Imprisonment and co-offending: results from a 10-year follow-up study

A recurring question in criminological research is whether prisoners meet new accomplices in prison. This article’s objective is to study co-offending among individuals who have served prison sentences. The frequency of co-offending among individuals who have been in the same prison at the same time will be examined. If gender, age, type of prison, offence type and prior experience of co-offending are significant for this type of co-offending will also be examined. The study population comprised all inmates released from a Swedish prison during a half year in 2001–2002 (n = 3.930). The follow-up period is 10 years. The results show that only 3% of those who have been in the same prison at the same time are suspected of committing offences together subsequent to release. The likelihood of being suspected of committing an offence together following the conclusion of a joint stay in the same prison is higher for those released from a closed prison who are aged 31–40, and who had committed large proportion of their offences together with others prior to the relevant prison sentence. The results suggest that the concept of criminal capital is not important for future co-offending after a joint stay in prison.     

The natural history of extended co-offending

Most criminal acts are committed in very small groups or alone, and are repeated sporadically. But that is not always the case. Co-offending can include larger groups, cooperating sequentially or simultaneously, knowing each other or at least knowing about one another. We may use the term “extended co-offending” to subsume varieties of crime organization, crime networks, gangs, and criminal clusters. Extended co-offending also includes vaguely organized crime repetitions, and is a matter of degree. Criminal cooperation can be extended in time, space, numbers of persons involved, and types of criminal action. The extension process has a very wide span of possibilities. Drawing ideas from Max Weber and others, this paper suggests that the natural history of criminal cooperation progresses in four stages, with steeply decreasing prevalence: (1) primordial clusters of offenders, (2) small-scale charismatic leadership of offenders, (3) a medium-scale patrimonial system of offenders, and (4) and an extended patrimonial system of criminal cooperation. Primordial co-offending occurs on a very local level, with little or no hierarchy or systematic repetition. Extended criminal cooperation usually requires personal trust among offenders, favoring patrimony over formal organization.     

Ethnicity and Violent Crime: The Ethnic Structure of Networks of Youths Suspected of Violent Offences in Stockholm

This study employs network analysis in order to study patterns of co-offending among youths suspected of violent offences in Stockholm. The study's objective is to examine the ethnic structure of relations among persons suspected of committing violent offences together. The Swedish media have presented information suggesting that violent conflicts between Swedish youths and youths with an immigrant background, based on ethnic conflicts between these groups, are common. The study also discusses the relevance of this image. The study's findings show that violent offences committed by youths in Stockholm are of an ethnically heterogeneous character. At the same time there is a tendency for marginalized and segregated ethnic groups to join together to some extent. The findings may be interpreted as indicating that youth violence in Stockholm today is characterized by ethnic diversity, but that increased ethnic segregation may lead to an increase in the level of ethnically related violent crime. Apparently there is a perception that ethnic conflicts do occur, which persists despite the fact that such conflicts are not common. It is of concern that the occurrence of such perceptions, not least in the Swedish media, may lead to an increase in the level of conflicts of this kind.1 ¹The author would like to thank David Shannon for his translation of the text.      

The networks of drug offenders

The serious drug and drug smuggling offenders active in Stockholm are linked by means of co-offending to other persons in large criminal networks. Within these networks, the individuals have large numbers of superficial and transient contacts with one another. It appears to be particularly important to have contacts with other drug offenders throughout Sweden, and particularly in the Skåne region. The majority of the convicted drug offenders have a Nordic background. The study indicates that dealers in the Stockholm area know drug smugglers in Sweden’s metropolitan areas. In their turn, the drug smugglers in the metropolitan areas have contacts with persons involved in the smuggling of other goods primarily in the county of Skåne. A large proportion of the persons included in the data set were suspected of committing drug offences and appear to be focused to some extent on drug offending and on offences involving one or two illicit substances. They also engage in other types of criminal activity to a large extent, however, and are thus not exclusively specialised in drug offending. Persons involved in serious drug crime, including drug smuggling, are often males in their thirties. These individuals often choose other males as co-offenders. It is generally common to commit drug offences together with co-offenders and the most criminally active individuals are also those with the largest numbers of co-offenders. The co-offending partnerships that commit drug offences are not particularly durable over time, however, and it is unusual for drug offenders to restrict themselves to committing offences with one and the same co-offender.     

Partners in crime? Post-release recidivism among solo and co-offenders in Norway

ABSTRACT

Co-offending may increase offenders’ criminal capital in ways that impact their subsequent offending behaviour, and while highly theorized, the relationship between co-offending and reoffending has received less attention in empirical research. This study relies on Norwegian registry data to explore patterns of registered co- and solo offending before and after offenders’ first release from prison, by assessing differences in total, solo and co-reoffending between (1) co-offenders and solo offenders and (2) co-offenders embedded in different co-offending networks. The sample is based on 10 complete release cohorts, and co-offending networks are constructed from 22 years of administrative police data. Egocentric network analysis is used to obtain measures of degree centrality and tie strength. Results show that recidivism rates are higher among individuals with a co-offending network at release, and there is a consistent, positive relationship between degree centrality and reoffending. There is also a positive correlation between time spent in prison and the likelihood of co-offending after release, but there are no incidents of repeated co-offending (i.e. reoffending with co-offenders acquired before incarceration). The analysis hereby confirms several well-known patterns of co-offending in a new national context and highlights how incarceration can shape the nature and longevity of egocentric co-offending network ties.