Desistance. This is a word that consumes much of my thinking. It's a fancy word for stopping or quitting, and when referenced in criminology it refers to the process of stopping or quitting criminal behavior. Various frameworks within criminology, including lifecourse criminology, developmental criminology, and the criminal career paradigm, attempt to provide explanations for desistance.
So what factors lead to desistance among active criminal offenders? Typical answers that have been expounded upon in the desistance literature to date include factors such as a quality marriage, employment, military service, or a cognitive transformation. I read two recent articles that explore interesting new factors that may be related to desistance. These two articles currently have me excited.
The first article was published this year in Social Science Research and is entitled "Desistance from Delinquency: The Marriage Effect Revisited and Extended". This piece by Kevin Beaver et. al. explores whether there is a genetic component to desistance. Sounds like a crazy idea at first glance doesn't it? Kevin Beaver and colleagues have been championing biosocial explanations for criminal behavior (and now quitting criminal behavior), and they generally find that the interaction between biological and sociological factors are the strongest predictors. So each has a small impact in and of itself, but the interaction between the two often demonstrates a larger impact. In this particular article they confirm previous findings that marriage in and of itself does significantly influence desistance. But they also find that some genetic polymorphisms also predict desistance and that the interaction between marriage and these genetic polymorphisms also predicted desistance. Thanks to Beaver and colleagues biology is back in criminology, and I think this is a good thing!
The second article I recently read on desistance was in my new issue of Criminology that came in the mail a couple of days ago. This piece is by Scott Jacques and Richard Wright and is entitled "The Victimization-Termination Link". What they basically find here is that some offenders desist from criminal behavior when they eventually become a victim themselves. This victimization in a sense causes them to rethink their criminal lifestyle. This is very interesting to me. We've know for some time that offenders are more likely to also be victims, primarily because of their lifestyles or routine activities (see Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo, 1978). It's interesting though to think of this victimization risk in a longitudinal perspective, as a factor potentially leading to desistance.
Of course neither of these findings lend themselves to any real policy implications. I'm no medical scientist but I don't believe we can change people's genetic makeup. I don't think we want to implement a policy that makes offenders become victimized either. But from a risk factor/prediction approach, these two factors might at least improve our understanding of criminal desistance. I don't think we should just limit our independent variables to dynamic factors that we can change or manipulate (neither do I think that there is any serious movement to suggest this, since age has always been on the table as an important predictor of offending). I'll end with one last thought. It occurs to me that particularly harsh, deterrence-based punishment in a sense might generate a victimization effect among offenders. What implications does the piece on the victimization-termination link have for the deterrence literature?
Happy Thanksgiving!
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
ASC 2008
I just got back from the American Society of Criminology's (ASC) Annual Meeting in St. Louis. This is my fifth year attending ASC. It was another exciting conference. I always look forward to this time of year. This is one of the most exciting and intellectually stimulating part of my year. I still remember the first year that I went to ASC. I was like a kid in the candy store as I stood in awe of all of the famous criminologists that I had read about in textbooks and now was seeing and hearing in person. I still get as excited as I was my first year there.
Several themes/sessions stuck out this year. The first session I attended was one on biosocial predictors of crime. I attended a session on this last year. Kevin Beaver and John Wright were the presenters. They have really been championing this topic among criminologists. I think it's important because biological factors have long been ignored within the discipline. I like what one of the presenters on this panel said (can't remember which one) when he said that "we are building a mythical knowledge base in criminology by ignoring biological factors". It's clear from their research that biological factors don't have a large impact when observed alone but do have a large impact when they interact with sociological factors.
I went to an "author meets critic" session on a new book by Rolf Loeber on the Pittsburgh Youth Study. I'm looking forward to reading this book. It appears that they spend some time in this book trying to sort out risk factors from protective factors. I think it is an interestng concept that protective factors don't have to necessarily be just the opposite of risk factors. I'll probably put this book on my Christmas list.
The "criminal career paradigm" is alive and well. I went to a session on that. Shawn Bushway gave a presentation on "late bloomers", which I remember John Laub saying in my 'Crime & The Life Course' class that this is an ignored group of offenders. There was also a presentation on youth and employment. Dan Nagin gave a very informative review of the literature on the relationship between imprisonment and crime.
Steve Belenko gave an interesting presentation on the relationship between drugs and crime, which I just caught the tail end of. Based in inmate records, he was able to recreate a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level at the time at which the offender's crime was created. Congrats too to Steve Belenko for becoming a fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology at ASC. I'm glad we're partnering with Steve on future AOD evaluations at the PA Dept. of Corrections; I think he's a top-notch researcher.
Speaking of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, David Weisburd gave the Joan McCord lecture in which he argued for the use of experimental designs in criminal justice evaluations. He suggested that many researchers try to make the case that quasi-experimental designs are "good enough" but laid out several reasons why this is not the case. Very interesting.
I went to two sessions on the "origins of American criminology". Apparently Frank Cullen is putting some sort of book on the subject. Several presenters during these sessions described the personal and professional lives and development of several important American criminologists across different theoretical traditions. You know I'm a big fan of the history of our field so I really enjoyed these sessions.
Speaking of the history of criminology, I thought Bob Bursik gave an excellent presidential address this year in which he talked about resurrecting the "dead sea scrolls" of important yet forgotten older criminological works. He criticized the field for being selectively biased towards the work of more recent and "popular" criminologists. He also criticized the idea of having the number of publications being a measure of success for academics in the field. Give me a research with just four important publications, he says, and I'll take that person any day over one who pumps several out each year. The way I'd interpret it is that he was calling for criminologists to temper their egos and remember the Biblical words that "there is nothing new under the sun". He talked about several examples of forgotten criminologists such as Solomon Kobrin, Herbert Bloch (for whom he says actually anticipated most of the ideas of Sampson and Laub interestingly enough), and Ruth Shonle Cavan. I can't wait to read his speech when it appears in the issue of Criminology.
Again, another successful year of ASC. It was intellectually stimulating, exciting, tiring, and fun all at the same time. I have many more thoughts and there were several other interesting sessions and topics that I heard but time permits me from going on tonight. I may write more on my thoughts on this year's ASC in another blog. I'm looking forward to ASC 2009 in Philadelphia!
Several themes/sessions stuck out this year. The first session I attended was one on biosocial predictors of crime. I attended a session on this last year. Kevin Beaver and John Wright were the presenters. They have really been championing this topic among criminologists. I think it's important because biological factors have long been ignored within the discipline. I like what one of the presenters on this panel said (can't remember which one) when he said that "we are building a mythical knowledge base in criminology by ignoring biological factors". It's clear from their research that biological factors don't have a large impact when observed alone but do have a large impact when they interact with sociological factors.
I went to an "author meets critic" session on a new book by Rolf Loeber on the Pittsburgh Youth Study. I'm looking forward to reading this book. It appears that they spend some time in this book trying to sort out risk factors from protective factors. I think it is an interestng concept that protective factors don't have to necessarily be just the opposite of risk factors. I'll probably put this book on my Christmas list.
The "criminal career paradigm" is alive and well. I went to a session on that. Shawn Bushway gave a presentation on "late bloomers", which I remember John Laub saying in my 'Crime & The Life Course' class that this is an ignored group of offenders. There was also a presentation on youth and employment. Dan Nagin gave a very informative review of the literature on the relationship between imprisonment and crime.
Steve Belenko gave an interesting presentation on the relationship between drugs and crime, which I just caught the tail end of. Based in inmate records, he was able to recreate a blood-alcohol content (BAC) level at the time at which the offender's crime was created. Congrats too to Steve Belenko for becoming a fellow of the Academy of Experimental Criminology at ASC. I'm glad we're partnering with Steve on future AOD evaluations at the PA Dept. of Corrections; I think he's a top-notch researcher.
Speaking of the Academy of Experimental Criminology, David Weisburd gave the Joan McCord lecture in which he argued for the use of experimental designs in criminal justice evaluations. He suggested that many researchers try to make the case that quasi-experimental designs are "good enough" but laid out several reasons why this is not the case. Very interesting.
I went to two sessions on the "origins of American criminology". Apparently Frank Cullen is putting some sort of book on the subject. Several presenters during these sessions described the personal and professional lives and development of several important American criminologists across different theoretical traditions. You know I'm a big fan of the history of our field so I really enjoyed these sessions.
Speaking of the history of criminology, I thought Bob Bursik gave an excellent presidential address this year in which he talked about resurrecting the "dead sea scrolls" of important yet forgotten older criminological works. He criticized the field for being selectively biased towards the work of more recent and "popular" criminologists. He also criticized the idea of having the number of publications being a measure of success for academics in the field. Give me a research with just four important publications, he says, and I'll take that person any day over one who pumps several out each year. The way I'd interpret it is that he was calling for criminologists to temper their egos and remember the Biblical words that "there is nothing new under the sun". He talked about several examples of forgotten criminologists such as Solomon Kobrin, Herbert Bloch (for whom he says actually anticipated most of the ideas of Sampson and Laub interestingly enough), and Ruth Shonle Cavan. I can't wait to read his speech when it appears in the issue of Criminology.
Again, another successful year of ASC. It was intellectually stimulating, exciting, tiring, and fun all at the same time. I have many more thoughts and there were several other interesting sessions and topics that I heard but time permits me from going on tonight. I may write more on my thoughts on this year's ASC in another blog. I'm looking forward to ASC 2009 in Philadelphia!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)