|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The goal of this research by Piper was to examine the relationship between chronicity of offending and violent recidivism in juvenile offenders.
METHODOLOGY:
The author conducted a secondary analysis of longitudinal data from the 1958 Philadelphia cohort study by Tracy et al. (1985). The 4,315 subjects included in the study were all born in 1958, and lived in Philadelphia between the ages of 10 and 17 years. Delinquency was measured with reference to police contacts, by matching subjects' name, birth date, race and sex to records of the Juvenile Aid Division of the Philadelphia Police Department. Offense histories were collected, with each offense being coded for the five most serious charges on the basis of Police Investigative Reports and Arrest Reports. Offense seriousness was also coded, by examining intimidation, number of injured victims, number of properties broken into, amount of theft or damage, and number of cars stolen. Offenses were divided into two groups - index and nonindex - using the Uniform Crime Reports and the Sellin-Wolfgang system. Uniform Crime Reports index offenses included homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft and auto theft, and offenses were coded for the most serious charge only. The Sellin-Wolfgang system classified index offenses as those which involved injury, theft or damage. Seriousness of offenses was also determined, using weights derived from the National Survey of Crime Severity. The author defined violence as any crime causing bodily injury, or a crime of homicide, rape, robbery or aggravated assault. A juvenile was defined as a chronic recidivist if he had five or more offenses, and non-chronic offenders were those juveniles with two to four offenses. Socioeconomic status was constructed from data from the 1970 Philadelphia census, and was drawn from the following indicators: median family income, per cent below median Philadelphia income, the logs of the odds of being below the poverty line and of being on welfare, number of households with females at the head, unemployment percentages, percentage of population in blue-collar jobs and number of people 18 years of age and over with fewer than four years of education in high school. Analyses were performed only upon male delinquents, as female numbers were not adequately high. Analysis included calculation of probabilities, comparison of means by t-tests, examination of frequencies and logistic regression analysis.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The author began by calculating the probability of recidivism for violent and nonviolent offenders, broken down into whites and nonwhites. For violent offenders, the probability of recidivism after one offense had been committed was 0.86, whilst the probability for nonviolent first offenders was 0.45. Whilst the likelihood of recidivism increased after each offense for the nonviolent group, it remained fairly stable for the violent group, with a range of from 80% to 87% of offenders recidivating. Little difference was found by race, although there was a tendency for nonwhites to recidivate more than whites. Mean number of offenses were also examined for each group, with violent males committing an average of 6.3 offenses, and nonviolent individuals having an average of 2.2. Violent juveniles began their criminal careers earlier, committed more serious crimes involving more index and nonindex offenses, and were arrested more frequently than their nonviolent counterparts. Of the 1,368 violent offenders, 14% were one-time offenders, 36% were non-chronic and 50% were classified as chronic offenders. These figures compared with 55% of the 2,947 nonviolent offenders being one-timers, 35% being non-chronic and 10% being chronic offenders. 86% of the violent group and only 45% of the nonviolent group recidivated. Violent chronic delinquents accounted for 81% of all the offenses in the violent group, and 46% of all offenses across both groups. In comparison, nonviolent chronic offenders accounted for 34% of crimes in their group, and only 15% of all offenses. It is interesting to note that, while violent non-chronics committed 17% of the crimes in their group, nonviolent non-chronics were responsible for 42% of the offenses in their sub-sample. The violent group as a whole were responsible for 57% of all the offenses committed by this sample. The tendency of violent delinquents to be chronic offenders was found even when race was controlled, although the trend was more evident in nonwhite offenders - 20% of nonwhites were chronic violent offenders and 7% were chronic nonviolent offenders, whilst for the whites, 8% were chronically violent and 7% were chronically nonviolent. Chronic nonwhite violent offenders accounted for 52% of all offenses, while chronic white violent offenders were responsible for 28% of all offenses. Among nonwhites, most offenses were committed by violent offenders; however, for whites, the nonviolent offenders committed most of the crimes. These findings suggested that nonwhites were more likely than whites to be chronic violent offenders. When socioeconomic status was introduced as a control, the results remained primarily the same: about 50% of those in the violent groups were chronic offenders, compared with about 10% of those in the nonviolent groups; also, more of the total number of offenses were committed by the violent than the nonviolent chronic offenders. More of the nonwhite than the white low-SES group were chronic violent offenders, and among white offenders, regardless of SES, nonviolent offenders were responsible for more offenses than were violent offenders. Violent offenders accounted for most of the serious crimes, with nonwhite chronic violent offenders being responsible for 58% of all offenses committed. Violent recidivism was found to be less likely than nonviolent recidivism, and nonwhites were found to be more likely than whites to commit another violent crime: 42% of nonwhites were violent recidivists and committed 70% of the nonwhite violent offenses, compared with 22% of whites being violent recidivists and committing 42% of the white violent crimes. There were fewer violent recidivists and chronic offenders in the high SES groups compared with the lower SES groups for nonwhites. However, high SES whites were more likely than low SES whites to be chronic recidivists. SES was seen as affecting violent recidivism for both races, although violent recidivism, as with chronicity, was still highest for low SES nonwhite offenders. The author then turned to the possibility of prediction of violent recidivism. Regression analyses found that none of the variables could explain enough of the variance in number of offenses committed by violent offenders. However, a linear relationship was found between age of onset of delinquent behavior and number of offenses and violent offenses. Subsequent logistic regression analyses included race, SES, age of onset, seriousness of first violent offense, whether first offense was violent or nonviolent and interactions between these in a model to predict recidivism. Age, race and violent first offense were the only significant factors, although the model was not a good fit to the data, with only 65% of the observations being predicted and high false-positive and false-negative rates. The author concluded that her study could not adequately support the policy of selective incapacitation that the criminal justice system currently employs to incarcerate violent recidivists, and that further study in this field is warranted.
AUTHOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS:
The author suggested that future research should examine the differences between chronic and non-chronic violent offenders, and should use legal variables to study the prediction of violent behavior and the processing of juveniles through the courts.
EVALUATION:
The author presents an interesting examination of violent recidivism in the 1958 Philadelphia cohort. Whilst the key variables are well defined, little information is provided about sample selection and participation, and the use of secondary analysis of report data is also problematic, as the analysis can only be as good as the words of the reports' authors. The results were discussed and sometimes even presented in a highly confusing, repetitive and unclear manner, making interpretation extremely difficult. Few social structural factors are included in the study, and alternative approaches, such as subcultural theories, have not been addressed. A more thorough discussion of the implications of the study would have been helpful, as would have a more clear discussion of conclusions. The confusing nature of this report, and the fact that secondary analysis of report data is used, suggest that the results of this study be considered with some caution. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Pennsylvania
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Offender Recidivism
KW - Longitudinal Studies
KW - Chronic Offender
KW - Life Course
KW - Early Adolescence
KW - Late Adolescence
KW - Cohort Studies
KW - Offender Characteristics |