Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 701–723 | Cite as

“Because You’re Mine, I Walk the Line”? Marriage, Spousal Criminality, and Criminal Offending Over the Life Course

  • Marieke van Schellen
  • Robert Apel
  • Paul Nieuwbeerta
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Marriage Spousal criminality Criminal convictions Life-course criminology Panel models 

References

  1. Akers RJ (1973) Deviant behavior. A social learning approach. Wadsworth Publishing Co, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 25:3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjerk D (2009) How much can we trust causal interpretations of fixed effects estimators in the context of criminality? J Quant Criminol 25:391–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blokland AAJ, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology 43:1203–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blokland AAJ, Nagin DS, Nieuwbeerta P (2005) Life span offending trajectories of a Dutch conviction cohort. Criminology 43:919–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 14:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brines J, Joyner K (1999) The ties that bind: principles of cohesion in cohabitation and marriage. Am Sociol Rev 64:333–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capaldi DM, Kim HK, Owen LD (2008) Romantic partners’ influence on men’s likelihood of arrest in early adulthood. Criminology 46:267–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 249–281Google Scholar
  10. Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Rudolph JL (2002) Gender, crime, and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation. Am J Sociol 107:990–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 112:1603–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Halaby CN (2004) Panel models in sociological research: theory into practice. Annu Rev Sociol 30:507–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haynie DL, Giordano PC, Manning WD, Longmore MA (2005) Adolescent romantic relationships and delinquency involvement. Criminology 43:177–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 84:862–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 60:655–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson DR (1995) Alternative methods for the quantitative analysis of panel data in family research: pooled time-series models. J Marriage Fam 57:1065–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalmijn M (1998) Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns and trends. Annu Rev Sociol 24:395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 31:3–46Google Scholar
  19. King RD, Massoglia M, MacMillan R (2007) The context of marriage and crime: gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology 45:33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2003) Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Laub JH, Nagin DS, Sampson RJ (1998) Trajectories of change in criminal offending: good marriages and the desistance process. Am Sociol Rev 63:225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 43:459–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 HaagGoogle Scholar
  24. Moffitt TE (1993) Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited anti-social behavior: a developmental taxonomy. Psychol Rev 100:674–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Rutter M, Silva PA (2001) Sex differences in antisocial behaviour. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nagin DS, Paternoster R (1994) Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32:581–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nieuwbeerta P, Blokland AAJ (2003) Criminal careers of adult Dutch offenders (codebook and documentation). NSCR, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 25:227–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 16:54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piquero AlexR, Brame Robert, Mazerolle Paul, Haapanen Rudy (2002) Crime in emerging adulthood. Criminology 40:137–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Piquero AR, Farrington DP, Blumstein A (2003) The criminal career paradigm. Crime Justice Rev Res 30:359–506Google Scholar
  32. Rhule-Louie DM, McMahon RJ (2007) Problem behavior and romantic relationships: assortative mating, behavior contagion, and desistance. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 10:53–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sampson RJ, Laub JH (1993) Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Sampson RJ, Laub JH, Wimer C (2006) Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology 44:465–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 40:401–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steffensmeier D, Allan E (1996) Gender and crime: toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annu Rev Sociol 22:459–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tak PJP (2003) The Dutch criminal justice system: organization and operation. Boom Legal Publishers, MeppelGoogle Scholar
  38. Theobald D, Farrington DP (2011) Why do the crime-reducing effects of marriage vary with age? Br J Criminol 51:136–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uggen C, Kruttschnitt C (1998) Crime in the breaking: gender differences in desistance. Law Soc Rev 32:339–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Waite LJ (1995) Does marriage matter? Demography 32:483–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waite LJ, Gallagher M (2000) The case for marriage: why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Warr M (1998) Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology 36:183–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Warr M (2002) Companions in crime. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Western B (2006) Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Woodward LJ, Fergusson DM, Horwood JL (2002) Deviant partner involvement and offending risk in early adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 43:177–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 39:321–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marieke van Schellen
    • 1
  • Robert Apel
    • 2
  • Paul Nieuwbeerta
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeRutgers UniversityNewarkUSA
  3. 3.Department of CriminologyLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations