The Line‐Item Veto in Georgia: Fiscal Restraint or Inter‐Branch Politics?

This article about use of the line‐item veto in Georgia concludes that the item veto has been used not as an instrument for reducing the budget total or the size of state government, but as an instrument for protecting the executive budget. Using appropriations data and drawing upon interviews with participants in the budget process, including seven governors, the authors present evidence that in Georgia the item veto (1) is not frequently used, (2) when used, is more likely to remove legislative language than delete dollar amounts, and (3) enables the spending priorities and fiscal policy preferences of the governor to prevail as state policy.     

DELINQUENT PEER INFLUENCE ON OFFENDING VERSATILITY: CAN PEERS PROMOTE SPECIALIZED DELINQUENCY?

The consistent and robust relationship between peers and frequency of offending is often cited as evidence that friends play an important role in adolescent behavioral tendencies. But Warr (2002) has argued that the empirical support for peer perspectives remains equivocal in part because research has not demonstrated that individuals and their peers display similarities in the qualitative form of their delinquent behavior (i.e., the tendency to specialize in delinquent acts). By using data from the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) evaluation (N = 1,390) and the National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) (N = 1,848), this study seeks to fill this void in the literature by examining whether having friends who display specialization in specific delinquent acts relative to other offense types predicts an individual's own tendency to display specializing in those same crime types. Consistent with peer influence perspectives, the results of multilevel latent‐trait models (Osgood and Schreck, 2007) suggest that individuals who associate with friends who demonstrate specialization in violence, theft, and substance use are more likely to display greater levels of specialization in those offense types themselves.     

CAN RATIONAL CHOICE BE CONSIDERED A GENERAL THEORY OF CRIME? EVIDENCE FROM INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL PANEL DATA

In the last few decades, rational choice theory has emerged as a bedrock theory in the fields of economics, sociology, psychology, and political science. Although rational choice theory has been available to criminologists for many years now, the field has not embraced it as other disciplines have. Moreover, rational choice scholars have fueled this skepticism of the theory's generality by modeling offender decision making that is one‐sided—large on the costs of crime (sanction threats), short on the benefits of crime. In this article, we directly assess the generality of rational choice theory by examining a fully specified model in a population that is often presumed to be less rational—adolescents from lower socioeconomic families who commit both instrumental (property) and expressive crimes (violence/drugs). By using a panel of N = 1,354 individuals, we find that offending behavior is consistent with rational responses to changes in the perceived costs and benefits of crime even after eliminating fixed unobserved heterogeneity and other time‐varying confounders, and these results are robust across different subgroups. The findings support our argument that rational choice theory is a general theory of crime.     

THE ROLE OF TURNING POINTS IN ESTABLISHING BASELINE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE IN DEVELOPMENTAL AND LIFE‐COURSE CRIMINOLOGY

Turning points, between‐person differences, and within‐person changes have all been linked to desistance from crime. Nevertheless, the means through which between‐person differences are frequently captured in life‐course criminology makes them intertwined with, and perhaps confounded by, turning points in life. We propose that a new way of capturing the between‐person effect—the baseline between‐person difference—could benefit theoretically informed tests of developmental and life‐course issues in criminology. Because they occur at one time point immediately preceding a turning point in life, we demonstrate that baseline between‐person differences establish meaningful theoretical connections to behavior and the way people change over time. By using panel data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, we estimate models capturing within‐person change and baseline between‐person differences in social bonds (family support) and differential association (peer criminality) at the time of release from prison. The results demonstrate that baseline levels of family support protect people from postrelease substance use but not from crime. Baseline between‐person differences and within‐person changes in peer criminality, however, are robustly related to crime and substance use. Collectively, baseline between‐person differences seem critical for behavior and within‐person change over time, and the results carry implications for reentry‐based policy as well as for theory testing in developmental criminology more broadly.