The Psychology of Crime, Policing and Courts

Andreas Kapardis, David Farrington, Andreas Kapardis, David P. Farrington

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317395454
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Courts
• Index: Law

This book brings together an international group of experts to present cutting-edge psychological research on crime, policing and courts. With contributors from the UK, Germany, Italy, Norway, Cyprus, Israel, Canada and the USA, this volume explores some of the most interesting and contemporary areas of criminological and legal psychology.

The Psychology of Crime, Policing and Courts is divided into three parts. Part I explores crime and anti-social behaviour, including the concentration of offending within families, juvenile delinquency, adolescent bullying, cyberbullying, violence risk assessment, and psychopathy. Part II examines policing and the detection of deception, with chapters on interrogational practices, police interviews of children, and modern detection methods. Part III focuses on courts and sentencing, with chapters exploring wrongful convictions, the role of juries, extra-legal factors in sentencing decisions and an examination of sentencing itself.

Representing the forefront of research in developmental criminology and criminological and legal psychology, this book is a comprehensive resource for undergraduate and postgraduate students studying psychology and criminology, with particular value for those studying forensic psychology. This book is also a valuable resource for psychologists, lawyers, social scientists and law enforcement personnel.

Part I

Crime and antisocial
behaviour

1 The concentration of convictions in two generations of families

David P. Farrington and Rebecca V. Crago

Introduction

The main aim of this chapter is to investigate the concentration of offending in two successive generations of families in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD). It has been known for many years that offending tends to be concentrated in certain individuals in a birth cohort. For example, Wolfgang, Figlio and Sellin (1972) found that 6% of a cohort of Philadelphia males accounted for 52% of all their offences up to age 18, and called these 6% the “chronic” offenders. Similar results have been obtained in several later studies (e.g. Blumstein, Farrington, & Moitra, 1985; Farrington & West, 1993; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2007).

There has been much less research, however, on the concentration of offending in families. The first extensive analyses of this topic were completed by Farrington, Gundry, and West (1975) and West and Farrington (1977). These analyses were carried out in the CSDD, which is a prospective longitudinal study of 411 London males, mostly born in 1953 and followed up from age 8; this project is described in more detail later. These analyses were based on convictions of the Study males, their biological parents and their biological siblings up to December 31, 1973, when the Study males were aged 20 on average. Brothers and sisters who had not reached age 17 by this date (the minimum age for adult court at that time) were not included in the analyses.

Out of 1763 persons searched in 394 families, 397 (22.5%) had been convicted; 28.2% of Study males, 26.7% of fathers, 13.4% of mothers, 37.4% of brothers and 7.6% of sisters. This was an average of one convicted person out of 4.5 persons per family. There were a total of 1217 convictions, or an average of 3.1 per family. Importantly, only 18 families (4.6%) accounted for nearly half (47.7%) of all the convictions, and 45 families (11.4%) accounted for nearly half (47.1%) of all the convicted persons.

These analyses were repeated by Farrington, Barnes and Lambert (1996) for convictions up to December 31, 1993, when the Study males were aged 40 on average. Out of 2203 persons searched in 397 families, 601 (27.3%) had been convicted; 39.0% of Study males, 27.9% of fathers, 13.6% of mothers, 44.2% of brothers and 12.1% of sisters. This was an average of 1.5 convicted persons out of 5.5 persons per family. There were 2442 convictions, or an average of 6.2 per family. Importantly, only 20 families (5.0%) accounted for nearly half (46.4%) of all convictions, and 48 families (12.1%) accounted for nearly half (44.3%) of all convicted persons.

The main aim of the present chapter is to repeat these analyses for two generations of CSDD families. In the interests of clarity, the original 411 males are termed generation 2 (G2), their biological parents are termed generation 1 (G1) and their biological children are termed generation 3 (G3). We aim to investigate to what extent the previous results, obtained by comparing G1 parents with G2 children, are replicated when G2 parents are compared with G3 children.

Method

The CSDD is a prospective longitudinal survey of 411 London males (G2 males) from age eight to age 56. The results of the Study have been described in six books (Farrington, Piquero, & Jennings, 2013; Piquero et al., 2007; West, 1969, 1982; West & Farrington, 1973, 1977), and in five summary articles (Farrington, 1995, 2003; Farrington, Coid, & West, 2009; Farrington & West, 1981, 1990). The original sample of G2 males is described next. Since the analyses are based on criminal record searches of all three generations, these are also described. As the record searches were based on identifying particulars obtained in interviews, these interviews are described as well.

The sample of G2 males

At the time they were first contacted in 1961–62, the G2 males were all living in a working-class area of South London. The vast majority of the sample was chosen by taking all the boys who were then aged 8–9 and on the registers of six state primary schools within a one mile radius of a research office which had been established. In addition to 399 boys from these six schools, 12 boys from a local school for educationally subnormal children were included in the sample, in an attempt to make it more representative of the population of boys living in the area. Therefore, the boys were not a probability sample drawn from a population, but rather a complete population of boys of that age in that area at that time.

Most of the G2 boys (357, or 87%) were Caucasian in appearance and of British origin, in the sense that they were being brought up by parents who had themselves been brought up in England, Scotland or Wales. Of the remaining 54 boys, 12 were Afro-Caribbean, having at least one parent of West Indian (usually) or African origin. Of the remaining 42 boys of non-British origin, 14 had at least one parent from the North or South of Ireland, 12 had parents from Cyprus, and the other 16 boys were Caucasian and had at least one parent from another Western industrialized country.

On the basis of their fathers’ occupations when they were aged eight, 94% of the G2 boys could be described as working-class (categories III, IV or V on the Registrar General’s scale, describing skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled manual workers), in comparison with the national figure of 78% at that time. The majority of the boys were living in conventional two-parent families with both a father and a mother figure; at age 8–9, only 6% of the boys had no operative father and only 1% had no operative mother. This was, therefore, overwhelmingly a traditional Caucasian, urban, working-class sample of British origin.

Interviews with the G2 males

The G2 males have been interviewed nine times, at ages eight, ten, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 32 and 48. At ages eight, ten and 14, they were assessed in their schools. The tests in schools measured individual characteristics such as intelligence, attainment, personality and psychomotor impulsivity. At all ages except 21 and 25, the aim was to interview all the G2 males who were still alive, and it was always possible to interview a high proportion: 405 (99%) at age 14, 399 (97%) at age 16, 389 (95%) at age 18, 378 (94%) at age 32 and 365 (93%) at age 48. The survey received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College London. At age 48, 17 males had died, five could not be traced and 24 refused, which meant that 365 out of 394 who were still alive were interviewed. Because of inadequate funding, only about half of the males were interviewed at age 21, and about a quarter at age 25.

In addition, the boys’ teachers completed questionnaires when the G2 males were aged about 8, 10, 12 and 14. These furnished data about their troublesome and aggressive school behaviour, their restlessness or poor concentration, their school attainments and their truancy. Ratings were also obtained from the boys’ peers when they were in the primary schools at ages eight and ten, about such topics as their daring, dishonesty, troublesomeness and popularity.

Interviews with the G1 parents

Interviews with the G1 parents were carried out by female social workers who visited their homes. These took place about once a year from when the G2 boy was about eight until when he was aged 14–15 and was in his last year of compulsory education. The primary informant was the mother, although many fathers were also seen. The G1 parents provided details about such matters as family income, family size, their employment histories, their child-rearing practices (including attitudes, discipline and parental disharmony), their degree of supervision of the boy, and his temporary or permanent separations from them.

Interviews with the G2 wives and female partners

Information about the wives and female partners (cohabitees) of the G2 males was sought during all interviews from age 18 onwards. For convenience, the G2 wives and female partners will simply be referred to as the G2 wives. They filled in a child-rearing questionnaire when the G2 male was aged 32, and 234 G2 wives (77.2% of 303) were interviewed when the G2 male was aged 48. This interview included information about child-rearing, health and family violence (see Theobald & Farrington, 2012).

Interviews with the G3 children

Only biological G3 children aged at least 18 (born up to 1995) were targeted. We knew about and had identifying information for 691 G3 children. In order to meet the ethical standards of the South-East Region Medical Ethics Committee, we were required to contact the G2 male and/or his female partner in trying to interview the G3 children. Therefore, 20 G3 children whose G2 fathers refused at age 48, and seven children who father was dead at age 48 (and where no female partner was available) were not eligible to be interviewed. An additional si...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of contributors
• Foreword
• Introduction: psychology, crime, policing and courts
• Part I Crime and antisocial behaviour
• Part II Policing and detecting deception
• Part III Courts and sentencing
• Index