Abstract
Objectives
This study is an analysis of the relationship between marriage and crime in a high-risk sample of Dutch men and women. Marriages are classified as to whether the spouse had been convicted of a crime prior to the marriage, in order to ascertain if one’s criminal career after marriage unfolds differently depending on the criminal history of one’s spouse.
Methods
Data are from the Criminal Career and Life-Course Study, a random sample of all individuals convicted of a criminal offense in the Netherlands in 1977 (N = 4,615). Lifetime criminal histories for all subjects are constructed from age 12 to calendar year 2003. Official marriage records are also consulted, and the criminal history of all spouses are similarly constructed. Fixed-effects Poisson models are estimated to quantify the relationship between marriage, spousal criminality, and conviction frequency, controlling for age, parenthood, prior conviction, and prior incarceration.
Results
Among men, marriage reduces the frequency of criminal conviction, but only if the marriage is to a non-convicted spouse. Marriage to a convicted spouse, on the other hand, is indistinguishable from singlehood—it neither discourages nor promotes criminal behavior. Among women, marriage has a crime-reducing effect, regardless of the criminal history of the spouse. A set of preliminary follow-up analyses suggests further that men with more extensive criminal histories, and with more stable marriages, benefit in a more pronounced way from marriage to a non-convicted spouse. However, even unstable marriages to non-convicted spouses appear to reduce conviction frequency while they last.
Conclusions
Marriage is indeed a salient transition in the criminal career, but there are important differences depending on the characteristics of the offender (gender, criminal history), the characteristics of the spouse (criminal history), and the characteristics of the marriage (duration). The authors conclude that while marriage matters, it does not necessarily mean the end of a criminal career, and that processes of both partner selection and partner influence deserve close attention by marriage-crime researchers. Qualifications of the study’s findings include the use of conviction data from official sources, the use of a sample of men and women who were all convicted of a crime at some point in their lives, the study of legal marriage in the Netherlands, and the inability to measure potential mechanisms for the observed marriage effects.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In the Dutch criminal justice system, the public prosecutor has the discretionary power not to prosecute all cases forwarded by the police. First, the public prosecutor may decide to drop the case if prosecution would probably not lead to conviction due to lack of evidence, or for technical considerations (procedural or technical waiver). Second, the public prosecutor is authorized to waive prosecution “for reasons of public interest” (waiver for policy considerations). The Board of Prosecutors-General has issued national prosecution guidelines under which a public prosecutor may decide to waive a case for policy reasons. In some cases measures other than penal sanctions are preferable or more effective, or prosecution would be disproportionately unjust or ineffective in relation to the nature of the offense or the offender, or prosecution would be contrary to the interest of the state or the victim (Tak 2003).
The mean age in 1977 is older than the peak of the well-known age-crime curve. This is because the CCLS contains data on criminal convictions rather than arrests, which will lead to a slightly older sample. On average, the CCLS offenders have been followed for 32 years (min = 1, max = 60). The sample size varies across ages. For example, at age 12, the data contain information on all 4,615 individuals. The sample drops at age 22 (4,605), age 32 (4,547), age 42 (4,255), age 62 (788), and age 72 (245).
Most of the subjects in our sample—76 %—marry only once.
The fixed-effects Poisson model proceeds by maximizing the conditional likelihood, where conditioning is achieved by summing across each individual’s T i observations on the dependent variable. This technically makes it a conditional fixed-effects model. Therefore it necessarily excludes individuals whose observations (here, total number of convictions) sum to zero during the period of observation, resulting in the loss of degrees of freedom. In our model, 3,356 of the 4,191 men (80 %) are retained, whereas 173 of the 424 women (41 %) are retained.
The first order-lags, Con i,t−1 and Inc i,t−1, capture recency in criminal offending and are binary while the second-order lags, AccumCon i,t−2 and AccumInc i,t−2, capture the accumulated criminal history and are non-binary. By including both types of variables we can distinguish the short-term, state-dependent effects of criminal conviction and incarceration from the long-term effects.
Note that the estimates yield average reductions over the entire span of marriage. However, some subjects (i.e., those who were older in 1977) are in the analysis for more years than others. To test the sensitivity of the results, we estimated the models by limiting attention to discrete post-marriage intervals: the first 1, 5, and 10 years of the first marriage. To be able to compare married and unmarried persons, singles were followed until the mean age of first marriage plus respectively 1, 5, or 10 years. Importantly, for males and females alike, the findings are replicated when a limited number of post-marriage years are considered.
At the request of an anonymous reviewer, we also investigated cohort effects. Cohabitation has become much more widespread over the last decades. Therefore, the effects of marriage may have changed over time. We limited this investigation to male subjects, as the results for females did not exhibit sensitivity to birth cohort. We began by stratifying the men into one of three cohorts based on their birth year (1907–1945, 1946–1955, 1956–1965), and then constructed separate marriage indicators for each cohort to include into the fixed-effects Poisson model. Interestingly, for the earliest cohort, the coefficient for marriage was positive and statistically significant, while it was negative and significant for the last two cohorts. This suggests that, relative to singlehood, marriage to a non-convicted spouse increases in salience and desistance potential over time. In the earliest cohort, in fact, these marriages appear to be criminogenic. However, the contrasting coefficient for marriage to a convicted spouse was positive and significant for all three cohorts, indicating that marriage to a non-convicted spouse is more beneficial compared to marriage to a convicted spouse, irrespective of cohort. An additionally interesting result was that, for the latest cohort only, marriage to a convicted spouse was associated with a significant reduction in convictions compared to being single. This suggests that even marriage to a convicted spouse possesses desistance potential in later cohorts (but not as much potential as marriage to a non-convicted spouse). The finding that the crime-reducing impact of marriage becomes stronger over time is in line with the study of Bersani et al. (2009). They argue that the quality and stability of recent marriages may be higher, because these marriages are often preceded by cohabitation. Cohabitation is considered to be a testing phase, and marriage a further investment in the relationship.
References
Akers RJ (1973) Deviant behavior. A social learning approach. Wadsworth Publishing Co, Belmont
Bersani BE, Laub JH, Nieuwbeerta P (2009) Marriage and desistance from crime in the Netherlands: do gender and socio-historical context matter? J Quant Criminol 25:3–24
Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed effects estimators in the context of criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417
Blokland AAJ, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology 43:1203–1240
Blokland AAJ, Nagin DS, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction cohort. Criminology 43:919–954
Brame R, Paternoster R, Mazerolle P, Piquero A (1998) Testing for the equality of maximum-likelihood regression coefficients between two independent samples. J Quant Criminol 14:245–261
Brines J, Joyner K (1999) The ties that bind: principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. Am Sociol Rev 64:333–355
Capaldi DM, Kim HK, Owen LD (2008) Romantic partners’ influence on men’s likelihood of arrest in early adulthood. Criminology 46:267–299
Farrington DP, West DJ (1995) Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. In: Blau ZS, Hagan J (eds) Current perspectives on aging and the life cycle, vol 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 249–281
Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL (2002) Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107:990–1064
Giordano PC, Schroeder RD, Cernkovich SA (2007) Emotions and crime over the life course: a neo-Meadian perspective on criminal continuity and change. Am J Sociol 112:1603–1661
Halaby CN (2004) Panel models in sociological research: theory into practice. Annu Rev Sociol 30:507–544
Haynie DL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, Longmore MA (2005) Adolescent romantic relationships and delinquency involvement. Criminology 43:177–210
Heckman JJ, Hotz VJ (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84:862–874
Horney JD, Osgood W, Haen Marshall I (1995) Criminal careers in the short-term: intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. Am Sociol Rev 60:655–673
Johnson DR (1995) Alternative methods for the quantitative analysis of panel data in family research: pooled time-series models. J Marriage Fam 57:1065–1077
Kalmijn M (1998) Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns and trends. Annu Rev Sociol 24:395–421
Kalmijn M (2002) Sociologische analyses van levensloopeffecten: een overzicht van economische, sociale en culturele gevolgen. [Sociological analyses of life course effects: an overview of economic, social, and cultural consequences]. Bevolking en Gezin 31:3–46
King RD, Massoglia M, MacMillan R (2007) The context of marriage and crime: gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology 45:33–65
Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Laub JH, Nagin DS, Sampson RJ (1998) Trajectories of change in criminal offending: good marriages and the desistance process. Am Sociol Rev 63:225–238
Leverentz AM (2006) The love of a good man? Romantic relationships as a source of support or hindrance for female ex-offenders. J Res Crime Delinq 43:459–488
Liefbroer AC, Dykstra PA (2000) Levenslopen in verandering: een studie naar ontwikkelingen in de levenslopen van Nederlanders geboren tussen 1900 en 1970. [Life courses in change: a study of the developments in life courses of the Dutch born between 1900 and 1970]. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag
Moffitt TE (1993) Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited anti-social behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychol Rev 100:674–701
Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Rutter M, Silva PA (2001) Sex differences in antisocial behaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32:581–606
Nieuwbeerta P, Blokland AAJ (2003) Criminal careers of adult Dutch offenders (codebook and documentation). NSCR, Leiden
Nieuwbeerta P, Nagin DS, Blokland AAJ (2009) Assessing the impact of first-time imprisonment on offenders’ subsequent criminal career development: a matched samples comparison. J Quant Criminol 25:227–339
Piquero AR, Blumstein A, Brame R, Haapanen R, Mulvey EP, Nagin DS (2001) Assessing the impact of exposure time and incapacitation on longitudinal trajectories of criminal offending. J Adolesc Res 16:54–74
Piquero AlexR, Brame Robert, Mazerolle Paul, Haapanen Rudy (2002) Crime in emerging adulthood. Criminology 40:137–169
Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm. Crime Justice Rev Res 30:359–506
Rhule-Louie DM, McMahon RJ (2007) Problem behavior and romantic relationships: assortative mating, behavior contagion, and desistance. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 10:53–100
Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Sampson RJ, Laub JH, Wimer C (2006) Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology 44:465–508
Simons RL, Stewart EA, Gordon LC, Conger RD, Elder GH Jr (2002) A test of life-course explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior from adolescence to young adulthood. Criminology 40:401–434
Steffensmeier D, Allan E (1996) Gender and crime: toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annu Rev Sociol 22:459–487
Tak PJP (2003) The Dutch criminal justice system: organization and operation. Boom Legal Publishers, Meppel
Theobald D, Farrington DP (2011) Why do the crime-reducing effects of marriage vary with age? Br J Criminol 51:136–158
Uggen C, Kruttschnitt C (1998) Crime in the breaking: gender differences in desistance. Law Soc Rev 32:339–366
Waite LJ (1995) Does marriage matter? Demography 32:483–507
Waite LJ, Gallagher M (2000) The case for marriage: why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. Doubleday, New York
Warr M (1998) Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology 36:183–215
Warr M (2002) Companions in crime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Western B (2006) Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation, New York
Woodward LJ, Fergusson DM, Horwood JL (2002) Deviant partner involvement and offending risk in early adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 43:177–190
Wright BRE, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Silva PA (2001) The effects of social ties on crime vary by criminal propensity: a life course model of interdependence. Criminology 39:321–350
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Schellen, M., Apel, R. & Nieuwbeerta, P. “Because You’re Mine, I Walk the Line”? Marriage, Spousal Criminality, and Criminal Offending Over the Life Course. J Quant Criminol 28, 701–723 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9174-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9174-x