10 Becker Argues That Most Deviance When It First Occurs Is Unlikely to Occur Again
PLoS One. 2017; 12(3): e0172419.
Labeling and intergenerational transmission of crime: The interaction between criminal justice intervention and a convicted parent
Sytske Besemer
1Institute of Human being Development, Academy of California, Berkeley, California, U.s. of America
David P. Farrington
iiEstablish of Criminology University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Catrien C. J. H. Bijleveld
3Netherlands Constitute for the Study of Criminal offence and Law Enforcement, VU Academy Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Jordy Kaufman, Editor
Received 2016 October 11; Accepted 2017 Jan 18.
Abstract
Labeling theory suggests that criminal justice interventions amplify offending behavior. Theories of intergenerational manual suggest why children of convicted parents accept a higher risk of offending. This paper combines these ii perspectives and investigates whether labeling effects might be stronger for children of convicted parents. Nosotros outset investigated labeling furnishings within the individual: we examined the impact of a conviction betwixt ages 19–26 on cocky-reported offending beliefs between 27–32 while controlling for self-reported behavior between 15–xviii. Our results show that a conviction predicted someone'southward later self-reported offending behavior, even when previous offending behavior was taken into account. Second, we investigated whether having a bedevilled parent influenced this clan. When nosotros added this interaction to the analysis, a labeling upshot was only visible among people with bedevilled parents. This supports the idea of cumulative disadvantage: Labeling seems stronger for people who are already in a disadvantaged situation having a bedevilled parent.
Introduction
Labeling theory predicts that criminal justice interventions amplify offending beliefs [one–4]. Similarly, theories of intergenerational manual predict that children of convicted parents might have a higher risk of offending [5–ten]. This newspaper combines these two perspectives and investigates whether labeling furnishings might be stronger for children of convicted parents compared with children whose parents take non been bedevilled. Our paper argues that labeling effects are particularly strong for individuals with convicted parents and most absent for those without convicted parents.
Investigating this combination of intergenerational manual and labeling will increment knowledge on the origins and development of criminal behavior, which is vital in preventing intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. This knowledge is particularly relevant for governments, because labeling implies that government (policies) might be partly responsible for sustaining (intergenerational transmission of) criminal behavior. These issues are especially salient in this time where we run across a tendency to sentence offenders increasingly harshly, with a growing reliance on (long) imprisonment (see e.g. [11–fifteen]).
Criminal or antisocial parents appear to exist the strongest family unit factor predicting offending, simply information technology is nevertheless unclear why this happens [six]. Farrington [6] has described several mechanisms that could explain this intergenerational transmission, one of which is official bias. As described in detail previously [16], this machinery hypothesizes that official justice systems, such every bit the police and the court, are biased confronting known criminal families. Equally a result, they pay more attending to these families, which means that family unit members are more likely to be caught and thus appear in official statistics more oftentimes. This explanation asserts that there is not necessarily a real manual of behavior; there simply seems to exist an association because children of convicted parents will exist caught more than ofttimes than children without convicted parents. Besemer, Farrington, & Bijleveld [16] demonstrated support for this mechanism of official bias.
An important concept related to official bias in intergenerational manual is labeling. Labeling theory suggests that criminal justice interventions amplify offending behavior. To analyze, labeling occurs when someone's offending behavior increases later on involvement in the criminal justice system. Official bias is divers in an intergenerational context; children of bedevilled parents have a higher risk of conviction because official justice systems pay more than attention to these children; these children's self-reported offending may or may not be higher than the behavior of children of unconvicted parents. The electric current paper extends the findings of Besemer et al. [xvi] past combining these two perspectives and investigating whether labeling furnishings might be stronger for children of bedevilled parents compared with children whose parents have non been bedevilled.
Labeling theory
Labeling theory suggests that people's beliefs is influenced by the label attached to them by gild [1–4]. This label can be a critical cistron to a more persistent criminal life course for individuals who might but be experimenting with delinquent activeness. Previous studies have shown a considerable impact of convictions on subsequent criminal behavior [17–25]. Revised versions of labeling theory distinguish two major theoretical perspectives of how labeling works [26–28].
First, being labeled might increase an individual'south clan with delinquent individuals and influence his or her self-perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs [1,2,21,27,29–31]. As a result of conforming to the criminal stereotype, these individuals volition amplify their offending behavior. Also, people might place more with deviant social groups after receiving a criminal label [29].
2nd, people might be pushed into a criminal lifestyle every bit a result of the potential blockage of conventional and non-criminal pathways. Raphael [32] describes several challenges faced by former inmates who try to discover stable jobs, including stigma against ex-offenders by potential employers, less extensive work histories, or behaviors unsuitable for workplaces outside prison house, developed while incarcerated. Moreover, a conviction might take a negative impact on educational attainment, which in plow might increase offending, as revealed in the Rochester Youth Development Study [17,33].
Additionally, some people might be more susceptible to labeling effects than others, depending on offenders' characteristics and on the type of criminal justice judgement received. For instance, labeling might take a stronger effect with younger offenders, for whom personality and behavior are presumably more than malleable [17,29], and Cullen and Jonson [34] hypothesize that labeling is stronger when sanctions are punitively oriented.
Related to this is the concept of cumulative disadvantage where labeling effects are stronger for those who are already socially and economically disadvantaged [21,35–38]. Foster and Hagan [36] describe how labeling excludes children of convicted parents from lodge, emphasizing the specific accumulation process for children of bedevilled parents throughout the life form. This also connects to inquiry showing how the current civilization of mass incarceration seems to generate social inequalities [39–41].
A theory related to labeling theory, is Sherman'southward defiance theory [42–44]. Sherman stresses the importance of emotions and legitimacy for effectiveness of a sentence. This is based on reintegrative shaming theory [45], proposing that punishment should be aimed to "shame the human action, only not the actor" [44]. When a judgement creates a feeling that offenders are being excluded from the society that punished them, they may develop pride that results in an increment and/or persistence of their offending. According to Sherman, disobedience occurs when 4 conditions are present: (1) the offender perceives a punishment equally unfair, (2) the offender feels alienated or is poorly bonded to the person or sanctioning agency, (3) the offender perceives the sanction as stigmatizing and targeted at his person instead of at his constabulary-breaking human action, and (four) the offender does not acknowledge the shame that the penalty acquired him to endure. Farrington [eighteen] and Murray, Blokland, Farrington, & Theobald [24] indeed establish an increment in hostility towards the police after a conviction. Below we first hash out previous enquiry on the combination of labeling and intergenerational manual of criminal beliefs.
Previous research on labeling and intergenerational transmission
Hagan and Palloni [46] were the first to link these two processes with their paper on the reproduction of a social class. Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, they investigated the impact of a conviction (son's labeling) and a parental conviction (parents' labeling: official bias). They found support for the idea of the 'social reproduction of a criminal class', a procedure in which the criminal justice system is responsible for the reproduction of criminal behavior of offenders' children through their treatment of these children [46]. They demonstrated that labeling effects were stronger for people with a convicted father compared with people whose fathers had not been bedevilled. Unfortunately, their design suffered from methodological flaws. They treated several measures of cocky-reported offending equally independent, when this was non really the instance. For instance, they treated self-reported offending at ages sixteen–17 every bit independent of self-reported offending at ages 14–15 and used cocky-reported offending at ages xvi–17 to predict self-reported offending at ages 18–19. This is problematic, because self-reported offending at ages 16–17 is measured up to that age and therefore includes offences at ages 14–15. Similarly, self-reported offending at ages xvi–17 overlaps with self-reported offending at ages eighteen–xix (which referred to the previous iii years) and therefore information technology is not possible to treat them as independent variables. Because of these flaws, information technology is of import to replicate this study using independent measures to investigate whether the effect found by Hagan and Palloni [46] is valid. We extend the previous enquiry by Hagan and Palloni [46] and by doing so, we add to the emerging literature of the impact of the social context in labeling processes by focusing on the social context of the family and investigating the cumulative upshot of labeling when ane has a bedevilled parent.
Moreover, virtually studies examining labeling furnishings have investigated this only upwards to the age of 22, whereas this study volition look at offending behavior until age 32. Most studies have focused on contact with the criminal justice system during the teenage years, and few studies followed respondents to age where adult roles should be established [21]. An exception is the study past Murray et al. [24], who demonstrated robust relationships betwixt juvenile confidence and adult criminal behavior, hating personality and multiple life outcomes such as employment, relationships, and mental health up to age 48. It is important to look at offending behavior into machismo since offending after the early twenties might indicate a more serious offending pattern. Deviant behavior peaks in adolescence [47,48] and it is quite common to display some antisocial behavior during this period. It is, nonetheless, a sign of greater deviance if such beliefs continues afterwards boyhood or starts in machismo. It is vital to examine how labeling impacts offending in the long run. The current paper improves upon the narrow focus on short-term furnishings of official intervention often institute in previous research on labeling by investigating labeling furnishings upwards to age 32.
More chiefly, when studying labeling effects, it is crucial to observe the temporal sequence of the labeling result and subsequent deviant behavior, while controlling for differences in deviant behavior before the labeling event occurred. The majority of previous studies investigating labeling effects [17–19,29,49,50] take failed to clearly distinguish these periods. Kaplan and Johnson [51] and Johnson et al. [52] separated these periods clearly by investigating delinquency at time 1, justice system involvement at time ii and delinquency at time 3. Murray et al. [24] also divide these periods well. Notwithstanding, Bernburg and Krohn [17], for instance, measured official intervention at ages 13.five–xvi.5 while controlling for self-reported offending at ages 14–16. Another example is West and Farrington [18,25] who compared people with and without a conviction between ages 14–18 on their self-reported offending betwixt these same ages (while controlling for self- reported offending before the age of 14). West & Farrington [18,25] attempted to more clearly dissever these periods past examining a small subset of people who were first convicted after age sixteen. They prove some evidence of worsening behavior later on a conviction; their self-reported offending but started to deteriorate after age sixteen and not between fourteen and 16. Past not separating these periods in time, information technology is unknown whether the self-reported offending behavior measured has not already increased because of a confidence during this period. It is crucial to know people'due south self-reported offending beliefs before they were first convicted and compare the level of self-reported offending after the confidence. This study improves on previous research into labeling past clearly separating these periods in fourth dimension.
Electric current report
Nosotros will beginning investigate whether an offspring conviction increases individuals' offending behavior. Next, the interaction between someone'southward own conviction and a convicted parent will exist investigated. Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) the following hypotheses volition be studied:
-
A conviction subsequently increases the number of an private's self-reported offences: there is a significant human relationship between having a conviction betwixt ages 19 and 26 and self-reported offending betwixt ages 27 and 32, later on control- ling for the level of self-reported offending between ages xv and 18.
-
This labeling consequence is stronger for people whose parents have been convicted.
Method
Participants
The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) is a prospective longitudinal study that has followed 411 London males born in 1953–54. At the time they were get-go contacted in 1961–1962, these males were all living in a working-class inner-city area of South London. The sample was called by taking all of the boys who were then aged viii–9 and on the registers of six state primary schools inside a i-mile radius of a research part that had been established. Hence, the most common year of birth for these males was 1953. In nearly all cases (94 percent), their family bread- winner in 1961–1962 (commonly the father) had a working grade occupation (skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled transmission worker). Most of the boys were white and of British origin. Donald J. West originally directed the study and David P. Farrington, who has worked on information technology since 1969, has directed information technology since 1982. The males have been studied at frequent intervals between the ages of eight and fifty. Information about convictions and self-reported malversation was collected over the course of these years. Additionally, police records of the parents of these 411 males have been collected. For more data and major findings see Westward [53], West and Farrington [25,54], Farrington and W [55], Farrington [56,57], Farrington et al. [58,59], Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein [48], and Farrington, Piquero, and Jennings [60].
The CSDD has many strengths that arrive unique to investigate labeling effects [46]: a) the study is based on a community sample; b) the study has a prospective longitudinal design; c) the study started before the onset of official offending when they boys were age eight; d) it includes repeated measures of both self-reported crime and criminal records; eastward) the study has a long follow-upward period with high retentivity rates (93% at age 48); f) an extremely rich range of data were nerveless on the participants and their families from babyhood.
Materials and procedure
Self-reported offending
Self-reported offending was measured at ages 18 and 32 and referred to the periods between ages xv–xviii and 27–32. At age 18, 389 (95%) of the original males were interviewed, and 378 (94%) at age 32. Males who did not take an interview at both ages were excluded from the current analyses. Eighty-ix per cent of 411 men were interviewed at both ages, which resulted in a sample of 365 males. See [58] for more than data on data drove of the self-reported data. The self-study offenses were presented on cards, and the males were initially asked to sort the cards according to whether or not they had committed each act during a specified reference period. Where the men had reading difficulties, the cards were read out to them. More detailed questions were then asked nearly the offences reported, such every bit how many times the person had done it, the age he had first done it, and the age he had last done information technology. The exact wording of the items at the different ages are shown in [61]. Ten types of offences were enquired about: burglary, theft of motor vehicles, theft from motor vehicles, shoplifting, theft from machines, theft from work, fraud, assault, drug utilize and vandalism. For the electric current analyses, a sum of the total number of cocky-reported offences was used. Drug use and fraud were non included in the sum variable, since drug utilise had a unlike scale and distribution up to 1,000 (while the others had a calibration up to 100) and previous analyses showed that the ratio between cocky-reported and official convictions for drug use and fraud is high: the chances of being caught for these offences are low [58]. If drug offences had been included, they would disproportionately dominate the sum variable for self-reported offending.
Official convictions
Official offending of both parents and offspring was measured using official criminal records. Convictions were searched in the Criminal Record Office in London [62]. The date when the offence was committed was used to time the malversation. If no commission date was known, the conviction date was used. Offences were divers every bit acts leading to convictions, and only one offence per 24-hour interval was counted. This rule was adopted so that each separate behavioral deed could yield only 1 offence; if all offences had been counted, the number of offences would have been greater than the number of criminal behavioral acts, resulting in an overestimation of criminal behavioral acts [58]. Convictions were counted for relatively serious offending ranging from theft, burglary, fraud to robbery, sexual offences and murder. Small offences such every bit drunkenness and traffic offences were excluded.
Event variable
Cocky-reported offending was measured between ages 15–18 and 27–32. For both hypothesis 1 and 2, labeling effects were examined and thus the level of self-reported offending was measured between ages 27 and 32.
Predictor variables
The independent variables for hypotheses 1 and two were whether people had been convicted during time 2 (19–26 years) and their level of self-reported offending for time one (fifteen–18 years). For hypothesis 2, the variable parental confidence until the offspring's 15th altogether was added to the analysis.
Control variables
We included several iii sets of command variables in the analyses: impulsive behavior by the son, socioeconomic status of the family and parenting variables. The CSDD has collected three dichotomized variables related to the son's impulsive behavior:
-
teacher rating on "lacks concentration/restless in class" measured at ages viii and 10.
-
mother/peer rating on "daring/takes many risks in climbing, traffic, exploring etc." (mother at age 8 and peer at age 10).
-
psychomotor clumsiness/impulsivity on 3 psychomotor tests at ages 8 and 10: Porteus maze, spiral maze, borer examination.
For a more detailed description and earlier use of these variables see [63] and [64]. The three variables were correlated. Therefore, these risk factors were summarized by taking their hateful value (if one variable was missing, the hateful of the remaining variables was automatically calculated). This resulted in a combined impulsivity variable reflecting a son's impulsive and risk taking beliefs in babyhood.
The CSDD has several dichotomous risk gene variables that measure out depression socio-economical status of the parent when the boy was anile eight to 10: low occupational prestige, low family income, poor housing, large family, (low) education of father, and (low) education of mother. Depression occupational prestige indicated that the family breadwinner (normally the father) had an unskilled manual job. Low family income and poor housing were rated by the study social workers who interviewed the families; poor housing indicated dilapidated premises [58]. Similar to the impulsivity variables, the six SES variables correlated with each other and were summarized past taking the hateful value. Similar to the combined impulsivity variable, if one variable was missing, the hateful of the remaining variables was automatically calculated.
Finally, nosotros included a variable indicating poor child rearing, which was a combination of harsh-erratic discipline and parental conflict, rated by psychiatric social workers based on interviews with parents at historic period 8.
Analytic approach
First, we examined whether there was a significant relationship between a conviction between ages 19 and 26 (time 2) and the level of self-reported offending betwixt ages 27 and 32 (time 3), while controlling for the level of self-reported offending between ages 15 and 18 (time ane). We chose to control for the self-reported offending during time 1, since the cocky-reported offending during fourth dimension ii might take been impacted already past a conviction during that period. Negative binomial regression was used because the dependent variable (self-reported offending between ages 27 and 32) was highly skewed. With such a skewed distribution information technology was inappropriate to run a linear regression assay. Negative binomial regression analysis suitably deals with skewed distributions. Furthermore, the predictor variable (self-reported offending between ages fifteen and 18) was similarly skewed and therefore log-transformed in the analysis.
2nd, to investigate whether the impact of a conviction was stronger for people whose parents have been bedevilled, the interaction between the variables of having a conviction between ages 19–26 and having a bedevilled parent was investigated. An interaction term (conviction 19–26 * parental conviction) was added to the negative binomial regression. The predictor variables were centered effectually the mean before analyzing them in the regression analysis. Centering variables around the mean is recommended when investigating interaction furnishings in multiple regression analysis [65].
Third, nosotros investigated whether the seriousness of offspring offending impacted the human relationship betwixt labeling and having a convicted parent. To examine this, the sum of self-reported burglary and violence measured at age xviii was used (self-reported offending measured at age 32 was the outcome variable). This seriousness variable was added to the regression assay to test the interaction between a parental conviction and offspring conviction on offspring self-reported offending. Furthermore, we examined whether the seriousness of parents' convictions impacted on this human relationship. A dichotomous variable was used that was coded 1 when parents had been bedevilled for burglary, robbery, assault, wounding, insulting or threatening behavior, sexual offences, murder, manslaughter, drug or weapon offences.
4th, nosotros adjusted for a son's impulsive and/or gamble taking beliefs and socioeconomic condition by adding these two variables to the regression analysis, outset separately and so in one large model including all predictors.
Results
Labeling: The impact of a conviction on subsequent offending
Two hundred and 70 individuals did not accept a conviction before their 19th birthday. 30-1 of these were bedevilled between their 19th and 27th birthday and these were compared with the 239 people who had not been convicted in either of these periods. The results in Tabular array i (model 1) demonstrate that having a conviction between the 19th and 27th altogether (time 2) and the level of self-reported offending betwixt the 15th and 19th birthday (time 1) were both significant predictors of the level of self-reported offending between the 27th and 32nd altogether (time 3). A conviction predicted someone's afterwards self-reported offending behavior, fifty-fifty when previous offending behavior was taken into business relationship. These results back up the idea of labeling.
Table 1
The impact of a confidence betwixt ages 19–26 (time 2) for offspring with no previous convictions on level of cocky-reported offending betwixt ages 27–32 (time iii) while controlling for the level of cocky- reported offending between ages 15–18 (time one) and the interaction with parental conviction (upwards to offspring'south 15th altogether).
| Dependent variable: Self-reported offending ages 27–32 | Model ane | Model 2 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | 95% CI B | p | B | 95% CI B | p | |||
| Bedevilled nineteen–26 or non | 0.ninety | 0.51- | 1.29 | .001 | 0.38 | -0.06- | 0.81 | .088 |
| Self-reported offending 15–eighteen | 0.22 | 0.11- | 0.32 | .001 | 0.36 | 0.23- | 0.48 | .001 |
| Parental confidence | -0.41 | -0.75- | -0.07 | .019 | ||||
| Parental confidence * offspring conviction | 2.58 | i.60- | 3.55 | .001 | ||||
Interaction between labeling and bedevilled parent
Model 2 in Table 1 demonstrates the result of the negative binomial regression analysis where the interaction betwixt having a convicted parent and a conviction on subsequent self-reported offending was added. There was a strong interaction effect of a bedevilled parent and an offspring conviction on self-reported offending. Furthermore, the bear on of a confidence at time 2 became an insignificant predictor when the interaction with a convicted parent was taken into account. When nosotros ran carve up analyses for the two groups to examine the impact of a conviction, a potent impact of a conviction on someone's offending behavior was visible for the grouping whose parents had been convicted (B = two.04, 95% CI = 1.13–2.95, p = .001), whereas in that location was no significant bear upon of a conviction for the group whose parents had non been convicted (B = -0.20, 95% CI = -0.73–0.34, p = .473). This interaction upshot is too visible in Fig 1 and Tabular array ii, which gives the boilerplate number of cocky-reported offences at the ii ages for each of the four groups. Traditionally, when portraying an interaction effect, i would only report the outcome (self-reported offending between ages 27–32) for the four groups. Withal, since the outcome is heavily influenced by the previous level of self-reported offending, it is more appropriate to show the difference between the current and previous level of offending. The number of cocky-reported offences decreased betwixt time 1 and fourth dimension iii for the first three groups, but the group who had a convicted parent and has been bedevilled at time 2 shows a sharp increase in self-reported offending between time 1 and time three. Apparently, there was no labeling event for the group whose parents take not been convicted, while in that location was a strong event for children whose parents have been bedevilled. The results support hypothesis 2 and similarly show that hypothesis ane is merely supported for the grouping whose parents have been bedevilled and non for people whose parents have not been convicted.
Interaction effect of parental conviction and offspring conviction on self-reported offending.
Tabular array 2
Interaction effect of parental conviction and offspring conviction on self-reported offending.
| Parent not bedevilled | Parent convicted | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Offspring not convicted 19–26 (fourth dimension 2) | Offspring convicted 19–26 (time 2) | Offspring not bedevilled nineteen–26 (fourth dimension 2) | Offspring bedevilled 19–26 (fourth dimension 2) | |
| Due north | 196 | 22 | 43 | ix |
| Mean number of self-reported offenses: | ||||
| Offspring aged xv–18 (fourth dimension 1) | vii.08 (18.53) | 19.32 (31.09) | 9.60 (17.25) | 3.56 (6.48) |
| Offspring aged 27–32 (fourth dimension three) | 7.25 (21.87) | 13.fourteen (44.36) | 3.91 (16.33) | 27.56 (43.04) |
We next added the control variables to the regression assay. Table 3 displays the regression models, where each of the control variables was added separately. Table 4 displays the model including all variables. In each of the models, the interaction betwixt a bedevilled parent and an offspring conviction remained significant. Indicators for serious offending for both son and parent also as the combined parenting variable are pregnant predictors of cocky-reported offending betwixt ages 27 and 32; son'due south impulsiveness and family unit socioeconomic status are non. We see the same blueprint when all the predictors are combined in i big model.
Tabular array 3
Regression models adjusting for serious offending, son'south impulsive beliefs, and socioeconomic status.
| Dependent variable: SRO 27–32 | B | 95% CI B | p | B | 95% CI B | p | B | 95% CI B | p | B | 95% CI B | p | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convicted 19–26 | 0.35 | -0.08- | 0.79 | .111 | 0.36 | -0.07- | 0.80 | .102 | 0.35 | -0.81- | 0.79 | .111 | 0.36 | -0.08- | 0.79 | .107 |
| SRO fifteen–18 | 0.x | -0.eleven- | 0.31 | .358 | 0.36 | 0.24- | 0.49 | .001 | 0.67 | 0.24- | 0.50 | .001 | 0.35 | 0.22- | 0.47 | .001 |
| Parental conviction | -0.l | -0.85- | -0.xv | .005 | -0.21 | -0.57- | 0.xvi | .260 | -0.42 | -0.76- | -0.07 | .017 | -0.35 | -0.71- | 0.01 | .058 |
| Parental confidence * offspring conviction | 2.72 | i.74- | 3.71 | .001 | 2.56 | 1.57- | 3.54 | .001 | 2.57 | ane.sixty- | iii.54 | .001 | 2.72 | ane.lxx- | 3.74 | .001 |
| Offspring serious SRO | 0.34 | 0.ten- | 0.58 | .005 | ||||||||||||
| Parent serious conviction | -1.11 | -ane.68- | -0.55 | .001 | ||||||||||||
| Offspring impulsiveness | 0.39 | -0.09- | 0.87 | .108 | ||||||||||||
| Socioeconomic condition | -0.34 | -1.09- | 0.41 | .373 | ||||||||||||
Tabular array 4
Regression models adjusting for parenting hazard factors and all predictors together.
| Dependent variable: SRO 27–32 | B | 95% CI B | p | B | 95% CI B | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bedevilled xix–26 | -0.34 | -0.80- | 0.11 | .138 | -0.33 | -0.79- | 0.14 | .168 |
| SRO 15–eighteen | 0.27 | 0.15- | 0.39 | .001 | 0.03 | -0.19- | 0.24 | .812 |
| Parental conviction | -0.27 | -0.61- | 0.08 | .130 | -0.19 | -0.58- | 0.twenty | .348 |
| Parental conviction * offspring conviction | 3.27 | 2.31- | 4.24 | .001 | iii.17 | two.16- | 4.xviii | .001 |
| Offspring serious SRO | 0.33 | 0.09- | 0.57 | .006 | ||||
| Parent serious conviction | -1.16 | -1.72- | -0.threescore | .001 | ||||
| Offspring impulsiveness | 0.24 | -0.27- | 0.74 | .359 | ||||
| Socioeconomic condition | 0.31 | -0.50- | 1.11 | .453 | ||||
| Parenting | -0.29 | -0.65- | -0.06 | .105 | -0.37 | -0.75- | -0.01 | .056 |
Discussion
This paper investigated the interaction between labeling and intergenerational transmission. In other words, nosotros investigated the impact of a conviction on subsequent offending behavior and the interaction of a conviction and a convicted parent on subsequent offending. The results show that a conviction later on increased an private'southward self-reported offending behavior for the grouping of people whose parents had been convicted, merely not for people whose parents had not been convicted. It is surprising that the meaning bear on of a confidence on someone's subsequent offending beliefs was simply plant for the people whose parents had been convicted, but not for the people whose parents had non been convicted. It appears that labeling theory merely applies to people who are already disadvantaged by a convicted parent. There is a cumulative event of having a convicted parent and beingness convicted yourself. As Bernburg and Krohn [17] emphasized: "structural location, such equally race or social form, may provide people with differential ways to resist deviant labeling in the face of official intervention." A confidence does not automatically lead to deviant labeling, but also depends on other factors. When people are in a disadvantaged position "deficits and disadvantages pile up faster" [28]. The current study demonstrates strong support for this idea of differential labeling effects, supports the previous findings of Hagan and Palloni [46] and demonstrates that these differential labeling furnishings are present when one measures offspring offending up to age 32.
How can we explicate this interaction betwixt labeling and a convicted parent? Intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior can be explained by a combination of different mechanisms: potential biogenetic risk, social learning (or imitation of the parents' behavior), official bias, and a criminogenic surroundings with run a risk factors for crime. Undoubtedly, intergenerational manual stems from complex, reciprocal, and transactional forces spanning these unlike theoretical perspectives, leading to cumulative disadvantage for those children with criminal parents. If children also experience labeling considering of a conviction, this basically adds additional burden to already disadvantaged individuals. These children seem to be more susceptible to labeling effects. If, in dissimilarity, someone without such cumulative disadvantage coming from growing up with a convicted parent, experiences a criminal conviction, s/he may accept more than resources and therefore be more than resilient to such an feel.
Limitations and future directions
I assumption throughout the paper is the reliability of self-reported offending as a valid measure of someone's actual offending behavior. Self-reports of criminal offending face up challenges such as concealing, exaggerating or just forgetting offending beliefs [66], which are particularly problematic with long-term retrospective self-reports [67,68]. Furthermore, attributes of the respondent and of the crime might influence the willingness to admit, forget, and exaggerate offences. For example, people are less inclined to study sexual and fraud offences and more than likely to exaggerate tearing offences. This phenomenon could explain discrepancies between and official records and self-reports. Besides, individuals who feel they take much to lose might be more inclined to present a pro-social image compared with offspring of convicted parents, who might experience stigmatized and labeled and will non concur back on self-reporting criminal beliefs [66]. This scenario, withal, would predict a smaller discrepancy between self-reported offending and official records for offspring of convicted parents, which was not found in the CSDD (see also [16]). Information technology is important to realize that we might never know the true extent of offending behavior, even though numerous studies have shown that validity is high for prospective self-reports of white males equally investigated in this sample. Nonetheless, self-reports are being widely used in criminological research and in this study are perceived every bit the nearest approximations of the respondents' truthful offending beliefs [68].
Furthermore, one could say that the increase institute in self-reported offending after a conviction in the preceding period could be caused by an increased willingness to study offences rather than an increment in someone's offending behavior. Nevertheless, the respondents did not know that the researchers checked their criminal histories, therefore it seems unlikely that this cognition could have influenced them. More importantly, previous analyses with the CSDD showed that, in general, the first self-report of an offence preceded the outset conviction for it [61]. This implies that information technology is unlikely that the human relationship found between a conviction and a subsequent increment in cocky-reported offending could be attributed to the tendency for convictions to make people more than willing to admit offences in self-reports.
An important limitation of this study is the low number of people involved in the analyses to investigate labeling. The group of offspring with a conviction and a convicted parent consists of only ix people. Hitherto the CSDD is the only study used to examine the topic of labeling in combination with a convicted parent. This highlights the need to replicate these analyses with large longitudinal data sets over multiple generations.
Furthermore, it is important to realize that the results from this study might not exist easily generalizable to today's situation or to other countries. This sample of men was built-in in London around 1953 and their offending beliefs was measured until age 32 (roughly 1986). They were mostly British and white and growing upwardly in a specific society and time period. Family structures, communities and police and justice organizations have inverse. Moreover, sentencing policies are dissimilar in current times and in other countries. One thing that nosotros could non study using the CSDD is the effect of race or ethnicity. For instance, Black or Hispanic offenders are more likely to be arrested, convicted, and imprisoned [69–78]. Similarly, people from a depression socio-economic background seem to be arrested disproportionately often [77,78]. Information technology would exist advantageous to replicate this study using data from dissimilar periods and unlike countries to examine whether similar furnishings are visible. However, to be able to study labeling as well as intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior, a longitudinal study with information on offending for both generations is necessary, including self-reported offending for the offspring generation. Such studies are rare and the CSDD is one of the few studies that have collected such information. Related to this, it would be interesting to investigate this interaction betwixt labeling and intergenerational transmission in samples using different age ranges. In this study, nosotros used self-reported offending from ages 15–eighteen and 27–32, while looking at official convictions from ages 19–26. Information technology would be interesting to see whether labeling effects might be stronger when people are convicted during their boyish years, as we discussed in the introduction.
Similarly, unfortunately information technology was non possible investigate women. The CSDD does not take self-reports for sisters of the original 411 men. Information technology would be desirable to replicate the current study using data on women to investigate labeling and intergenerational transmission for daughters. Women are less likely to be arrested than men, and women are at an advantage in several stages of delinquency case processing in the court [77,79–81]. It would exist interesting to examine whether women also report a similar increase in cocky-reported offending after being convicted. Women who commit criminal offence are less common, and because of this, women who do commit crime might be stigmatized more, based on the potential characterization as being disturbed rather than criminal, which could lead to an even stronger increase in cocky-reported beliefs [82].
Decision
Notwithstanding these limitations, this study is the first one in 25 years that investigated labeling and intergenerational manual, showing this strong pattern of cumulative disadvantage of labeling and intergenerational transmission. What do these results mean to broader society? This study showed an increase in individuals' offending beliefs after labeling, and in particular for children of convicted parents. Although the aim of criminal justice agencies should exist to decrease or prevent crime, by their actions the official agencies announced to increase offending behavior. These findings are peculiarly relevant when we consider official bias in intergenerational transmission, where offspring of bedevilled parents are at a higher adventure of being targeted by the criminal justice system [16]. In their enquiry in Edinburgh McAra & McVie [83–86] also discovered that the police appeared to unfairly target sure categories of young people, the "usual suspects", past which they "serve to sustain and reproduce the very bug which the institution ostensibly attempts to incorporate or eradicate".
Given that prison population numbers are at unprecedented levels and given that the number of convictions is nonetheless increasing in many nations, the furnishings of parental confidence on families and children are crucial societal concerns. This newspaper demonstrated that labeling might be a pivotal feel in the intergenerational manual of criminal behavior. Instead of advancing this bicycle of intergenerational crime past convicting these children disproportionally often, it is preferable to endeavor to preclude the evolution of this behavior. Instead, interventions targeted at children of convicted parents would be a viable starting point. A first suggestion would be to provide family-based intervention programs, such every bit parent education and parent management grooming. Many scholars accept shown the developmental merits of prevention programs [87–90]. Moreover, several reviews have shown that the monetary benefits of developmental prevention programs outweigh their monetary costs [89,91–97]. Budgetary benefits can be wide-ranging from crime reduction to instruction (due east.one thousand. high school completion, college or university enrollment), employment (e.grand. increased wages, tax revenue), and health (east.g. decreased utilize of public wellness care). If special consideration has to be given to children of bedevilled parents, it is preferable that this is positive and focused on preventing the offending behavior.
Acknowledgments
We would like to give thanks the HSSA Writing Grouping for their helpful comments on this paper. An earlier version of this commodity was presented at the 2014 Stockholm Criminology Symposium.
Funding Statement
Data collections for the CSDD at ages xviii and 32 were funded by the Dwelling house Office Britain. SB was funded by a Bill and Melinda Gates Cambridge Scholarship: https://www.gatescambridge.org/.
References
1. Becker HS. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance. London: Free Printing; 1963. [Google Scholar]
2. Lemert EM. Homo deviance, social problems, and social control . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1967. [Google Scholar]
3. Scheff TJ. Being mentally ill: A sociological theory. 2nd ed. Chicago: Aldine; 1984. [Google Scholar]
4. Scheff TJ. The labelling theory of mental illness. American Sociological Review. 1974;39: 444–452. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
five. Besemer S. Intergenerational transmission of criminal and violent behaviour. Doctoral dissertation University of Cambridge. Leiden: Sidestone Press. 2012.
6. Farrington DP. Families and crime In: Wilson JQ, Petersilia J, editors. Criminal offence and Public Policy. New York: Oxford Academy press; 2011. pp. 130–157. [Google Scholar]
seven. Kaplan HB, Tolle GC. The Cycle of Deviant Behavior. springer.com. Boston, MA: Springer; 2006. [Google Scholar]
viii. Thornberry TP. The apple doesn't autumn far from the tree (or does it?): intergenerational patterns of antisocial behavior—the American Lodge of Criminology 2008 Sutherland address. Criminology. 2009;47: 297–325. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
nine. van de Rakt MGA, Nieuwbeerta P, Apel R. Association of criminal convictions between family unit members: Furnishings of siblings, fathers and mothers. Farrington DP, Bijleveld CCJH, editors. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 2009;19: 94–108. doi: x.1002/cbm.715 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ten. van de Weijer SGM. The intergenerational transmission of trigger-happy crime. VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2014. [Google Scholar]
11. Garland D. Mass imprisonment. London: SAGE; 2001. [Google Scholar]
12. Gottschalk M. The prison and the gallows: The politics of mass incarceration in America. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
thirteen. Tonry M. Penal Reform in Overcrowded Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]
xv. Warren J. Ane in 100: Behind confined in America 2008. pewtrusts.org. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts; 2008. [Google Scholar]
xvi. Besemer S, Farrington DP, Bijleveld CCJH. Official bias in intergenerational manual of criminal behaviour. British Journal of Criminology. 2013;53: 438–455. [Google Scholar]
17. Bernburg JG, Krohn MD. Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect furnishings of official intervention in adolescence on criminal offence in early adulthood. Criminology. 2003;41: 1287–1318. [Google Scholar]
18. Farrington DP. The effects of public labelling. British Journal of Criminology. 1977;17: 112–125. [Google Scholar]
xix. Farrington DP, Osborn SG, West DJ. The persistence of labelling furnishings. British Journal of Criminology. 1978;18: 277–284. [Google Scholar]
twenty. Jolliffe D, Hedderman C. Investigating the impact of custody on reoffending using propensity score matching. Criminal offence and Malversation. 2015;61: 1051–1077. [Google Scholar]
21. Krohn Physician, Lopes One thousand, Ward JT. Effects of official intervention on later offending in the Rochester youth evolution study In: Farrington DP, Murray J, editors. Labeling theory: Empirical tests (advances in criminological theory, volume xviii) . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2014. [Google Scholar]
22. Lanctôt N, Cernkovich SA, Giordano PC. Runaway beliefs, official delinquency, and gender: consequences for adulthood functioning and well-existence. Criminology. 2007;45: 131–157. [Google Scholar]
23. Lopes G, Krohn MD, Lizotte AJ, Schmidt NM, Vasquez Exist, Bernburg JG. Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The affect of formal police force intervention on life chances and law-breaking during emerging machismo. Crime and Delinquency. 2012;58: 456–488. [Google Scholar]
24. Murray J, Blokland AAJ, Farrington DP, Theobald D. Long term effects of conviction and incarceration on men in the Cambridge Report in Runaway Development In: Farrington DP, Murray J, editors. Labeling theory: Empirical tests (advances in criminological theory, volume 18) . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2014. pp. 209–235. [Google Scholar]
25. West DJ, Farrington DP. The runaway way of life. London: Heinemann; 1977. [Google Scholar]
26. Bernburg JG. Labeling theory In: Krohn Doctor, Lizotte AJ, Hall GP, editors. Handbook on crime and deviance. Dordrecht, the netherlands: Springer; 2009. pp. 187–207. [Google Scholar]
27. Paternoster R, Iovanni L. The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly. 1989;6: 359–394. [Google Scholar]
28. Sampson RJ, Laub JH. A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency In: Thornberry TP, editor. Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (advances in criminological theory, vol seven). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 1997. pp. 133–162. [Google Scholar]
29. Bernburg JG, Krohn Md, Rivera CJ. Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency. Periodical of Research in Crime and Malversation. 2006;43: 67–88. [Google Scholar]
thirty. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology. Almanac Reviews; 2001;27: 363–385. [Google Scholar]
31. Matsueda RL. Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology. 1992;97: 1577–1611. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781549 [Google Scholar]
32. Raphael South. The effects of confidence and incarceration on futurity employment outcomes In: Farrington DP, Murray J, editors. Labeling theory: Empirical tests (advances in criminological theory, volume 18) . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2014. pp. 237–262. [Google Scholar]
33. Hagan J, Foster H. Intergenerational educational furnishings of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education. 2012;85: 259–286. [Google Scholar]
34. Cullen FT, Jonson CL. Labeling theory and correctional rehabilitation: beyond unanticipated consequences In: Farrington DP, Murray J, editors. Labeling theory: Empirical tests (advances in criminological theory, volume 18) . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2014. pp. 63–85. [Google Scholar]
35. Ageton SS, Elliott DS. The Effects of Legal Processing on Delinquent Orientations. Social Problems. Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for the Report of Social Problems; 1974;22: 87–100. [Google Scholar]
36. Foster H, Hagan J. Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Social Problems. The Oxford University Press; 2007;54: 399–433. [Google Scholar]
37. Harris AR. Race, Delivery to Deviance, and Spoiled Identity. American Sociological Review. American Sociological Association; 1976;41: 432–442. [Google Scholar]
38. Jensen GF. Labeling and identity. Toward a Reconciliation of Divergent Findings. Criminology. 1980;18: 121–129. [Google Scholar]
39. Wakefield Due south, Wildeman C. Children of the prison smash: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. New York: Oxford Academy Press; 2014. [Google Scholar]
twoscore. Wildeman C. Parental imprisonment, the prison blast, and the concentration of babyhood disadvantage. Demography. Springer-Verlag; 2009;46: 265–280–280. doi: 10.1353/dem.0.0052 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Wakefield Due south, Uggen C. Incarceration and Stratification. Annu Rev Sociol. Annual Reviews; 2010;36: 387–406. [Google Scholar]
42. Sherman LW. Defiance, compliance and consilience: a full general theory of criminology In: McLaughlin Eastward, Newburn T, editors. Handbook of Criminological Theory. London: Sage Publications; 2010. pp. 360–390. [Google Scholar]
43. Sherman LW. Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Offense and Malversation. 1993;30: 445–473. [Google Scholar]
44. Sherman LW. Experiments in criminal sanctions: Labeling, defiance, and restorative justice In: Farrington DP, Murray J, editors. Labeling theory: Empirical tests (advances in criminological theory, book 18) . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2014. pp. 149–176. [Google Scholar]
45. Braithwaite J. Offense, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, Britain: Cambridge Academy Press; 1989. [Google Scholar]
46. Hagan J, Palloni A. The social reproduction of a criminal class in working-form London, circa 1950–1980. The American Journal of Folklore. 1990;96: 265–299. [Google Scholar]
47. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth JA, Visher CA. Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals." Washington, DC: National Academy Printing; 1986. [Google Scholar]
48. Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A. Key Issues in Criminal Career Inquiry. New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge Academy Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
49. De Li S. Social command, delinquency, and youth status accomplishment: A developmental arroyo. Sociological Perspectives. Pacific Sociological Association; 1999;42: 305–324. [Google Scholar]
l. Stewart EA, Simons RL, Conger RD, Scaramella LV. Beyond the interactional human relationship betwixt delinquency and parenting practices: The contribution of legal sanctions. Journal of Research in Crime and Malversation. 2002;39: 36–59. [Google Scholar]
51. Kaplan HB, Johnson RBJ. Negative social sanctions and juvenile delinquency: Effects of labeling in a model of deviant beliefs. Social science quarterly. 1991;72. [Google Scholar]
52. Johnson LM, Simons RL, Conger RD. Criminal justice system involvement and continuity of youth crime. A longitudinal analysis. Youth & Lodge. 2004;36: 3–29. [Google Scholar]
53. West DJ. Present Conduct and Future Malversation. London: Heinemann; 1969. [Google Scholar]
54. Westward DJ, Farrington DP. Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann; 1973. [Google Scholar]
55. Farrington DP, Due west DJ. The Cambridge Study in Runaway Development: A long-term follow-up of 411 London males In: Kerner H-J, Kaiser G, editors. Kriminalitat: Personlichkeit, Lebensgeschichte und Verhalten [Criminality: Personality, Life History and Criminal Behaviour]. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1990. pp. 115–138. [Google Scholar]
56. Farrington DP. The development of offending and hating behaviour from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge Written report in Runaway Development. Journal of Kid Psychology and Psychiatry. 1995;36: 929–964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Farrington DP. Central results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in Runaway In: Thornberry TP, Krohn Doc, editors. Taking stock of delinquency: an overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Kluwer; 2003. pp. 137–183. [Google Scholar]
58. Farrington DP, Coid JW, Harnett LM, Jolliffe D, Soteriou Northward, Turner RE, et al. Criminal careers up to age 50 and life success up to age 48: new findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Evolution. London: Home Office; (Home Office Research Written report No. 299); 2006. [Google Scholar]
59. Farrington DP, Coid JW, West DJ. The development of offending from age 8 to age 50: Recent findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Monatsschrift fur Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform [Journal of Criminology and Penal Reform]. 2009;: 160–173. [Google Scholar]
60. Farrington DP, Piquero AR, Jennings WG. Offending from childhood to late heart historic period. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
61. Farrington DP. Self-reported and official offending from adolescence to adulthood In: Klein MW, editor. Cantankerous-national research in cocky-reported law-breaking and delinquency. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer; 1989. pp. 399–423. [Google Scholar]
62. Farrington DP, Barnes GC, Lambert S. The concentration of offending in families. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 1996;1: 47–63. [Google Scholar]
63. Farrington DP, Loeber R, van Kammen WB. Long-term criminal outcomes of hyperactivity-impulsivity-attending arrears and conduct problems in childhood In: Robins LN, Rutter M, editors. Straight and Devious Pathways from Childhood to Adulthood. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1990. pp. 62–81. [Google Scholar]
64. Farrington DP, Painter KA. Gender differences in offending: implications for chance-focused prevention. Domicile Role Online Report 09–04. London: Home Role. (Online report 09/04); 2004.
65. Aiken LS, W SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: Sage; 1991. [Google Scholar]
66. Junger-Tas J, Marshall IH. The self-report methodology in crime research. Criminal offense and Justice. 1999;25: 291–367. [Google Scholar]
67. Jolliffe D, Farrington DP, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, Hill KG, Kosterman R. Predictive, concurrent, prospective and retrospective validity of self‐reported malversation. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Wellness. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2003;13: 179–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Jolliffe D, Farrington DP. Self-Reported Offending: Reliability and Validity In: Bruinsma Grand, Weisburd DL, editors. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. pp. 4716–4723. [Google Scholar]
69. Bishop DM. The office of race and ethnicity in juvenile justice processing In Hawkins Darnell F, Kempf-Leonard Kimberly (eds) Our Children, Their Children Confronting Racial and Ethnic Differences in American Juvenile Justice Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2005;: 23–82. [Google Scholar]
70. Bishop DM, Frazier CE. Race effects in juvenile justice controlling: Findings of a statewide analysis. The Journal of Criminal Police force and Criminology. 1996;86: 392–414. [Google Scholar]
71. Brennan PK, Spohn C. Race/ethnicity and sentencing outcomes among drug offenders in North Carolina. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 2008;24: 371–398. [Google Scholar]
72. Bridges GS, Crutchfield RD. Police force, social standing and racial disparities in imprisonment. Social Forces. 1988;66: 699–724. [Google Scholar]
73. Leiber MJ, Johnson JD. Being young and black: What are their effects on juvenile justice decision making? Crime and Delinquency. 2008;54: 560–581. [Google Scholar]
74. Mitchell O. A meta-analysis of race and sentencing inquiry: Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2005;21: 439–466. [Google Scholar]
75. Nelson JF. A dollar or a day: Sentencing misdemeanants in New York State. Journal of Research in Criminal offense and Delinquency. 1994;31: 183–201. [Google Scholar]
76. Petersilia J. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation; 1983. [Google Scholar]
77. Sealock MD, Simpson SS. Unraveling bias in arrest decisions: The office of juvenile offender type-scripts. Justice Quarterly. 1998;15: 427–457. [Google Scholar]
78. Wu B, Fuentes AI. Juvenile Justice Processing: The entangled effects of race and urban poverty. Juvenile and Family Courtroom Journal. 1998;49: 41–54. [Google Scholar]
79. Bishop DM, Frazier CE. Gender bias in juvenile justice processing: Implications of the JJDP Human activity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1991;82: 1162–1186. [Google Scholar]
lxxx. Spohn C, Beichner D. Is preferential treatment of female offenders a thing of the past? A multisite study of gender, race, and imprisonment. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2000;xi: 149–184. [Google Scholar]
81. Tillyer R, Hartley RD, Ward JT. Differential Treatment of Female person Defendants: Does Criminal History Moderate the Upshot of Gender on Sentence Length in Federal Narcotics Cases? Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2015;42: 703–721. [Google Scholar]
82. Hedderman C, Gelsthorpe Fifty. Understanding the sentencing of women Home Part Research Written report 170 London, UK: Habitation Function Enquiry and Statistics Directorate; 1997. [Google Scholar]
83. McAra L, McVie Due south. Criminal Justice Transitions. Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime, Research Assimilate No. 14. Edinburgh: Centre for Law and Guild. Edinburgh Written report of Youth Transitions and Crime; 2007. Written report No.: 14.
84. McAra 50, McVie S. The usual suspects?: Street-life, young people and the police. Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2005;5: 5–36. [Google Scholar]
85. McAra L, McVie S. Youth law-breaking and justice: Key letters from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime. Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2010;x: 179–209. [Google Scholar]
86. McAra L, McVie S. Youth Justice? The Impact of System Contact on Patterns of Desistance from Offending. European Journal of Criminology. 2007;4: 315–345. [Google Scholar]
87. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. Save children from a life of crime. Criminology & Public Policy. 2007;6: 871–879. [Google Scholar]
88. Farrington DP, Welsh BC. Saving children from a life of offense: Early gamble factors and effective interventions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
89. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. Monetary value of early developmental offense prevention and its policy significance. Criminology & Public Policy. 2015;xiv: 673–680. [Google Scholar]
90. Lösel F. Towards a third stage of "what works" in offender rehabilitation In: Loeber R, Welsh BC, editors. The time to come of criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. pp. 196–203. [Google Scholar]
91. Dossetor K. Cost-benefit analysis and its application to crime prevention and criminal justice research (AIC Reports: Technical and Background Newspaper 42). ncjrs.gov. Canberra, Australia: Australian Establish of Criminology; 2011.
92. Farrington DP. Encouraging policy makers and practitioners to make rational choices about programs based on scientific show on developmental criminal offence prevention. Criminology & Public Policy. 2013;12: 295–301. [Google Scholar]
93. McIntosh C, Li J. An introduction to economical assay in offense prevention: The why, how and then what. publicsafety.gc.ca. Ottawa, Canada: Section of Justice Canada; 2012. [Google Scholar]
94. Nagin DS. Measuring the economic benefits of developmental prevention programs. Crime and Justice. The University of Chicago Press; 2001;28: 347–384. [Google Scholar]
95. Roman JK, Dunworth T, Marsh K. Cost-do good assay and crime command. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
96. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. Monetary Costs and Benefits of Crime Prevention Programs. Offense and Justice. [Academy of Chicago Printing, University of Chicago]; 2000;27: 305–361. [Google Scholar]
97. Welsh BC, Farrington DP, Sherman LW. Costs and benefits of preventing crime. Boulder, CO: Westview Printing, Inc; 2001. [Google Scholar]
Articles from PLoS ONE are provided hither courtesy of Public Library of Science
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5342201/
0 Response to "10 Becker Argues That Most Deviance When It First Occurs Is Unlikely to Occur Again"
Post a Comment