Free Research Paper on Antisocial Behaviour
Developmental theories of crime explore why some people commit a lifetime of crime while others manage to cease offending. This essay will focus on two of these theories, Moffitt's Dual Pathways Theory and Farrington's Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential Theory. In comparing and contrasting four different categories of delinquent offending including adolescent limited offenders, Life course persistent offenders, short-term offenders and long-term offenders, the risk factors that encourage delinquent offending (such as environment and social circumstances) will be identified, as well as the factors that affect persistence and desistence of criminal activity such as the benefits of employment, marriage and children. The important features of each theory will be described and the strengths and weaknesses will be discussed. Finally this essay will conclude with discussion about how these theories can help develop and implement Primary, Secondary and Tertiary interventions.
The two developmental theories of crime that the writer has selected include Moffitt's dual-pathway developmental theory, and Farrington's ICAP theory. Moffitt's theory has been in progress for at least thirty years and is an ongoing longitudinal study, collecting data from various organisations (Walsh & Ellis, 2007). This theory includes information and data acquired by Moffitt and her colleagues but from the accumulative efforts of many scientists in medicine, biological sub disciplines such as neuroscience, and other social sciences. It is because of the comprehensive wealth of data available that this theory is advantageous over other theories.
Farrington's theory differs from Moffitt's in comparison in that the information gathered is multigenerational. Sample data was collected relating to 411 boys born in 1953, the study included their parents, the boys themselves and their offspring. It considered why antisocial parents are more likely to have antisocial children, how families influence delinquent offending (i.e. pressure from the elder sibling to be antisocial), and what effect there was on the child if their family was `labelled' a criminal family and received undue attention from the Police (Walsh & Ellis, 2007).
The data collected for both of these theories was based on longitudinal studies over a number of years which helps social services to predict who are likely to become recidivist offenders and who are just participating in an adolescent flirtation with crime.
Offenders are categorised by both theorists depending on how long they offend and whether or not they desist. Moffitt's dual-pathway theory categorises adolescent offenders into adolescent limited offenders (AL) and life course persistent offenders (LCP), and Farrington's Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential theory categorises in to short-term and long-term offenders (Walsh & Ellis, 2007).
Moffitt (as cited in Walsh & Ellis, 2007, p.249) describe AL as “normal individuals temporarily derailed during adolescence” - the youth offenders who commit minor crime in their adolescent years but cease offending by the age of 20, and LCP as those who continue to offend as adults, delinquents who have “neurological and temperamental difficulties that are exacerbated by inept parenting” (Walsh & Ellis, 2007, p.249). The latter offenders are a group that started offending prior to puberty and have continued as recidivist offenders into maturity and later life. AL offenders differ from LCP's in their social development because they have competent parents, boundaries and are relatively free from neuropsychological problems. AL offenders make up approximately 90 % of all the adolescent offenders (Walsh & Ellis, 2007) which emphasises the fact that the pressures of adapting to adolescence along with the added peer pressure that is generously added with being a teenager does in fact cause a social phenomenon, the indulgence of criminal acts. Moffitt describes this descent into offending as being “temporarily derailed due to adolescence” (as cited in Walsh & Ellis, 2007, p.244).
As adolescents move through their lifecourse, the need to be autonomous is coupled with the desire to be accepted in to the adult world and attracts AL's to the excitement and financial security that they perceive the LCP personify. They mimic the antisocial traits of the LCP believing that sort of behaviour and action equates to success. Another reason teenagers may develop these temporary antisocial behavioural characteristics is due to social situation, for example living in an isolated town with a small population means that they have no choice but to associate with these delinquents.
Antisocial Potential is defined as “a persons risk or propensity to engage in crime” (Walsh & Ellis, 2007, p.242) and Moffitt explains that LCP's have high antisocial potential risk factors including low IQ, slow heart rate, negative emotions and low impulse control. These risk factors are more prevalent in these individuals as they suffer from neuropsychological and temperamental deficits including combinations of environmental (i.e. single teenage mother; inconsistent discipline; neglect) and genetic dispositions. As the number of predispositions increase so do the cumulative affects on the individual that in turn increases antisocial attitudes and behaviours making a life of crime inevitable (Walsh & Ellis, 2007). LCP offences can include acts such as biting and hitting at age four, to robbery or rape at age 22, and fraud and child abuse at age 30, offences that are mirrored by behavioural habits including stealing, lying, and fighting. LCPs find themselves escalating to bigger and more serious crime as this “antisocial consistency across time and place makes opportunities for change and legitimate success increasingly unlikely for these individuals” (Walsh & Ellis, 2007, p.244).
David Farrington's Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential theory (ICAP) key concepts include `antisocial potential' and `cognition' (the decision making process that transforms potential behaviour into actual behaviour) and categorises delinquent offending in to long-term and short-term. He defines long-term antisocial potential offenders as those who come from poorer families, have low IQ's and are sensation seekers that fail in school and are poorly socialised. The risk of chronic offending across the life course is predominant in those who have six or more of these risk factors and are indicated in the adolescent by their resistance to authority, stealing, excessive drinking and cruelty to animals, and in adults as violence, drugs, unemployment, marital break-ups and reckless driving.
Short-term antisocial potential individuals he believes are people who lack risk factors but are susceptible to temporary antisocial potential in certain circumstances. This may occur when the yearning for acceptance among their peers, material spoils and sexual contentment are prevalent (or when alcohol is consumed or the youth is bored or frustrated) so they choose to satisfy their needs from illegal means (Farrington, 2005). Over time, due to an increase in criminal activity, they may become long term antisocial offenders because the spoils of the crime, the status stowed upon them and acceptance by their peer group make a life of crime more acceptable and rewarding.
Moffitt and Farrington have similar views on which risk factors are attributable to offending and both believe that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), short attention span, impulsiveness and risk taking behaviour (coupled with Conduct Disorder) are prevalent in an adolescent's antisocial potential. Both theories are very restricted in their categorising of offenders though because not all offenders will `fit' within the parameters of AL, LCP, short or long term offenders. For example very few, if any, of the factors they identify should determine whether the delinquent is an Adolescence Limited offender (Moffitt) or a short term antisocial potential offender (Farrington) can be applied to all offenders. From experience I can assert even youth with high IQ's, wealthy families, and regular employment commit offences so both theorists appear limited in their consideration of what constitutes a delinquent.
Desistence is not emphasised by either theorist though they both conclude that the delinquent with no long term risk factors who has a stable family is more likely to cease offending than the offender who believes that they are `owed something' by their dysfunctional family and environmental circumstances.
Being able to control where they live and their environmental circumstances may aid in desistence and both Moffitt and Farrington cite reasons for desistence also include shifting peer groups, gaining employment, getting married, finding a partner or having a family, and that the inevitable maturing of the short term offenders results in their realising that a criminal record would hinder their future (Walsh & Ellis, 2007).
The strengths of Moffitt's theory lie in the clear identification of two distinctive pathways to offending, the specific risk factors that define AL's or LCP offenders and the understanding that there is a direct correlation between age and antisocial behaviour. Moffitt noted that offending is most prevalent when the delinquent is around the age of 17 and that it drops off sharply by the age of 20, stating that “the majority of criminal offenders are teenagers; by the early 20s the number of active offenders decreases by over 50%, and by the age of 28, almost 85% of former delinquents desist from offending” (Blumstein & Cohen, 1987; Farrington 1986, as cited in Moffitt, 1993, p.675). This information provides youth aid agencies with specific age groups to target, and clear risk factors to consider in their planning and implementation of education and diversion programmes. The strengths of Farrington's ICAP theory are that he identifies that an antisocial potential offender makes a conscious decision to commit an offence, and that these decisions are subject to specific social and environmental influences (Walsh & Ellis, 2007).
This information allows agencies to identify youth that may be at risk of becoming offenders, and those short-term offenders who are at risk of becoming long-term offenders. Intervening with prevention programmes such as family group conferences, Child/Youth/Family counselling, and mentoring pathways can help youth to make better decisions because ”the main idea of risk focused prevention is to identify key risk factors for antisocial behaviour and implement prevention methods designed to counteract them” (Farrington, 2005, p.186). There are three levels of interventions: primary, secondary and tertiary (Singh & White, 2000, as cited in CRIM 214).
Primary interventions “aim to prevent offending before it begins” (Singh & White, 2000, as cited in CRIM 214, p.60). This is achieved by addressing known risk factors to these individuals and strengthening protective factors such as self esteem through programmes such as cultural awareness, educational and buddy systems (Welsh et al, 1996, as cited in CRIM 214).
Secondary interventions “target the reduction or avoidance of crime before it reaches the notice of the authorities or becomes more serious” (Singh & White, 2000, as cited in CRIM 214, p.60). Examples of these interventions would include family group conferences and police warnings.
Tertiary interventions are focused on reducing recidivist offending through diversion, prison programmes, counselling and anger management training to “help youth offenders when they are immersed in the system” (Singh & White, 2000, as cited in CRIM 214, p.60).
In conclusion, this essay has explored two developmental theories of crime: Moffitt's dual pathways theory and Farrington's Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential Theory. Both have been compared and contrasted explaining persistence is a consequence of subjection to specific risk factors including low social economic environments, and reasons for desistence in criminal activity include employment, marriage, and family. These theories are limited in that they do not emphasize desistence, but their strength lies in identifying potential offenders allowing social services to establish and implement intervention at a primary, secondary and tertiary level. Finally this essay concludes that both theories share the same fundamental belief that is there is hope that a high percentage of delinquent offenders can be rehabilitated.