Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 175–196 | Cite as

A Longitudinal Study of Escalation in Crime Seriousness

Original Paper

Abstract

Escalation in crime seriousness over the criminal lifecourse continues to be an important issue to study in criminal careers. Quantitative research in this area has not yet been well developed owing to the difficulty of measuring crime seriousness and the complexity of escalation trajectories. In this paper we suggest that there are two types of escalation process—escalation associated with experience of the criminal justice process, and escalation associated with age and maturation. Using the 1953 birth cohort from the England and Wales Offenders Index followed up to 1999, and a recently developed seriousness scale of offenses, we constructed the individual sequences of seriousness scores from conviction to conviction. These individual sequences were then analyzed using a variety of longitudinal mixed models, with age, number of conviction occasions, sex and number of offenses used as covariates. The results suggest that ageing is associated with de-escalation whereas the number of conviction occasions are associated with escalation, with the two processes pulling in different directions. This conceptual framework helps to disentangle previously contradictory results in the escalation literature.

Keywords

Escalation Aggravation Longitudinal data analysis Mixed effects models 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support of ESRC who funded this work under the National Centre for Research Methods Initiative (grant number RES-576-25-0019). We also wish to thank the referees and editors for valuable comments.

References

  1. Beck V, Ramsey RJ, Lipps TR, Travis L (2006) Juvenile diversion: an outcome study of the Hamilton County, Ohio unofficial juvenile community courts. Juv Fam Court J 57(2):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop YM, Fienberg SE, Holland PW (1975) Discrete multivariate analysis: theory and practice. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Das S, Moitra SD (1988) Specialization and seriousness during adult criminal careers. J Quant Criminol 4:303–345Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein A, Cohen J, Roth J, Visher CA (eds) (1986) Criminal careers and “career criminals”, vol 1. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. Blumstein A, Farrington D, Moitra S (1985) Delinqency careers: innocents, desisters, and persisters. In: Tonry M, Morris N (eds) Crime and justice: an annual review of research, vol 6. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Blumstein A, Nakamura K (2009) Redemption in the presence of widspread criminal background chesks. Criminology 47(2):327–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Britt CL (1996) The measurement of specialization and escalation in the criminal career: An alternative modeling strategy. J Quant Criminol 12:193–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruschke J, Loges W (2004) Free press vs. fair trials: examining publicity’s role in trial outcomes. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrington PJ, Matarazzo A, DeSouza P (2005) Court careers of a Canadian birth cohort. Technical Report 85-561-MIE 006, Canadian Centre for Justice StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  10. Caussinus H (1966) Contribution à l’analyse statistique des tableaux de corrélation. Ann Fac Sci Univ Toulouse 29:77–182Google Scholar
  11. Datesman S, Aickin M (1984) Offense specialization and escalation among status offenders. J Crim Law Criminol 75(4):1246–1275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diggle P (1990) Time series: a biostatistical introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Diggle P, Heagerty P, Liang K-Y, Zeger S (2002) Analysis of longitudinal sata, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Ewens W, Grant G (2005) Statistical methods in bioinformatics. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farrington D (1986) Stepping stones to adult criminal careers. In: Olweus D, Block J, Radke-Yarrow M (eds) Development of antisocial and prosocial behaviour: research, theories and issues. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  16. Firestone P, Kingston DA, Wexler A, Bradford JM (2006) Long-term follow-up of exhibitionists: Psychological, phallometric, and offense characteristics. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34(3):349–359Google Scholar
  17. Florida Department of Corrections (2009) Florida criminal punishment code—scoresheet preparation manual. http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/sen_cpcm/cpc_manual.pdf
  18. Francis B, Soothill K, Dittrich R (2001) A new approach for ranking ‘serious’ offences: the use of paired-comparisons methodology. Br J Criminol 41:726–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Francis B, Soothill K, Humphreys L, Bezzina A (2005) Developing measures of severity and frequency of reconviction. http://www.maths.lancs.ac.uk/~francisb/seriousnessreport.pdf
  20. Home Office (1998) The Offenders Index: codebook. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/oicodes.pdf
  21. Kurlychek MC, Brame R, Bushway SD (2007) Enduring risk? old criminal records and predictions of future criminal involvement. Crime Delinq 53(1):64–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kyvsgaard B (2003) The criminal career: the Danish longitudinal study. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Blanc M, Frèchette M (1989) Male criminal activity from childhood through youth. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Le Blanc M, Loeber R (1998) Developmental criminology updated. In: Tonry M (eds) Crime and justice: a review of research, vol 23. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Loeber R, Farrington D, Stouthamer-Loeber M, Moffit T, Caspi A (1998) The development of male offending: key findings from the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Stud Crime Crime Prev 3:197–247Google Scholar
  26. Marquardt DW (1970) Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics 12(3):591–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moitra SD (1981) Analysis of sentencing policies considering crime swithing patterns and imprisonment constraints. PhD thesis, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar
  28. Osgood D, Schreck C (2007) A new method for studying the extent, stability, and predictors of individual specialization in violence. Criminology 45(2):273–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piquero AR (2004) Somewhere between persistence and desistence: the intermittency of criminal careers. In: Maruna S, Immarigeon R (eds) After crime and punishment: pathways to offender reintegration. Willan, Cullompton, pp 102–128Google Scholar
  30. Piquero AR, Blumstein A, Brame R, Haapanen R, Mulvey E, Nagin D (2001) Assessing the impact of exposure time and incapacitation on longitudinal trajectories on criminal offending. J Adolesc Res 16:54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piquero AR, Farrington DR, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm. Crime Justice 30:359–506Google Scholar
  32. Ramchand R, MacDonald JM, Haviland A, Morral AR (2009) A developmental approach for measuring the severity of crimes. J Quant Criminol 25(2):129–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reilly B, Witt R (1996) Crime, deterrence and unemployment in England and Wales: an empirical analysis. Bull Econ Res 48:137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rojek DG, Erikson ML (1982a) Delinquent careers: a test of the careers escalation model. Criminology 20:5–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rojek DG, Erikson ML (1982b) Reforming the juvenile justice system: the diversion of status offenders. Law Soc Rev 16(2):241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sample LL, Bray TM (2003) Are sex offenders dangerous? Criminol Public Policy 3(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sheldon GR, Horvath AJ, Tracy S (1987) Do status offenders get worse? Some clarifications on the question of escalation. Crime Delinq 35:202–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sherman L, Schmidt JD, Rogan DP, Gartin P, Cohn EG, Collins D, Bacich AR (1991) From initial deterrence to longterm escalation: short-custody arrest for poverty ghetto domestic violence. Criminology 29(4):821–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sobel ME (1985) Theory, description, and quantification: a note on the use of independence model in mobility research. Sociology 19:437–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sobel ME (1988) Some models for the multiway contingency table with a one-to-one correspondence among categories. Sociol Methodol 18:165–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Soothill K, Francis B (2009) When do ex-offenders become like non-offenders? Howard J Crim Justice 48(4):373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Spelman W (1994) Criminal incapacitation. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Stasinopoulos DM, Rigby RA (1992) Detecting break points in generalised linear models. Comput Stat Data Anal 13(4):461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stine RA (1995) Graphical interpretation of variance inflation factors. Am Stat 49(1):53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tappan PW (1950) The habitual sex offender: report and recommendations of the Commission on Habitual Sex Offenders. Commission on Habitual Sex Offenders, TrentonGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomas P (1978) Plea bargaining in England. J Crim Law Criminol 69(2):170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thurstone LL (1927) The method of paired comparisons for social values. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 21(4):384–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wagner H, Pease K (1978) On adding up scales of offence seriousness. Br J Criminol 18:175–178Google Scholar
  49. Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM, Sellin T (1972) Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Wolfgang ME, Figlio RM, Tracy PE, Singer SJ (1985) The national survey of crime severity (NCJ-96017). US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsLancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations