 20 30 40 50 4000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Property Crimes, peak age = 16 Violent Crimes, peak age = 18 The Age-Crime Relationship, 1997

3. Is the Age/Crime Curve Misleading? Data is AGGREGATE It could hide subgroups of offenders, or “offending trajectories” Data is Cross-Sectional Doesn’t track stability/change over time Data is OFFICIAL Cannot tell us about the precursors to official delinquency (childhood antisocial behavior)

4. Antisocial Behavior Is Stable Correlation between past and future criminal behavior ranges from.6 to.7 (very strong) Lee Robins- Studies of cohorts of males Antisocial Personality as an adult virtually requires history of CASB CASB as early as age 6 related to delinquency More severe behavior has more stability “Early onset delinquency” powerful indicator of stability

5. But there is CHANGE 1/2 of antisocial children are never arrested The vast majority of delinquents desist as they enter adulthood (mid 20s)

6. New and Old Ideas OLD: Crime is the province of adolescents; theories of delinquency most important Easier to find/survey adolescents too! New (Considering stability/development ) Central causes of delinquency lie in childhood Theories of adolescent delinquency are at best incomplete Lifecourse Questions Why do some age out of crime while others don’t? Why is criminality so stable over time? What causes crime at different stages of life?

7. Explaining Stability and Change in Antisocial Behavior I TRAIT Explanation (continuity only) Individuals posses a trait that is stable and criminogenic Trait established early in life (before delinquency) Explains stability, but change (desistance)? If trait is stable, why do people desist from crime?

8. Explaining Stability and Change in Antisocial Behavior II Cumulative Continuity Continuity and Change Initial antisocial behavior (regardless of cause) has CONSEQUENCES Knife off opportunity, labeling, attract delinquent peers... Because the consequences (social circumstances) can change, desistance is plausible

9. Developmental Taxonomies Taxonomy (Continuity OR Change) All offenders are not the same, all crime is not caused by the same causal forces There are at least two unique “offending trajectories” present One groups maybe very stable in their offending (Continuity) Another might might have a brief delinquency career (Change) Kids are on different offending trajectories for different reasons

10. Review Explaining Stability and Change Why are some kids antisocial early in life? Why is antisocial behavior so stable? Why, amidst stability, is there so much change? Three Types of Theories Continuity Continuity and Change (Sampson and Laub) Continuity or Change (Moffitt; Patterson et al.)

11. Gerald Patterson Background Oregon Social Learning Center Applied Research Theory 1980s = “Coercion” theory 1990s = “Social Interactional” theory

12. Patterson et al. (Early Childhood) Context  Parenting  Conduct Problems Difficult child Grandpar ent’s skill Criminal Parents and Grandpare nts Poverty Single parent Family Stress and Violence Monitor/Supe rvise Consistent Discipline Consistent Reward

13. Patterson et al. (Childhood through Late Adolescence) Conduct  Peer Rejection  Deviant Peers  Delinq. Problems Academic Failure CUMULATIVE CONTINUITY

14. Patterson et al. Summary Similar to Gottfredson and Hirschi B/C G&H borrow heavily from Patterson Differences Ineffective parenting leads to... Low self control Children learning that coercion works (SLT) Whining, use of force/violence, etc Developmental Not “low self-control” after age 8 Interventions Parent training, school, peers, etc.

15. Patterson and Yoerger (1997) Addition of the “later starter” delinquent As opposed to “early starter” in original theory Still consistent with model If later starter, what causes late start? Disruption in family management (parenting) End up with a theory much like Terrie Moffitt