Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  Decision-making in criminal opportunities is supposed to be rational for the ALs (who weigh likely costs against likely benefits) but not for the LCPs (who largely follow well-learned “automatic” behavioural repertoires without thinking). However, the LCPs are mainly influenced by utilitarian motives, whereas the ALs are influenced by teenage boredom. Adult life events such as getting a job or getting married are hypothesised to be of little importance, because the LCPs are too committed to an antisocial lifestyle and the ALs desist naturally as they age into adult roles.

  Possibly because it is arguably the earliest and most famous DLC theory, there has been more empirical research on this theory than on any other. Moffitt (2006) published a very impressive review of 10 years of research on her theory. While many of the predictions were confirmed, she discussed the need for additional categories of individuals: abstainers (who were over-controlled, fearful, sexually timid and unpopular), low-level chronic offenders (who were under-controlled like the LCPs, with family adversity, parental psychopathology and low intelligence) and “recoveries” (who seemed to be on a life-course track in childhood but then desisted).

  Several trajectory analyses have been carried out to test the Moffitt theory. For example, in the Dunedin study, Odgers et al. (2008) found adolescent-onset, childhood-limited, LCP and low-level problem trajectories. However, Fairchild, Van Goozen, Calder and Goodyer (2013) reviewed evidence on the theory and concluded that the differences between LCP and AL antisocial behaviour were quantitative (in degree) rather than qualitative (in kind). In the CSSD, Jennings, Rocque, Fox, Piquero and Farrington (2016), studied abstainers, AL offenders, recoveries and LCP offenders, and found that the recoveries and LCP offenders showed the greatest adult adjustment problems. In another analysis, Mercer, Farrington, Ttofi, Keijers, Branje and Meeus (2016) identified abstainers based on having no convictions or self-reported offences between ages 10 and 18. They discovered two subgroups of abstainers, an adaptive group who were high on honesty, conformity and family income, and a maladaptive group who were low on popularity and school achievement. Previously, Farrington, Gallagher, Morley, St. Ledger and West (1988a) had reported that unconvicted boys from criminogenic backgrounds tended to be nervous, withdrawn and with few friends at age 8–10. However, these boys were often leading unsuccessful lives as adults, with lower class, low-paid jobs and poor home conditions (Farrington, Gallagher, Morley, St. Ledger and West, 1988b).

  Moffitt (1993) argued that there were no true adult onset offenders, and that people who were first arrested or convicted as adults had previously offended but had not been caught. McGee and Farrington (2010) tested these ideas in the CSDD. They concluded that only about one-third of the official adult onset offenders had been self- reported delinquents in their teenage years and had realistically been in danger of being convicted. The adult onset offenders tended to commit different types of crimes compared with the earlier onset offenders: sex offences, theft from work and fraud. In the same project, Zara and Farrington (2009) concluded that adult onset offenders tended to be qualitatively different from earlier onset offenders, since they had generally been nervous and had few friends as children and were still sexual virgins at age 18.

  2.2.2 Lahey and Waldman: Developmental Propensity Theory

  Lahey and Waldman (2005) aimed to explain the development of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency, focussing particularly on childhood and adolescence. Their developmental propensity theory is influenced by data collected in the Developmental Trends Study (Loeber, Green, Lahey, Frick, & McBurnett, 2000). They do not address adult life events or attempt to explain desistance in the adult years. They assume that it is desirable to distinguish different types of people, but they propose a continuum of developmental trajectories, rather than only two categories of adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent offenders.

  Their key construct is antisocial propensity, which tends to persist over time and has a wide variety of behavioural manifestations, reflecting the versatility and comorbidity of antisocial behaviour. The most important components of this antisocial propensity are low cognitive ability (especially low verbal ability), and three dispositional dimensions: prosociality (including sympathy and empathy, as opposed to callous- unemotional traits); daring (uninhibited or poorly controlled); and negative emotionality (e.g. easily frustrated, bored or annoyed). These four factors are said to have a genetic basis, and Lahey and Waldman (2005) discuss gene-environment interactions.

  In an important empirical test of this theory, Lahey, Loeber, Waldman and Farrington (2006) analysed data collected in the Pittsburgh Youth Study and found that prosociality (negatively), daring and negative emotionality at age 7 independently predicted self-reported delinquency between ages 11 and 17. Furthermore, these predictions held up after controlling for major demographic predictors of delinquency such as family income, the mother’s education and ethnicity. In a later test, Lahey et al. (2008) developed the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale (CADS) to measure the three dispositional dimensions and showed that these predicted conduct disorder in separate samples from Georgia, Chicago and Pittsburgh.

  2.2.3 Thornberry and Krohn: Interactional Theory

  The interactional theory of Thornberry and Krohn (2005) particularly focuses on factors encouraging antisocial behaviour at different ages. It is influenced by findings in the Rochester Youth Development Study (Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, Smith, & Porter, 2003). They do not propose types of offenders but suggest that the causes of antisocial behaviour vary for children who start at different ages. At the earliest ages (birth to 6), the three most important influencing factors are neuropsychological deficits and difficult temperament (e.g. impulsiveness, negative emotionality, fearlessness, poor emotion regulation), parenting deficits (e.g. poor monitoring, low affective ties, inconsistent discipline, physical punishment) and structural adversity (e.g. poverty, unemployment, welfare dependency, a disorganised neighbourhood). They also suggest that structural adversity might cause poor parenting.

  Neuropsychological deficits are less important for children who start antisocial behaviour at older ages. At ages 6–12, neighbourhood and family factors are particularly salient, while at ages 12–18, school and peer factors dominate. Thornberry and Krohn also suggest that deviant opportunities, gangs and deviant social networks are important influences on onset at ages 12–18. They propose that late starters (ages 18–25) have cognitive deficits such as low intelligence and poor school performance but that they were protected from antisocial behaviour at earlier ages by a supportive family and school environment. At ages 18–25, these people find it hard to make a successful transition to adult roles such as employment and marriage.

  The most distinctive feature of this interactional theory is its emphasis on reciprocal causation. Not only do parenting deficits cause antisocial behaviour, but also the child’s antisocial behaviour elicits coercive responses from parents that make his or her antisocial behaviour more likely in the future. The theory does not postulate a single key construct that underlies offending but suggests that children who start early tend to continue because of the persistence of neuropsychological and parenting deficits and structural adversity. Interestingly, Thornberry and Krohn predict that late starters (ages 18–25) will show more continuity in antisocial behaviour over time than earlier starters (ages 12–18) because the late starters have more cognitive deficits. In an earlier exposition of the theory (Thornberry & Krohn, 2001), they proposed that desistance was caused by changing social influences (e.g. increasing family bonding), protective factors (e.g. high intelligence and school success) and intervention programmes. They also think that criminal justice processing tends to increase rather than decrease future offending (see Farrington & Murray, 2014).

  PHOTO 2.1 At ages 6–12, neighbourhood and family factors are particularly salient, while at ages 12–18 school and peer factors dominate.

  Source: © Kuzma/Shutterstock

  Thornberry (2005) has also ext
ended this theory to explain the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behaviour. He suggested that the parent’s prosocial or antisocial bonding, structural adversity, stressors and ineffective parenting mediated the link between the parent’s antisocial behaviour and the child’s antisocial behaviour. Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant and Lovegrove (2009) tested these ideas in the Rochester Intergenerational Study and concluded that parental stress and ineffective parenting were the most important mediating factors. Interestingly, intergenerational transmission was greater when the father was present in the home than when he was not, suggesting the importance of social contact as opposed to genetic factors (Thornberry, 2009).

  2.2.4 Sampson and Laub: Age-Graded Informal Social Control Theory

  The key construct in Sampson and Laub’s (2005) theory is age-graded informal social control, which is measured by the strength of bonding to family, peers, schools, and later adult social institutions such as marriages and jobs. Sampson and Laub primarily aimed to explain why people do not commit offences, on the assumption that why people want to offend is unproblematic (presumably caused by hedonistic desires) and that offending is inhibited by the strength of bonding to society. Their theory is influenced by their analyses of the Glueck and Glueck (1950) follow-up study of male delinquents and non-delinquents (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993).

  The strength of bonding depends on attachments to parents, schools, delinquent friends and delinquent siblings, and also on parental socialisation processes such as discipline and supervision. Structural background variables (e.g. SES, ethnicity, large family size, criminal parents, disrupted families) and individual difference factors (e.g. low intelligence, difficult temperament, early conduct disorder) have indirect effects on offending through their effects on informal social control (attachment and socialisation processes). Sampson and Laub do not explicitly include immediate situational influences on criminal events in their theory, and believe that opportunities are not important because they are ubiquitous (Sampson & Laub, 1995). However, they do suggest that having few structured routine activities is conducive to offending.

  This theory emphasises change over time rather than consistency, and the poor ability of early childhood risk factors to predict later life outcomes. Sampson and Laub focus on the importance of later life events (adult turning points) such as moving home, getting a stable job and getting married, in fostering desistance and “knifing off” the past from the present. They emphasise the importance of individual free will and purposeful choice (“human agency”) in the decision to desist.

  Sampson and Laub also propose that official labelling (e.g. a conviction) leads to an increase in offending through its effects on job instability and unemployment. They argue that early delinquency can cause weak adult social bonds, which in turn fail to inhibit adult offending. They also suggest that neighbourhood changes can cause changes in offending. Because of their emphasis on change and unpredictability, they deny the importance of types of offenders such as “life-course-persisters”. They suggest that offending decreases with age for all types of offenders (Sampson & Laub, 2003).

  A great deal of research has confirmed the importance of moving home, getting a stable job and marriage in fostering desistance (Kazemian & Farrington, 2015). It is clear that offending decreases after a person marries, as shown by Sampson, Laub and Wimer (2006) in their own follow-up study and by Theobald and Farrington (2009) in the CSDD. This effect is greatest for men who marry relatively early in life (Theobald & Farrington, 2011). It is also clear that people offend less when they are employed than when they are unemployed (Farrington, Gallagher, Morley, St. Ledger and West, 1986) and that offending can decrease after people move home (Osborn, 1980).

  Many of Sampson and Laub’s postulates can be tested empirically. Our view is that childhood risk factors are important in predicting adult offending. For example, in the CSDD, the percentage of boys who were convicted increased from 20% of those with no childhood risk factors to 85% of those with five or six childhood risk factors (Farrington et al., 2009a). Sampson and Laub would expect that childhood variables would not predict adult offending after controlling for adult variables, but Farrington, Ttofi and Coid (2009b) found several variables dating from 8 to 10 years old that predicted either onset or persistence in offending after age 21.

  2.2.5 Comparing DLC Theories

  These DLC theories differ in important dimensions (Farrington, 2006). For example, Sampson and Laub (2005) focus on an underlying theoretical construct (age-graded informal social control), which is operationally defined and measured by the strength of bonding to families, peers, schools and adult social institutions. In contrast, Moffitt (1993) and Thornberry and Krohn (2005) do not assume an underlying theoretical construct, and Lahey and Waldman (2005) say that their underlying construct of antisocial propensity consists of four elements. Sampson and Laub (2005) also differ from the other three theories in focussing on the effects of adult life events and in focussing on factors that inhibit offending rather than on factors that encourage offending. Moffitt (1993) and Thornberry and Krohn (2005) assume that different explanations are needed for different categories of offenders, but Lahey and Waldman (2005) and Sampson and Laub (2005) assume that there are continuous variations in offending.

  2.3 CASE STUDIES FROM THE CAMBRIDGE STUDY IN DELINQUENT DEVELOPMENT

  The following are two cases from the CSDD; for more detailed case histories, see Zara and Farrington (2016, chapter 3). Case study 2.1 is an example of a boy who offended infrequently over a long time period, while case study 2.2 is an example of a boy who offended frequently over a short time period (see Piquero, Sullivan, & Farrington, 2010). Both cases show the typically deprived, disrupted and problematic family backgrounds of delinquents, combined with individual deviance and low school attainment.

  CASE STUDY 2.1 BOY A

  This boy’s parents were both aged 24 when he was born. Neither parent was convicted. He had two younger brothers, one of whom was convicted. When the boy was aged 7, his father was said to be paranoid, accusing his mother of being unfaithful, and he was committed to a mental hospital. At age 8, the boy was said to be obstinate, aggressively outgoing, and wandering. He was 37th out of 39 in his class, and was easily hurt by teasing. At ages 8–10, he was rated as daring and unpopular but not troublesome, with a nervous or psychiatrically treated father. At age 8, his mother was said to be harsh and erratic, nagging, quick-tempered, and not in control of the children. At age 10, the social worker noted that the boy’s father did not have regular work and had occasional labouring jobs, but most of the time sat at home doing nothing.

  At age 12, his father was in and out of mental hospitals for schizophrenia and the boy was living with his father’s parents. At age 13, he was thrown out and taken into care. He was said to be apathetic and living in a dream world, which was attributed to his lack of sleep. At age 14 the school report said that he was underdeveloped, withdrawn, bullied, badly dressed and unwashed. At age 14 he was living in a hostel and his father’s whereabouts were not known. When he was aged 15, his mother was the breadwinner, working in the civil service by day and in a bingo hall at night. After leaving school at age 15, the boy had five short-term jobs in the next four years and was sacked from all of them. He got married at age 24, had two sons, and was still living with his wife at age 48.

  At age 11, he stole a comic from a market stall and was caught by the police, while at age 13 the police were called because he had an airgun in the street. He was first convicted at age 16, for being carried in a stolen car. At age 19, he was convicted for stealing copper piping from a derelict house. At age 20, he was convicted of criminal damage, vandalizing a police cell after he was arrested for drunk driving. At age 35, he was convicted for receiving a stolen vehicle, and finally at age 43 he was convicted for possessing a firearm without a certificate. He was fined for his offences and never received a custodial sentence.

  CASE STUDY 2.2 BOY B

  This b
oy was the youngest of four children. His parents were aged 38 (father) and 40 (mother) when he was born, and neither was convicted. He had two older brothers and one older sister, all of whom were convicted. At age 8–10, he was rated as daring and troublesome, his test results revealed low intelligence, his parents were rated as disharmonious and his mother was rated as nervous or psychiatrically treated. When the boy was aged 9, the social worker recorded a hostile family atmosphere and was of the opinion that the father was a “dictator”. The father went out drinking a lot and the mother complained about the father. The mother had got into debt. The boy was described as a non-reader, generally backward, who hung around with a gang who were often in trouble for throwing milk-bottles, and so forth. The father described him as a “happy wanderer” because he stayed out late and would not say where he had been. At age 12, the boy was said to mix with other boys outside school who misbehaved. The father had a good job as a printer and the family were comfortably off.

  When the boy was aged 14, his Approved School notes stated that the mother was overprotective and the father was strict and punitive. The boy was described as quiet, passive, nervous and withdrawn, with an IQ of 70. His offending was attributed to parental disharmony. At age 15, the social worker noted that the father was a heavy drinker and had a duodenal ulcer, while the mother was fussy, nervous, depressed and neglected the home, which was dirty and smelly. She worked as a cleaner, and had summonsed the father in domestic court for persistent cruelty. The boy left school at age 15. At age 16, the boy said that he had violent arguments with his father and that his father sometimes hit his mother. His father then left home but his mother then could not pay the rent and the family was evicted. His mother suffered from nerves and had a period in hospital to calm her nerves. At age 18, the boy had a well-paid job as a roofer, and went to the pub most nights and often got drunk. He got married at age 18 to his pregnant girlfriend, had five sons, and was still living with his wife at age 48.