INVESTIGATING THE STABILITY OF CO‐OFFENDING AND CO‐OFFENDERS AMONG A SAMPLE OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS*

Scholars have long argued that delinquency is a group phenomenon. Even so, minimal research exists on the nature, structure, and process of co‐offending. This investigation focuses on a particular void, namely the stability of 1) co‐offending and 2) co‐offender selection over time, for which divergent theoretical expectations currently exist that bear on issues central to general and developmental/life‐course theories of crime. By relying on individual‐level, longitudinal data for a sample of juvenile offenders from Philadelphia, we find that distinct trajectories of co‐offending exist over the course of the juvenile criminal career. This inquiry also develops an individualized measure of co‐offender stability, which reveals that delinquents generally tend not to “reuse” co‐offenders, although frequent offenders show a greater propensity to do so. The discussion considers the theoretical and policy implications of these findings as well as provides some avenues for future research.     

IT WAS MY IDEA: CONSIDERING THE INSTIGATION OF CO‐OFFENDING*

More than twenty years ago, Albert Reiss (1988) recognized that some individuals are responsible for instigating group offending, whereas others follow accomplices into crime (or offend alone). Since this initial discussion by Reiss, however, little clarity has emerged regarding the factors that predict or explain the instigation of co‐offending. Specifically, some literature has suggested that the tendency to instigate varies systematically across individuals, such that chronic or serious offenders are more likely to instigate group crime. Instigation also may vary across crime types (i.e., within‐individuals), according to whether individuals have crime‐specific skill or experience. Using data from inmates in the Colorado Department of Corrections to investigate these hypotheses, the results reveal that individuals with earlier ages of criminal onset are more likely to report they instigate group crime, net of controls. At the same time, indicators of crime‐specific expertise predict the tendency to instigate group crime. The Discussion section considers the implications of these results and offers directions for future research.     

DOES ECONOMIC ADVERSITY BREED CRIMINAL COOPERATION? CONSIDERING THE MOTIVATION BEHIND GROUP CRIME

The fact that most offenders have accomplices at some point in their criminal career is curious, given the risks associated with criminal cooperation. McCarthy, Hagan, and Cohen ( 1998 ) offered the first formal theory of the decision to co‐offend, which addressed explicitly the uncertainties attached to the decision to engage in group crime. They posited that when offenders experience adversity, they become more risk seeking and oriented toward the chance for potential gain, which essentially outweighs the uncertainties attached to criminal cooperation. McCarthy, Hagan, and Cohen's analysis of street youth offered some empirical support for their premise but left open many important questions. The current study uses data from two different samples of incarcerated felons in Nebraska (N = 321 offenders) and Colorado (N = approximately 1,120 observations nested within approximately 640 offenders) that provide information on different forms of economic adversity. Logistic regression models provide some evidence for the association between adversity and co‐offending, but they are inconsistent. In contrast, a preference for excitement is a consistent and powerful predictor of offending.     

Prevalence and Characteristics of Co‐Offending Recruiters

Previous examinations of co‐offending have identified a subset of high‐rate offenders who commit crimes with a large number of co‐offenders, most of whom are younger and less criminally experienced. These so‐called “recruiters” are of particular interest to researchers and practitioners, because of their potential role in facilitating offending onset and recidivism among their co‐offenders. In this paper, data on 61,646 individuals detected by a large UK police force are used to identify offenders who fitted the recruiter profile, and to compare their individual and offending characteristics with those of non‐recruiters. In total, 86 recruiters were identified. In multivariate analyses, recruiters were found to be older than non‐recruiters and were typically involved in property crimes. In addition, they tended to offend in criminal groups that were more heterogeneous and stable than non‐recruiters. These findings suggest that a small but identifiable group of recruiters can be detected using official data and that these individuals may be important targets for police attention and court treatment.     

CO‐OFFENDING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DELINQUENT CAREER*

This article examines the role of co‐offending in the development of the delinquent career. Hypotheses derived from Reiss's (1986, 1988) taxonomic theory of co‐offending are tested, using police‐reported data on the delinquent careers and co‐offending of 55,336 Canadian offenders. Support is found for a taxonomic theory and for age‐related and functional theories of co‐offending. The taxonomy consists of two types of offenders—high activity (3 percent) and low activity (97 percent)—whose co‐offending patterns differ during the teenage years but not during childhood. For low‐activity offenders as teenagers, the proportion of co‐offenses decreases with criminal experience. The rate of co‐offending by high‐activity offenders as teenagers is lower at onset than for low‐activity offenders, and it varies little with criminal experience. For both offender types, the proportion of co‐offenses decreases with age, is slightly less in males, and varies with the type of offense. For both offender types, the proportion of co‐offenses in childhood offending is greater than in the teenage years and is unrelated to the offender's age or criminal experience.     

GENERAL ASSESSMENTS AND THRESHOLDS FOR CHRONIC OFFENDING: AN ENRICHED PARADIGM FOR EXPLAINING CRIME

General assessments refer to individuals’ overall judgment of their standing on broad dimensions that have special relevance for the explanation of crime, such as their overall bond to society or their prospects for success. These assessments are partly a function of the independent variables that are commonly considered in contemporary crime theories and quantitative research. But these standard etiological variables are far from fully determinative of general assessments because individuals differ in how they interpret, weigh, and combine their standing along these variables. The social–psychological factors that affect the subjective judgments underlying general assessments have yet to be theorized in any comprehensive, systematic manner. Nevertheless, we hypothesize that the incorporation of general assessments in models of offending will greatly enhance their explanatory power because these assessments are the most proximate, comprehensive, and personally relevant causes of crime. Moreover, we anticipate that once these assessments reach certain threshold levels, such as the view that bonds to society are severed irreparably or success is beyond reach, they result in a nonlinear jump in the frequency, seriousness, and duration of offending (i.e., chronic offending). A consideration of general assessments and their associated thresholds should therefore substantially improve efforts to explain crime.     

Examining Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests

The War on Drugs popularized a set of policies and practices that dramatically increased the number of drug arrests, particularly for low-level drug offenses. The War’s tactics have affected Americans of every race; however, minorities have been most dramatically affected. There are several explanations for the observed racial disparity in drug arrests, but relatively little research directly tests these explanations. In this study, we test three common explanations of racial disparities in drug arrest rates. We find that racial disparities in drug arrests cannot be explained by differences in drug offending, nondrug offending, or residing in the kinds of neighborhoods likely to have heavy police emphasis on drug offending. Our findings are most consistent with explanations focusing on racial bias in drug sanctions.     

UNPACKING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ADOLESCENT EMPLOYMENT AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR: A MATCHED SAMPLES COMPARISON*

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

MENTORS AND CRIMINAL ACHIEVEMENT*

Much of the research focusing on conventional occupations concludes that mentored individuals are more successful in their careers than those who are not mentored. Early research in criminology made a similar claim. Yet contemporary criminology has all but ignored mentors. We investigate this oversight, drawing on Sutherland's insights on tutelage and criminal maturation and incorporating ideas on human and social capital. We argue that mentors play a key role in their protégés' criminal achievements and examine this hypothesis with data from a recent survey of incarcerated adult male offenders in the Canadian province of Quebec. In this sample, a substantial proportion of respondents reported the presence of an influential individual in their lives who introduced them to a criminal milieu and whom they explicitly regarded as a mentor. After studying the attributes of offenders and their mentors, we develop a causal framework that positions criminal mentor presence within a pathway that leads to greater benefits and lower costs from crime.     

Toward a control theory of white-collar offending

In this study, Hirschi's control theory was conceptually developed and empirically tested as a rationale for white-collar offending. The data were gathered from a sample of 435 executives who were employees of a multinational automobile manufacturer. Results suggest that factors within the corporation such as managerial attachments, work commitment and involvement, and belief in corporate rules significantly affect individual rates of executive self-reported offending. In particular, those executives who possessed the strongest bond to their manager, their co-workers, and the corporation itself were least likely to report having engaged in a white-collar crime. Theoretical implications of these findings and how they relate to extant theories of white-collar criminality are discussed.Portions of this paper were presented at the 39th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Montreal, November 16, 1987.     

Family Group Conferencing and Re‐Offending Among First‐Time Juvenile Offenders: The Indianapolis Experiment

Restorative justice processes, and family group conferences in particular, have become increasingly common in justice system practices across the globe. There has also been significant scholarly interest. Yet, with several notable exceptions, much of the research has been characterized by relatively weak designs, and questions related to the impact of family group conferences on re‐offending remain unanswered. This research is intended to begin to address these issues. The study is based on an experiment conducted in Indianapolis, Indiana whereby young, first‐time‐offending youths were randomly assigned to either a family group conference or one of a number of court‐ordered diversion programs. Nearly 800 youths participated in the experiment, and the cases were tracked for 24 months following their initial arrest. Survival analysis techniques were used to compare prevalence patterns of re‐offending among the treatment and control groups. The results indicated a significant difference between the two groups with the control group experiencing higher rates of failure (re‐offending). The differences were most pronounced during the period of 3–8 months following the initial arrest. Incidence rates were also compared. Assignment to the treatment group was negatively related to incidence of offending. Given the consistent finding of victim benefits in restorative justice processes, the results suggest that conferences hold promise as an effective intervention, at least for young first‐time offenders, and warrant continued experimentation.