Is the Shape of the Age-Crime Curve Invariant by Sex? Evidence from a National Sample with Flexible Non-parametric Modeling
- 1.7k Downloads
Prior theoretical scholarship makes strong assumptions about the invariance of the age-crime relationship by sex. However, scant research has evaluated this assumption. This paper asks whether the age-crime curve from age 12–30 is invariant by sex using a contemporary, nationally representative sample of youth, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 cohort (NLSY97).
To address the limitations of the existing empirical literature, a novel localized modeling approach is used that does not require a priori assumptions about the shape of the age-crime curve. With a non-parametric method—B-spline regression, the study models self-report criminal behavior and arrest by sex using age as the independent variable, and its cubic spline terms to accommodate different slopes for different phases of the curve.
The study shows that males and females have parallel age-crime curves when modeled with self-report criminal behavior variety score but they have unique age-crime in the frequency of self-report arrest. Group-based trajectory analysis is then used to provide a deeper understanding of heterogeneity underlying the average trends. The onset patterns by sex are quite similar but the post-peak analyses using the early onset sample reveal different patterns of desistance for arrest by sex.
The study found evidence of relatively early and faster desistance of arrest among females but little difference exists for the variety of criminal behaviors. Implications and future directions are discussed.
KeywordsAge-crime curve Sex Non-parametric Spline regression Group-based trajectory modeling
The author would like to thank Shawn Bushway, Justin Pickett and the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for their advice and helpful comments on this research.
- Apel R, Sweeten G (2010) Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In: Weisburd D, Piquero AR (eds) Handbook of quantitative criminology, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Beck AJ, Shipley BE (1989) Recidivism of prisoners released in, 1983. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Bersani BE (2012) An examination of first and second generation immigrant offending trajectories. Justice Q iFirst Article, 1–29Google Scholar
- de Boor C (2001) A practical guide to splines. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- DeFleur LB (1975) Biasing influences on drug arrest records: implications for deviance research. Am Sociol Rev 40(1):88–103Google Scholar
- Edin K, Kefalas M (2005) Promises I can keep: why poor women put motherhood before marriage. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- Farrington DP, West DJ (1995) Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. Curr Perspect Aging Life Cycle 4:249–281Google Scholar
- Fry LJ (1985) Drug abuse and crime a Swedish birth cohort. Br J Criminol 25(1):46–59Google Scholar
- Gibbons JD (1993) Nonparametric statistics: an introduction. SAGE Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
- Gove WR (1985) The effect of age and gender on deviant behavior: a biopsychosocial perspective. In: Rossi A (ed) Gender and the life course. Aldine Publishing Company, HawthorneGoogle Scholar
- Goethals J, Maes E, Klinckhamers P (1997) Sex/gender-based decision-making in the criminal justice system as a possible (additional) explanation for the underrepresentation of women in official criminal statistics—a review of international literature. Int J of Comp and Appl Crim Just 21(2):207–240Google Scholar
- Graham J, Bowling B (1995) Young people and crime. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Greenberg DF (1977) Delinquency and the age structure of society. Crime Law Soc Change 1(2):189–223Google Scholar
- Hardle W, Bowman AW (1988) Bootstrapping in nonparametric regression: local adaptive smoothing and confidence bands. J Am Stat Assoc 83(401):102–110Google Scholar
- Hindelang MJ, Hirschi T, Weis JG (1981) Measuring delinquency. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
- Johnson WT, Petersen RE, Wells LE (1977) Arrest probabilities for marijuana users as indicators of selective law enforcement. Am J Sociol 83(3):681–699Google Scholar
- Keele LJ (2008) Semi parametric regression for the social sciences. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
- Langan PA, Levin DJ (2002) Recidivism of prisoners released in, 1994. U.S. Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statitics, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- Laub JH, Sampson RJ (2001) Understanding desistance from crime. Crime Justice 28:1–69Google Scholar
- Monahan TP (1970) Police dispositions of juvenile offenders: the problems of measurement and a study of Philadelphia data. Phylon (1960) 31(2):129–141Google Scholar
- Moore W, Pedlow S, Krishnamurty P, Wolter K (2000) National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) Technical Sampling ReportGoogle Scholar
- Nagin DS (2005) Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Osborne MR, Presnell B, Turlach BA (1998) Knot selection for regression splines via the LASSO. Comput Sci Stat 30:44–49Google Scholar
- Paternoster R, Bushway S (2009) Desistance and the “feared self”: toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. J Crim Law Criminol 99(4):1103–1156Google Scholar
- Shannon SKS, Adrams LS (2007) Juvenile offenders as fathers: perceptions of fatherhood, crime, and becoming an adult. Fam Soc J Contemp Soc Serv 88(2):183–191Google Scholar
- Skardhamar T, Lyngstad TH (2009) Family formation, fatherhood and crime: an invitation to a broader perspective on crime and family transitions. Discussion Papers No. 579, Statistics Norway, Research DepartmentGoogle Scholar
- Stattin H, Magnusson D, Reichel H (1989) Criminal activity at different ages: a study based on a Swedish longitudinal research population. Br J Criminol 29(4):368–385Google Scholar