Pathways to Ruin?: High-Risk Offending over the Life Course 9781487527136

Citation preview

PATHWAYS TO RUIN? High-Risk Offending over the Life Course Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot and Tamara Humphrey

Individuals who have committed a number of crimes over their lifetimes have had complex, multi-faceted life experiences often characterized by extreme disadvantage and victimization. Those who are formally designated as “high-risk” by the Canadian criminal justice system often have a record of violent or sexual crimes. As a result, they are usually subject to additional monitoring in the community after completing a prison sentence. Pathways to Ruin disentangles the numerous elements and pathways that lead to high rates of reoffending by focusing on developmental periods of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. The book uses a case-study approach to consider individuals’ entire crime pathway by examining the circumstances and factors that contribute to assumptions or official designations of “high-risk” behaviour. Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot and Tamara Humphrey overhaul society’s popular crime narratives and instead draw on sociological and criminological perspectives to identify historical, social, and personal contexts that appear to increase the likelihood of reoffending. They also consider how negative life experiences may be addressed to circumvent trajectories of serious offending. Reducing the social distance that the “law-abiding” public may feel towards marginalized groups, Pathways to Ruin details how legal systems could better serve these individuals, and acknowledges the many missed opportunities for compassion. e r i n g i b b s v a n b r u n s c h o t is a professor of Sociology and the director of the Centre for Military, Security, and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. tamara

humphrey

University of Victoria.

is an assistant professor of Sociology at the

This page intentionally left blank

Pathways to Ruin? High-Risk Offending over the Life Course

ERIN GIBBS VAN BRUNSCHOT AND TAMARA HUMPHREY

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London

© University of Toronto Press 2022 Toronto Buffalo London utorontopress.com Printed in the U.S.A. ISBN 978-1-4875-2711-2 (cloth) ISBN 978-1-4875-2714-3 (EPUB) ISBN 978-1-4875-2713-6 (PDF) ISBN 978-1-4875-2712-9 (paper) __________________________________________________________________________ Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: Pathways to ruin? : high-risk offending over the life course / Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot and Tamara Humphrey. Names: Gibbs Van Brunschot, Erin, 1966– author. | Humphrey, Tamara, author. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20210398035 | Canadiana (ebook) 20210398361 | ISBN 9781487527112 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781487527129 (softcover) | ISBN 9781487527143 (EPUB) | ISBN 9781487527136 (PDF) Subjects: LCSH: Recidivism – Canada. | LCSH: Recidivists – Canada. | LCSH: Criminal justice, Administration of – Canada. Classification: LCC HV6049 .G53 2022 | DDC 364.30971–dc23 __________________________________________________________________________ We wish to acknowledge the land on which the University of Toronto Press operates. This land is the traditional territory of the Wendat, the Anishnaabeg, the Haudenosaunee, the Métis, and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the financial support of the Government of Canada, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Ontario Arts Council, an agency of the Government of Ontario, for its publishing activities.

an Ontario government agency un organisme du gouvernement de l’Ontario

Funded by the Financé par le Government gouvernement du Canada of Canada

Contents

Acknowledgments  vii 1  Introduction: Setting the Stage  3 2  The Early Years: Accumulating Disadvantage?  28 3 The Teen Years/Early Adulthood: Officially Starting a Life of Crime  54 4  Adulthood: Continuity or Change?  76 5  The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  106 6  Approaching Desistance  138 7  Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  161 Appendix: Methods  181 References  193 Index  223

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

Academic studies can provide insight into people and places otherwise unknown to many of us in our everyday lives – our academic journeys often take us into territory that we might only know through fiction. A study like this provides glimpses into the limits of our experience, the limits of our imagination, and sometimes, the limits of our empathy. What we learn as researchers can never be kept truly separate or siloed in an academic shoe box to examine only on special occasions. Our exposure to the dire circumstances and harsh conditions of the lives we studied here causes us to reflect often on the good fortune of our own lives and the importance of steadfast support, acceptance, care, and love over the course of one’s life. We thank the officers who shared their experience and concerns, as well as humour and insights, into their complicated and important work as well as into the lives of these complex individuals we sought to better understand. Their acceptance of our naive questions and their desire to both learn from and teach us was pivotal to this project. Although our consideration of the individuals we focused on came at arm’s length, we hope that sharing their stories might cause readers to appreciate that lives are not unidimensional and are instead often scattered with hardship and complexity. We appreciate being able to learn from the stories of their lives. A life-course perspective emphasizes the importance of families and their pivotal role in life success, as well as the importance of these early and enduring bonds over the life course. We are fortunate to have such positive family foundations and thank our respective parents, Joy and Merril (Tamara), Dave and Gail (in memory) (Erin), and extended family for their support and patience. We know how lucky we are. This journey has always been supported and encouraged (and sometimes questioned) by our immediate families – for Erin by Jim, and

viii Acknowledgments

Giorgia, Paige, and Jesse. And for Tamara by Jeff, Makena, and Atticus. Non-familial social bonds and social support also figure prominently in the life-course perspective, and we are grateful to our friends and colleagues who listened to our thoughts and theories about why, for example, “people do bad things to each other” – thank you to Kevin, Mary, Brian, Gérard, Chris, and Lynne. Thank you also to Kaya Guthman, the amazing artist and former student of Tamara’s, for the cover art that captures the essence of our book. Finally, social bonds are reinforced through the process of working together especially on a project like this that affected us to the core. Many times, we turned to each other in absolute wonder at what we were learning, sometimes with humour, at other times with tears in our eyes or knots in our stomach. Through the shared emotional responses and academic insights, we are so grateful to have been on this journey together.

PATHWAYS TO RUIN?

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction: Setting the Stage

A Crime Pathway: Jamie Jamie grew up in a chaotic and unstable environment. He was raised by his mother and only saw pictures of his biological father. The year he was born, his father, who was intoxicated at the time, murdered his landlord and was incarcerated. Growing up, Jamie recalls regular parties at his mother’s house involving extensive substance abuse and violence by his mother, her friends, and their relatives. He also recalls his mother severely beating him as a child to the point that he sustained serious injuries and broken bones. According to one psychologist, Jamie idealizes his mother despite the physical and emotional abuse she inflicted on him. He was suspended in elementary school for fighting and quit school in junior high, however, his school difficulties were not caused by a lack of intelligence but rather very bad family circumstances. Jamie’s criminal history began at the age of fourteen when he was convicted of a theft-related offence. As a teenager, he joined a gang and participated in several home invasions and violent activities. By the age of twenty-one, he was involved in several assaults: beating his mother’s boyfriend with a hockey stick, slashing another victim with a broken bottle, and stabbing another man multiple times. Jamie also repeatedly assaulted his common-law partner over the course of several days, stabbing and beating her, resulting in extensive injuries, and then returning to inflict more damage by repeatedly beating her with a bat. While these offences resulted in convictions, he claims to have avoided criminal charges for other violent offences including assaults using weapons, some of which he claims were near-fatal incidents. Most of his offences occurred when he had been drinking and most were unreported. Difficulties with drinking and drugs likely impacted his ability to hold a job for any significant amount of time.

4  Pathways to Ruin?

The Popular Crime Narrative Scanning the shelves of the crime section of the local bookstore, one is bombarded with titles and book covers that focus on extreme examples of the criminal underworld: infamous crimes or criminals, serial or mass killings, and organized crime. These stories often hinge on the magnitude and gravity of the offences or the aberration of the offender. Similarly, television and movies focus on extreme offenders or egregious crimes. There is far less focus on crimes that are not as spectacular or on offenders who seem commonplace. A focus on victims is even rarer, unless the victim is a child, has become a celebrity in the talk circuit, or is used as an example to argue for tough-on-crime laws. The true range of crimes and criminals is difficult to establish from media representations and contributes to a societal crime narrative that leaps moment to moment from one heinous crime and disturbed offender to the next, as though what is captured in that particular reporting moment fully covers these events. Breaking news stories often feature only particular types of crimes leading the public to believe that the fleeting headline or news banner is really all there is to the crime story. Often little information is provided about the circumstances leading to the crime or the characteristics and histories of the people involved, nor is there information about the aftermath and consequences for those involved. The crimes that make the news and the offenders that become headlines undergo a selection process in that the police or courts make certain information available and media outlets determine which aspects of a story they will present to the public. Policing agencies, for example, have media units that respond to reporters’ and the public’s questions about specific incidents and the information stemming from formal sources is filtered to ensure minimal impact on continuing investigations, as well as the preservation of privacy for those involved. Other filters are set by the courts, which can also have restrictions regarding the reporting of current cases (publication bans) along with various administrative barriers to collecting information on past cases. Among crime events that occur on a more regular basis, media outlets choose to report what they suspect will generate the most interest among their readers, as well as the most revenue for their outlets (through increased readership and sponsorship). Those who have committed an array of property crimes, for example, are not likely to find themselves the focus of media attention, nor does every specific act of violence result in media coverage. At the same time, our attention has been trained to be drawn to cases involving the more extreme elements conforming to a popular crime narrative that the public has unwittingly participated



Introduction: Setting the Stage  5

in producing: a narrative that paints individuals as one-dimensional crime-committing machines who choose to be involved in episodic violence and who deserve to be dealt with harshly. Our goal in this book is to overhaul society’s crime narrative by digging deeper into the singular events that are typically the focus of filtered media descriptions and sometimes opaque official labels associated with those who commit serious crime. Rather than being complicit in supporting the assumptions of the popular crime narrative, our strategy is to instead consider individuals’ entire crime pathways or journeys by examining the circumstances and factors that contribute to fleeting headlines or official designations. The term ‘journey’ suggests a process: specific events and periods do not simply occur but are rather accompanied by both historical precursors as well as aftermaths. We begin our consideration of the crime journey by focusing on developmental periods of childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. We focus on the centrality of both family and home to early childhood development and the impact of early experiences on the foundations of subsequent growth. The teenage years are a period of often pivotal sources of influence outside the family – from school and peers to first romantic relationships to the initiation of drug and alcohol use. Adulthood, in turn, is associated with another set of experiences including employment, marriage, children, divorce, and death of loved ones. We also consider the challenges of adulthood that involve attempting to manage personal histories. For some individuals, such as those we focus on here, personal histories include criminal records that impact prospects for adult achievements, such as finding jobs and partners. While many of us have little or no experience with being identified as an “offender,” we consider the weight that criminal records can have for individuals both within and without the criminal justice system. Although criminal records are not a perfect indicator of criminal activity, they reveal an official story that influences how authorities view the behaviours of those they encounter with such records. Examination of criminal records reveals how criminal behaviour is responded to by authorities, which in turn may impact future criminal activity. Among those who have experienced incarceration, for example, there may be a disengagement from mainstream society, especially in the face of unemployment, which can result in further offending. A criminal record is like baggage and is often carried far into the future, reducing the chance for work and relationships, thereby reducing the likelihood of refraining from offending. We reconsider the crime narrative by focussing our attention on a group of complex individuals: those who have come to the attention

6  Pathways to Ruin?

of police due to flags or assessments that they represent a higher risk to offend or reoffend than others. Some of these flags – for example, committing very serious violent crimes, or threatening to commit certain types of serious crimes – are eventually determined as not signifying greater risk. This determination occurs through investigations and overt and covert surveillance, with some individuals found not to pose a significant threat. Others, however, are formally labelled as “highrisk” and come under continuous formal scrutiny by the police. We provide a detailed discussion of this official designation below. For now, it is important to note that the criminal justice system is motivated to identify high-risk offenders because these individuals are often responsible for committing a disproportionate amount of crime as well as more serious crimes than other individuals. Although many of these individuals’ crimes have been headlinegrabbing, so, too, are the environments from which they emerge as many have experienced considerable abuse and extraordinarily troubled circumstances. Often, their backgrounds reveal unfortunate patterns of negative characteristics and experiences – from abusive family upbringings to significant teenage troubles, and on to serious adult substance use issues. By describing where these individuals have come from, we offer an exploration of offending that goes beyond media stereotypes and limited official portrayals, providing a greater understanding as to how and why these individuals have committed the crimes that they have as well as making it possible to contemplate their prospects for the future. We examine high-risk offending as a journey or process involving myriad factors, some of which include behavioural patterns established in childhood, while other factors emerge over the course of their adolescent and adult lives. Understanding the contexts from which these individuals have emerged puts us in a better position to understand much more about crime than the popular narrative allows for, as well as to better assess demands that society must “do something about crime,” in order to identify ways in which we can secure better outcomes for these individuals and for society at large. Our examination is rooted in the developmental and life-course criminology perspective, a multidisciplinary approach to understanding human lives and how they unfold over time, drawing on biology, psychology, history, and sociology (Benson 2012, 3). Consistent with this perspective, our book draws on this broader perspective to make sense of offending over the life course by considering the life histories of several individuals who have long-term patterns of engaging in violent crimes.



Introduction: Setting the Stage  7

Crime and the Life Course Reading Jamie’s story conjures a number of emotions and feelings both about Jamie himself and about the circumstances he faced during his childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Considering his childhood, characterized by parental abandonment and rife with early exposure to substance abuse and violence, we might feel some degree of sympathy, empathy, compassion, and distress. Jamie’s school failures – being suspended and quitting school at age thirteen – might make us feel frustration, concern, anxiety, and apprehension. We might wonder if anyone has provided him with any guidance to successfully navigate his life – his experiences both in his family and at school are apparently entirely negative. The fact that Jamie has had few meaningful mainstream experiences during his adult life may also lead us to feel some degree of exasperation, disappointment, disapproval, and annoyance. Our reactions to Jamie’s story are built upon our exposure to media imagery of crimes and criminals and are also based upon the elements of his life that we choose to compare with our own lives and with others we know. Do elements of Jamie’s life converge or diverge with our own or the experiences of others we know? Our feelings regarding his early life may be more sympathetic than our feelings toward him as he grew older. Indeed, many of us might question his morality and wonder if and how it converges with our own morals and beliefs. Our range of emotional reactions to Jamie’s story is complicated and multifaceted – much like the way in which our own lives have unfolded and our behaviours have been generated. Jamie has clearly faced many hurdles that seem to have had a negative impact on his ability to achieve mainstream goals, such as academic achievement and fulltime employment. He has also likely experienced a range of responses to his behaviour, from parents who were absent, inattentive, or unable to effectively guide or manage his behaviour, to teachers who may be overworked and under-resourced. It is difficult to determine the weight that any one of these factors contributed to Jamie’s criminal behaviour, but the combination of these negative elements contributed to the pathway for his designation as a high-risk offender. Jamie’s story illustrates the many factors throughout his early childhood and adolescence that may have established and fortified his life of crime. While we do not know precisely how prior events and experiences impact later behaviour, the advantage to considering the entire life course is clear: the progression of our lives over time provides us with some confidence in identifying factors that may play a causal role.

8  Pathways to Ruin?

Rather than focusing exclusively on the crimes that individuals have committed, the value in considering lifetimes is that we can begin to appreciate the complexity of crime events and how crimes emerge and are influenced by elements of the past and present. For those individuals labelled as high-risk offenders, understanding how particular behaviour emerges is even more important because of the frequency with which they offend and the types of crimes they commit. A careful consideration of the lifespans of these individuals may better enable us to identify key events and factors that appear to solidify and support further crime, or that mark a diminution of future crime – factors that are defined as trajectories, transitions, and turning points in the criminological literature. Identifying these events and factors might also serve as intervention points and act as a means not only to prevent the pain and anguish caused to victims, but also to circumvent the hardship that these individuals have often experienced in their own lives. To be sure, not every individual designated as high-risk had a childhood involving violence and abuse, and clearly not every child who experiences abuse and violence grows up to be a high-risk offender. Yet by fully considering the misfortunes, and opportunities, from childhood through to adulthood, we increase the likelihood of finding appropriate interventions that may redirect these individuals away from lives of crime, reduce the suffering inflicted on their victims, and enable them to become positively contributing members of society. Framing High-Risk Offending: Developmental and Life-Course Perspectives One of the most robust findings in criminology is that a small group of individuals (less than 10 per cent) is responsible for the majority of offences committed, including the most serious and violent headline grabbing offences, such as homicide, sexual assault, and aggravated assault (Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin 1972; see also DeLisi 2005; Farrington 1992; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2007). Theory and public policy alike became preoccupied with explaining the onset and chronic nature of offending by members of this small group, who represent the greatest threat to public safety due to the high frequency and seriousness of their offending (Blumstein et al. 1986; Laub and Sampson 2001; Moffitt 1993; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2007). The assumption that they must differ in fundamental ways from other offenders made this group a top priority on the criminological research agenda (Blumstein et al. 1986; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1986; Laub and Sampson 2001; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein et al. 2007). To this



Introduction: Setting the Stage  9

end, the U.S. National Institute of Justice commissioned a two-volume report on criminal careers authored by Blumstein et al. (1986; see also Osgood 2005; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2007), which led to an even greater focus on the activity of “career criminals,” the label applied to this group (Blumstein et al. 1986; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1986). This work also led to the development of the criminal career paradigm, a framework that allows for the inclusion of different theoretical perspectives to explain offending over one’s life course (Blumstein et al. 1986; Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington 1988; Farrington 1992; Piquero et al. 2003 and 2007). Guiding this paradigm is the notion that forces, both internal and external to the individual (Cohen and Vila 1996), are at work in generating criminal activity and in causing both persistence of and changes in offending through different stages of an individual’s life (Blumstein et al. 1986; Farrington 1992; Kyvsgaard 2002; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2003 and 2007). In order to examine these sequences and investigate the development of offending over time, the criminal career is partitioned into several dimensions with a central focus on: participation/prevalence, or distinguishing those who engage in criminal activity from those who do not; frequency, the rate of criminal activity over a specified period of time; the seriousness of the offences; career length, the time between the first offence and the last; specialization, or the tendency to repeat specific offences; and desistance, the termination of offending (Blumstein et al. 1986; Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington 1988; Farrington 1992; Kyvsgaard 2002). Disaggregating those dimensions allows for the observation of variations in offending patterns, and the possibility that different causal factors and processes explain different dimensions while acknowledging the role of persistent individual tendencies in offending behaviour (Farrington 1992 and 2005a). While we do not explicitly use the criminal career paradigm or organize our book according to the various dimensions that comprise a criminal career, these dimensions come up in our discussions of offending over the life course. We discuss it here because of the paradigm’s influence on the field of developmental and life-course criminology which rose in popularity in the 1990s (Carlsson 2013; D’Unger et al. 1998; Giele and Elder 1998, Farrington 2005a; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2007). Developmental and life-course criminology is primarily concerned with understanding changes in antisocial and criminal behaviour throughout the course of one’s life (Farrington 2005a, 2005b). A hallmark of developmental and life-course criminology is the focus on within-individual differences in offending over time, in contrast with the earlier and more traditional criminological theories which focused

10  Pathways to Ruin?

on between-individual differences, such as trying to understand why some people offend while others do not (Farrington 2005a). As such, key questions of interest to developmental and life-course criminologists include: Why do people begin to offend? Are there common risk factors that determine the onset of offending? Do these risk factors differ according to age? Are there any protective factors that help to prevent offending? What impact do life events have on offending? Why do people stop offending? Farrington (2005a) argues that this multidisciplinary perspective incorporates three paradigms: the risk factor prevention paradigm, developmental criminology, and life-course criminology. While these three share many common features and concerns, they differ in some substantive ways, namely in the origins and central focus of each perspective (Kazemian, Farrington, and Piquero 2018). The risk factor prevention paradigm focuses first on identifying key risk factors that predict offending and then on implementing interventions that address these factors (Farrington 2000 and 2005a). The developmental criminology approach is rooted in the field of psychology with a focus on individual-level and psychological factors, including attention to early risk and protective factors that explain participation in offending (Kazemian, Farrington, and Piquero 2018). The life-course criminology approach has its origins in and draws on the central tenets of life-course sociology, which considers aging and how life patterns vary across birth cohorts (Giele and Elder 1998, 17). More specifically, life-course sociology focuses on how an individual’s age intersects with opportunities and role expectations over the life course and creates particular life patterns (Giele and Elder 1998), all within the context of broader social structures (Kazemian, Farrington, and Piquero 2018). The focus on stages of life and how elements interact propelled life-course sociology’s use in other disciplines, such as criminology. The above three paradigms are often merged, providing us with a more complete picture of within-individual persistence and changes in offending (Kazemian, Farrington, and Piquero 2018). Following suit, we draw on this multidisciplinary perspective to understand the lives of several individuals who have engaged in serious and violent offending, with a particular reliance on life-course criminology to understand these trajectories. The starting point of developmental and life-course approaches is the focus on understanding continuity and change in criminal behaviour and how each particular point throughout the life-course depends to a certain extent on the stage before it and is followed by an either more or less predictable future. Carlsson and Sarnecki (2016) divide their analysis of life-course perspectives into two types – those that assume a static



Introduction: Setting the Stage  11

approach to the life course and those that assume dynamic processes. A static approach suggests that certain pathways or trajectories are set early in life and that while individual “starting points” may vary at the early stages, there are predictable pathways that flow from these starting points (see also Farrington 2005a). Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) “general theory of crime,” for example, maintained that self-control is set very early in life and those with low levels of self-control (in contrast to those with high levels) can be expected to have difficulties with academic achievement, relationships, employment, etc., and are more likely to commit crime due to their inability to resist its temptations. Similarly, Moffitt’s (1993, 2018) dual developmental taxonomy of crime suggests that there are essentially two main pathways to crime: one which starts in early adolescence and continues through life, and the other which starts somewhat later in adolescence and quickly diminishes by adulthood. A dynamic approach to the life course, on the other hand, assumes that there is a great deal more variability and flexibility in terms of how individuals’ lives unfold – lives are not predetermined by early experiences, though these may be important nonetheless. As Carlsson and Sarnecki (2016) point out, “the primary explanation for continuity and change in criminal offending is to be found in the changing social situations and circumstances people encounter as they move along the life course” (41). An example of a dynamic life-course theory is that of Sampson and Laub’s (1993, 1997, 2003, and 2005) age-graded theory of informal social control. This theory examines the importance of age and how age is associated with informal attachments to institutions of social control, such as the family and work. The specific age of an individual tends to dictate which institutions matter the most. In childhood, the family and the relationship with one’s parents are central, but as individuals age, peers, marriage, and work become more important sources of informal social control. Individuals are more likely to offend when their ties to these institutions are weak or broken. This puts a great deal of weight on informal social bonds that occur at various stages throughout one’s life. These authors maintain that pathways are never set, but rather, strengthening or weakening social bonds may redirect individuals onto different life paths irrespective of past experiences. For Sampson and Laub, the factors that are most important in determining adult behaviour are the factors present in adulthood. The past is not dismissed, however, as opportunities and relationships in the present are often formed by past choices and behaviours. The study of crime over the life course emphasizes the locations of individuals in time and place, their integration and relationships

12  Pathways to Ruin?

with other individuals and institutions, their goal orientations, and their strategic adaption to external events (Giele and Elder 1998, 10). These factors combine to establish individual trajectories, defined as “pathway[s] of development over the life span … long-term patterns of specific types of behaviour” (Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2003, 396), including criminal activity. Transitions, on the other hand, are life events that are significant and shorter in duration, such as a first arrest (396). Trajectories and transitions may interact to produce changes in one’s life course, or turning points, which initiate progress down different pathways such as moves toward crime or away from it (Sampson and Laub 1993; see also Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2003). Through the life-course framework, the impact of an offender’s early experiences, offence history, personality traits, relationships, and the influence of situational factors on offending behaviour are all taken into account. Importantly, life-course studies lead away from focusing exclusively on offending in restricted periods of the life cycle (such as the teenage years) or focusing on particular crimes (such as serious assaults). Instead, the life-course perspective allows for observing how individual predispositions interact with changing life circumstances to create and modify offending trajectories (Hagan and Palloni 1988; Sampson and Laub 1990, 1993, 1997, and 2005). It views crime as one aspect of the broader context of the life course (Hagan and Palloni 1988). The focus on lengthy periods of time over the course of an individual life highlights an important feature of developmental and life-course approaches: the need for longitudinal data, or data that are collected on the same individuals over multiple points in time (Kazemian, Farrington, and Piquero 2018). David Farrington has spent a lifetime studying crime and developing and testing explanations for why people commit crimes. Throughout the course of his career, Farrington has focused on the developmental and life-course factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of being involved in crime at various points or stages of one’s life. There are a number of “accepted conclusions” (Farrington 1992, 2003, 2005a, 2005b, see also Jennings 2015) that describe offending over the life course, such as, for example, the determination that offending typically peaks during the late teens, while the age of onset of offending is between eight and fourteen years old. Those who begin offending earlier in life will also be those who are more likely to have longer and more prolific criminal careers than those who begin to offend later in life. Further, the small proportion of individuals responsible for most crimes that we



Introduction: Setting the Stage  13

discussed above are also referred to as chronic offenders and are often part of the group defined by early onset to crime, a high frequency of offending, and long criminal careers. These individuals also often appear to have a cluster of antisocial behaviour including drinking and drug use. As for patterns of offending, it is generally noted that offending may take place with others up to about age twenty, but as individuals age, they increasingly commit crimes alone (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio 2008). While offending as a teenager is done for a number of reasons, including thrill seeking or to express various emotions, as individuals age they increasingly claim that their offences are utilitarian or that they are committing crimes for a reason and not simply out of boredom. Instead, crimes committed as one ages may be part of a more strategic effort to attain goods or credibility. The types of crimes individuals commit are fairly diverse early in their criminal careers, but as they age offending becomes more specialized, with a tendency to repeat the same types of offences (Armstrong 2008a; Piquero et al. 1999). Both specialization and desistance may be related to aging processes – individuals have a harder time diversifying but also have a harder time committing the crimes they once used to, for reasons that include the effects of aging itself but also due to factors that impinge at later life stages (such as jobs, children, and intimate relationships). As noted, the life-course perspective tends to focus on the chronic offenders that Farrington and others have identified. Our focus on individuals identified as a high risk to reoffend, while capturing many of those who are considered chronic, also includes those identified as posing a disproportionate threat of future violence. Our goal in this book is to reconsider the popular crime narrative by focusing on those labelled as higher risk to reoffend. Through a consideration of their entire life histories, we shed light on the life experiences of these individuals to provide a better understanding of the factors that have put them on their crime-ridden pathways. We integrate the criminological, psychological, and clinical (e.g., trauma) perspectives, which allows for a more complete understanding of the complexity of life-course offending by using developmental and life-course criminology to consider the accepted conclusions mentioned above. In light of these perspectives, the cases of several individuals with lengthy criminal histories are featured. Many of the individuals we consider have been flagged by the justice system as potential candidates for the formal ‘high-risk offender’ designation. We next turn to a description of what this designation is within the Canadian criminal justice system.

14  Pathways to Ruin?

Officially Speaking, Who Is a “High-Risk Offender”? From time to time, the police issue public warnings about “high-risk offenders” who have either just been released from prison or who are wanted for various breaches of their court-ordered community supervision orders. Some locations enable the public to directly access information about individuals officially labelled as high-risk offenders.1 The Alberta Government’s Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, for example, maintains a detailed website of high-risk offenders that is meant, first, to inform the public of high-risk offenders who may be living in their communities and, second, to “encourage you [community members] to take suitable precautionary measures to ensure your safety” (Government of Alberta 2020b). The website further states that “only designated high risk offenders who present a significant risk to the public are included on this list; not all dangerous or serious offenders are included” (Government of Alberta 2020b). The site includes a media release issued by the respective police service from the area to which the individual is being released (in Alberta, for example, press releases are generated either by a municipal police force or by the RCMP). Press releases may include information such as: the conviction and the sentence that was served prior to release, a description of the individual’s record, factors that aggravate the likelihood of reoffending (such as consumption of alcohol or drugs), the details or conditions of release (if any), the location to which the individual will be released, a description of the individual’s identifying features (such as tattoos, height and weight), and a photograph of the individual. Individuals on the Alberta website have been convicted of offences including (but not limited to): assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, sexual assault, sexual interference, possession of child pornography, dangerous driving, possession of a weapon, unlawful confinement, robbery, and manslaughter. The Alberta government’s identification of specific high-risk offenders directs the public to take “suitable precautions” based on the presumption that these individuals pose a significant threat to reoffend. These individuals are identified by police and corrections officials as high risk due to assessments indicating they have a much greater

1 The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (2020) website issues warnings for high-risk offenders released across Canada and to the provinces. Other provincial sites include Regina Police Service (2020) and the Alberta website (2020a).



Introduction: Setting the Stage  15

probability of reoffending than others. For example, media releases identifying specific individuals typically indicate: [City Police service] is issuing this information and warning after careful deliberation and consideration of all related issues, including privacy concerns, in the belief that it is clearly in the public interest to inform the members of the community of the release of [name]. Members of the public are advised that the intent of the process [media release] is to enable them to take suitable precautionary measures and not to embark on any form of vigilante action. (Government of Alberta 2020c)

Websites such as the Alberta Solicitor General’s legally “outs” individuals regarding their presumed increased propensity to cause harm. The identification of an individual as a high-risk offender by the Alberta Solicitor General is authorized under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIPP) Act, Section 32, which states that otherwise private information may be disclosed when it is in the public interest to identify individuals who pose a “risk of significant harm to the environment or to the health or safety of the public” (Province of Alberta 2020). The Alberta website further indicates that the offender’s information is removed if the individual has not been convicted of an offence for twelve months, is no longer under court-ordered supervision (see below), is sentenced to serve two years or more (a federal sentence), or is deceased (Government of Alberta 2020d). These guidelines for removal of information suggest that a formal break in one’s conviction record and incarceration is indicative of lower risk – ideas we will come back to in our discussion of desistance (chapter 6). In everyday terms, labelling individuals as having an increased likelihood to commit crime implies that they should be dealt with differently due to the potential for harm that they represent. While “offender” is often paired with a modifier that describes a particular condition or specific threat, such as violent offender, sex offender, or juvenile offender, the adjective “high-risk,” on the other hand, leaves the specifics about the nature of future offending much more open. While many modifiers to offender refer to an existing condition, high-risk flags a negative potential yet to be realized (although determined based on past ­behaviour) – the issue is really a matter of when that potential will be realized and how. For individuals labelled high risk, the approach taken by both the public and the criminal justice system is that it is not necessarily a matter of if a next crime will occur, but more a matter of when the next crime will occur. Because of this element of the unknown

16  Pathways to Ruin?

coupled with inevitability, reference to high-risk offenders generates a degree of fear and apprehension for those who may be affected by future crime (i.e., potential victims) and among those responsible for containing that possibility (i.e., the police). The presumption regarding high-risk offenders is that it is simply a waiting game until the next offence, which is certain to eventually occur (CBC News 2016). Turning back to the Alberta Justice website on high-risk offenders, we see that the expectation is that the public will take precautionary measures to address the threat certain individuals pose. Nowhere on this website is there a list of what those safety measures might be or for how long they should be taken. While there are some suggestions as to who (e.g., women or children) may be more threatened by these individuals, there is no advice on what potential targets should be doing to protect themselves. The negative potential that is implied by “highrisk” suggests that while threats may be reduced somewhat through precautionary measures undertaken by individuals, whatever those measures may be, the risk or threat is ever present and unlikely to go away. The uncertainty over what individuals must do to protect themselves against high-risk offenders is underscored by the website which states that “immediate concerns about a high risk offender in your community [emphasis added]” should be taken to local police, but longerterm concerns are to be dealt with by individuals continuing to take precautionary measures into the indeterminate future. Formal determinations of high-risk typically rest on the patterns of behaviour that have characterized an individual’s past record of offending. While not all high-risk individuals have violent or sexual offences as part of their records, the vast majority are considered highrisk because of the inclusion of some history of violent, sexually violent, or threatening behaviour. For those we consider here, formal criminal records (i.e., official records of crimes that have come to the attention of the police and criminal justice system) run the gamut. Some individuals have many property-related offences and fewer violent offences, while others have the opposite. Some have offended over a long period of time, while others have shorter histories of offending. A very small minority of individuals have few offences, yet the crimes they have committed are of such gravity or severity that these individuals are believed to continue to pose a threat. In other words, both the nature of the criminal past (the seriousness of offences) and the rate of offending (more or less frequent) figures into the assessment of future risk. Still other individuals may have had less remarkable histories of offending, but their behaviour while incarcerated suggests a continued risk to reoffend.



Introduction: Setting the Stage  17

Individuals formally designated as high risk to reoffend at one point in time may not necessarily remain so for the duration of their lives – their formal status may change. The difficulty associated with designations of risk is that breaks or time outs, whether by choice or due to incarceration or other life circumstances, are often viewed as inconclusive. Is a break in one’s offending evidence of desistance and a pathway out of crime, or is it simply a break from criminal activity that will be returned to? A designation of risk suggests that the risk does not actually ever go away – high risk may simply become low (or lower) risk. However, institutional memories of high-risk status will persist even when there is a reduction in risk level. The Alberta Justice website suggests that police undertake careful deliberation and consideration of all related issues as the basis of public notification. Our examination of high-risk individuals takes on this assertion by considering the issues related to offending that arise over their lives through the lenses offered by life-course/developmental and criminal career perspectives. Studying High-Risk Offenders The high-risk individuals we focus on here are those who were identified primarily by police through a study investigating policing management strategies used to handle offenders who were considered very likely to reoffend. Some of these individuals were deemed as high risk by the courts and were geographically located in one western Canadian municipality and monitored by the local municipal police service. A designation of high risk is accompanied by the application of a Section 810 Peace Bond to the individual for a period of one to two years. Certain provisions have been included in the Criminal Code of Canada in order to manage individuals who are deemed to present an especially high risk to the safety of the public (Solicitor General Canada, 2001). More specifically, in 1993, the enactment of Bill C-126 introduced the creation of a Section 810.1 order that can be applied to individuals where there are reasonable grounds to fear they will commit a sexual offence against a person under the age of fourteen years (Solicitor General Canada 2001). This order allows for the imposition of certain conditions on these individuals for the period of a year to restrict their movements and behaviour while they are in the community and prevent further offending (Solicitor General Canada 2001). In 1997, further action was taken to protect the public against these individuals where there are reasonable grounds to fear they might commit a serious personal injury offence against any person with the creation of a

18  Pathways to Ruin?

Section 810.2 order, under Bill C-55 (Solicitor General Canada 2001). These offences may include sexual offences, and, like the Section 810.1 order, Section 810.2 orders contain conditions that are meant to “secure the [defendant’s] good conduct” (Solicitor General Canada 2001,122). Additional offender management strategies may be implemented by the police (i.e., a high-risk unit) responsible for the individuals bound by these orders, including monitoring individuals in the community through either weekly scheduled or random check-ins (Solicitor General Canada 2001). These strategies are to ensure that an individual’s level of risk is not increasing and to ensure compliance with the conditions laid out in the order (Solicitor General Canada 2001). We include a more in-depth discussion regarding the order and application of Section 810 Peace Bonds, the conditions that accompany these orders, and the potential impacts on individuals and their trajectories of offending in chapter 5. While a specific subset of these individuals was managed through Section 810 peace bonds2 the majority came to the attention of police through a variety of means but were ultimately not deemed to present a significant and imminent risk to public safety. For example, some individuals were held for the maximum period of their sentence and while their associated risk did not merit the formal application of a peace bond, these individuals were, for various reasons, “on the (police) radar.” Reasons for this might include behaviour in prison, gang association, failing in prison programs, and so on. Others came to the attention of police through communications with other criminal justice agencies when individuals had moved into new geographic regions; still others were considered high risk through their direct interactions with local police, including the nature of the calls that police attended, reports of behaviour by the public, formal and informal records of behaviour, etc. A small number of individuals were identified by medical authorities after vocalizing their desire to act in harmful ways (such as expressing a desire for paedophilia or violence) in a way that was alarming enough to warrant police notification and involvement. In addition to the above, approximately 5 per cent of the individuals in our study were officially deemed dangerous offenders or long-term offenders (more on these designations in chapter 5). In total, there were 411 individuals included in the broader study considering management strategies. 2 Please note that among the individual crime pathways we identify below we use the generic “peace bond” rather than identifying which type of Section 810 peace bond applied to any specific individual.



Introduction: Setting the Stage  19

We include a more in-depth description of the ethical principles guiding our research, how we collected our data, the characteristics from the larger population of individuals, and the methodological approach we employed in this manuscript in the appendix at the end of the book. Due to the range of ways through which these individuals came to be identified as high-risk, their criminal and personal biographies were wide-ranging, as was the information associated with each individual. All the data we accessed was housed in the high-risk unit of a municipal police service and included all offenders who came under the purview of this unit during the period 1997–2014. The depth of information about each person was a product, often, of how these individuals came to police attention. For example, individuals who had served time in prison until their warrant expiry date and who were identified as potentially eligible for a Section 810 peace bond tended to have the most information associated with their files. File information came from a variety of sources including investigative documents, court records, criminal records, psychological assessments, and interviews with the individual and their families. Depending on the file and the individual, information spanned an individual’s life-course from early childhood to most recent offence at the end of our study (December 2014). This typically included information about family, school, friends, work, and relationship histories, and details regarding offending. For every individual, we put the pieces together to establish individual life stories. The more attention authorities gave to an individual, the more complete the file. High-Risk Offending Profiles Included below is a list (table 1) of the case histories we feature throughout the book. In order to move beyond the popular crime narrative and to understand pathways into and out of crime, we use a case study approach. We discuss this in greater detail in the appendix but it is worth noting here that this qualitative methodological approach allows us to flesh out the details associated with individual trajectories and provides an in-depth understanding of the lives of the people who offend (Yin 2012). It is important to note that our goal is not to test theories, to weigh competing theories, or to determine causality. Rather, we seek a deepened understanding of individual lives that not only helps to reduce the social distance we, the “law-abiding” public, may feel from people who commit serious offences (Jacques 2014), but also provides insight into the real-world lives and individuals behind the label “offender.” The individuals that we chose to feature in the

20  Pathways to Ruin? Table 1.  Featured Crime Pathways Individual

Appearances

Jamie Carter Paul Edward John Michael Anthony Daniel Robert Matthew Thomas Donald Keith Brian Jeremy Wayne Glen Adam Mark Carl Jeffrey Andrew Larry

Chapter 1; seen also in Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 Chapter 1; seen also in Chapter 5 Chapter 2; seen also in Chapter 1, Chapter 3, and Chapter 7 Chapter 2; seen also in Chapter 4 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 3; seen also in Chapter 5 Chapter 3; seen also in Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Chapter 4; seen also in Chapter 5 Chapter 4 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Chapter 5; seen also in Chapter 7 Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Chapter 6 Chapter 6 Chapter 6; seen also in Chapter 3 Chapter 7

“Crime Pathways” allow us to engage with developmental and lifecourse theoretical perspectives because they illustrate the factors that the life-course perspective (and related theories) maintains are relevant to explaining criminal careers. The cases featured here had enough information contained in their files to enable us to know more of their life stories and reveal the complex processes and contexts that produce offending. For example, in chapter 2, we feature Paul, whose childhood is marred by abuse, injury, familial breakdown, and poor school achievement. Paul’s case is presented not as an example by which to generalize about all high-risk individuals, but rather to illustrate the varied (and, in his case, extreme) circumstances associated with his life. Rather than generalizing about all high-risk offenders, our goal is to illustrate the story behind the label, “sex offender.” For the protection of their privacy, all individuals have been given pseudonyms and we have removed identifying details. Carter, discussed next, highlights a number of issues, from early experiences of violence, to school failure, to an extensive criminal



Introduction: Setting the Stage  21

record with a range of crimes that culminated in frequent perpetration of extreme acts of violence – as well as his own fatal victimization at the relatively young age of thirty-six years old.

A Crime Pathway: Carter Carter was born to parents who had a violent and alcohol-fuelled marriage. His mother eventually left his father and moved to a shelter while her children went to social services. She ultimately regained custody of her children and moved to another city. Shortly after, she met and married Carter’s stepfather and had two more children with him. Carter’s stepfather adopted Carter and his sibling, and the family moved again. Although Carter was considered very creative and artistic as a child, as he got older, he experienced behavioural issues and was diagnosed with a learning disability. He was also subjected to violence from his stepfather who appears to have grown increasingly frustrated with him. Eventually, his stepfather forced Carter’s mother to choose between himself and Carter, and Carter was removed from the home. By age ten, he was sent to live permanently in a group home. The last year of schooling he completed outside of prison was grade 6 although he completed some high school while incarcerated. Carter’s first documented conviction was as a pre-teen for a property crime. He continued to commit property crimes and assaults until age eighteen. By his early twenties, he had committed over a dozen armed robberies. His mother became aware of these offences and helped the police arrest her son, which resulted in just under a tenyear sentence. After his conviction Carter’s mother had minimal contact with him and feared retaliation given his many threats against her. Carter also had very little contact with his siblings except for one with whom he exchanged cards and letters. His lack of connection to conventional society extended beyond relationships with his family; prior to his incarceration in his early twenties, Carter had not had any form of longer-term legitimate employment and appears to have supported himself through crime. While incarcerated, he was regularly found in possession of makeshift weapons, even while in segregation, and attempted to smuggle a razor into court. He uttered threats, committed various assaults (with and without weapons) against other inmates, guards, and wardens, and had a history of throwing biological weapons at fellow inmates and correctional officers. He also tried to escape numerous times. He denied responsibility for his crimes and

22  Pathways to Ruin?

blamed other people or circumstances for his behaviour. One assessment tool revealed a provisional diagnosis of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder, suggesting Carter had no insight into his crimes and felt entitled to use violence to get what he wanted. Upon his release from prison, Carter was placed on a supervision order (peace bond) requiring that he conform to several conditions to ensure his good behaviour. He violated these conditions resulting in more jail time. A judge commented: “Carter is on a peace bond because he is a maniac in prison and he is impossible to control in prison. He is a threat to the community.” While out on bond, he was charged with providing false ID, carrying weapons, and obstructing justice by claiming he was married and living at a specific residence with a woman who had given birth to his child – claims that were not substantiated. There is no other reference to intimate relationships in Carter’s file. At his last conviction, Carter was involved in a serious assault involving the driver and occupants of a vehicle. He was charged with, among other offences, aggravated assault, possessing dangerous weapons, and breaching his peace bond. While incarcerated and awaiting an assessment for designation as a long-term offender, he was assaulted by other inmates and found dead in his cell.

Carter’s biography provides a distressing example of a life scarred by significant negative events in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. His rocky childhood was marked by family abuse and instability. Carter’s ability to achieve at school was likely affected by his home life as well as by his diagnosis with a learning disability. These early beginnings were followed by an adolescence characterized by school failure and serious delinquency. Carter’s serious offending continued into adulthood where he gained no legitimate work experience, alienated his family, and was incarcerated for much of his adult life. Even while in prison, he continued to offend and was deemed a high-risk offender during the short time he was released. Close monitoring by the police did not prevent him from reoffending and his last conviction for an exceptionally violent crime marks the culmination of a life characterized by a steady stream of difficulties and further offending. His death, while incarcerated, may not be all that surprising given that he had few skills to navigate interpersonal relationships either within or outside of the institutions that had figured so prominently throughout his relatively short life.



Introduction: Setting the Stage  23

Looking Ahead Both Jamie’s and Carter’s experiences as children contributed to their trajectories or pathways toward significant involvement in crime during adulthood. Other cases suggest similarly difficult childhood experiences though various combinations of factors may lead to different outcomes. Still other high-risk individuals have seemingly average (not abusive) experiences during their childhood, yet events occurring during adolescence may lead to similar outcomes as those with more difficult childhoods. Only a small minority of individuals that we consider here had backgrounds that did not include serious, negative childhood or adolescent factors or events. In the chapters ahead, we consider elements and experiences over the life course that may contribute to offending trajectories and how we might make sense of individuals’ lives to begin to explain their participation in crime. While individuals navigate their own personal histories and sets of experiences in different ways, many structural and social factors also impact how individual idiosyncrasies unfold in contexts over which individuals have much less control. Children, for example, have little control over the families they are born into, the number of siblings they have, their early health, or the neighbourhoods in which they live. Life-course perspectives allow for a more complete examination of how individual histories intersect with social contexts to explain how an individual’s pattern of offending behaviour, or their offending trajectory, is influenced by both past experiences and the social structure in which an individual is embedded. In chapter 2, we look at the importance of the family during early stages of the life course as evidenced across a number of dimensions, from family size, socioeconomic status, parental criminality, to family disruption, and consider how these factors influence childhood antisocial behaviour and delinquency primarily through problematic supervision, discipline, and attachment. Early onset of problem behaviour can be evident as early as infancy. Thornberry (2005), for example, argues that this is best explained by an interaction of individual temperament, traits, and characteristics with ineffective parenting and the family’s position in the social structure. Thornberry states that the family environment exerts the strongest influence on misconduct in the childhood years, while recognizing that the impact that neuropsychological deficits have on an individual’s temperament can result in greater impulsivity and poor emotional regulation (see also Moffitt 1993). Although life-course theories typically emphasize the influence

24  Pathways to Ruin?

of family on criminality, individuals exist in family environments characterized by a combination of factors, including biology and mothers’ prenatal behaviour, which may result in deficits such as the effects of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and negative temperament (Moffitt 1993; Thornberry 2005). Not only do these factors have an impact on a child’s behaviour but they also affect parental reactions to antisocial behaviour. There is an interaction between a child’s acting out and the way a parent reacts – the more negative a child’s temperament, the more likely a parent is to respond with harsh, erratic, and explosive discipline and to withdraw affection (Thornberry 2005). A constellation of risk factors early in a child’s life produce an environment that may be conducive to the early onset of antisocial behaviour. While early childhood experiences may go a long way to setting the stage for later life, the experiences associated with adolescence are also influential in establishing crime trajectories. The teenage years, described in chapter 3, are often fraught with change as these years represent a disengagement from the family as the most important social force, moving toward peers and schools as key socialization agents. Adolescence is also a period of significant maturation biologically, emotionally, and psychologically. Although maturity is in many crucial ways experienced largely as an individual phenomenon – an individual’s physical changes are experienced by the individual alone – the maturation process occurs within social contexts that may differentially impact development. Negative factors, such as exposure to drugs and alcohol, violence within and outside of the family, and prior delinquency, as well as positive factors such as educational success and non-delinquent friends and peers, impact how maturity unfolds and is attained. For some individuals, physical and emotional changes occur in an environment that offers support and resources, while for others such changes may increase feelings of isolation. We explore the observations by Moffitt (1997, 2018) and her colleagues (Beckley et al. 2016 and Schaefer et al. 2017) who identify two offending groups, those who embark on a “life-course-persistent” trajectory, and a second group, those referred to as “adolescence-limited.” Unlike their life-course-persistent counterparts, the adolescence-limited group tends to partake of relatively minor acts of delinquency such as underage drinking, truancy, and stealing and are much less likely to evidence behavioural problems prior to adolescence, or after. The lifecourse-persistent group, who may be involved in more serious deviant activity, become trapped by the weight of their own past behaviour, carrying their past histories like comet-tails behind them. Extracting themselves from this trajectory is difficult as the social context in which



Introduction: Setting the Stage  25

they are operating often reinforces the problematic behaviour that they must put behind them to escape their criminal trajectory. Escaping a crime trajectory may be increasingly difficult depending on peer group, alcohol and drug use, and school performance. In chapter 4, we consider aspects of adulthood that, for some individuals, represent turning points in their crime careers and either mark an increase in criminal activity, or ignite such activity in what were formerly crime-free lives. Those who begin their criminal careers well into adulthood are a much rarer group of offenders. Beckley et al. (2016, 64) observe that adult-onset offenders “pose challenges to life course developmental theories, which have generally not anticipated the existence of the adult-onset offender.” By the time adulthood occurs, individuals are presumed to be launched on trajectories of offending (as per an accumulation of deficits that make non-offending difficult) or are non-offending (mainstream and conforming). As Beckley and her colleagues note, it seems counterintuitive that an individual could make it through the challenges of adolescence to adulthood and not have revealed a problematic history prior to the apparent first-time offence noted in adulthood. For some, it may be that while official records of criminal activity begin in adulthood, problems may have been evident much earlier in the life course and had simply not become part of the official record. A common theme weaving its way through our discussion of offending, regardless of age at onset, is the importance of social relationships as fundamental in explaining participation in, or disengagement from, crime (Sampson and Laub 1993, 2005). Families, schools, and workplaces tend to provide positive social relationships that work (for many) to deter offending, criminal activity might risk our losing relationships we value. The absence of these social relationships may also mean that there are few “tethers” ensuring good behaviour – without these ties we have less to lose. Apart from these less formal social relationships, we are all subject to the formality of law and its’ administration. The official record of our criminal behaviour looms large in how we are able to navigate opportunities. For example, acquiring a formal criminal record may limit future job prospects and where we may find places to live. At the same time, formal criminal processing provides insight into issues such as offence specialization and the impact that formal processing may have on subsequent crime. These topics are the focus of chapter 5. In chapter 6, we consider the factors that have been associated with crime desistance, or crime de-escalation. We tend to imagine that a person labelled as a high-risk offender would regularly and continuously

26  Pathways to Ruin?

offend over the course of their lives. In reality, those who commit crimes may go through various ebbs and flows with more or less criminal activity. People get married, acquire good jobs, and build stable relationships, all of which may result in reduced offending. Further, crime tends to diminish as people age, while offence specialization may increase. We turn to our concluding thoughts in chapter 7. Our life-course framework includes the possibility of childhood experiences setting the stage for offending behaviour through to adolescence and onward through adulthood. We also consider that relatively uneventful childhoods can be followed by a period of tumultuous adolescence that can lead to serious and/or prolific offending careers. Adult-onset crime may be the result of hidden propensities (perhaps evidenced in an accumulation of informal behavioural issues) or it may spring from sources that seem only loosely tied to past histories and are more a product of issues faced during adulthood. The life-course framework offers an opportunity to see how various phases and stages of life are characterized by factors that differentially affect the behaviour that, for these individuals, has led to being labelled as a high-risk offender in adulthood. Summary The pages that follow draw on life-course perspectives to establish the contexts of individual lives and to understand how life experiences and behaviours may contribute to offending careers among those considered high risk to harm or reoffend. While there are many avenues through which individuals may come to be identified as high risk, the label implies that future episodes of offending are very likely making these individuals feared as much for their potential as for their past offending behaviour. The media tend to focus on specific events and offender characteristics, seldom providing full information that would allow us to see the stories behind crime events and how factors that are implicated in crime may have developed over a lifetime. Further, the Alberta Solicitor General website, for example, suggests that the release of high-risk offenders into the community should prompt every one of us to take certain precautionary measures to ensure that we are not the next victims of these individuals, though what we are to do and for how long is much less clear. It is obvious that many of these individuals have experienced multiple forms of victimization and disadvantage during their formative childhood and adolescent years. By carefully examining their lives, we hope to come to a better understanding of



Introduction: Setting the Stage  27

how personal histories and social contexts intersect to create the conditions that produce these particularly costly offending patterns. While precautionary measures may indeed be warranted, the appropriate measures for protection and intervention may best be determined after thorough consideration of the lives and experiences of those who are deemed high risk. By removing the media and official filters that have guided how we think about crime – offenders as one-dimensional crime-committing machines who choose to become involved in episodic violence and who must be dealt with harshly – we hope to provide insight to broaden thinking about those involved in crime. Rethinking the popular crime narrative through an investigation of high-risk individuals may help to derail future offending by better understanding the events and processes that influence the evolution of this type of behaviour.

2 The Early Years: Accumulating Disadvantage?

Remembering Childhood If you were to describe your childhood, where exactly would you start and what details would you include? You might begin with specific experiences, events, and people who figure prominently in your memory. Parents, siblings, friends, and school may be included in your descriptions. Especially noteworthy vacations may anchor memories of your childhood, just as especially negative events might also direct how you remember the past. Not every story that we tell of our childhood, however, will be the same with each retelling. When we are teenagers, we consider our childhood much differently compared with how we remember our childhood at our retirement party. The years that have passed since childhood have an impact on our stories and memories of childhood, just as the present permeates, knowingly or not, our interpretations of the past as well as our imagining of the future. The loss of a parent or sibling, for example, may make us remember our stories (and people) differently than we might have only a few years prior to such loss. Our current emotional state may lead us to remember events differently as our moods change and current experiences unfold. At the same time, memories of our childhood are likely to be affected by and interact with the emotions that we associate with the past. Noel and her colleagues (2017, 58) explain that childhood pain experiences “set the stage for pain coping across the life span.” How we remember childhood pain from a variety of sources, including everyday medical procedures and accidental bumps and bruises, to significant injury and illness, can influence how we deal with pain in the future. This is referred to as “memory bias” and may have positive or negative implications for the ways in which we experience the rest of our lives. On the one hand,



The Early Years  29

memories of painful experiences may direct us to avoid certain types of pain in the future. On the other hand, if the experience of pain is consistently reinforced through memory, the memory of pain may be as debilitating as the initial experience of it. Interestingly, Noel’s research suggests that childhood pain memories are malleable and changing the pain memory may change the future experience of pain. Studies by Finkelhor and his colleagues Ormrod and Turner (2007, 2009a, and with Holt 2009b, etc.) have focused on the distress associated with the pain of childhood victimization and the subsequent types of adversity that these individuals face as they grow up and that may impact later life. The multiple types of victimization that children experience may come from a variety of sources, including, for example, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by parents or family members and caregivers, bullying at school, harassment or assault by peers or strangers, and exposure to crime and violence in one’s neighbourhood. Their research has found that there are four types of pathways to childhood victimization. One pathway consists of events that occur within the family such as violence or abuse perpetrated by parents or family members. Finkelhor’s studies identify a second pathway relating to temperament and behavioural patterns exhibited by the children themselves that may contribute to negative outcomes. Children who are easily agitated or aggressive, for example, may interact negatively with those around them. A third pathway relates to the structure of the family itself. Changing configurations of the family, such as parents with multiple partners and various caregiving arrangements, can lead to a lack of supervision and decreases in emotional attachment with the family resulting in feelings of insecurity among children. A final pathway identified by Finkelhor and his colleagues has to do with residing in dangerous communities. Dangerous communities are characterized by violence, a lack of supervision, and weak social ties (Finkelhor et al. 2009b, 317). These communities place stress on those who live in them, with individuals and families more likely to offend due to fewer community controls and inhibitions on behaviour. In this chapter, we broadly follow Finkelhor’s four pathways and first examine the centrality of the family and how it plays a key role in the childhood experiences of the individuals examined here. While Finkelhor distinguishes violence within the family from issues such as family structure, we consider these as social and structural dimensions of families and examine them together as familial dimensions. These dimensions of the family environment contribute to the temperament and behavioural patterns exhibited by the children (Finkelhor’s second pathway). Further, we consider dimensions of the

30  Pathways to Ruin?

social environment and highlight school and communities and their potential contributions to childhood experiences. The individuals considered here have typically come to the attention of authorities because of the multiple and serious offences they have committed and the fact that they are deemed a significant risk to re-offend; victimizing others is a significant part of their biographies. At the same time, in order to understand more fully the life contexts and circumstances of those who commit these crimes, their own childhood, including experiences of victimization, must be carefully explored.

A Crime Pathway: Paul Paul was born with fetal alcohol syndrome as a result of his mother’s alcohol consumption during pregnancy. He contracted spinal meningitis as an infant, was dropped on his head as a toddler, and later was hit by a car, resulting in a year-long hospital stay and a permanent brain injury. He has an IQ below 70 and has a grade five education, which were treated as indicative of learning disabilities. He reports sexual abuse as a child by several people including family members and foster parents. He started drinking before the age of ten and was using marijuana by the age of fifteen, later developing an addiction to crack cocaine. Paul’s early history is confusing as he provided contradictory information at various assessments over the years. Paul’s official criminal record dates to before he was eighteen years old when he was first convicted of property crimes and non-sexual assault. In his early twenties, he was convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl who he was babysitting. He was subsequently convicted of further assault and thefts, and during his early forties was charged with sexually assaulting his own children though he was not convicted due to a technicality. More recently, Paul was convicted of a sexual assault where he followed and attacked his victim in a public space. He was under the influence of crack cocaine and alcohol at the time and received a four-year sentence followed by probation. He was offered programs specifically designed for sexual offenders with mental disabilities – programs he was unable to complete. Paul is described in formal assessments as an untreated sex offender who does not express any remorse for his victims, lacks insight into his offending, and does not accept responsibility for his actions. Paul is considered a “very low functioning … high needs offender who will be easy to manipulate and taken advantage of on



The Early Years  31

the street … Programs will not assist him” (file notes). All assessments determined that Paul required a structured living arrangement upon release and he was placed on a peace bond in order to manage the risk he is believed to pose.

Childhood Events Offending behaviour among high-risk offenders does not appear out of the blue. Rather, negative childhood experiences often contribute to the conditions for later offending. Childhood is an important formative time and family processes are central to the development of both prosocial and antisocial behavioural patterns. The family plays a fundamental role in many explanations of crime as it links experiences in early childhood with later misconduct and criminal behaviour in both adolescence and adulthood. The life-course perspective considers “the evolution of crime and deviance from childhood through to adulthood” (Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt 1995, 111). The examination of childhood – and the ­family – is a necessary starting point for this perspective as childhood sets the stage for the unfolding of further neuropsychological, social, and physical development. Central to most young lives is the family unit and the many features and characteristics associated with that unit, which mirrors the importance of the four pathways Finkelhor and colleagues have implicated in victimization that we outlined above – from characteristics and qualities of parents, siblings, and relatives; family structure; the family’s socio-demographic status; emotional attachments between family members; to early experiences within the family, such as nurture, discipline, abuse and neglect (i.e., Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Sampson and Laub 1993; Thornberry 2005). The specifics of Paul’s life are overwhelming and it is hard for many of us to imagine a childhood plagued by so many difficulties along with victimization that is both circumstantial and specific: born with fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) into an impoverished home characterized by alcoholism and abuse with few social supports; contracting spinal meningitis as an infant and sustaining a permanent brain injury by the age of six; suffering sexual and physical abuse; involved in early substance abuse; and ultimately attaining very poor educational outcomes. Paul’s life serves as an unfortunate example of both individual and social factors intersecting to produce a lifetime of hardship not only for Paul but also for those he has victimized over the years. Neuropsychological research

32  Pathways to Ruin?

provides a starting point for understanding how Paul has navigated, and failed to successfully navigate, his environment. In her overview of neuropsychology, Moffitt (1997) explains that the aim of neuropsychological research focusing on antisocial behaviour is to identify children who may be at risk for “maladaptive responses” to their environments, or behaviours that inhibit appropriate adjustment to various situations and surroundings. Maladaptive responses among specific at-risk children are the result of “compromised neuropsychological functioning” that is the result of heredity, injury, disrupted fetal brain development, deprivation of nutrition or stimulation during infancy, or toxic exposure to chemicals, to name a few (Moffitt 1997, 117). In Paul’s case, several factors appear to contribute to his antisocial and criminogenic behaviour. Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD), of which fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) is one of a number of specific diagnoses, is characterized by severe impairment in at least three domains, including, “motor skills, neuroanatomy/physiology, cognition, language, achievement, memory, attention, executive functioning (impulse control and hyperactivity), emotion regulation, social skills and communication” (Brown et al. 2019, 31). Those with FASDs have trouble in several areas that are the basis of our education system – cognition, memory, language, and impulse control. Reduced functioning in these key areas results in a variety of responses including frustration, irritability, lying, drug/alcohol problems, and aggression. Paul was clearly not born into a supportive family situation where some of his difficulties might have been adequately addressed. Instead, it appears that Paul’s home life exacerbated these underlying conditions. While a certain degree of illness is often a routine aspect of childhood, the implications of childhood meningitis can be extremely grave and may include aggression, learning difficulties, and depression (Meningitis Foundation 2020). This serious illness, along with Paul’s early history of injury (including being dropped on his head and being hit by a car, both resulting in long-term hospitalization), are not only suggestive of life-altering physiological problems, but also speak to an unmistakable lack of parental supervision and care. Paul’s FAS, along with his serious injuries and illness, are very likely to have had an impact on both his ability to interact and communicate with others and their ability to communicate with him. Socialization, including the development of appropriately relating to others, would have been a continuous challenge throughout his childhood. Neuropsychological research on language acquisition suggests that children who have language difficulties may not be able to understand the instructions they are given and may not convert instructions into ways



The Early Years  33

of developing self-control. For example, if children have difficulties acquiring language not only will they be unable to take direction, but they will also be unable to express themselves in ways that are socially appropriate. As Moffitt explains, “children with verbal deficit skills might not profit from the labelling of a class of behaviours as punishmentattracting” (1997, 131) and may repeatedly behave in ways that continue to engender punishment. Language development is a critical part of one’s ability to cultivate prosocial processes, including “delaying gratification, anticipating consequences of acts, and linking belated punishments to earlier transgressions” (131). Without language development, options to manage various situations are severely curtailed and increase the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. Neuropsychological deficits interact with both temperament and the environments that individuals inhabit. Temperament, an aspect of personality that is impacted by biology and modulated by environmental response, plays a role in the responses of infants and the responses they provoke from their caregivers. To say that temperament may be, in part, hereditary, means that the characteristics of babies or small children – such as irritability and activity level – are characteristics that parents may also have, making it more difficult for some parents to deal with children who are like themselves (Moffitt 1997, 127). This challenge may also translate into parental behaviour that does not lend itself to helping to provide positive school experiences and reactions by teachers and administrators. For Paul, plagued by FAS, as well as serious injury and illness, it may be that his “early behavioural difficulties contribute to the development of persistent antisocial behaviour by evoking responses from the interpersonal social environment that exacerbate the child’s tendencies” to behave antisocially (129). While admittedly somewhat speculative, we note that Paul’s early social environment – plagued by a lack of supervision, abuse, and alcohol and drug consumption – is unlikely to have evoked responses that would have discouraged antisocial behaviour. His departure from school after Grade 5 also seems to support this. When parents or teachers do not respond effectively to negative behaviour, children in turn do not learn appropriate responses, and both parents and teachers contribute to ingrained and sustained maladaptive behavioural patterns. Similarly, teachers and administrators often label children who demonstrate poor behavioural and emotional regulation as “troublemakers.” Indeed, we observed many such “troublemakers” among this group who were repeatedly suspended or expelled from school, as evidenced by Jamie’s story in chapter 1. Expulsion from school often

34  Pathways to Ruin?

reinforces antisociality and does not allow for a transition away from continued negative behaviour. Those with neuropsychological deficits experience their formative years as “dominated by chains of cumulative continuity” (Moffitt 1997, 151). As Finkelhor describes in his second pathway relating to temperament and behavioural patterns, this may lead to developing further problematic behaviour whereby children respond inappropriately, parents and teachers respond ineffectively, children repeat the behaviour, and parents and teachers continue to respond ineffectively. The result of these interactions is that children are not guided toward beneficial change and experience does not result in learning new, more positive behavioural repertoires. As Moffitt notes, children who experience such difficulties become trapped: opportunities for change are few due to abnormal parent- and teacher-child relationships and learning to respond appropriately is reduced due to the deficits the children face. The neuropsychological issues that Paul experienced due to his many early traumas may parallel a lack of (positive) attention and supervision in Paul’s home during these early childhood and adolescent years. It seems unlikely that children who are adequately supervised would have faced as much trauma as Paul did – being dropped on his head, hit by a car, and suffering preventable childhood illnesses. In the section that follows we consider several family factors that may have impacted Paul’s subsequent delinquency and offending. The Family Our review of Paul’s neuropsychological challenges is one way to understand the impact of Paul’s early childhood years. At the same time, it is very difficult to separate Paul’s individual challenges from the family context in which he grew up. A child born with readily diagnosable learning difficulties (as evidenced through FAS) does not often emerge into a context that is non-problematic. Heavy maternal drinking during pregnancy is suggestive of addiction issues that predate the arrival of a baby and set the stage for heightened risk of negative outcomes for the child. A number of family factors are implicated in future delinquency and offending including traumatic experiences such as abuse and victimization, family conflict and turbulence, family disruption, lack of supervision, involvement with mental health and social systems, lack of affection, neglect, parental deviance, etc. (see, for example, Fagan and Wexler 1987; Baglivio et al. 2015b; Beckmann 2019). While families are embedded in communities or neighbourhoods that provide varying degrees of social support, we



The Early Years  35

first consider the importance of the family in the criminal careers of high-risk offenders. Social learning theory maintains that parents serve as models for their children and demonstrate appropriate ways of behaving in a variety of social situations. We look to our parents to provide us with examples of how to behave, especially in situations where we might feel frustrated or angry – both of which may precede aggression. Social learning is often linked to the “cycle of violence” theory which refers to the idea that those who grow up witnessing violence as children will also engage in violence when assuming adult roles (Widom 1989; Widom and Maxfield 2001; Kaufman-Parks et al. 2018; Widom 2017; Hoskins and Kunkel 2020). In other words, children exposed to violence learn to use violence in certain situations and become future perpetrators both in adolescence and adulthood. Some studies have found that violent offenders are more likely to have experienced violence as children than have other types of offenders (Kruttschnitt, Ward, and Sheble, 1987; Widom 1989; Reckdenwald, Mancini, and Beauregard 2013, Zoe, Elke, and Green 2016). Support for the cycle of violence has been mixed and there are competing explanations as to why children’s witnessing violence does not necessarily translate into perpetrating violence at later life stages in life. Protective factors – factors that boost resilience in the face of violence – undermine the cycle and reduce the likelihood that violence will be used in the future. Kruttschnitt and her colleagues (1987, 503) identified factors that may weaken the cycle of violence, including the presence of at least one nurturing adult. Resilience among children who are exposed to violence is greater for those with parental attachment, especially attachment to their mothers. The absence of stress-producing risk factors within violent families, which include ineffective parental behaviour such as inadequate supervision, permissiveness, inconsistency, as well as parental drug and alcohol use (Public Safety Canada 2008), also increase children’s resilience. Another source of resilience is a support system outside the immediate family: that is, children who have support through extended family, friends, and teachers, etc. (Kruttschnitt, Ward, and Sheble 1987; Muller 2000). These external supports are important as other adults may become alternative caregivers (Kruttschnitt, Ward, and Sheble 1987, 504) and may also indirectly have an impact on the parents themselves. In their study of formerly maltreated individuals, Muller and his colleagues (2000, 4) found that the most important form of support was emotional support provided by friends. Protective factors may also include school success – children who do well in school (including few behavioural problems

36  Pathways to Ruin?

and receiving good grades) had a decreased likelihood of arrest over those who did not experience school success. According to criminologists Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), the outcome of parental socialization is development of a child’s self-control. Their theory of self-control maintains that parental practices, such as supervision, monitoring, and discipline, exert an everlasting impact on children. Through effective child-rearing, which includes actively monitoring and appropriately supervising and disciplining children, parents establish high levels of self-control among their children. An assumption of this theory is that if left unattended, children will pursue their own self-interests, which will lead to greater conflict between themselves and others, and also potentially result in their harming either themselves or others. Those who have little self-control will commit more crime (defined as “acts of force or fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest” that tend to provide short-term satisfaction but longer-term negative consequences [Gottfredson 2017, 5]), with these acts described as opportunistic, self-serving, immediately advantageous, and requiring little preparation. Those who care about their children will train them to restrict their pursuit of self-interest and will increase their children’s self-control: “parental concern for the welfare or behaviour of the child is a necessary condition for successful childrearing” (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990, 98). Children who have higher levels of self-control will be better able to learn the long-term implications of their actions and will be more likely to avoid conflict and harming others. Appropriate and caring adults beyond parents, such as friends, neighbours, extended family, and teachers, help to establish self-control by providing monitoring and sanctioning of children’s behaviour so that as the child develops, self-control becomes a form of self-surveillance that is part of the child’s stable characteristics (a point we come back to later). Gottfredson and Hirschi maintain that the critical years for establishing self-control are in the first years of a child’s life and that it is set early in the life course within the family context. The child who does not have appropriate familial care and supervision in early childhood will be unable to establish self-control in the years to come. When this early positive self-control training is absent, the child will face a lifelong deficit of low self-control and its consequences, including poor educational attainment and school misconduct, substance abuse, accidents, bullying, and criminal behaviour (Gottfredson 2017, 5). We can see that neuropsychological challenges, self-control, and parenting are interconnected. Those who have difficulties learning appropriate responses (due to neuropsychological challenges) may be harder



The Early Years  37

to parent – more difficult to monitor and to teach appropriate responses to. Children who are harder to parent are especially taxing on their parents’ resources and require a great deal of effort in the very best of circumstances. Parents may have fewer resources to provide for their children and the resources they have may not be adequately absorbed by children with particular needs. This may take a toll on parents’ willingness to provide adequate supervision or attention. A strained child-parent relationship may then foster the development of antisocial behaviour through lack of appropriate supervision and discipline, and difficult interactions with parents (and others) may be evident very early in life. The theorizing around self-control directly points to parents and their lack of adequate supervision, discipline, and affection as central to establishing appropriate levels of self-control in children as laid out in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of self-control. This link has been supported in Gibbs, Giever, and Martin’s (1998) and Hay’s (2001) work, which demonstrate that adequate supervision is related to higher levels of self-control. Related to supervision, discipline, and affection is the concept of neglect, which has been found to be an important predictor of antisocial behaviour (Kazemian, Widom, and Farrington 2011). Neglect may be active, deliberate, and intentional, or passive, non-­wilful, and unintentional, and consists of inattention and failing to provide for a child’s basic needs or that which is essential to life (Hildyard and Wolfe 2002; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, and Labruna 1999). Neglect may involve failing to adequately feed, clothe, or house children; failing to ensure school attendance, failing to provide medical attention, as well as failing to provide adequate attention, care, love, and support (Hildyard and Wolfe 2002; Kaplan et al. 1999). Neglect also frequently consists of acts of omission – failing to offer resources – and is most often perpetrated by those who are expected to be caregivers such as parents and family members. It fits broadly under the category of maltreatment, which also includes various forms of abuse – physical, sexual, and emotional.

A Crime Pathway: Edward Edward was conceived as the result of incestuous sexual assault between his teenage mother and her stepfather. Because of what he represented, he was never loved or accepted and was subject to severe abuse and neglect by both his mother and grandmother. His mother consumed alcohol during pregnancy and continued to do so after his

38  Pathways to Ruin?

birth. During Edward’s early childhood his mother had multiple romantic partners. At five years old, he was put into protective services and required hospitalization for several months as he was suffering from malnutrition and fever. After his recovery, Edward was placed in an orphanage where he continued to be physically and sexually abused. At age eight, he lived with a foster family where he had to abide by strict military-like rules; he was returned to the orphanage a year and a half later without explanation. Edward’s mother reclaimed him when he was ten years old after she became sober. Although he was no longer subject to abuse, he continued to feel unloved (file notes). Edward learned of the identity of his birth father during his midteens and began to use alcohol to cope with this news. He married before he was twenty and, despite his chaotic childhood, had a seemingly normal marriage early on though he continued to use alcohol and drugs and participated in numerous extramarital affairs. In his mid-twenties, both he and his wife experienced a religious conversion and became Christians. He also quit drinking and using drugs and he and his wife began to attend counselling. His conversion was preceded by a charge of driving under the influence. He remained sober for about six years but arguments with his wife began to escalate. After a decade of marriage, his wife fled with their child after an argument during which Edward had pushed her off the bed. He became terrified she was going to leave for good and had his first drink after a half-decade of sobriety. He returned home and grabbed a knife to kill himself. He had a few more drinks and negotiated with a sex worker who he subsequently sexually assaulted in a nearby parkade. Various file reports indicated that Edward attacked this particular woman because her demeanour was sexually provocative, she reminded him of his mother, and it was an outlet for his aggression toward his wife after she declared their relationship was over. He was not arrested for this assault until about three years later. Edward and his wife separated briefly but eventually reconciled. Edward attended several programs and counselling sessions while on bail, during his incarceration, and while on statutory release. He was commended for his efforts and was seen as having “a sincere desire to deal with his sexually deviant dysfunctional and abusive behaviour toward others and himself” (file notes). Despite all the programming and counselling that he attended and the gains that he made, his next conviction was for sexual interference and sexual assault against two separate teen-aged victims. These events came to light when the mother of one of the victims approached church officials about this incident (Edward attended the same church). He was



The Early Years  39

confronted, eventually admitted his guilt, and was convinced to turn himself in. Edward and his wife again separated – this time for good. Shortly after his separation, he met and began living with another woman. Prior to his conviction for the above sexual offences, he and his commonlaw wife were arguing about money; he assaulted her and was convicted for this incident. Edward’s file indicates that he appears to revert to criminal behaviour when stressed by relationship problems. He has an intense fear of abandonment, resulting from his victimization in childhood, which has led to tumultuous and discordant relationships (file notes), and “whenever threatened with loss [Edward] goes into rage (enormous rage) – related to abandonment in his past” (file notes). His sexual offences are described as opportunistic in nature as “no other collaborating information that might suggest pedophilic interest”; although his daughter was close in age to his second and third victims, there is no evidence of any form of sexual assault against her (file notes). Edward’s criminal record consists of several sexual assaults and a non-sexual assault. As a result of his criminal record, he was determined to be a long-term offender, subject to a long-term supervision order.

Abuse and Victimization Early exposure to victimization and abuse during childhood and memories of such events undoubtedly play a pivotal role in how we understand, experience, and react to the world around us. Some theorists suggest that these early negative experiences are like “developmental cascades” (Logan-Greene, Nurius, Hooven, and Thompson 2015), meaning that exposure to extremely negative events sets off a process that colours not only the way we navigate our environments and our understandings of ourselves for years to come, but also predisposes us to certain experiences and coping mechanisms in the future. Trauma is thought to produce cognitive dysregulation, or a reduced ability to process information, through the impact of stress. Stress, in turn, causes elevated hormonal levels that can result in dysfunctional or maladaptive coping behaviour (Logan-Greene et al. 2015). How developmental cascades unfold is determined by the type of negative experience and the resources available to an individual at the time the event(s) occur. Like pain, the impact of victimization experiences, such as abuse,

40  Pathways to Ruin?

may affect an individual differently depending upon the individual’s cognitive capacity and social support – the age at which these events occur is therefore significant. What is clear is that the greater the types and quantity of abuse and victimization experienced, the more likely trauma-related outcomes will manifest themselves later in life. Multiple types of abuse and victimization are referred to as poly-victimization and may result in heightened levels of illness and behavioural disorders such as aggression (and crime). It may be that childhood trauma helps to explain the offending patterns of those who experience early childhood victimization. For instance, those who experience such early victimization may be hypervigilant to danger, which may subsequently bias their interpretations of the behaviours of others as hostile, in turn causing them to respond in aggressive ways. Edward’s story is another example of early experiences shaping how subsequent experiences are interpreted through the lens of prior abuse. Research on the impact of child sexual abuse, for example, indicates several serious health consequences among these victims. In their review of the health outcomes associated with child sexual abuse, Sigurdardottir and Halldorsdottir (2018) identify an array of consequences ranging from, for example, chronic pain, arthritis, and diabetes; to circulatory, digestive, and neurological issues; to somatic and mental health problems. Heightened mental health concerns in the form of internalizing and externalizing disorders may also result from the trauma associated with abuse and may vary depending upon the developmental stage at which the abuse occurs. These health concerns include post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety, substance use disorders, and suicidal ideation (Fergusson, Boden, and Horwood 2008; Ford, Elhai, Connor, and Frueh 2010). Involvement with delinquency and with delinquent peers is also noted to be a common outcome of childhood victimization. Finkelhor and his colleagues (2007, 2009a, 2009b) studied and identified children who carry the highest burden of victimization, children who are victimized in multiple ways, and the psychological distress that this victimization can produce. The intersection of various types of abuse appears to heighten the likelihood of difficulties in adolescence and adulthood. Logan-Greene and her colleagues (2015) found in their study of victimization that children who had been victimized were at a greater risk of being revictimized as adolescents and as adults. The types of victimization these authors considered was wide-ranging and included emotional maltreatment, witnessing abuse, physical maltreatment, property assault, and sexual victimization, and when these occurred (childhood, adolescence, and adulthood). Their model found



The Early Years  41

that childhood victimization would predict both adolescent and adult victimization. Further, childhood and adolescent victimization had an impact on both adolescent and adult aggression. The notion of developmental cascade stems from the developmental psychopathology perspective which suggests that negative health and behavioural outcomes observed at a subsequent stage in life are the outcomes of earlier stages of life, particularly the stages of childhood and adolescence. During these critical earlier periods of life, the trauma that is caused by abuse, neglect, and victimization can interrupt normal biological and psychological development which in turn may cause impairment to the regulatory processes. Research suggests that these impairments could result in any of a range of problems, including chromosome damage, changes in brain development, and an impaired allostatic response (Fox et al. 2015, 164). Allostasis is essentially the ability of the body to adjust to and cope with changes, particularly stressors, in its external environment – the ability to internally stabilize the body’s regulatory system in the face of change. The allostatic response is part of the body’s stress management system and governs the excretion of various hormones and amino acids in order to address stressful situations. In short-lived stressful situations, the allostatic response helps the body to manage stress. In cases where the stress response is continuous, such as could be the case in histories of abuse, the prolonged allostatic response results in heightened chemical levels and serves instead to undermine the body’s ability to deal with stress, in turn, making damaging and destructive behaviour that much more likely (Fox et al. 2015, 164). This is part of the “neurotoxicity hypothesis” which maintains that heightened chemical levels, including cortisol – the body’s primary stress hormone – undermine the body’s ability to develop and grow neurons that help to relieve stress. If the body has been exposed to stress prior to developing adequate stress mediators, the result is heightened sensitivity to stress along with altered molecular and genetic structures as a result (Berens, Jensen, and Nelson 2017, 3). Those who experience early and heightened stress are more likely to experience a range of adverse impacts including deficits in processing and regulating emotions, the development of various psychopathologies, as well as substance use disorders (4). The impact of inadequate stress mediation will result in compromising children’s ability to learn as well as their ability to form social relationships. Within the context of childhood maltreatment, we see that physiological responses to stress are reinforced by and occur in tandem with social learning processes. Making reference to Vaish, Grossmann, and Woodward (2008), who discuss the asymmetrical ways in which we

42  Pathways to Ruin?

use negative versus positive information, Evans, Simons, and Simons (2012, 1097) note that there is evidence that “humans attend to, learn from, and use negative information far more than positive information.” Bearing witness to, and being on the receiving end of, such coercive behaviour provides salient models for replicating behaviour. But there is a dual process occurring, according to the neurotoxicity hypothesis, where the body’s response to such treatment enables the development of maladaptive behaviours. These impacts are more acute when a child is subject to multiple experiences of victimization. Research has shown that large proportions of children who have experienced victimization are poly-victims who have experienced more than one form of victimization (Turner et al. 2017). The trauma associated with poly-victimization has been found to be greater than the trauma associated with any single type of victimization, even when a particular type of abuse exposure occurs repeatedly (757). Polyvictimization research fits into an area that has examined the effects of “adverse childhood experiences” or ACEs. This research initially considered adverse experiences including acts of omission (forms of neglect) as well as acts of commission (various types of abuse and victimization) and their impact on health and medical issues. What is noteworthy about ACEs and the experience of poly-victimization is that adverse experiences that occur across several domains have a cumulative effect over time and negatively impact those who exposed to these circumstances. Further, the more widespread the adverse experiences the less likely it is that the child is able to find a “safe haven.” We turn to a more detailed discussion of ACEs next. Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs Research on victimization has traditionally limited its focus to particular forms of victimization to determine the impact of specific victimization later in life – for example, if an individual is physically abused as a child, during adulthood is that individual more likely to continue to be the victim of physical abuse or to become the perpetrator of physical abuse? More recently, research has turned attention to how the sheer number of victimization experiences in childhood interacts to produce multiple negative outcomes in several domains of life. Finkelhor and his colleagues (2009a) have noted that when studying specific types of victimization rather than co-occurring or multiple victimization and adversities, it is difficult to get a sense of how experiences intersect and how vulnerability may be exacerbated when multiple adversities are experienced across several contexts (404).



The Early Years  43

The health literature has clearly established that the more adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) one has had, the greater the likelihood of ill health consequences later in adult life (Felitti et al. 1998; Finkelhor et al. 2009a; Chang et al. 2019). Felitti and his associates were among the first to consider the impact of exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) which included a range of forms of abuse (psychological, physical, and/or sexual), as well as exposure to various “household dysfunctions,” including living with those who were substance abusers, living with those who were mentally ill, seeing one’s mother treated violently, or living with a household member who had gone to prison (1998, 246). This initial research found a “strong and cumulative” impact of ACEs on adult health risk behaviour and disease. Later research added both physical and emotional neglect (Anda et al. 2010) and parental separation or divorce (Dube et al. 2001) to the roster of ACEs. Recent research on ACEs has tended to focus on these ten items with scores summed so that those who have experienced more ACEs receive higher scores. It is consistently found that the greater the number of ACEs experienced, the greater the adversity in later life. The health consequences of childhood poly-victimization are clear with child maltreatment considered a public health problem. Adult health is compromised by painful and traumatic childhood experiences, often resulting in high-risk coping behaviours, such as over-eating, substance use or other chemical dependencies, as well as greater levels of physical disease, neurobiological changes, and mental health issues (Levenson et al. 2017, 314). Poly-victimization reduces an individual’s ability to cope with the strain of such exposure by reducing social support from friends and family, as well as reducing self-esteem and mastery (Turner et al. 2017). As Turner and colleagues observe, informal support from family and friends can bolster self-esteem and mastery – without these informal supports, individuals may feel that they are “unworthy and disliked by others” (771), which may, in turn, increase negative self-concept. Individuals who experience victimization across multiple contexts may feel a reduced sense of mastery – that they have little control across several contexts and can exert little authority over their own life outcomes. This health-based research on ACEs has more recently been applied to criminal victimization and offending. Higher ACE scores have been linked with behaviours such as alcoholism, risky sexual behaviour, suicidal behaviour, and offending (Perez et al. 2016, 1528). Perez and his colleagues considered the outcome of ACEs on suicidal behaviour and found that aggression and impulsivity appeared to mediate or link ACEs with suicidal behaviour. In other words, varying levels

44  Pathways to Ruin?

of aggression, for example, will result in varying impacts of ACEs on suicidal behaviour – those who have higher levels of aggression during childhood are more likely to self-harm and display self-destructive behaviour (1539). Similarly, those with greater levels of impulsivity were found more likely to demonstrate suicidal behaviour. Among those who have committed sex offences, Levenson and her associates found that those who had experienced ACEs used “sexualized coping” to satisfy various emotional needs such as attention, affection, control, and intimacy (2017, 325). They speculate that individuals who perpetrate sexual offenses and who have experienced trauma in their lives, such as abuse and neglect, may seek out younger and more vulnerable victims who are less threatening (than older victims). Further, for these individuals who have witnessed violence in their families, or who have had incarcerated family members, Levenson et al. speculate that as children they may model criminal behaviour while also experiencing disempowerment because of the incarceration of the family member. In the group of 411 high-risk individuals that we focus on here, we found that one-third had an ACE score of at least 3 or more, and over half had at least one ACE (see appendix 1 for how the ACE score was measured and constructed). The range of scores was 0–8 (rather than ten measures because of missing data among the files), suggesting that multiple ACEs are not necessarily the foundation to all high-risk offending (given there were those who scored 0 and 1). In Felitti et al.’s (1998) initial ACE study, adults (who had undergone a standard medical test associated with a clinical setting) were asked to respond to a survey that asked them about their experience with ACEs. Studies of offenders have similarly found a range of ACE scores, from four times higher than found in the general population (Reavis et al. 2013) to even higher in those convicted for murder. James Garbarino (2017) indicates that many of the individuals who have been sentenced with the death penalty in the United States have ACE scores of 8–10. Baglivio and his associates (2014) found that higher ACE scores are associated with increased levels of crime and deviance, although some studies indicate that exposure to domestic violence (Sousa et al. 2011) and parental incarceration (Geller et al. 2009; Murray and Farrington 2008) are especially significant. Fox and her colleagues (2015) note that the most common types of adverse childhood experiences are emotional abuse, physical abuse, witnessing household violence (between caregivers, for example), and having an incarcerated parent. According to their work, the type of traumatic childhood event (ACE) that appears to distinguish serious, violent offenders from those who committed



The Early Years  45

one offence was having an incarcerated parent (Fox et al. 2015, 168). Bryan (2017) found that children who have incarcerated fathers were much more likely to experience marginalization that limited not only their social networks but also affected academic success – social isolation may lead to “fewer, more-delinquent, and more-disadvantaged friends” (1479). As noted by Fagan and Wexler (1987), the family is complicated and internal dynamics and modelling may be influenced by an assortment of forces from both within and outside the family, such as school experiences and relationships with peers and others. The result of not receiving appropriate care or the experience of abuse within the family impacts the development of self-control and may also negatively affect neurological, biological, and psychological development for years to come. Yet not all parents, caregivers, and family experiences are the same – some individuals appear more able to resist the dire consequences of adverse circumstances than others. Beutel and his colleagues (2017), for instance, have focused on the concept of resilience and how it is that some individuals are able to overcome exposure to adversity and hardship. As noted above, research has shown that resilience is related to perceptions of parents’ care, personality style, and adolescent peer relationships (2). Unfortunately, resilience does not seem to have characterized the lives of many of the individuals we consider here. In their study of the impact of family stress on child social competency, Creavey, Gatzke-Kopp, and Fosco (2018) found that stressful life events and harsh parental discipline have a negative effect on children’s behavioural adjustment. They defined social competency as the ability “to express and recognize feelings, to communicate feelings, to be flexible during social interaction and to demonstrate learning from previous interactions” (484). Adverse childhood experiences, including various forms of abuse, use of substances, violence in the home, and parental incarceration, may cause stress for children. Other sources of stress on children and within families include a loss of jobs (and reduced family income), illness or health problems, and residential instability or frequent moves. Creavey’s research suggests that these types of events put strain on social relationships and result in a lack of support for children through their critical development periods (484). Their research, which supports the main tenets of the social learning theory discussed earlier, also found that positive relationships with parents help children to “scaffold their developing emotional regulation capacities and learn to enact positive prosocial strategies” (490). Once again we see that parents’ responses to their children can teach them to react emotionally appropriately to their environments. Alternatively, parents’

46  Pathways to Ruin?

responses can create and reinforce their children’s problematic emotional responses. Edward and Paul clearly had poor parental examples of appropriate emotional responses. John’s life story, below, also points to an inability to respond appropriately to one’s environment and suggests that the foundations of his problematic behaviour were created in childhood.

A Crime Pathway: John John resided with his natural parents for most of his childhood and is the eldest of six children. His father, an alcoholic who was physically and emotionally abusive toward him, temporarily abandoned the family for another woman and John allegedly tried to kill his father for this misdeed. Reports also note he spent time in foster care, possibly after the attempt on his father’s life. He described his mother as “warm and caring” and he indicated that he had a good relationship with her during his childhood. He is the only member of his family who has a criminal record. When John was in early grade school, an accident resulted in a facial disfigurement. Because of this, he was the subject of ridicule by his peers and this event is noted to have deeply affected John. At his sentencing for a complicated and serious sexual assault later in his life, the presiding judge stated that from this event “evolved the personality that we know today, an antisocial … alcoholic suffering from Reactive Depressive Psychosis” (file notes). John also reports that he was sexually abused on several occasions by different men. One instance of sexual abuse occurred at the hands of a male babysitter. He was also abused by a priest when he was nearly ten years old. Not long after this, his father’s friend also attempted to sexually assault him. As a result of this victimization, John became mistrustful, especially of adult males, and turned to using drugs and alcohol early in his adolescent years to cope with his feelings. He indicated that his inability to cope with these traumas, especially his victimization by a babysitter and the anger that resulted from these experiences, was a major contributor to his involvement in a criminal lifestyle, generally, and the perpetration of violence and sex offences, more specifically. During his teens, John began his criminal career with theft-related offences. In his later teens he developed a drinking problem which he indicates fuelled many of his later crimes. John continued to commit numerous crimes and by his mid-forties had accumulated over sixty



The Early Years  47

convictions on his official criminal record – convictions that are noted to have increased in severity and increasingly involved weapons. At one sentencing hearing a judge observed that “his record indicates a continued line of conduct which has accelerated rather than diminished as the accused grows older” (file notes). After a nearly a fifteen-year prison term for breaking into a woman’s home, sexually assaulting her with a weapon, and forcibly confining her, John reoffended while on a peace bond. He committed another serious sexual offence and was ultimately declared a dangerous offender and received an indeterminate sentence.

Establishing Social Bonds Many of us are familiar with the highly commercialized term “maternal bond” that is used not only to sell diapers but also to judge parentchild relationships. Marketing aside, the childhood experiences that we have highlighted indicate that some individuals have indeed failed to positively bond with one or both of their parents, and perhaps to other family members as well. Social bonds are, essentially, social ties, relationships, or attachments that we have with others, although the basis of these ties may differ and the result of these bonds may not always be positive. Bonding to parents who are abusive, for example, may not serve as appropriate sources for future positive development. McCord (1991) observed that friendly family interaction promoted social attachment and strengthened family ties and parental affection served to insulate against crime (400). In their study of predictors of delinquency, Simons and his colleagues (2007) found that negative caregiver interactions were the most powerful predictors of delinquency. Specifically, a lack of parental involvement, ineffective monitoring and discipline, as well as parental resentment and rejection were most likely to predict delinquency (482). Simons also found that parental impact was not necessarily direct and was mediated through individual personal traits: the emotional state of the individual, the individual’s personal values and goals, as well as the “schemata of the self and others” or “working models of relationships,” and what is perceived to be appropriate and normal in specific situations (485). Although the model that Simons tested was one-directional, it is plausible that a portion of these presumably individual traits are constituted by parental involvement. Apel and Kaukinen (2008) studied social bonds and future deviance and remind us that family structure is less significant than family

48  Pathways to Ruin?

disruption. These authors note that reference to “broken homes” tends to be used as a shorthand for a variety of ills, including delinquency and crime, but that broken homes should not be conceived as a singular entity with uniform impacts on children. A key component of deterring delinquency is the strength and warmth of the parental bond and adequate monitoring, contact, and supervision (42). While broken homes do not produce delinquency by virtue of their structure alone these authors note that supervision may be lacking in single-parent homes, and economic resources are often disrupted by divorce. Further, “youths from non-intact homes are given more freedom and decision-making autonomy within and outside the family than they may be sufficiently mature to exercise” (57). Finally, if parents begin new cohabiting relationships, the role of the non-biological parent may be ambiguous if not entirely absent. For Paul, the likelihood of forming appropriate social bonds was weakened not only by the conditions of his family environment, including abuse and inadequate supervision, but these experiences are mediated by Paul’s individual traits such as his learning disabilities due to fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS). His ability to form an appropriate schema of himself – being able to locate how he should manage himself and others, absorb feedback, and make decisions within particular environments – is compromised without having either suitable role models for guidance or the processing capacities to be able to make use of information gleaned from his environment. As Moffitt (1997) notes, neuropsychological traits that are present early in life will impact the earliest interactions and will shape those in the future (150). Similarly, Edward’s history also points to failed social bonds, especially with his mother who appears to harbour ill will toward Edward for what he represented to her (abuse at the hands of her own stepfather). Finally, John’s early experience, characterized by extreme animosity toward his father coupled with abuse by other male figures appear to have affected his ability to interpret the motivations of others while learning to manage situations by exerting power over those he perceives as weaker. Social Disorganization and Structural Disadvantage Families don’t exist in a bubble and are regularly influenced by the world around them. They are affected by their environments and the presence or absence of supports. As noted by Chauhan, Schuck, and Widom (2017), the relationship between individuals and their neighbourhood is dynamic and complex, with individuals and environments mutually interacting, “contributing to the manifestation of different



The Early Years  49

developmental outcomes over the life course” (555). Studies have shown that individuals who have been maltreated as children are more likely to live in neighbourhoods that are economically and socially disadvantaged, have low levels of social cohesion, and higher levels of disorder (Chauhan and Widom 2012). “Social disorganization” is a term that criminologists often use to describe disadvantaged communities, neighbourhoods, and physical environments, such as those characterized by, for example, unstable housing, poor schools, high unemployment, high rates of single parenthood, lower rates of home ownership, and less access to medical care. These factors may impact the future lives of residents, as living in a poor neighbourhood as a child increases the likelihood of living in a similarly poor neighbourhood as an adult; further, the likelihood of “graduating high school, getting married, the birth of a child, and buying a home are significantly related to changes in one’s residential environment” (Chauhan, Schuck, and Widom 2017, 556). Without the support that is needed at early stages of life, social relationships are undermined, and children’s development is negatively impacted and may reinforce deprivation within the home. Social disorganization is intricately connected to structural stratification that is supported by government and government-funded policies that determine the distribution of resources (Maynard 2017). Black and Indigenous communities receive fewer resources and are among the poorest in Canada (Maynard 2017). In their discussion of the literature on experiences of Black youth living in marginalized neighbourhoods, authors (i.e., Fitzgerald, Miles, and Ledbetter 2019; Maynard 2017) found that the impacts of disadvantaged communities were cumulative. The negative effect of neighbourhood violence on school achievement, for example, was exacerbated among those with greater exposure and who had been living longer in a violent neighbourhood. These authors note the systemic marginalization of Black youth, who are often concentrated in low-performing schools in high-crime neighbourhoods. Disadvantaged neighbourhoods are unable to alter the trajectories of their residents while at the same time residents become mired in the very neighbourhoods that handicap them. In Canada, the impact of cumulative and structural disadvantage is perhaps most evident among Indigenous communities. The social exclusion experienced by Indigenous peoples within Canada is intertwined with the social disorganization that plagues many of the communities both on reserves and within the inner-city communities where many Indigenous individuals reside. While not a monolithic group of people, the struggles they face are unique because of the impact of colonization

50  Pathways to Ruin?

and state violence that has been enacted against them since the first settlers arrived on their lands. Indigenous peoples and communities experience widespread social, cultural, and economic marginalization as a result of historical colonial processes. These processes include the Indian Act, residential schools, and the sixties scoop (Monchalin 2016), which produced a “landscape of devastation” (Blackstock, Trocmé, and Bennett 2004, 904) whereby the systematic exclusion of Indigenous peoples has led to the conditions still experienced on and off reserves today. The negative effects of these forms of exclusion are both diffuse and cumulative with Indigenous individuals bearing the brunt of several negative social and health outcomes compared with non-Indigenous individuals, including higher rates of suicide, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, poor educational outcomes, and unemployment, to name a few (Loppie and Wien 2009). Further, Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in terms of contact with the criminal justice system, both as victims and offenders. According to Statistics Canada in 2018, while Indigenous individuals make up 4 per cent of the Canadian population, Indigenous men represent 27 per cent of admissions to custody and Indigenous women represent 43 per cent of admissions to custody; these proportions have been increasing over the last decade (Statistics Canada 2018). The Office of the Correctional Investigator (2018), Canada’s prison watchdog, also notes that Indigenous inmates are less likely to receive parole, are more likely to spend time in segregation, and are overrepresented in maximum security institutions compared with non-Indigenous inmates. Indigenous individuals are more likely to be arrested, to be denied bail, to spend more time in pre-trial detention, to be charged with multiple offences, and more than two times as likely to be incarcerated when found guilty than nonIndigenous individuals involved with the justice system (Clark 2019). Not unlike Black communities that experience structural disadvantage and systemic racism, the over-representation and involvement of Indigenous peoples in the justice system is due to systemic disadvantage that has led to cultural dislocation, segregation and isolation where Indigenous individuals and communities have been pushed into the most marginal spaces (La Prairie 2002; Monchalin 2016). These social structures are linked to, produce, and reproduce the economic and social deficits they experience as these spaces are characterized by limited access to resources and offer few legitimate opportunities (La Prairie 1996; Monchalin 2016). Disadvantage is not equally distributed and is consistent with the experiences of many individuals within this particular “high-risk” population and among some of those whose journeys we share here.



The Early Years  51

Epidemiologists, researchers in the health field who consider the spread of disease and illness, also consider how individuals operate as well as how they respond to their environments. Neighbourhoods include both social and physical elements and locate individuals within the social structure. Kane and Margerison-Zilko (2017) highlight the interaction between place and social relationships and the impact that these sets of factors have on birth outcomes. These authors draw on Pearlin’s (1989) observation that stressful life events “don’t spring out of a vacuum” (643) but are part of an individual’s location in the social structure. What this means is that environments vary in terms of enabling access to the resources and the material advantages and deprivations associated with them. Some neighbourhoods have wellsupported schools and health facilities, for example, that encourage and support residents, while those who live in poorer neighbourhoods, often racialized and Indigenous communities, are less likely to be able to access these networks. The physical and material resources found through various amenities also shape “social norms that govern individual behaviours, attitudes, and practices, facilitating high (or low) levels of social control that can limit (or foster) opportunities for individuals to engage in illegal or harmful behaviour” (Kane and Margerison-Zilko 2017, 643). Biological embedding is one of the means by which negative (social and physical) elements of neighbourhoods affect individuals. This refers to how “social conditions get under the skin” (Kane and Margerison-Zilko 2017, 645) and influence physiological and biological pathways that in turn may undermine the future health and wellbeing of certain individuals. Primarily this occurs through heightened stress responses among those under stress (see above). Krieger (2001) suggests further that neighbourhood conditions become embodied by individuals and that bodies tell the story of how lives have been lived. Lives are linked together – parents to children and vice versa – therefore the lives that one’s parents have lived and the environments in which they grew up will affect children today. Kane and Margerison-Zilko (2017) observe that what is happening in parents’ lives, such as breakups and job losses, also has an impact on children as they share physical and social contexts. The epidemiological literature lays bare the presumed mechanisms that may be responsible for understanding how disadvantaged locations, socially and physically, may be detrimental to individuals’ physiological make-up. While it would be misleading to suggest that there is necessarily a biological link to the impact of neighbourhoods on criminal behaviour, this perspective adds to the picture of attempting to

52  Pathways to Ruin?

understand why certain individuals respond to their environments the way they do. Whether programmed by the physiological changes that the environment has encouraged and helped produce or having simply learned from their environments through other means, health research provides another window through which we are able to understand how or why certain individuals are on their high-risk crime journeys. Summary At the beginning of this chapter we highlighted the types of childhood adversity described by Finkelhor (2009a and 2009b) that are potential pathways to delinquent behaviour. These pathways included violence and abuse within the family, temperamental and behavioural characteristics of children, family structures that may have an impact on supervision and monitoring of children, and communities that are socially disorganized and fail to support families in positive ways. Recall that Paul was subject to multiple traumas in childhood including parental substance abuse, a dysfunctional home characterized by domestic violence, placement in foster care, and both sexual and physical abuse at the hands of family members. As a result, he received an ACE score of “5.” This exposure was further compounded by the cognitive deficits Paul suffered as a result of prenatal behaviour, illness, and injury. He was born with fetal alcohol effects, suffered from spinal meningitis as an infant, and sustained a permanent brain injury as a child. This collection of ACEs is comparable with John’s childhood but missing from the life histories of both John and Edward is the illness, injury, and maternal behaviour that resulted in the cognitive deficits that Paul had to contend with. Paul’s lower intellectual functioning was also influenced by the young age at which he dropped out of school. He completed some elementary school but is essentially illiterate. His case brings to mind Moffitt’s (1993) long-term persistent offender with neuropsychological deficits. He also began to drink alcohol at the age of eight years old, was addicted to marijuana by age fifteen, and acquired a cocaine habit in adulthood. As with Edward, substance abuse continued over his adult life and was implicated in his offending. Paul, Edward, and John are each characterized by several factors that nearly make their pathways to high-risk offending appear inevitable. However, as stated earlier, it is important to recognize that these individuals are not representative of all of those who have experienced violence and abuse, who have particular psychological and temperamental characteristics, or who come from non-traditional family environments



The Early Years  53

or from “bad” communities. Our data were not comparative in the sense of accessing individuals who grew up under similar sets of circumstances yet who did not become high-risk offenders. Rather, our hope is to demonstrate that those identified as high risk have elements in their personal histories that have contributed to the activities for which they have come to police attention: these individuals cannot be easily defined by the crimes they have committed and their lives are more complicated than an exclusive focus on their crimes alone could illuminate. The centrality of the family in the future identity of every one of us, regardless of how we might identify ourselves, cannot be overstated. At the same time, it would be misleading to suggest, as lifecourse criminologists maintain, that negative trajectories that appear set in childhood cannot be changed. In the chapter that follows, we consider factors that may build on childhood trajectories in adolescence or create later transitions to behaviour that previously had not been apparent during childhood.

3 The Teen Years / Early Adulthood: Officially Starting a Life of Crime

The teenage years are formative and help set a course to adulthood: educational pathways are explored, romantic relationships may be ignited, and experimentation with drugs and alcohol often begins. At the same time, the influence of families is reduced as peer groups – positive and negative – begin to exert a greater influence, and school achievement becomes increasingly significant. Bodies and minds continue to develop and grow throughout adolescence making this period a consequential part of the life course for creating pathways to the future. Yet how adolescents develop biologically, psychologically, and socially is greatly influenced by the social contexts in which maturation takes place. It is also during the teen years when involvement in crime typically begins to occur. In this chapter, we address the notion of adolescence-­limited criminal behaviour as well as criminal behaviour that begins during adolescence, but which appears to be the start of a sustained, more involved, and lengthier criminal career throughout adulthood, otherwise known as life-course-persistent offending. We highlight adolescent experiences and examine the contexts of young adult lives, the social structures and institutions that dominate during adolescence, and the connections between these factors that contribute to what is often the entry stage of crime careers. We begin with Michael’s story and note the experiences during his teenage years that mark the start of his criminal career. In Michael’s case, his adolescence is preceded by an extremely negative childhood rife with abuse at the hands of those whom he was most vulnerable to and dependent on – his parents, and especially his father.

A Crime Pathway: Michael Michael is the youngest of his siblings. His parents separated when he was two years old. He witnessed his father physically abuse his



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  55

mother, his father was involved in illegal activities, and Michael was abducted by his father after his parents’ separation. During this time, Michael was sexually abused by his father and his father’s friends. He was returned to his mother around age five after extensive police intervention but was soon placed in foster care due to his difficult behaviour. He did not return to his biological mother. He was hospitalized many times as a child, for long periods, often to find a way to address his behaviour. He was put on medication with the goal of managing his problematic behaviour but none of these were noted to work. He was home-schooled until junior high after he had been repeatedly suspended because of his aggressive behaviour. At sixteen years old he was permanently expelled due to truancy. He is not sure which grade he completed but assessments indicate he functions below a grade five level, although he is assessed as having an average level of intelligence. His official criminal history dates to his early teens. His youth record is extensive and includes mostly property-related offences along with incidents of escape from lawful custody, assault, and robbery. Many of the assaults Michael committed were fights he instigated at youth centres and were less serious in nature. His robberies are noteworthy due to the excessive use of force and violence: in one instance, he pointed a rifle at his victim and demanded the keys to his vehicle. In another, he struck an elderly male with a club and broke the victim’s shoulder. He then threatened the victim with a knife, demanded money, and the victim’s keys. The victim was an acquaintance. Michael was first convicted as an adult in his early twenties for a theft-related offence. He began serving his first federal sentence after he was convicted of sexual assault and possession of a weapon as the result of a violent sexual assault perpetrated against a victim at knifepoint. He was sentenced to nearly five years. He was assessed several times while incarcerated for this offence but served his entire sentence due to ongoing anger management issues and suspension from the prison’s sex offender programs. He was also put in long-term segregation for portions of this sentence. Of concern for authorities is the “considerable time and effort it appears that Michael spent in orchestrating the right set of circumstances in order to carry out this [recent] sexual assault.” Yet he denied committing this offence and refused sex offender treatment claiming that he and the victim had been having an affair. It is further noted, “his anger appears to be instrumental, and his violent conduct appears to be deliberately planned and perpetrated to achieve a desired result”; “he seems to have learned from early in life that violence and intimidation allow him to obtain what he wants” (file notes).

56  Pathways to Ruin?

Michael has an unstable employment history; his longest period of employment is two years and his average length of employment is six to ten months. He also has a long criminal history with his longest crime-free period in adulthood lasting for one and a half years prior to the commission of the sexual assault. During this crime-free stage, he was noted to be “happy with his wife and baby and … all of their material needs were being met therefore he did not need to commit crime” (file notes). Following his release, Michael moved back in with his common-law wife and was subject to a peace bond for a year. He successfully completed his period of supervision while on the peace bond but began using drugs a few months later. He then separated from his wife who kicked him out of the house and terminated their relationship. Approximately a month later, Michael reoffended when he robbed an employee at his ex’s workplace, and sexually assaulted a young woman. He was later convicted and sentenced to nearly ten years and was designated a long-term offender with a ten-year supervision order upon his release.

Moffitt’s Dual Taxonomy of Offender Types In her influential article outlining dual pathways of offending, Moffitt (1993) stresses that there are qualitative differences between two main offender groups – one labelled as life-course persistent and the other adolescence-limited. The life-course-persistent individuals continue their antisocial behaviour well into adulthood while the other group’s offending is confined to adolescence. Moffitt states that the age at the onset of offending is different for each group, that they are propelled to commit crime by a different set of factors, and that they participate in different types of misconduct. For those who are life-course persistent, the root of their chronic misconduct and criminal activity is found early in childhood. On the other hand, for the group whose antisocial and criminal activity both begins and ends in adolescence, their behaviour is thought to be due to more age-specific causes – such as the influence of peers. Further, Moffitt maintains that those who begin antisocial behaviour early in life will commit more frequent and serious crimes over a longer duration than those who begin participating in delinquent activity later in the life cycle. Moffitt (1993) identified these two groups through her discovery that 5 per cent of the boys from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  57

and Human Development Study, a longitudinal study that followed a sample of children born in 1972 and 1973 in New Zealand from early childhood to age twenty-six, displayed evidence of extreme and persistent antisocial behaviour. For this 5 per cent, displays of antisocial behaviour began in early childhood whereas the rest of the boys began to engage in delinquent behaviour later, between the ages of eleven and fifteen. Moffitt argues that the causes of early onset and persistence in antisocial behaviour are found in early childhood and occasionally even prenatally, with some signs of antisocial behaviour evident in infancy (see also Loeber and Hay 1997). As discussed in chapter 2, neuropsychological deficits may play a central role in the development of antisocial behaviour. These deficits can be caused by several factors including genetics, maternal substance abuse, poor prenatal nutrition, a lack of affection, and/or abuse and maltreatment. These deficits may result in increased inattention, impulsivity, and aggressive tendencies as well as poor problem-solving abilities, among other issues (see also Loeber and Hay 1997) – many of which reveal themselves once children are of school age. In effect, these neuropsychological deficits produce an underlying disposition that manifests as antisocial behaviour. Moffitt argues that while the specific types of antisocial behaviours depend on an individual’s age and opportunity, the underlying disposition remains the same. As individuals age, aggressive and impulsive tendencies evolve from excessive tantrums and hitting in childhood, to minor forms of criminality like theft and substance abuse in adolescence, to increasingly aggressive and violent interpersonal offences in adulthood. Moffitt notes that neuropsychological deficits often occur hand-in-hand with family disadvantage. These deficits are exacerbated by negative parent-child interactions characterized by a lack of nurturing, harsh discipline, and a lack of appropriate parental control regarding aggressive and impulsive behaviour. On the other hand, Moffitt (1993) observed that the causal factors associated with adolescence-limited offending are found within the time frame of adolescence, including exposure to deviant peers and the experience of the gap between biological and social maturity. Juveniles in this group start engaging in deviance around age eleven (when puberty begins) in an attempt to mimic the antisocial behaviour of their life-course-persistent peers who are believed (by the late starters) to possess more maturity, power, and privilege – characteristics attributed to a more “mature status” (686). By copying the actions of their life-course-persistent peers, adolescence-limited individuals attempt to prove their independence and their behaviour is continually reinforced and often considered socially acceptable and normative by their peers

58  Pathways to Ruin?

during the adolescent years. Consequently, those in the adolescencelimited group are more likely to commit relatively minor crimes such as petty theft, vandalism, public order offences, as well as engage in substance abuse. Many of these crimes, according to Moffitt, are forms of misconduct that attempt to garner privilege among their peers and to increase or match the status that some of their life-course-persistent peers may have already established. This group of individuals often winds down their misconduct at the end of their teen years because the opportunity for legitimate roles becomes available – they graduate from high school and enter the adult world of work and further e­ducation – and they no longer require crime to bolster their egos and attain status among their teenage peers. Furthermore, continued involvement in crime threatens their bonds to conventional society and these teens understand that to continue with such misconduct will limit their chances of obtaining status in the adult world. As well, at least some of the activities that were illegal during adolescence become legal in adulthood, such as drinking alcohol. Moffitt and colleagues (1994) investigated the relationship between neurological functioning and continued crime participation. Teens from the Dunedin sample who were identified as having neuropsychological deficits at age thirteen were found to be significantly more involved in crime at age eighteen than were those who did not have such deficits. In addition, the authors found that there was a positive relationship between poor neurological functioning and an early onset of antisocial behaviour. Those who were without deficits began offending later in adolescence supporting the idea that there are both adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent offending groups. Although much research supports Moffitt’s findings, other studies have considered whether or not there are more than two groups of offenders. Nagin and Land (1993), for instance, found evidence for an additional classification of those who they refer to as “low-rate chronic offenders” (348). While this group displays the lowest rate of offending over the teenage years, their offence level remains constant through to age thirty. Related studies also found evidence of the existence of more than two types of offenders (Nagin and Tremblay 2005; Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2007; Sampson and Laub 2003 and 2005; Thornberry 2005). More recent empirical efforts, however, have provided further evidence for Moffitt’s (1993) dual taxonomy of offending. In a longitudinal study following a nationally representative sample of adolescents into their late twenties, Boutwell and colleagues (2013a and 2013b) show that a small proportion of the original sample comprises the



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  59

life-course-persistent group of offenders according to length of criminal career and rate of involvement in crime. This research (Boutwell et al. 2013a) further found that these offenders are more likely to commit more serious and violent interpersonal offences than other offenders, which confirms Blumstein’s and colleagues’ (1986) observation that persistent offenders are more likely to commit serious offences such as rape, aggravated assault, and murder (see also Piquero, Farrington, and Blumstein 2007). It was also found that low self-control was positively related to individuals categorized as life-course persistent (Boutwell et al. 2013b) consistent with Moffitt’s (1993) proposition regarding the influence of an underlying propensity toward antisocial behaviour. The offenders in our study most clearly conform to the “life-coursepersistent” group as they have persisted in offending well past the stage of adolescence and many demonstrated antisocial behaviour at very young ages. For some, it appears that their behaviour may have been due in part to neuropsychological deficits. As we noted with Paul in chapter 2, FAS and a history of serious injury and illness prior to age five is very likely to have affected how he has behaved, as well as the ways in which others have responded to him. Coupled with these issues, Paul’s early (and later) home life, characterized by abuse and drug and alcohol use, was not conducive to a life on the straight and narrow path of non-offending. Similarly, Michael’s criminal history, although formally starting at age fourteen and continuing well into adulthood, was preceded by aggressive tendencies and low school achievement. His story also appears to confirm Moffitt’s designation as life-course persistent. As we can see, however, Michael’s crime career has ebbed and flowed, and he has had some crime-free periods. Importantly, and as we explore in chapter 5, life-course persistent should not imply “life-course consistent.” These categorizations of offending patterns, such as adolescencelimited and life course-persistent or low-rate chronic offending, are a useful way of broadly thinking about offending over the life course. Yet the specific life stories of individuals do not readily conform to an overarching categorization of simply adolescence-limited or life-course persistent. There are stops and starts to offending – those who begin to commit various crimes later in life are not inevitably destined to continue to commit crimes throughout their lives, just as their younger peers who start early may also stop offending earlier as well. Further, we know that very difficult childhood circumstances do not lead all who experience them to a life of crime. In addition, particular events and situations can redirect those who are on criminogenic pathways away from crime. Sampson and Laub (1990, 1993), pioneers in the study

60  Pathways to Ruin?

of offending over the life course, take issue with categorizing offenders as “adolescent limited” and “life-course persistent” as this may cause us to wrongly perceive individuals as following a certain, unchanging, and predictable path. Instead, those who focus on the entire life course suggest that destiny is not written when one is young, but that the entire life-course is influential and may present various opportunities redirecting us either toward or away from offending. Even for those who have experienced neuropsychological deficits and abusive families, and who began offending early, life-course theorists maintain that they are not necessarily destined to a lifetime of offending. Rather, situations and events along the entire life course may influence activities and behaviour throughout one’s life. Trajectories and Transitions over the Life Course Two ideas are central to the life-course perspective as explained by Sampson and Laub (1990): trajectories and transitions. Trajectories are lines of development or pathways that are established by several factors, including individual idiosyncrasies (personality, temperament, etc.), family dynamics, and educational success or failure, as well as factors having to do with social location such as race and gender, for example. These trajectories may consist of conventional lines of development such as academic achievement, parenthood, and occupations but can also include non-conforming or deviant pathways involving criminal behaviour and substance abuse. A trajectory of conventional success might be established under circumstances of excellent (early) childhood physical and mental health, a happy and supportive family with economic and social resources, and a good neighbourhood with vigilant neighbours and effective schools. A deviant pathway might consist of the opposite: multiple experiences of trauma as a child, a dysfunctional family with little access to services in the community, difficulties at school, and a disordered neighbourhood where neighbours are not trusted. Trajectories – positive or negative – are essentially a product of their launching pads. Transitions, or turning points, on the other hand, are specific life events that occur throughout the life course and have the power to change trajectories. The event that registers as a transition will be determined by the resources one might have to adapt to these changes. An example of a (negative) transition or turning point in a trajectory might be the loss of a job that could result in financial hardship, reduced social status, and a negative self-concept. An event like this is of great significance but its power to ‘derail’ a positive trajectory will be determined by the resources available to adapt to this



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  61

change. In this scenario, the loss of a job will be more or less trajectoryaltering depending on the circumstances of the loss (firing or downsizing), the reaction of significant others (family and friends) to the loss, the counselling and economic resources available, etc. Importantly, what may be a turning point or transition in one person’s trajectory may not be a turning point for another depending upon the resources available for adaptation to the change/event. Sampson and Laub’s work has been geared to counteract the determinism associated with the idea that early childhood antisocial behaviour leads to adolescent and adult antisocial behaviour. Their investigations of crime over the life course have focused specifically on social bonds and how the nature of these bonds affects trajectories and transitions, and subsequent criminal behaviour. The bonds that individuals have at certain stages of their lives will influence how they perceive, manage, and conduct themselves at each subsequent life stage. Early childhood is characterized by bonds or attachments to the family – the family plays a critical role in how one approaches and sees the world. As children grow, they begin also to bond with school and peer groups. Friends’ behaviours and opinions become a significant factor during adolescence. Finally, in adulthood, there are bonds based on employment, education, partners, and children that play a more significant role in behaviour than do bonds established earlier in life. Sampson and Laub (1990, 625) emphasize that the negative trajectories that appear to be set in childhood can be subverted by positive adult attachments to, for example, work. A meaningful job and a positive partner could provide a transition away from criminal activity. For Sampson and Laub, delinquent trajectories can be overcome if the right circumstances (turning points) occur either in adolescence or adulthood. The right circumstances for Laub and Sampson consist of strong bonds and attachments (1993) to informal institutions. Informal here means institutions such as the family, work, education, etc., versus more formal institutions like the criminal justice system. The importance of bonds is that they facilitate social capital and provide regulation of behaviour through social control. Social capital is inherent in strong bonds since positive investments in relationships produce and are based on norms of reciprocity and trust (Putnam 2000). In other words, social capital is embedded in trusting relationships where parties or partners have mutual expectations about how to act and invest in each other. These mutual expectations also become the norms of relationships and networks of support that outline the ways in which we are expected to treat one another. Social capital thus forms the foundation of interdependent relationships and provides social and

62  Pathways to Ruin?

psychological resources that can be drawn on as we move through life transitions. Social control also emerges out of our social bonds and our investment in them where we experience the pressure toward conformity that is associated with these social ties (Brannigan 1997). Social bonds and social capital therefore provide individuals with the ability to successfully negotiate interactions, situations, and events, and to overcome adversities, at the same time acting to regulate behaviour. In his developmental interactional theory, Thornberry (1987, 2005) also suggests that social bonds and social capital are mutually constitutive, meaning that they work together to produce behaviour. For Thornberry, delinquency both predicts and is the outcome of weak social bonds and the strength of bonds varies over the life course. Laub and Sampson (1993) explain that an examination of developmental stages allows for the consideration of both continuity and change in offending behaviour. Every developmental stage helps to set later stages. Abusive histories, for example, do not disappear and are a form of state dependence. This means that the consequences of experiences may facilitate participation in antisocial behaviour through changes in temperament and a reduction in social bonds to prosocial people, which leads in turn to a decline in social control and a reduction in life chances. It is no wonder, for example, that a relationship between parent and child would be strained after the child has suffered abuse at the hands of their mother or father. The disruption of attachments at such an early age can have important consequences for the formation of strong relationships later in life. Further, some individuals may have a propensity for particular types of behaviour as a result of this abuse. At the same time, this propensity (whether due to low selfcontrol, ­neuropsychological deficits, or other issues) may reduce the options that these individuals have available to them and that they see as available to them. In other words, past experiences have an attenuating effect on forming bonds at future developmental stages. As Laub and Sampson (1993) observe, “delinquency incrementally mortgages the future by generating negative consequences for the life chances of stigmatized and institutionalized youths” (306). Those whose futures are mortgaged through delinquency and antisocial behaviour reduce their options for developing positive bonds and attaining social capital in the future. This is referred to as the cumulative continuity of disadvantage (Sampson and Laub 1993, 1997, 2005; Laub and Sampson 1993; Humphrey and Van Brunschot 2018). In their study of stressful life exposure during adolescence, Evans, Simons, and Simons (2016) explain that there is “a gradual build-up of consequences associated with delinquent or antisocial behaviour, wherein each individual act snowballs upon the results of previous acts” (157).



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  63

Previous (potentially limiting and negative) experiences serve as a foundation for the accumulation of other (potentially negative) experiences. As Laub and Sampson note, “delinquent behavior has a systematic, attenuating effect on the social and institutional bonds linking adults to society” (1993, 306). The attenuating effect is that past experience with crime “reduces internal inhibitions or external constraints to future crime or increases the motivation to commit crime” (Nagin and Farrington 1992, 503). Social bonds during adolescence tend to be based on the informal institutions that are most influential during this stage of life: family, peer, and school groups. Related to this, Evans and colleagues (2016, 258) identify factors that are significant predictors of delinquency for adolescents including delinquent peers, cognitive abilities, victimization, and quality of parenting. These authors also added racial discrimination as another causal factor in producing delinquency. We next consider Anthony’s story in light of this discussion.

A Crime Pathway: Anthony Anthony was adopted soon after birth to a white family (he is Indigenous). His adoptive mother reports that Anthony’s behavioural problems started as a toddler with his setting fires and continued through to adolescence. His father eventually convinced social services to remove Anthony from the home and, while a preteen, he became a ward of the court and was in and out of foster care and group homes. He reports a history of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Anthony was expelled from high school for trafficking drugs at school. He first came into contact with the youth criminal justice system while a teen for a ­property-related offence and then was convicted of assault shortly thereafter. Anthony admitted that “there is no doubt I was like a wild animal out of control” at times in his life (file notes). Before eighteen, he began to live independently and mostly supported himself through prostitution and by selling drugs. A psychological assessment when he was in his early twenties states “adolescent misconduct included significant problems with anger, impulsive behaviour, and arson” (file notes). Anthony has been convicted of a number of offences including manslaughter. For one of these convictions he was sentenced to nearly ten years. When he was a young adult, he was solicited for sexual services by a middle-aged man. At one point, Anthony was asleep and the ­client/victim attempted to sexually assault him; a fight ensued resulting in his stabbing the victim multiple times and killing him.

64  Pathways to Ruin?

Afterwards, he cleaned himself up and changed into the victim’s clothes, took his money, and went to a restaurant. After eating with some of his acquaintances, Anthony, alone, committed an unprovoked assault against a stranger who was walking down the street. He was arrested and taken to police headquarters, charged with assault, and released from custody. Upon his release, he returned to the initial victim’s residence and attempted to clean up the apartment by dragging the victim to the bathroom, eventually going to sleep on the victim’s couch where police found him. Anthony denied any involvement in the crime. At the end of his twenties, Anthony was convicted of several robberies and served more time in prison. While on release, he killed a man who had made sexual advances toward his common-law partner and was charged again with manslaughter. It was noted that he was at a high risk of committing an offence causing serious harm or death and he was ordered to serve his entire sentence (no early release). Risk assessments and psychological reports indicate that Anthony has significant difficulty controlling his anger, that he lacks empathy and remorse, and often tries to shift blame to the victim or to his coaccused partners. He has also “spent a significant portion of his adult life in prison and therefore lacks social skills, employment skills and positive community support for reintegration” (file notes). Anthony has been put on multiple peace bonds, each resulting in breaches and new convictions. He breached his last peace bond two days before the order expired. He had been consuming alcohol and using cocaine prior to the offence. When interviewed by authorities he said, “I didn’t want you guys to go away … I need you guys. I’m too scared.”

Anthony’s early experiences of residential instability coupled with time spent in prison appear to have substantially reduced his capacity for coping outside an institutional context (a subject we explore in greater depth in chapter 6). As noted in his assessments, his past resulted in a detrimental lack of social capital and illustrates the “snowballing” effect described by Evans, Simon, and Simon (2016), whereby the negative experiences of the past become increasingly significant eventually resulting in Anthony’s pleading with the police not to be left alone. Delinquent Peers The association of certain types of bonds with developmental stages is perhaps most readily appreciated when considering the bonds to peers



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  65

that characterize adolescence. Prior to the age of twelve, children are most influenced and bonded to their parents and families. After twelve, at about puberty, the impact of the family is reduced somewhat, and peers become more central to the developing teen. Teens who hang out with delinquent peers are more likely to participate in delinquent activities. There are several reasons why associating with delinquent peers is related to greater levels of delinquency. The idea behind differential association theory is that we learn the attitudes conducive to certain ways of behaving depending upon those with whom we associate. If we hang out with those who have positive attitudes toward law abiding, we are also likely to be law abiders. Similarly, if we associate with individuals with attitudes positive toward delinquency and crime, we are also more likely to think the same way. Social learning theory is another way of explaining delinquency and crime and is based on modelling behaviour. According to this perspective, crime is learned and occurs in interaction with others who view deviant and criminal behaviour favourably. Specifically, we learn the norms, values and behaviours that are associated with crime through our relationships with delinquent others (Sutherland and Cressey 1970). Relationships that are characterized by frequent contact with someone who is respected are especially important, which explains the influence that family members can have on criminal behaviour. But it also indicates why recent friendships can be tied to demonstrable changes in behaviour (Kandel and Davies 1991). Warr and Stafford (1991) found that while attitudes supportive of crime are important, what is more important in predicting delinquency is the behaviour of one’s peers: one’s behaviour (versus attitudes, as in differential association theory) tends to model that of one’s peers. While the evidence strongly suggests that learning both the attitudes and behaviours specific to crime and delinquency as well as the number of delinquent friends in one’s network is a product of peer influence (Haynie 2002), these are ‘birds of a feather’ explanations for delinquency. Other theories suggest that there may be something else which brings like-minded peers together: insufficient bonds to society. Control theory suggests that the motivation to commit crime occurs in advance of hanging out with and exposure to like-minded (deviant) peers, rather than being created by proximity to them. As Matsueda and Anderson (1998) explain, control theory maintains that the tendency toward crime pre-exists associations with delinquent others. The central tenet of control theory is that “motivation or propensity exists in equal amounts for each member of society” (272), but strong bonds and attachments discourage individuals from acting on their propensities.

66  Pathways to Ruin?

Similarly, those with low self-control – a personality characteristic that governs inhibitions and self-regulates – will make unattractive friends for anyone other than those with similarly low self-control. Those with low self-control will also be more attracted to delinquent activities than those with higher self-control regardless of delinquent friends. A study by Franken and his colleagues (2016) investigated the impact of early friendships on externalizing behaviours such as antisocial behaviours, drinking, and smoking. They considered whether individuals with low self-control participate in these activities independently of their friends or if these behaviours develop in conjunction with their friends. Past research has supported divergent findings: that higher self-control is associated with a reduced likelihood of participating in the same behaviours as one’s peers while lower self-control is associated with greater likelihood of participation, or in contrast, that self-control has little to do with participation in these behaviours (Franken et al. 2016, 1800). Studying the networks of adolescents who participate in externalizing behaviours, it was found that adolescents “select their friends to match their externalizing behaviours and also adapt their externalizing behaviour to become more similar to their friends” (1808). On top of individual propensities and/or social learning, relationships to delinquent peers tend to vary by social location. In other words, the impact of, and attraction to, delinquent peers may be affected by circumstances outside of the control of adolescent youth and may be more specifically related to their social circumstances. For example, in a study of children of incarcerated fathers, Bryan (2017) examined the consequences of parental incarceration on the delinquent activities of these children. She found that the impact on children was greater among those who had endured stigma due to their incarcerated parent. Stigma, in turn, marginalized these children, due to their lowered social status or lower social position, which reduced their opportunities to expand their friendship networks. Those who were marginalized were therefore likely only to be accepted by other marginalized youth – such as those who were non-academically inclined, from poorly parented families, or who were delinquent. One can imagine how the stigma of having “that kind of parent” or family might negatively affect the chances of associating with a broader spectrum of teenage peers and instead serve to limit the relationships these children have and are exposed to. This likely factored into Anthony’s childhood as he shifted between foster care and group homes, facing the stigma of his living situation as well as limited peer group options. An alcoholic or drugaddicted parent may be equally as limiting.



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  67

Not only do delinquent peers have an impact on the delinquent activities of those with whom they associate, but the likelihood of being victimized by other delinquents is also heightened. Lauritsen, Sampson, and Laub (1991), for example, indicate that those who lead a delinquent lifestyle, including participating in various acts of crime along with using drugs and alcohol, not attending school, etc., are also more likely to experience victimization based on the “principle of homogamy.” This means that those who associate with delinquents are more likely to be victimized because they disproportionately encounter those who are more likely to commit crimes against them. Leading a delinquent lifestyle also means that victimization is unlikely to be reported for fear of drawing the attention of authorities to oneself as much as to the perpetrators. As Lauritsen, Sampson, and Laub note (1991, 268), other offenders make ideal targets as they are often victimized with impunity. There are several costs associated with adolescent victimization, some of which are long lasting. MacMillan (2000) found that not only were there personal costs of victimization, such as psychological trauma, pain, and suffering, but that these early victimization experiences also degraded one’s perception of agency and self-efficacy well into the future. Self-efficacy, which is related to mastery as discussed in chapter 2, is a belief in one’s own ability to have an impact on the future. A lack of self-efficacy, on the other hand, means that individuals will be more likely to give up in the face of challenges, or to behave in ways that do little to advance positive outcomes. MacMillan suggests that adolescents, like children, are among the least powerful in society and victimization experiences reinforce the lack of resources that characterize them at this stage. The immediate consequence of victimization among adolescents was diminished commitment to school and education – a consequence that had negative implications for the future by reducing educational and occupational attainment in adulthood (576). This reduced commitment to school and work at an early age has detrimental impacts for adolescents but the impact again varies by socio-economic status. Those who have more resources, especially economic and social resources, will be able to recover more quickly than will those who have fewer resources to address the consequences of victimization. Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) study the impact of maturity on delinquent activity and how psychosocial maturity develops more slowly than cognitive maturity and affects decisions regarding behaviour. Interestingly, these authors note that while sixteen-year-olds may have similar cognitive capacities as adults, their ability to deploy

68  Pathways to Ruin?

these cognitive capacities is undermined due to psychosocial immaturity. Broadly speaking, psychosocial maturity is defined as maturity of judgement and ability to make decisions. Cauffman and Steinberg (2000) suggest that psychosocial immaturity is especially relevant when explaining criminal and deviant behaviour committed by youth due to their susceptibility to peer influence. Peer influence is noted to be both direct and indirect. Youth may be directly pressured by peers to take risks and participate in activities that they would not on their own. Youth may also feel indirect pressure and participate in nefarious activities in order to seek approval from their peers. Cauffman and Steinberg note that adolescents are more likely to commit crime in groups than are adults (2000, 435). Youth participation in illicit activities may also result in higher status among peers, as Moffitt (1993) also noted regarding adolescence-limited offending. Together with the significance of peers at this stage of life, youth also have a more limited “future orientation” and are less able to see the long-term consequences of their actions. While an antisocial act may look rewarding and fun in the moment as a teenager, adults might tend to view that same act as having such negative outcomes as to deter their participation. Cauffman and Steinberg (2000, 436) explain that youths’ short-term outlook may be because teens simply do not have much life experience to draw upon, therefore anticipating consequences that are five or ten years down the road is more difficult at a young age. Psychosocial immaturity may also impact reward sensitivity and self-regulation. Reward sensitivity refers to the finding that youths are more motivated to act in certain ways through reward rather than punishment. Reward sensitivity is also related to future orientation – youths may weigh rewards differently and focus on the short-term aspects, such as the thrill of driving fast, while adults weigh those rewards as less significant. Differences in reward sensitivity between adolescents and adults may also be found in self-regulation, with adolescents tending to show lower levels of selfrestraint and higher impulsivity than adults (Cauffman and Steinberg 2000, 436). Drug and Alcohol Use Part of adolescence is experimentation with drugs and alcohol. Levels of both psychosocial maturity and self-control will impact the readiness with which an adolescent will drink heavily and take illicit drugs (i.e., Adalbjarnardottir 2002). In a 2017 study by Davis and his colleagues, it was found that deficits in impulse control increased the likelihood that adolescents would use drugs and alcohol. These researchers



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  69

attempted to sort out two means under which alcohol and drug use might be increased. They first considered the notion of “allostatic load” (see chapter 2 for further information) and how it is that longer-term and prolonged exposure to continuous stressful experiences, such as victimization, is thought to influence subsequent behaviour. An example of an allostatic load would be where a fifteen-year-old has been continually abused since the age of five years. As highlighted in chapter 2, the constant stress of this long-term situation is believed to impact various physiological systems and cognitive functioning, as well as overall self-control and impulse control, leading to substance use and higher cortisol levels. This allostatic load is carried over a longer period of time, in contrast with a second model called the “self-control strength” model. Under the self-control strength model, the individual is thought to have a finite amount of self-control that may be diminished under particularly stressful circumstances. As Davis and his colleagues explain, self-control is likened to a resource that is drawn upon and, once spent, makes it more difficult to regulate emotions. These two, allostatic load and depleted self-control strength, can also converge. Those who have been experiencing long-term stress (allostatic load) are unlikely to have as much of the self-control resource as those not experiencing enduring stress. Those carrying an allostatic load experience stressful situations differently from those without this load and are more likely to react in impulsive and emotional ways. As Davis and his colleagues note, “the cumulative effects of victimization during adolescence may have detrimental effects on self-regulatory processes such as impulse control during the adolescent phase. Subsequently, this resulted in more binge drinking and victimization during young adulthood” (2017, 1525). The use of alcohol and drugs for some may be an attempt to self-regulate in the context of exposure to chronic abuse and victimization and can lead to further problems in adulthood due to “attenuated impulse control.” Alcohol and drug use may also reduce inhibitions and result in provocative or risky behaviour in terms of both the willingness to offend and increasing the likelihood of involvement in crime. Felson and Burchfield’s (2004) study considered the effects of consuming alcohol on victimization. Their review of the literature notes that there are a variety of effects associated with alcohol consumption, including greater levels of aggression, a greater likelihood of violating social norms, and less ability to refrain from implementing risk-avoiding precautions. They observe that individuals who drink become increasingly vulnerable to victimization due to being incapacitated. Further, those who drink may be devalued and less likely to have bystanders intervene. While the effects of alcohol consumption may be similar for

70  Pathways to Ruin?

those of all ages, the effects may be even greater among adolescents. Adolescents are at greater risk due to their developmental stage – and young men in particular are at the greatest risk of both offending and victimization while intoxicated. Further, drug and alcohol misuse during adolescence may turn into adulthood addictions. Alcohol and drug use can also impact several other areas of functioning including school performance. School Performance Beyond peers and family, the most influential source of social control during adolescence is schools. For some adolescents, school is a source of strain. The strain perspective maintains that strain produces negative emotions that may make it easier to respond with delinquent or criminal activity (Swisher and Dennison 2016). Peer victimization, often occurring in the school context, has been shown to be a source of strain (Agnew 2002). The stigma associated with being labelled a ‘troublemaker’ may also lead to strain and subsequent participation in delinquency. This perspective also maintains that strain from school often comes in the form of grades – those who do not get the grades they want (or believe they deserve) experience greater strain than those who receive good grades. Swisher and Dennison found that strain caused by grades was related to the trajectory of adolescents’ academic achievement: “downward educational pathways were predictive of increases in crime, whereas upward pathways were associated with decreases in crime” (2016, 862). Further, strain associated with academic achievement depended upon the educational attainment of one’s parents and their ability to act as a buffer to such achievement – if parents had not completed high school an adolescent would feel less strain than would a student whose parents were high academic achievers and school completers. Felson and Staff (2006), however, suggest that self-control is the foundation of poor school achievement (see also Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). For them, delinquency is not a response to strain – again the idea is that low self-control is independent of school achievement. Those with low self-control are unable to apply themselves to the task at hand both inside and outside of the classroom, resulting in poor grades (and poor achievement overall). Those who are able to achieve in school are more likely to have higher levels of self-control and will be less delinquent because of being able to apply themselves and regulate their impulses both in and out of the classroom. There is also another way in which to think about the role of school: through the lens of cumulative disadvantage. Children exposed to a



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  71

multitude of adversities and traumas are at a disadvantage even before starting school (see, for example, Evans, Simons, and Simons 2012; Farrington 2005b; Jimenez et al. 2016; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, and Labruna 1999; Laub and Sampson 2001; Thornberry 2005). Education is an anchor for long-term trajectories of behaviour and is one of the institutions that is involved in the initial sorting of individuals into tracks that will either result in the accumulation of advantage or disadvantage (Collins 2009; Dannefer 2003; DiPrete and Eirich 2006; Dupre 2007; Montez and Hayward 2014; O’Rand 2003; Bellis et al. 2014). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) acknowledge that the school is well-positioned to be an effective socialization mechanism in that behaviour is more effectively monitored within a school setting; deviant behaviour is more easily recognized and disruptive behaviour can be effectively punished. School performance and achievement can serve as a mediator (O’Rand 2003) that links early life experiences to later bond formation and offending in adulthood. Moffitt (1993) argues that adequate socialization along with a lack of deficits provide adolescence-limited offenders “ample years to develop an accomplished repertoire of prosocial behaviours and basic academic skills. These social skills and academic achievements make them eligible for postsecondary education, good marriages, and desirable jobs” (1993, 690). In other words, offenders who began offending in mid-adolescence or later lack the training for persistent antisocial behaviour (Ayers et al. 1999; Patterson, DeBaryshe, and Ramsey 1989; Pulkkinen, Lyrra, and Kokko 2009). Ayers et al. (1999) provide confirmation for this line of reasoning in their study of 566 youth who were interviewed at two different periods, at the ages of twelve or thirteen years and again around the ages of fourteen or fifteen. Youth for whom offending was restricted to the first wave of data collection were noted to be more bonded to conventional society through commitments to school, had more conventional peers, and a stronger bond to their families. As described earlier in MacMillan’s (2000) work, that victimization has differential impacts is clear when one considers the foundations created by past experiences. In the case of Michael, for example, his early years were characterized by abuse and victimization at the hands of his father. These experiences occurred during formative developmental years and were coupled with hospitalizations for his extreme acting-out during his early schooling. Michael was subsequently removed from his mother’s home and placed in a foster home. School was not a place that Michael was able to learn to either deal with or address the many issues that stem from his early victimization. The fact that Michael received few benefits from his early and continuing educational experience supports MacMillan’s observation that children

72  Pathways to Ruin?

with negative school experiences continue to face hardship well into adulthood. Similarly, Anthony’s early abuse and subsequent expulsion from school for drug trafficking increased the likelihood that Anthony’s adult life could be negatively impacted by these early events. For both Michael and Anthony, there is little in the way of school achievement. School is a source of frustration, on the one hand, but also provided opportunities for future deviance in the case of Anthony who had used school (at least for a short time) as a venue for drug trafficking. Most of the individuals we consider here did not complete high school. While it is the case that most of the individuals labelled as high-risk have had difficult and negative school experiences, such difficulties were not evident for every individual. Andrew, who we feature in detail in chapter 6, is one of the rare individuals who, despite his father’s drinking, had a very positive experience in school. This was followed by a crime-free life until he was charged with drinking and driving (in adulthood) which seemed to mark a transition point and the start of a series of sexual assaults. Strain and self-control play key roles in school achievement, but as Cuevas, Wolff, and Baglivio (2017) point out, adolescents who believe that they have some control over the future will behave differently from those who believe the future is out of their control. Self-efficacy is the confidence and belief that one has in oneself and the capacity to achieve one’s goals, and is primarily established based on prior behaviour (Bandura et al. 2003). Drawing on the work of Carroll et al. (2009 and 2013), youth’s self-efficacy was found to be positively related to academic achievement and the educational expectations that youth have for themselves (Cuevas, Wolff, and Baglivio 2017, 2). Findings such as these may translate to why some delinquent youths change their behaviour while others do not: those who have had success in achieving challenging goals (i.e., obtaining good grades, finding a job, etc.) will continue to set difficult goals. Those who have not had success reaching goals will avoid setting such goals for the future. Delinquents may therefore persist in their “cycle of delinquent behaviour” (2) by not setting challenging goals because of past failures. The Cuevas study considered adolescents who had been placed in detention facilities and the types of goals that they set for themselves. It was found that youth who had been involved in criminal activity did not uniformly feel that their future was forever set based on their prior behaviour, but those with higher self-efficacy had been detained for shorter lengths of time. It was further found that educational attainment was a critical part of setting prosocial goals: support for education while youths were involved with the criminal justice system was central to their desistance from delinquent activity.



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  73

Our school and work experiences during adolescence play a role in what we can achieve in education and work during adulthood. Adolescents who have difficulties with school (for any number of reasons) will find it more difficult to obtain higher education as adults. Those without education also find it more difficult to obtain jobs of any kind, let alone jobs that provide routes to promotion, higher income, and employer-provided benefits. A great deal of media commentary suggests that yesterday’s high school diploma is, in fact, today’s undergraduate degree (Selingo 2017; Farrington 2014). But for life-course researchers, the impact of life events, such as completing high school or a university degree, will vary depending on the context in which these achievements occur. Swisher and Dennison (2016) found that the significance of educational achievement depended upon one’s social status and that of one’s family. They claim that “whether completing high school or a college degree is really a turning point likely depends on how it relates to an individual’s longer socioeconomic trajectory and compares to the educational attainments of parents” (842). For example, dropping out of school for those in the middle classes may be of greater significance for future life chances than for those among the lower classes who drop out. Yet at the same time, dropping out may be less likely to alter life trajectories among middle class teens given the social and economic resources available to them. This draws upon “intergenerational pathways” and the idea that there is some degree of continuity between the achievements of parents and those of their children: the trajectories of individuals are influenced by the trajectories of their parents. They further note that the meaning of education depends on whether an individual is experiencing upward or downward momentum (842) and the nature of the trajectories that individuals are on. Few in our study attained even the most basic education. In fact, the average grade obtained by most in this study was grade 8, which loosely corresponds to age fourteen. The educational attainment of parents is more difficult to ascertain as the files rarely focused on these details; often the extent of parental information available highlighted parents’ roles as abusers rather than as caregivers or providers. At the same time, anecdotal evidence indicates family instability among most of these individuals, suggesting low parental occupational attainment. What is more obvious is that very few of these individuals have many, if they have any at all, educational or occupational credentials available to be leveraged into future occupational achievement. In Daniel’s case (below), the sexual abuse by his stepfather accompanied by significant behaviour and attention difficulties contributed to poor school performance. Advanced through grades for social rather

74  Pathways to Ruin?

than academic reasons, Daniel eventually quit school and committed his first serious crime when he was nineteen years old.

A Crime Pathway: Daniel Daniel’s biological father abandoned the family when Daniel was a toddler and he has rarely been in contact with his father since. His maternal grandparents assisted his mother in raising him and his siblings. According to Daniel and his mother, his grandparents were quite harsh in their discipline, but there is no indication they were physically abusive. Daniel’s mother eventually remarried and Daniel was sexually abused by her husband for a number of years until his early teens. Daniel’s mother learned of the abuse and reported it to the police, and his stepfather committed suicide soon after. Daniel showed disruptive behaviour throughout his childhood. In elementary school, he was diagnosed with a learning disorder and prescribed medication which he eventually stopped taking. At one point during his childhood, he was placed in a facility for children with severe behaviour problems, but these problems persisted even after a year of treatment and counselling at the facility. Although he failed grades seven and eight, he was socially promoted but dropped out in high school. He left home at age fifteen and was essentially homeless. He worked sporadically throughout his adolescence and claims to have been “taken in” by another family, although he does not provide details (file notes). Daniel committed numerous crimes as a youth. Before the age of twenty, he committed his first serious crime. Along with two other men, he broke into a house, assaulted and threatened the elderly residents, killed their family dog, and stole their money. Daniel fled the residence but was quickly apprehended and arrested. He provided a false name but his identity was determined through fingerprinting. He was sentenced to just under ten years but stabbed a man while out on statutory release. His statutory release was revoked and he was sentenced to additional years. Early in his correctional stay, Daniel was involved in numerous fights and altercations, and spent a considerable amount of time in segregation. He was eventually released by his warrant expiry date, but a few years later was involved in another assault. After the fight appeared finished, Daniel returned to the scene and stabbed the victim multiple times. He was eventually charged with several crimes including attempted murder and weapons charges.



The Teen Years/Early Adulthood  75

Summary In their overview of the importance of transitions and trajectories to criminal careers, Laub and Sampson (1993) explain that we cannot rule out the element of chance or luck that operates in peoples’ lives and that there is a “dependence of trajectories on structural location” (319). To this point, we have noted how individuals’ lives – Michael, Anthony, and Daniel’s, for example – are complicated by circumstances that appear to be a combination of bad luck, poor choices, and unfortunate circumstances. None of us have control over the types of families we are born in to and our ability to ‘overcome’ the deficits of our families and our physiological and psychological challenges is often limited. What we are able to see as choices regarding different courses of action is also limited by our histories and by the perspectives that we carry with us, perspectives that are shaped by our past experiences, our upbringing, and our physical and mental capacities. Although individuals are responsible for their actions, these cases illustrate that trajectories are often based on foundational experiences within the family, among peers, or in school. Immediate circumstances also play a role in actions as they unfold, such as the impact of alcohol, drugs, intense emotions, and peers. As adolescents are not yet fully developed, their actions during this time may occur in a context of not fully knowing or appreciating the consequences of behaviour for either their current or future selves. As Cuevas, Wolff, and Baglivio (2017) point out, adolescents who believe that they have some control over the future will behave differently from those who believe the future is out of their control. Our perceptions of the futures that we see for ourselves will be affected by our histories and the experiences that we have had. Self-efficacy is a belief in one’s own ability to have an impact on the future. Lacking perceived self-efficacy, on the other hand, means that individuals will be more likely to give up in the face of challenges, or to behave in ways that do little to advance positive outcomes. We return to this idea in chapter 4 when we consider the idea of the strength of self-control as well as the factors that come into play as adolescent offenders grow into adult offenders while other adults are just beginning to offend during this later life stage.

4 Adulthood: Continuity or Change?

Adulthood is often thought of as the period when ‘teenage antics’ conclude, and the responsibilities of adulthood begin to take over. We have described how this is captured in Moffitt’s observation of two groups of offenders, those she refers to as “adolescent limited” in contrast to those who are “life-course persistent” (1993). While both groups appear to start criminal activity during adolescence, the latter group continues to offend into adulthood while the former does not. In this chapter we focus on those who not only continue to offend well past adolescence, but also on those who begin to offend in adulthood. We examine adult offending and begin with theories that focus on why individuals start or continue to offend during adulthood. We consider major life events, or moments, occurring in adulthood that affect criminal careers, including, for example, romantic relationships (their initiation or termination), employment, deaths of loved ones, or births of children. We specifically examine the role that bonds to significant others play in forming, sustaining, and changing trajectories of offending in adulthood and over the life course. Adult-Onset Criminal Behaviour A group that has received less attention and poses some challenges to Moffitt’s dual taxonomy model (adolescence-limited and life-course persistent) are those who appear to begin their criminal careers after they are well into adulthood. In our consideration of over four hundred individuals both formally and informally identified as high-risk, nearly 47 per cent were first convicted prior to the age of eighteen. Just over 42 per cent were first convicted between the ages of eighteen and thirtyfour years, while approximately 10 per cent received their first convictions at the age of thirty-five years or older. In their study of adult-onset



Adulthood 77

offenders, Beckley and her colleagues (2016) found that one of the initial challenges of studying adult-onset offending is the definition of adulthood and when exactly the transition from adolescence to adulthood takes place. Life-course researcher, Arnett (1997), observes that the period between age eighteen and twenty-five years is best described as one of emerging adulthood with many experiences and activities taking place during that time that have significant consequences for later in life. While eighteen years of age often marks a legal transition, where one has the legal rights and responsibilities of an adult, that age does not necessarily demarcate any specific developmental transition into adulthood. Yet, social consequences change, especially for those who commit crime or who begin to commit crime. In Beckley’s study, it was found that one-quarter of first-time convictions occurred among those thirty years of age and older (2016, 64). Another challenge to accurately determining age of onset is whether official criminal records are used, self-reports of crime, or both. As McGee and Farrington (2010) point out, age of onset may be different than either official records or self-reports reveal. Although adultonset individuals may have official criminal records that begin in adult life, many have had histories of antisocial behaviour that began during adolescence. Elander and his colleagues (2000) summarize possible explanations for why convictions only appear much later for this adult-onset group. One explanation is that the adult-onset individuals are either very much like adolescent-onset individuals, or they are very much like conviction-free adults. In the first instance, it may be that these individuals have simply managed to evade being caught and convicted for their adolescent criminal activities unlike their delinquent peers who have been caught. The suggestion here is that adult-onset criminality follows the same pattern as adolescent-onset criminality. Farrington (1989), for example, found that those who selfreported various crimes but escaped conviction had very similar profiles to those who were convicted. In the second instance, those who are caught as adults may actually not differ from other adults who appear crime-free yet self-report criminal involvement. This suggests that the profiles of those who are convicted do not differ from those who are not convicted (yet admit to committing crime) in adulthood. As Zara and Farrington (2009) observe, this means that there may not be a true late-onset group. In a more recent study, Farrington and his colleagues (2013) found that among those who self-reported involvement in assault, theft (from machines, including parking meters, etc.), and vandalism, 45, 42, and 32 per cent, respectively, were never convicted of these crimes. Beckley

78  Pathways to Ruin?

and colleagues (2016) found that 85 per cent of adult-onset offenders in their study had histories of notable pre-adulthood antisocial activities. In the case of high-risk individuals, given the serious nature of many of their offending activities, it seems they followed the same pattern as adolescent-onset individuals but simply were not caught. In Farrington’s (1989) study, the probability of being convicted of selfreported crimes increased with age. Whether late-onset individuals are more like their early-starting peers or their never-starting peers, this explanation leans toward a stable characteristic underlying the propensity to offend or not. A second explanation for adult-onset of criminality has to do with mental illness and the idea that mental illnesses either emerge in adulthood or are no longer addressed by the protections that are provided by parents and peers during adolescence (Elander et al. 2000, 498). Often associated with mental illness are substance abuse (drug and alcohol) issues that may begin to surface during adulthood. Sapouna (2017), for example, found that “compared with non-offenders, adultonset offenders were more likely to have experienced negative events in adulthood such as mental illness, drug use, and deviant peer associations” (1403). The behaviours associated with mental illness may be more visible during adulthood than they are during adolescence due to the different types of social supports an individual may have once reaching adulthood (Beckley et al. 2016). It may also be that some adultonset individuals have reduced (not greater) cognitive ability compared with adolescent-onset offenders. Among these individuals, it may be that the loss of social support (found in school and within the family) is reduced with the transition to adulthood (Beckley et al. 2016, 78). Finally, a third explanation is simply that lives change during adulthood for reasons unrelated to past behaviour, childhood precursors, or mental illness and addictions, and these changes are associated with the onset of criminal activity. This view is most in line with Sampson and Laub’s (1993) perspective that highlights how social ties to significant others and institutions (such as employment) prevent individuals from committing crime. If these ties are lost or are undermined, the likelihood of crime increases. Adult-onset men were found in Beckley’s study (2016) to have had fewer delinquent peers than adolescent-onset offenders (and therefore were less likely to be arrested). They were also more likely to be socially inhibited (withdrawn) than adolescentonset peers and more likely to have alcohol/drug problems and mental health issues compared with the never-convicted men (2016, 77). Some research suggests that the offending patterns of adult-onset individuals are indicative of greater offence specialization, or the



Adulthood 79

tendency to repeat similar offences (Armstrong 2008b), than their counterparts who began offending earlier in life (Beckley et al. 2016). Most research supports the finding that the earlier one starts offending, the more versatile the offending career; conversely, those who begin to offend later in life show greater specialization. However, whether early- or adult-onset, some individuals have been found to increasingly specialize over time suggesting that aging is responsible rather than the timing of the career start (Piquero et al. 1999). Recent research by van Koppen (2018) found that even after taking age into account, women were more specialized in their offending than men suggesting that specialization is borne of more than simply a temporal element (either age at onset or aging itself). (We discuss specialization more fully in ­chapter 5.) Prior to our discussion of the major life events that constitute turning points among adults, we consider the elements of individuals’ lives that may make them more or less able to navigate the challenges that life brings. The idea of self-control, for example, has garnered a great deal of attention in explanations of crime (see chapter 2) and the determination of whether self-control is stable or changing. Below we examine two recent conceptualizations of dynamic self-control – one which focuses on self-control as a situationally specific characteristic (Situational Action Theory), the other maintains that self-control may be depleted (and bolstered) over time. Psychological research reviewed by Damian and her associates (2019) considered individuals’ personality traits and their relative stability and changeability over time. Their study specifically examined whether sixty-six-year-olds have the same personality traits as they had when they were sixteen-year-olds. If there is a change in personality, does that change assume environmental influence as the source or something else? Damian and her colleagues found that a maturation hypothesis was supported, that individuals change “in the direction of maturation, such that people should become more agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable over their lifespan” (2019, 17). They also note that a plasticity model, “where change continues and cumulates across the lifespan, might be more fitting” than a model that assumes change is pre-wired. Individuals may therefore have a combination of enduring (stable) characteristics over which they have little control, and dynamic traits that may be more likely to fluctuate from situation to situation and over the life course. Addressing offending requires that we consider whether those who commit crimes are potentially propelled by factors beyond their control, if they can change, and what kinds of events inspire changes in individuals’ life-course trajectories.

80  Pathways to Ruin?

To focus our examination of self-control, we first consider Robert’s story. His official record of offending did not begin until after the age of eighteen, despite his troubled background.

A Crime Pathway: Robert Robert was born in the early 1940s. His natural father died when he was a toddler, and his mother would regularly beat and choke him as he reminded her of his natural father. His mother remarried and his stepfather sexually assaulted him over the course of two years. He ran away from home thereafter and lived in various training schools. He reportedly denies any knowledge of being sexually abused but his file notes indicate that Robert accepts that it happened after reading documentation associated with his history and evidence that he had provided at other times during his life. Robert’s criminal career started in his late teens with a conviction for theft. Since then, he has been convicted numerous times for a range of offences including car theft, assault, and break and enter. Robert has a long and extensive history of sexually offending children and adolescents (both male and female), as well as adult women. When he was in his early thirties, he was convicted of sexually assaulting the daughter of his common-law wife. The assaults happened over a period of several months, a few times a week. His common-law wife did not press charges on the advice of a doctor believing it would harm the victim if she perceived she was responsible for her father being in jail. During this time, he was working as a school bus driver and impregnated one of the children. Robert ended up living with this girl and in his mid-thirties (after he was released on parole from assaulting his stepdaughter) he then sexually assaulted the daughter who was born out of this “school bus” relationship (the daughter was a toddler at that time). In his late thirties, Robert was sentenced to over ten years for taking a young girl from Canada to the United States and forcing her into prostitution. He served part of his sentence in the US and then was returned to Canada, where he received a stay of proceedings for these charges. In his early forties, his common-law wife was murdered by a friend he had met in prison. Since that time, Robert reportedly began using more drugs and escalating his offences. It is alleged that a year after his common-law wife’s murder, he sexually assaulted another child, but charges were never filed. That same year he came to know a family in his apartment building and sexually abused two children.



Adulthood 81

A year after this, he was a volunteer at an emergency relief centre and used that position to sexually assault women clients, and some of their daughters, who were at the centre to receive help. Robert was convicted for one of these assaults, though he admits assaulting numerous other women who never came forward to press charges. When Robert was in his mid-thirties, a psychiatrist observed: “Robert was awkward even with his wife and lacked self-assurance in interactions with all adults. His wife further observed that his lack of self-confidence disappeared when he was with children, but even in this area Robert seemed to deliberately seek out children who were in some way rejected by others or who showed admiration for him” (file notes). Robert has refused sexual offender treatment programs and has been found unsuitable for other programs primarily because he will not admit any responsibility for his actions. Another assessment notes: “Robert remains fixed in various cognitive distortions that legitimize behaviours with children” (file notes). Further, “his sexual impulse control has been recorded as being severely impaired” (file notes). It is noted throughout his file that Robert uses memory problems as an excuse for his behaviour and claims not to remember his offences. However, neuro-cognitive testing indicates that there is no basis for this claim and that it is more likely an excuse. His file concludes with the following observation: “in summary, this individual has shown very little progress and continues to present as an untreated sex offender. His indiscriminate offending, denial and minimization of his offences, and his past history of offending while on parole and bound by conditions, indicate that he will present as a high risk to the community and be a challenge to supervise” (file notes).

Robert’s case is yet another example of a complex assortment of converging factors, from prior abuse accompanied by a seemingly crimefree childhood and adolescence to the emergence of a range of sustained and very serious criminal behaviour in adulthood. The observations of those who have treated Robert suggest that he may suffer from some form of mental illness (characterized by lowered impulse control and cognitive distortions) that makes him unable to conduct himself according to social norms. At the same time, other file observations suggest that Robert may be using excuses to hide or justify his wrongdoing. While mental illness and failed impulse control are often considered predictors of criminal behaviour, rarer in criminological theories is a focus on moral beliefs and values. We think of adolescence as a time of

82  Pathways to Ruin?

immaturity and exploration: young people “try on” various behaviours and begin to develop their own opinions and attitudes. As adolescents, we make mistakes and often show a lack of judgement that is simply not acceptable in adulthood. In law, we take note of a person’s age with different sentencing guidelines applied to adolescents in order to account for differences in maturity and responsibility. We have heightened expectations of adults because we perceive that they “ought to know better” than to commit various crimes and we base this reaction on the notion that increased maturity brings with it a greater moral sensibility and understanding of the negative impacts of one’s behaviour. We often tend to think of those who commit certain crimes as immoral. Yet as criminologists, we often claim that the morality of breaking the law doesn’t come into play for two reasons. The first is that what constitutes a crime is not usually the purview of criminologists. What constitutes a crime is decided by the criminal justice system, therefore we conduct our research with definitions of crimes that have come from outside of our discipline – from law rather than from social science. The second reason is that traditional criminology has modelled itself on an empirical science model with preference for data and evidence over philosophical questions such as, “who decides what are crimes?” The empiricist hard science model is far less likely to embrace questions about why some activities are labelled as crimes and others are not. A more critical criminological approach recognizes that what is labelled as a crime and who is labelled as a criminal is often the result of substantial power differences. Corporate crimes, such as fraud, insider trading, environmental pollution, bribery, etc., often receive minimal punishments if violations are formally dealt with at all. Others with lesser means who commit crimes often characterized by less widespread damage are more likely to be labelled as criminals and face serious punishment compared with those who commit white collar crime. One has only to consider the demographics of those in prison and the types of crimes for which they have been sentenced to get a sense of how certain crimes become a focus of attention over other crimes. In Canada, for example, it has been found that the majority of those incarcerated, 60 per cent are on remand, meaning that they are incarcerated pre-trial and are legally innocent (Chan, Chuen, and McLeod 2017). For many, low income prevents them from being able to afford bail. Further, as Tosh (2019) explains, in the United States there is legislation that specifically targets certain kinds of people such as the “aggravated felony” legislation, which refers to “a category of offences for which non-citizens can be deported under immigration law” (2). These offences are directed specifically at penalizing immigrants more severely than US citizens



Adulthood 83

and include a very broad range of minor to serious crimes. Unlike US citizens who commit the same offences, immigrants who are convicted of such crimes are subject to mandatory detention and are also certain to be deported without legal representation. The evidence clearly points to social location – one’s race/ethnicity, income, and education – as having a great deal to do with whether one acquires the label ‘criminal’ and experiences the consequences of that label. While social location plays a role in whether certain individuals become the targets of law enforcement, the nature of the crime also plays a role in how we understand criminal activity. We referred to emotional responses to criminal activity at the beginning of chapter 1 and how our emotional or “gut” reactions to descriptions of crimes, perpetrators, and victims are based upon our own experiences and what we perceive and believe to be right and wrong. Our emotional reactions might begin with asking ourselves, “how could they do that?” or “could I ever do that?” and our answers may vary depending on the reasons that are offered for the commission of these crimes, the circumstances surrounding them, what we believe about the morality of those who commit these crimes, and our own morality. At the very heart of the criminal adjudication process, for example, is the expectation that those who have done something wrong – that is, committed a criminal act – will both admit guilt and take responsibility for their actions. These two elements form the basis of assessments of wrongdoing and are central to formal adjudication of crimes and their sentencing. These factors are also implicated in how we understand what motivates individuals to commit crimes. We consider below how morality has been embedded in a criminological theory of offending and how it may be implicated in an individual’s ability to see choices regarding how to behave. Situational Action Theory During sentencing the judge remarked, “had you been given a different and better upbringing, then your moral blameworthiness would be completely different” (#149, file notes). “I just spun out. I lost my morals and now I hate myself” (#207, file notes). “It is not difficult to understand why he turned to illegal drugs to bolster his legal narcotic intake and one can believe, as his lawyer stated, that in the days of these drug cocktails, he lost his moral compass” (#207, file notes).

Part of the popular crime narrative is that offenders are “bad.” “How can they do this?” we ask, often coming up with answers that point

84  Pathways to Ruin?

to what we believe to be a fundamental lack: either a lack of moral foundation, a lack of empathy, or a lack of impulse control. As noted in chapter 2, the basis of self-control theory is that crimes are committed out of self-interest and that committing crime satisfies that self-interest. Further, defective socialization within the family is the key determinant of low self-control and, therefore, of crime. Situational Action Theory (SAT) (Wikström and Treiber 2007; Wikström and Svensson 2008, 2010), on the other hand, maintains that crimes are moral actions and are committed when crime is seen as a reasonable course of action, yet individuals vary in how they perceive their environments and what they see as potential responses to their environments. Based on these perceptions, they then choose how to respond. According to SAT, the process of choosing a course of action depends upon the “moral beliefs and habits” that all individuals bring to every situation. In order to navigate our environment, we build sets of expectations or “blueprints” to guide our perceptions and responses through executive capability. Executive capability refers to the effectiveness of the cognitive functions and processes that are “responsible for purposeful behaviour” (Wikström and Treiber, 2007, 251). Wikström and Treiber define executive functions as, “the set of cognitive faculties that allow an individual to create and use internal representations to guide his/ her action decisions” (251). The internal representation is a framework that relies on both internal knowledge based on past experiences and memories, as well as external knowledge which is based on sensory input from one’s environment. All of us have such frameworks that we apply to every situation we encounter. We bring our histories with us to each new situation, as well as glean information directly from our environments. This framework allows us to make sense of situations as well as providing us with contextual information when we encounter new situations. Our executive capacities and our internal representations vary due to “differences in working memory capacity, processing efficiency and the ability to draw associations between environmental elements and past experience” (255). Deficits in executive capacity may be due to either general (enduring and personal) or momentary (situational) factors (255). General factors may include biological issues resulting from injury or developmental deficits, while situational or momentary deficits could include impairment due to alcohol or intense emotion. Through the development of one’s internal framework, individuals are exposed to situations and environments and come to conclusions about what courses of action are right or wrong in similar circumstances. These are referred to by Wikström and his colleagues as “moral



Adulthood 85

beliefs.” Similarly, we develop certain moral habits, which are the more or less automatic responses based on socialization and experience in similar types of situations. Executive capability also includes the ability to exercise self-control and make choices: “self-control comes into play in the process of choice only when the temptations and provocations … in a particular setting conflict with [an individual’s] moral rules (i.e., the rules guiding his/ her choices about what is right or wrong to do)” (243). The stronger the temptation, the more one must rely on strong self-control to counter that temptation. If the setting does not pose any challenges to one’s morality and one is comfortable with what is happening around them, then self-control will not come into play and will not be exercised. Those with moral rules and habits that are comparable with what the law allows and prohibits will have a low propensity for crime, while those with moral beliefs and habits that conflict with the law will have a higher propensity for crime when they make choices about their behaviour. Crime propensity is seeing crime as a reasonable course of action within a certain setting. Settings, according to SAT, are the social and physical surroundings with particular features that tend to make them more or less opportune for crime. Features of settings that produce temptation or align with desires create opportunities for crime. Challenges or frictions within a setting cause provocation and could be seen as obstacles or as causing interference to desired ways to act (245). Both temptations and provocations motivate behaviour. Within every setting, there is a moral context consisting of rules, monitoring, and sanctioning. How one responds to a setting will depend on perceptions of “(1) the correspondence between the individual’s morality (moral beliefs and habits) and the moral rules of the setting; and (2) the strength of an individual’s moral beliefs and moral habits” (italics in the original, Wikström and Treiber 2007, 246). If one’s moral perceptions are at odds with the moral setting, the individual must make a choice on how to behave. The choice will be based on the strength of the moral beliefs and the feelings that might be associated with either contravening one’s beliefs, such as guilt and shame, or conforming to moral beliefs, which may inspire feelings of virtue and satisfaction (246). If there is correspondence between the setting and the individual’s beliefs, then the individual will conform to the setting. Moral habits, according to SAT, “arise when an individual forms a strong association between one element of a setting and an action that (the individual has come to expect) will lead to a particular outcome” (250). Most important, we orient ourselves according to expectations of ourselves, others, and situations. A choice that is made from habit

86  Pathways to Ruin?

means that self-control is not involved. A choice made after deliberating upon a perception means that self-control is used. Whether one thinks prior to acting, or acts out of habit, depends on the individual’s familiarity with a setting: the more familiar one is with the setting, the more likely one is to act out of habit, whereas a less familiar setting means that deliberation and self-control are more likely to be employed (247). SAT assumes that most people do not commit crime because they do not perceive that crime is an acceptable course of action within most (if not all) settings. SAT maintains that both individual self-control and external controls (deterrence) play a role in whether crimes are committed. The moral context of a setting includes both monitoring and sanctioning, which are meant to deter specific actions from taking place. Motivated individuals, those who are tempted or provoked, for example, will respond to external controls if they fear the consequences of acting on their motivation (248). Motivated individuals who deliberate prior to acting exercise self-control. As Wikström and Treiber note, self-control is related to how individuals respond to their environments, while deterrence is the process of how environments respond to individuals (249). Those with greater executive capabilities will be better able to assess environmental cues to determine how they should act in various situations. Those who have fewer or reduced executive capabilities will be more influenced by cues in the environment as well as by temptations and provocations (249). Self-control inhibits actions that conflict with one’s moral rules, yet it may be compromised by short-term individual or environmental factors that reduce its influence, such as drunkenness or extreme and immediate threats. Situational Action Theory (SAT) suggests that self-control only becomes an issue in situations where crime may be perceived as an option and a decision must be made among action alternatives. Wikström and Svensson summarize SAT by observing that all “human actions (including acts of crime and violence) are an outcome of how individuals perceive their ‘action alternatives’ and make their choices as a result of the interaction between their individual characteristics and experiences (propensities) and the features of the behaviour setting in which they operate” (2010, 311). Essentially, the process of committing crime is twofold: crime must first be seen as an option and then a decision must be made regarding which option to take. For individuals with morals that align with the law, there is no decision to be made because there are no options – one simply does not steal, for example – and self-control does not come into play. Similarly, for some, alternatives to crime may not be apparent leaving it as the only course of



Adulthood 87

action. In this case, again, self-control doesn’t come into play. Others, however, may view theft as an option when faced with the opportunity to steal. For example, perhaps those who see theft as an option observe that there are few external deterrents and they will not get caught, or they might have stolen items in the past and faced few negative consequences. Those who consider theft an option must then decide which action they will take – to steal or not to steal. It is in the decision associated with an option for crime that self-control is activated. Morality, prior learning, and socialization will influence whether individuals view crime as an alternative, and their ability to exercise self-control will determine how easily they may be provoked or tempted to commit crime. Although it would be impossible to test SAT with one case, how might we use this theory to interpret Robert’s history of offending? Robert’s early life was traumatic as he was physically abused by his mother and sexually abused by his stepfather. He left his home at twelve years of age. While we cannot say exactly what moral beliefs were taught through indirect socialization or what Robert was told was right and wrong, the victimization he experienced suggests that the moral beliefs that he learned interacting with others likely confirmed the attribution of hostile intent to anyone he is interacting with (Evans, Simons, and Simons 2012; Loeber and Hay 1997), the understanding that the use of coercion in interactions is “normal” (Evans, Simons, and Simons 2012), the minimizing of others’ feelings, and the acceptability of acting on one’s own impulses. Robert’s executive capabilities (his ability to guide his actions) are limited by his experiences. The internal framework that he brings to any situation has been constructed by his previous victimization and sets boundaries on how he operates. The moral settings that Robert has encountered – maintaining a job, developing partnerships, and having children – do not correspond well with Robert’s morality. The history of his own experiences, as victim of abuse and witness to violence and poor familial relationships, likely concretized his observations of what it means to be an adult (someone who takes full advantage of everyone around him). As Wikström and Treiber describe, there is a lack of correspondence between the morality that Robert brings with him to particular settings and the moral rules of the settings. According to Wikström and Treiber’s SAT understanding, Robert must make a choice as to how to respond – his morality conflicts with what is expected of law-abiding and conforming adults. It appears from his behaviour that he typically chooses to offend and prioritizes his own self-interest over that which the moral setting is calling for (protection of children, abiding by the law, or respect for his partner, etc.). Robert’s

88  Pathways to Ruin?

behaviour may be a product of either habit, where he simply acts (as he wishes) without thinking, or is the result of low self-control (he is unable to control his impulses and thus chooses to act). Perhaps the solutions to Robert’s offending would be to change his moral habits by ensuring that he is not in situations that provoke habitual behaviour (such as abusing children and taking advantage of his trust position as father and adult). A second solution would be to develop self-control through the imposition of external controls. As Wikström and Treiber note, self-control may be developed by significant disincentives (fear of being caught and/or punished, embarrassment, etc.) or external controls that make acting in self-serving ways less rewarding. Situational Action Theory (SAT) highlights elements of an individual’s background based on prior experience and understanding (moral beliefs and habits) while taking into account the specifics of settings that are typically accompanied by guidelines and expectations for and surveillance of behaviour (moral contexts). SAT was conceived as a response to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) conceptualization of self-control, which we reviewed in chapter 2. Recall that they argue that early socialization (typically occurring within the family) sets the course for future offending, which depends on the level of self-control established in children. Gottfredson and Hirschi maintain that selfcontrol is set for life at an early age and those with low self-control will be most attracted to criminogenic opportunities over the course of their lives. Wikström and his colleagues’ situational action theory, not unlike Sampson and Laub’s (1993) response to the deterministic orientation of self-control theory, is a challenge to the notion that life trajectories are set and stable. SAT suggests that morality and self-control, in addition to situational factors, come into play for crime to occur. SAT also allows for the possibility that trajectories and pathways may lead individuals toward and away from crime but rather than positing self-control as the basis of these pathways, it argues that morality is the fundamental feature. Although self-control is viewed as important in situational action theory (SAT), other theories that maintain self-control as central have evolved, reconceptualizing self-control as more variable over the life course than Gottfredson and Hirschi originally thought, and also as more nuanced and subject to external influences. Reconceiving Self-Control Criminal justice practitioners, such as the police, probation, and correctional officers, etc., rely on police reports, offender self-reports, criminal



Adulthood 89

histories, and psychological assessments to identify factors that may influence those committing offences. An offence pattern may incorporate, for example, the planning involved in a crime (if any), possible fantasies that give rise to offending, situational elements that characterize criminal events, as well as coping mechanisms or rationalizations used in the aftermath of offending. The goal is to identify patterns associated with offending in order to reduce the likelihood of future crimes being committed by intervening to alter those patterns. But how is it possible to alter patterns if self-control is a stable trait set early in life? Indeed, this is one of the main criticisms levelled against Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) concept of self-control. Pratt (2016) recently detailed how the concept of self-control has evolved since this initial conceptualization, and how self-control and life course theories may converge to offer a more fulsome explanation of crime. As with Situational Action Theory, Pratt observes that self-control varies within individuals at all points in their lives. Further, individuals are differentially susceptible to depletion (as well as bolstering) of self-control at different points in time and in different situations. Self-control is seen as more dynamic than first conceived with certain factors increasing and decreasing levels of it both situationally and over the life course. There have been several efforts to reconceptualize self-control that better fit with a life-course perspective view of crime as dynamic and responsive to various life events over time. Our resolve to stick to our diets or to drink less, for example, may require us to be strong in the face of temptation. Muraven et al. (2005) examine the notion of self-control strength, which they suggest is “required any time an individual inhibits, overrides, or changes a behaviour, urge, emotion or thought to reach a goal or follow a rule” (140). The difference between self-control and self-control strength is that self-control strength is believed to be a fluctuating resource behind essentially stable levels of self-control and can therefore be diminished or refreshed as with other types of resources. These authors further note that individuals who have more self-control strength will be better able to resist temptation, while those with less self-control strength will be less able to resist the temptations they encounter. Those who experience diminished self-control strength over time will be more likely to ‘build up’ to an offence than will those who have not had their selfcontrol strength worn down. Just as muscle strength weakens, self-control strength may also weaken. Muraven and his colleagues (2005) suggest that self-control strength diminishes by the continual work or use of self-control. They note, “after the exertion of self-control, individuals are lower in strength

90  Pathways to Ruin?

and remain so for some time” (140). Interestingly, self-control strength is conceptualized as a resource that can be diminished by any number of temptations. These authors provide examples of how self-control strength diminishes over the course of a day. If, for example, one’s day has consisted of frustrating, anger-provoking, or other stressful events that have required the use of self-control, the ability to resist temptation, to exert self-control, weakens as the day progresses due to diminished resources. The strength that one has to begin with matters: those who have lower “trait [stable] self-control” “… may be more affected by self-control demands than individuals with a large pool of resources” (141). Although self-control strength weakens, it can be restored just like other types of strength. The significance of conceiving of trait self-control as backed by selfcontrol strength is that, first, there will be variability with respect to how an individual responds to essentially the same cues on different days. For example, the temptation to drink alcohol may be better resisted on those days when one has not had to exercise self-control; there are more resources (more energy) left “in the bank” with which to address temptations on some days than on others. This means that the expression of trait self-control will not be consistent: self-control varies by the nature of the experiences the individual has (recently) had. Second, the demands of any specific situation are mediated by the demands of the recent past. If self-control energy is restored – every day is a new day – yesterday’s stresses are not necessarily carried forward. In Hirschi’s (2004) latest conceptualization of self-control, he suggests that there is “decisional self-control,” meaning that self-control contains some aspects of rational choice and is affected by associated costs (and their assessment) but also by the specifics of particular situations. Part of decisional self-control is the notion that a cost-benefit analysis occurs within situations. Hirschi also notes that the ‘salience’ of these costs varies by situation: one way in which salience can be determined is by the social bonds connected to each individual. As Bouffard and Rice (2011) explain, those who are less socially bonded will identify fewer potential costs associated with their actions than will those who are more socially bonded. Ultimately, those with fewer social bonds exhibit lower decisional self-control. Bouffard and his colleagues (i.e ., Bouffard and Kunzi 2012; Bouffard and Rice 2011; Piquero and Bouffard 2007) have examined this newer conceptualization of self-control as more situational in nature than had been originally theorized: situationally based factors may work to reinforce or undermine levels of self-control. Previously, self-control had



Adulthood 91

been theorized to be endogenous, established early in life and essentially static over time (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). We now turn to Matthew and consider his offending pattern in light of this more dynamic conceptualization of self-control.

A Crime Pathway: Matthew Matthew was born in the early 1940s. He was the oldest of six children. He spent most of his first year in the hospital due to illness. His mother developed a serious illness and he spent the next four years of his life with his mother’s relatives. When Matthew was returned to his family permanently, he was physically small and showed no interest in commonly masculine activities. He was also “subjected to extreme forms of discipline by his father that often resulted in embarrassing and shameful moments and further distanced him from his family” (file notes). Multiple reports indicate that a lack of physical contact and family during his first year of life, when he was in the hospital, may have contributed to his lack of empathy later in life. During school, he spent a lot of time with younger children because he was physically smaller than his classmates. As a preteen, he placed himself in positions of trust with neighbourhood parents in order to babysit their children. After an unsuccessful suicide attempt in junior high, he continued to have suicidal ideation but made no further attempts. Instead, he took dares from other kids and did dangerous things which might have led to his death. At the age of eighteen, he joined the armed forces, and subsequently earned a university degree. By his mid-twenties, Matthew was married and his first child was born soon after. More children were born in the next five years. Matthew began sexually abusing his daughters when they were preteens. The abuse happened mostly in the basement of their family home, but also when he drove his daughters to their team sports – where he coached his own and other children. When interviewed about the incidents by police he did not attempt to deny any of the allegations: “The subject’s offending occurs in both premeditated and opportunistic manners and has resulted in hundreds of victims over his lifespan, with his victim pool being predominantly confined to pre-pubescent and pubescent female children … includ[ing] strangers … neighborhood children, children under his care and supervision, his biological sisters and their friends, as well as his own

92  Pathways to Ruin?

biological daughters. To attain regular access to his victims, the subject has used positions of trust and power in his roles as babysitter; Sunday school teacher; swimming instructor; military officer; father. The subject attains his victims’ compliance through sophisticated tactics of ‘grooming’” (file notes). Matthew admitted to sexually assaulting anywhere from one to two hundred children over periods of months or years. Although he was not convicted until in his fifties, Matthew indicates that his first sexual offence occurred when he was six years old against a toddler. “With respect to his sexual preferences, Matthew acknowledged that his sexual preference since early childhood has been for children. As an adult, he has sexually offended against children as young as two years old. He states that his preference is both sexually and emotionally derived in that young female children were less sophisticated and less sexually experienced and as such, did not make him feel inadequate or judged” (file notes). While incarcerated, Matthew displayed suicidal and self-injurious behaviours. He was also noted to have “auditory hallucinations and complained of hearing an intrusive voice, an experience he dates to the age of eight years. This voice has historically been his friend/ companion, however, its role has been to remind him of his inadequacies …” (file notes). Following therapy, it was noted that he reduced his self-injurious activities, although reports give different impressions about his cooperation with treatment and insight into his behaviours. “On the whole … just as he became skilled at creating an image of a responsible, trustworthy adult in the community, Matthew developed considerable proficiency in his presentation as a very fragile, harmless, and confused patient while in treatment” (file notes). Upon release after ten years of incarceration, Matthew began a relationship with a new girlfriend who had an infant daughter. Although Matthew reported that he was completely cured, the child was removed from their home.

Matthew’s history of offending illustrates that his self-control has varied over his life course with certain situations appearing opportune for the commission of crime. Matthew’s grooming activities are evidence that he was able to demonstrate the patience and planning that was required to ensure that he was less likely to be caught for his offences. He sought and held positions of power, which also indicates that he was, at least outwardly, responsible and seemingly non-threatening. However, as Pratt observes, “self-control varies within individuals at



Adulthood 93

all relevant points of the life course” (2016, 131). As we highlight above, self-control (and self-control strength) may be mutable and subject to depletion and strengthening, although this is perhaps “facilitated” by the individuals themselves either through self-selection (choosing to be in or placing oneself in certain situations) or through maturational reform (aging out of crime). Self-selection may play a significant role by establishing the situations individuals “find themselves in” but may also influence coping strategies used in the face of that temptation, the completion of an offence, or in the aftermath of negative life events. For example, the high-risk individual who creates situations conducive to victimizing children may recognize that being alone with children is a hazard he should avoid, yet at the same time may convince himself that he has “permission” if parents and children have “allowed” the situation to occur. Intertwining Self-Control and the Life-Course Perspective One of the “truths” of criminology is that the age of onset of offending and its duration are highly correlated. In other words, the earlier one begins to offend, the longer one persists in offending throughout the life course (e.g., Sampson and Laub 1993; Moffitt 1993). Whereas self-control theory suggests that low levels of self-control are the impetus behind offending, Nagin and Paternoster (1993) argue that early offending reduces the bonds to conforming others at the same time that it increases the incentive to deviate (El Sayed, Pacheco, and Morris 2016, 992). Further, there are certain periods and stages of one’s life where bonds to conforming others change and the likelihood of crime may increase or decrease. For example, during the teen years attachments to parents may decline whereas attachments to peers, and possibly deviant peers, may increase. Further, major life events, such as marriage or acquiring a stable job, can derail a criminogenic trajectory and re-establish a conforming path. Sampson and Laub (2005) reflect on the importance of major life events – turning points – and their impact on criminal activity. In some instances, major life events may occur at times that are disadvantageous and rather than derail a criminogenic trajectory, the life event may embed individuals further into a life of crime. Not only can major life events such as teen pregnancy or dropping out of school reduce life chances during the teenage years but these events may also have a ripple effect and reduce opportunities over the entire life course. There is also the impact of “maturational reform.” Maturational reform

94  Pathways to Ruin?

suggests that individuals tend to “age out” of crime and offending is reduced as they age. Further, we know that through certain periods of life one’s susceptibility to certain stimuli varies. Those who are middleaged, married with children, and who earn an income, may find the attraction to criminal activity less than when they were twenty years old and without such traditional demands on them. Pratt (2016: 132) also observes that maturational changes accompanying biological and social changes affect levels of self-control over the course of one’s life. In other words, the stages of life have an impact on levels of self-control by their association with environmental and social features that will develop or challenge those levels. For instance, after age eighteen there are fewer controls such as school and parents to inhibit low levels of self-control. During one’s thirties, however, careers, marriage, and family may provide environmental incentives to maintain higher levels of self-control. In addition to the maturational stage that one inhabits, such as early adulthood or pre-retirement, for example, we also note the possibility that individuals preselect themselves into certain life events. As Pratt (2016) explains, individuals make choices throughout their lives, albeit often with limited (self-control and other) resources, choices that are both pivotal within specific situations as well as determinative of life course trajectories. Rather than simply finding themselves on certain life paths, “the occurrence of negative life events is often far from random” (133) and bad choices are made that sustain particular trajectories. Further, the way in which individuals cope with negative events is influenced by choice, level of self-control, and both immediate and longer-term life circumstances. As noted by Lussier, Corrado, and McCuish (2016), the life-course perspective takes into account the social context of events and the dynamic interplay of individuals with their social environments as a means of explaining continuation in and desistance from crime activity. The degree to which change is managed or accommodated depends, to a large extent, on the individual experiencing the change – whether change is considered fundamental or “major” depends on the trajectory or path that person may be on. Those who have an accumulation of negative experiences might interpret major life events differently from those who do not. For example, a divorce may be of lesser significance if one is serving time in prison and has experienced divorce in the past. Teachman and Tedrow (2016) suggest that certain life events, such as changing jobs or having children, do not cause major changes in behaviour. In their words, these are “ordinary shifts” (76) and individuals have general scripts of what such transitions may mean or entail at



Adulthood 95

least at a normative, general level. These general scripts for life events such as getting married, or becoming parents, provide individuals with a set of expectations for how these events will affect their lives – with marriage, we know that becoming a couple may also have an impact on mortgages and banking and becoming a parent often entails sleep deprivation and worry, for example. Yet for those who may have limited exposure to positive life scripts due to inadequate socialization or role models, who have been prolific in offending as well as have lower levels of self-control, such transitions may be interpreted much differently and may work to embed these individuals further into a life of crime. In other words, these ordinary shifts may prove extraordinarily difficult to deal with, or may never actually happen, if the requisite positive resources are not in place. Trajectories and Turning Points: Relationships Adulthood brings with it the expectation that life will begin to become more subdued as we take on more and more adult responsibilities. We are expected to get jobs, maintain permanent romantic relationships, and, for some of us, become parents. The transition to adulthood is associated with far less available time for unstructured socializing. We can no longer hang out with friends as we once did; we take on responsibilities and duties and our time is no longer our own. The theory has been that crime begins to decline in adulthood because we simply have less time to devote to criminal or deviant activities, but also that continuing with adolescent deviance will cost us our relationships. We could lose our jobs, fail at school, and lose the affection of our loved ones. Bonds will be weakened and broken due to criminal activity. As Hill, Blokland, and van der Geest (2016) note, however, transitions to adulthood have become increasingly blurred. Teenagers do not immediately leave the family home at age eighteen and may return at various times throughout their lives. Economic and job insecurity figure prominently as reasons for lingering in adolescence longer than was formerly the case and longer than one might choose. Most studies find evidence that marriage inhibits crime especially for men. Sampson, Laub, and Wimer (2006) found that marriage is associated with reduced criminal activity over the life course. However, establishing that it is marriage that causes less crime (rather than it is those who commit less crime who are more likely to marry) is difficult. These authors suggest four theories as to why marriage may influence criminal activity. First, marriage may increase attachment and cause partners to bond, resulting in a sense of interdependence and thereby

96  Pathways to Ruin?

reducing crime activity. As King, Massoglia, and MacMillan (2007) observe, marriage establishes informal social control by undermining deviant networks. Rather than hanging out with peer groups who may be engaging in a party lifestyle including drinking and frequent nights out away from home, marriage tends to reduce contact with certain peer groups. Second, the obligations and duties associated with marriage change routine activities such that there is simply no opportunity to commit crime. Jobs fill daytime hours and family obligations take up evening and weekend hours. Third, women may have more direct control over men (who offend much more than women) through, for example, asserting control over shared finances and social calendars. Finally, marriage may change one’s self-conception and produce a cognitive transformation that one must “get serious” about one’s life (Sampson, Laub, and Wimer 2006, 468). Although Capaldi, Kim, and Owen (2008) found that men who were married commit less crime, their study indicated that it may not just be the attachment to one’s partner that causes a reduction in crime, but rather relationship stability (269). Aspects of a stable marriage include role obligations, such as sharing household work and finances, enhancing men’s investment in the union. Some researchers refer to this as the “respectability package” (Giordiano, Deines, and Cernkovich 2006), the coupling of marriage and job stability, and consider it central to the reduction of crime in adulthood. Capaldi and colleagues also investigated whether relationship longevity, rather than relationship status, and partner’s antisocial status had an impact on crime. They found that the “effects of romantic relationships on men’s crime involvement are not uniformly positive but are more complex, depending on women’s risk characteristics” (2008, 289). While those in stable relationships were found to commit less crime overall (this was found to be more important than attachment to one’s partner), women who had antisocial characteristics did not insulate their partners from committing crime (287). The protective impact of marital relationships is that marriages may mean a change in deviant peer associations with a partner (most often, women) bringing the other (most often, men) away from their peer groups. Piquero and his colleagues (2002) use the term local life circumstances to draw attention to the fact that proximate circumstances may also have either an enduring or fleeting impact on relationships and subsequently on crime. The use of drugs and alcohol, for example, can undermine long-term relationships, whether familial or workrelated relationships. It can also significantly increase the likelihood of crime and, subsequently, the risk of arrest (users draw attention to



Adulthood 97

themselves), while undermining individuals’ future prospects and in turn reducing marriageability (2002, 162). Of the 411 individuals included in this study, 58 per cent of them have had at least one common-law or marital partner (see appendix 1). Thus, over half of them have experienced a social tie to an important institution of informal social control. However, merely being married is not enough, it is the strength of the attachment that really matters (see, for example, Sampson and Laub 1993). Further, we’ve noted earlier in certain narratives such as Edward’s in chapter 2 that marriage may have a stabilizing and inhibitory effect for a while, but the breakdown of an important romantic relationship can be a transition back to offending. We also often see the end of a relationship occurring together with (a return to) substance abuse. We consider these observations next with Thomas, whose life story highlights the significance of major life events apparently implicated in his crime career: death, the demise of relationships, and job loss precede Thomas’s increased criminal activity.

A Crime Pathway: Thomas Thomas experienced abuse by his alcoholic father while growing up, but the nature of this abuse is not clear and there are few details about the rest of his family. He completed high school and some post-secondary education. At the age of twenty-one, he began to date his first wife who was fourteen years old at the time. They married four years later. Thomas’s history of sexual assault and child pornography appears to have begun just as he turned fifty. He attributes the death of his teenage daughter to being the trigger for his sexually deviant behaviour. It was also during this time that his mistress of many years died, he lost his job, and had marital stress. He states his attraction to adolescent girls appeared after this. Thomas turned to child pornography to “satisfy his desires at this time” (file notes), though there may be evidence of pedophilic interests prior to the death of his daughter, such as meeting his first wife during her early teens and an admission of paying underage prostitutes. Thomas was first sentenced for sexual interference and possession of child pornography in his early fifties and spent about a year in prison as a result. During this period of incarceration, he was in contact with his second victim via mail and daily phone calls. He led this victim and her parents to believe that he was away for work (not in prison) and upon his return, he convinced her family that she needed tutoring – a service

98  Pathways to Ruin?

he felt he could provide. It should be noted that Thomas was offending against his second victim while attending counselling and treatment for his sex offending. Given this complex grooming process, this second offence was considered an escalation in severity (file notes). Thomas specifically targets families with children in their early teens within his church community, and then grooms the child and the family. Although Thomas completed sex-offending programming while incarcerated and both appears to be aware of his offending behaviour and uses the language of this programming, “[he] seems unable to apply the material to [his] own life situations” as he continued to place himself in high-risk situations by watching programs with teen girls and by visiting malls at peak hours (file notes). It was observed that “he appears to enter into his offence cycle when stress, anxiety and boredom become present in his life. Combined with a negative self-image and unresolved issues of grief and loss, this likely lead to his offending behaviour” (file notes). Following his latest conviction for possession of child pornography, Thomas was designated a long-term offender due to his recidivism and his risk to reoffend.

Trajectories and Turning Points: Employment Many of us remember our first jobs – perhaps held during junior or senior high school – as major achievements enabling us to earn our own money for the first time and signifying a degree of independence. For some of us, these jobs may have turned our attention away from school and jeopardized our school performance. For others, our jobs may have benefited our skill set and taught us time management and responsibility (Staff and Mortimer 2008). The impact of having a job during adolescence has been found to vary depending upon the pre-existing characteristics that we bring to a first job (such as our motivation and aspirations), as well as the intensity with which we worked at this stage, essentially the number of hours we worked and the duration of our employment during this period. Its impact on future employment and educational attainment has much to do with socio-economic status (based primarily on parents’ education and income). As Mortimer and her colleagues’ (1990; Staff and Mortimer 2007, 2008; Mortimer 2012) research has shown, early entrance to the job market has varying impacts on both educational and future occupational attainment depending both upon characteristics of the work experience and sociodemographic backgrounds.



Adulthood 99

Why might work experiences mean different things for those who come from higher versus those from lower income backgrounds? First, the reasons for taking on employment during adolescence may vary. For those from disadvantaged backgrounds, work may be a source of income for their families and money earned may pay for educational expenses (books, field trips, etc.). Staff and Mortimer (2008) also found that for youth who are able to find and hold a job in conditions where jobs are scarce, the value of the work becomes that much more significant. This contrasts with adolescents from more prosperous areas where an abundance of jobs may serve to devalue the work itself: “more highly advantaged youth may have little stake in their jobs with their numerous opportunities to lose and regain work” (58). For all youth but especially among those who are disadvantaged, work may be a means of earning human capital, or the skills and knowledge needed to participate in the mainstream economy (OECD 1998). In their analysis of a longitudinal study on youth outcomes (the Youth Development Study), Staff and Mortimer (2008) found that youth who are able to pursue steady work (over longer periods with fewer work hours), regardless of family background, benefited most (in terms of educational and occupational achievement) from their work experiences compared with those who worked longer hours and those who did not work at all. These early work experiences are the building blocks of occupational and educational success in adulthood. Staff and Mortimer explain that our high school experiences “linking education and work, persist during the transition to adulthood and have significant implications for human capital acquisition” (2007, 1172). For those who come from advantaged backgrounds, steady work is doubly advantageous, as these youth were both more likely to obtain degrees and earn higher incomes as well as have the support of family resources while gaining this early work experience. Among disadvantaged youth, they too were more likely to earn degrees and higher incomes if their work was steady during high school, despite not having the advantage of family resources. Staff and Mortimer note that the part-time steady work can potentially offset some of the disadvantages particular youth face. At the same time, too much work or not enough work experience is differentially consequential depending on the individual’s socio-economic status. The acquisition of social capital during adolescence is based to a large degree on school success, but throughout early and later adulthood, human capital is largely found through employment. Recall that Sampson and Laub (1993) espouse a theory of age-graded social

100  Pathways to Ruin?

ties: age-relevant social ties diminish the likelihood of participating in crime. In adulthood, there is a reluctance to participate in activities that will undermine or damage one’s social bonds and reduce one’s social capital. The cost of criminal activity among those who are employed is said to threaten social bonds. How does this relate to the individuals we are considering here? Employment experience through adolescence appears to have been sparse and this also characterized adulthood for most of these individuals. While research has found that school success was bolstered by limited (though steady) employment experience, relatively few in our study have achieved success in either of these realms. As noted in chapter 3, the average grade attained by individuals in our study was grade eight. Only about 21 per cent of the 411 individuals considered here held employment for at least six months (see the appendix). While a handful of them held employment for longer, there just were not enough of them to provide a percentage breakdown, making the most meaningful length of time we could consider here six months. The majority worked in the trades and service occupations. As a point of comparison, the average length of job tenure in Canada in 2018 in these industries was 98.5 and 74.8 months respectively (Statista 2020). Educational achievement and occupational achievement are often two sides of the same coin but their relationship with crime is complicated. Those who attain education credentials are more likely to find employment and ultimately to make more money and experience stability over the life course. Those who are employed are also less likely to commit crime, as are those who are highly educated (Swisher and Dennison 2016), but both the “duration and timing of employment may moderate its crime reducing potential” (845) confirming the findings of Staff and Mortimer (2007). The benefits of employment go well beyond social and financial rewards. Unemployment has been found to be associated with a number of negative personal outcomes, from anxiety and depression to alcohol and drug use and lower rated self-health, and to social isolation and segregation (Hagler et al. 2016, 1494). Hagler and his associates studied the positive impacts of employment among adults and found that there were two themes that emerged. The first was ‘self-oriented’ with participants identifying autonomy, personal development (skill development and responsibility), and empowerment (sense of mastery and pride) as key dimensions (2016, 1498). A second theme was “otheroriented” with personal benefits derived from their employment being a means of helping others. Dimensions of this theme included providing for their families, providing examples for family members of future generations, and helping others (1500). The benefits of employment to



Adulthood 101

overall well-being are vast yet the employment histories of the highrisk individuals we consider here are spotty for most and non-existent for many. These employment histories can be linked not only to failing to acquire and maintain job experience while younger, but also due, often, to their limited exposure to the job market as a result of being incarcerated through the formative years when work experience was more likely to have been acquired. Weiss and Reid (2005) considered the nature of the job and its impact on crime, recognizing that because jobs vary markedly, the impact of those jobs on crime should also vary. They considered the primary and secondary labour markets and the effect of participation in these labour markets on crime rates. Jobs found within the primary labour market are generally considered to be better jobs, with higher wages, greater job security, benefits and training, as well as safer work conditions and opportunities for advancement (214). In contrast, the secondary labour market, where the majority of men in our sample with some kind of employment have held jobs, is characterized by unpleasant work conditions, employee turnover, low pay, and low status. Regardless of which market one finds oneself employed in, employment maintains neighbourhoods by structuring time and exerting control over workers (who, in secondary labour markets, might go to great lengths to keep their jobs). Drawing on the research by Freeman (1996), Weiss and Reid suggest that there may be a ‘foraging model of criminality’ whereby both legal and illegal employment might overlap for some in the secondary labour market – especially in circumstances when neither secondary labour employment nor crime provides sufficient resources. They explain that high rates of employment instability with low wages creates an urban environment that is characterized by many who have spotty employment records coupled with criminal records and who then become increasingly less attractive workers, as we observe among our sample of individuals. While Weiss and Reid (2005) focus on macro, or larger scale impacts of labour markets on crime, their analysis highlights the importance of criminal records to overall employability. The individuals we consider here not only have few (or any) meaningful work experiences, but the majority have also spent some time incarcerated meaning that they have been forced out of any labour market. Huebner (2005) found that the timing of incarceration had different consequences for employment and marriage. For those incarcerated as adolescents, early adulthood employment was affected but longer-term adult employment was not, and neither were their chances of being married. For those incarcerated as adults, however, odds of attaining full-time employment or

102  Pathways to Ruin?

marrying were reduced by one-third (296). As noted by life-course researchers such as Sampson and Laub (1993), full-time employment increases the social capital of men and assures a better position in the marriage market (Huebner 2005). Apel and Sweeten (2010) observe that imprisonment signals to employers that the employee is of a certain type: those labelled as ex-inmates may be perceived by employers as untrustworthy with the social stigma of imprisonment setting in motion a number of structural barriers. At the same time, it may be that imprisonment influences the individual’s identity (see chapter 5 for further discussion), such that their self-concept is negatively impacted and they fail to pursue and acquire jobs thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy (451). Trajectories and Turning Points: Family Romantic unions are created, unions are dissolved, children are born, and parents die. These are just some of the life changes that many of us face over the course of our lives. Our ability to navigate important times in our lives is a product of our experience: our familiarity in having dealt with similar situations in the past, as well as our knowledge of how other people have dealt with similar circumstances. The lifecourse perspective suggests that these important events may represent turning points or times when we are derailed from our paths or trajectories. For some this can mean turning away from criminal activity while others turn toward it. As we note in chapter 3, turning points resonate differently for each of us depending upon the support we have available to manage these situations, including the strength of our ties to our work, friends, and family. The idea of a turning point poses some challenges for the life-course perspective. An individual who determines they are going to get married or have a child, for example, chooses that behaviour; it is not something that simply randomly happens to them. If such a life event causes a change in criminal activity, we cannot say for sure that it was the marriage or the child that caused desistance from (or the starting up of) criminal activity. Rather, marrying or having the child may have been the outcome of a preceding thought process – the marriage or child was not the factor that caused the change in subsequent behaviour – but instead there was a preceding decision prior to the marriage or child. In other words, it cannot be said with certainty that the event itself caused a change in behaviour. The reason this question is important is that it speaks to the idea of self-selection and whether those who marry, for example, desist in crime because of the marriage or if these individuals



Adulthood 103

who reduce their involvement in crime after marriage would have changed their behaviour regardless. Events such as marriage and having children are the kinds of events that people usually have choice and control over. Further complicating the notion of turning points is the fact that their impact may be quite different depending upon the individual’s context. Factors such as age, perceived identity, openness to change, etc., will affect how events are registered. This issue of choice or self-selection was studied by Corman and her associates (2011) who looked at the issue of life shocks. In their study, Corman et al. considered the life shock associated with having a child born with very serious health issues and the impact that this has on subsequent behaviour. Their rationale in studying this was that while people may choose to have children, they do not choose to have a seriously sick baby. Such an event could not therefore be considered a form of self-selection. Corman et al. found that the birth of a child with a severe health problem increased the propensity for at-risk men to commit crime. More specifically, men who were characterized by “low levels of human capital, weak social bonds or a previous criminal record” (1182) were more likely to commit crime in the immediate period following the birth of the ill child than men with similar characteristics who were not fathers of seriously ill children. Corman and her associates’ (2011) study points to the significance of this type of strain on those who are already stressed. The at-risk men were those with low levels of social capital, not well-educated, low income, and weak social bonds, making them more likely to engage in criminal activity. The disadvantages that these men were previously exposed to, coupled with this form of life shock, constituted a turning point away from crime in some, while for others it appears that this event was another in a series of unfortunate events. Another factor that may come into play, although not mentioned in the Corman et al. study, is low self-control. While it is difficult to determine why some individuals have weakened social bonds and weak labour market ties, it may be that low self-control also characterizes these young men. Perhaps those who turn to crime after these life shocks may have fewer coping skills due to underlying self-control issues. In terms of the men we consider here, we do not know if any in our study became fathers of seriously ill children, but almost half of them were, in fact, fathers. Yet it appears that fatherhood did not have a huge impact on offending trajectories: 42.5 per cent of the men in our sample were fathers but only 37 per cent of these men had contact with their children. Further analysis showed that having children did not influence either the length of time over which individuals offended or the

104  Pathways to Ruin?

frequency with which they offended. It appears that fatherhood had little impact on the lives that these individuals had been leading, which may possibly be evidence of low social capital and low self-control. Many experienced events that are often described as possible transitions or turning points, such as the birth of children, the death of a romantic partner like Thomas, and the deaths of parents (recall Daniel from chapter 3); others experienced divorce and separation. While some of these events may not have registered as life shocks and did not result in changed behaviour, they may have instead fortified the crime trajectories these individuals were on. Many of those who we consider here have been exposed to numerous traumas and setbacks, which supports the notion of cumulative disadvantage and subsequent negative experiences appearing to influence their abilities to “dig themselves out” of the disadvantage. The disadvantage that will mark the tipping point to either begin criminal activity or re-engage in criminal activity is very difficult to predict in advance. Further, not all of those who have experienced a multitude of challenges and negative events end up turning back to crime, although examples of this are fewer among the group we are considering. As we see in our next narrative, Donald’s life appears to have been redirected to committing crime and harassment following the end of his thirteen-year marriage. While there is little file information on Donald prior to the break-up, we do know that he had no criminal record prior to his separation from his wife.

A Crime Pathway: Donald Donald was married for over a decade and had children from that marriage. He and his wife separated, and Donald began a long period of harassment. Over the course of a year, his wife documented multiple episodes of harassment. Donald was put on a restraining order and was subsequently charged with breaching the order. The file indicates that he was arrested after having completely disregarded the order and its conditions. For example, he drilled a hole in the barbecue gas line at his wife’s residence and continued to harass his wife and children. An emergency protection order was obtained shortly after the restraining order. Although Donald was to have no contact with his family, he continued to phone his children and wife. He was eventually arrested at a known crack house. He was brought before a judge and was in custody until he could undergo a psychiatric assessment. He pled guilty



Adulthood 105

to numerous breaches and was sentenced to time served and probation with conditions. Soon after, he was again arrested for breaching probation (including failing to attend treatment) and for being found under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Donald was released on bail prior to his subsequent court date so that he could visit his parents. Just prior to his court date, however, he was found in violation of his curfew, as well as his protection and recognizance orders. This event was caused by his making “inappropriate sexual comments to staff and offensive comments to other female clients” while in treatment (file notes). It was noted that Donald had “boundary issues and breached unit rules” (file notes). As quickly as the offending began, it desisted four years later, and Donald was no longer a threat to his family and was considered successfully treated for his issues.

Summary The notion of adult-onset criminal activity is complicated by the fact that while official criminal records for some may begin after the age of eighteen, involvement in various criminal activities may have started much earlier. The life-course perspective emphasizes the importance of life stages and the reality that much of what we do today is the consequence of preceding choices, activities, and circumstances. Situational Action Theory (SAT), for example, maintains that criminal activity involves moral choices, with the bases of our morality established through our past experiences in certain settings and the development of moral rules and habits. Similarly, the self-control we possess and the self-restraint that we exercise as adults are a product of our histories. For some of the individuals in this study, certain life events occurring in adulthood appear to have triggered the adoption of criminal behaviour. There is some evidence to suggest that those who begin to offend later in life are also more likely to specialize in their criminal activity. We consider specialization in the next chapter when we take a closer look at official criminal records as well as the experiences of these individuals within the criminal justice system.

5 The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization

In the last chapter we considered elements of adulthood that may either entrench individuals further in crime or be of such significance that individuals who were previously crime-free transition to criminal activity. Regardless of whether crime started during one’s youth, or started later in life, the price of participating in crime is often paid in adulthood due to a failure to meet the expectations associated with this stage of life. Recall that in chapter 1, we might have felt frustration with Jamie who, like many others, continued to offend in adulthood despite crime not serving his (or his victims’) long term interests. Our frustration may have been due in part to our expectation that adults should “know better” than to continue to offend and have failed to “grow out” of criminal activity. Although there are many who may dabble in criminal activity and leave it as they enter adulthood (adolescence-limited offenders, Moffitt 1993), others identified as high-risk often fail to leave criminal histories behind. Whether this is due to continued criminal activity, or to the stigma and loss of social capital associated with a criminal past, opportunities for meeting the expectations we tend to associate with adulthood may be significantly curtailed for those with serious criminal histories. In this chapter, we focus on criminal records and criminal justice processing of those identified as high risk and consider the impact of administrative labels for these individuals. We consider the connection between the formal responses to offending and the research literature that both supports and undermines formal responses. It is important to note that the crime pathways we have constructed draw on sources of information gleaned from police and criminal justice records. We have not spoken directly with any of these individuals about their assessments of their own criminal histories therefore the pathways we have created are limited to what we have captured through the assortment



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  107

of information found in the police files (see the appendix). As could be expected, the police direct their attention to the elements of individual backgrounds and histories that will help with their investigations. A key source of information for police is an individual’s criminal record detailing the dates, locations, types of crime, and sentences for which an individual has been convicted. Criminal records do not entirely capture an individual’s volume and range of criminal activity as typically only a small proportion of criminal activity comes to the attention of police and even less of that activity results in conviction. Although the amount of information in the files varied, the information consistent across all individuals was their criminal records. These records serve as a means not only of confirming other sources of information in the files, but also fill out the crime journey in ways that other information may or may not highlight. While memories fade and events are forgotten, criminal records contain relatively permanent information that enables us to consider crime and its response through this more formal lens of crime histories. While offending volume and patterns are a key part of understanding criminal careers, another major contribution to offending trajectories is the responses that criminal behaviour produces. Although we attempt to understand crime through the identification of offending patterns, the responses to apparently similar behaviour may vary dramatically between individuals and contribute to reinforcing or impeding whichever trajectory the individual is on. We have noted, for example, inconsistent responses by parents, families, and schools to problems that some of this group encountered as children.1 Some individuals were removed from their family homes by social services, while others continued to experience abuse and neglect and remained in their homes with their abusers. The parents of others appear to have sought help for their children while they were growing up, but these efforts may have created new problems or produced resentment toward families among those whose parents sought help. (Recall that after Carter’s mother helped the police, she also became the target of Carter’s aggression – see chapter 1.) Schools appear to have had limited resources to deal with many of the types of issues that these individuals experienced growing up, and in some cases simply made things worse. As we detailed in chapter 3, relatively few individuals in this group had positive school 1 Public Safety Canada features a fictional story about Tyler, an individual who experienced an array of negative events from childhood to adulthood, eventually ending up in federal prison. We note similarly missed opportunities for intervention in the lives of the individuals we have featured (Public Safety Canada 2016).

108  Pathways to Ruin?

experiences, academic or otherwise, with many dropping out or being forced out through expulsion for bad behaviour or non-attendance. We also note that the negative impact of peers, while perhaps significant in the early stages of one’s life, eventually loses its strength. Among those who stop offending, work and romantic relationships are believed to exert increasingly greater influence over the behaviour of these men than do their peers as they enter their twenties and beyond. In the previous chapters we have highlighted the families, work, friendships, and romantic relationships to provide insight into the nature of the informal social control these individuals experience. Each of us experiences degrees of control due to the relationships we are embedded in and through the social relationships that we cultivate (and/or are born into). Further, we often associate adulthood with achievements such as marriage, careers, and independence. As a formal source and adjudicator of social control, the criminal justice system (CJS) also wields a great deal of power. Responses to criminal and deviant behaviour by formal authorities work to limit or enhance future criminal activity, as well as future opportunities. Periods of incarceration, for example, may produce greater disconnection from mainstream society and may result in increased offending, particularly because a criminal record often becomes part of the baggage that individuals carry into the future, limiting opportunities for work and relationships. For some individuals, crimes committed while in prison also limit their opportunities to get appropriate programming while incarcerated: poor institutional behaviour often results in segregation and further restrictions on freedom. Official criminal records may also shed light on patterns of offending including questions of specialization. What do we know about the nature of the offending trajectories associated with these individuals? Do criminal careers follow a pattern – that is, is there evidence of specialization in the types of crimes committed? Does the commission of certain types of crime, or specialization, affect how individuals are dealt with in the criminal justice system? In the first part of this chapter we consider how offending histories are formally defined and managed and consider the criteria through which individuals are labelled as high-risk and the responses that these labels engender through conditions of compliance. We then establish how these records correspond to questions of specialization and how this may affect managing individuals. Finally, we consider post-imprisonment and the difficulties that accrue after the experience of and baggage associated with incarceration.



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  109

Offending Histories The individuals we feature in this book came to the attention of police through a variety of means, from formal court designations as high-risk offenders and the application of Section 810.1 or 810.2 peace bonds to less formal identification by police through the nature or scope of their criminal activities. For every individual, criminal records were available including convictions and their dates, locations, and sentences. To better understand their offending histories, we expand on our discussion in chapter 1 regarding the means by which individuals are formally court-identified as high risk and describe the application of a Criminal Code Section 810.1 or 810.2 peace bond and its significance for managing high-risk offending. Supervision Orders: Section 810.1 and Section 810.2 Peace Bonds When an individual is convicted of a crime and receives a sentence of imprisonment, that sentence comes with a statutory release date (SRD), the date that occurs at two-thirds of the length of the sentence. Under the authority of Canada’s Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), statutory release is mandated by law and most individuals, who have not already been released on parole, are automatically released at this time. The idea is that the last third of the sentence is not a release from the sentence, but rather to be served in the community; the increased support and structure provided through statutory release aims to improve successful community reintegration (Government of Canada 2021). The same rationale behind statutory release informs release on parole: to aid in the reintegration of individuals into society. Day parole eligibility occurs six months prior to full parole eligibility (or three years before for those serving a life sentence) and full parole eligibility occurs at one third of the sentence served, or seven years (or whichever is less). Individuals on day parole typically reside in a residential facility or halfway house whereas those on full parole reside in a private residence but are subject to conditions until the completion of their sentences. The decision to release an individual on parole is up to the National Parole Board of Canada and is based on criminal history, good institutional conduct, the successful completion of programming, and a sound release plan (Government of Canada 2021). The decision to delay parole until there is improvement in the latter three conditions can be made but most individuals are released at some point prior to their

110  Pathways to Ruin?

SRD. While similar in many ways, SRD differs in a couple of important respects: first, the decision to release an individual is not determined by the Parole Board but by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) officials. Second, the statutory release date, which is calculated by correctional authorities after the sentence is imposed, is mandatory if an individual has not been released on parole, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. The decision to deny both parole and statutory release typically signifies that allowing an individual into the community at that time has been determined to be a significant risk to the safety of the public. Despite the mandate to release individuals at SRD, decisions can be made to detain an inmate until the warrant expiry date. Given this clause, all cases where an individual has been sentenced to two or more years in prison for a Schedule I or II offence are reviewed six months prior to the statutory release date by CSC. Schedule I covers a variety of offences committed against children from invitation to sexual touching, to sexual assault while Schedule II offences focus primarily on other vulnerable or adult persons. The case for release at SRD includes a “pre-screening review” that is performed to assess the likelihood that an individual would commit a certain type of crime before the sentence expiration date. Various means to evaluate this likelihood include, for example, “the offender’s previous criminal history, records of institutional behaviour, records of performance on previous releases, psychological and psychiatric evaluations conducted for release decision-making purposes, and the findings and recommendations of Community Assessments” (Correctional Service Canada 2017). An assessment may result in denying statutory release if it is believed that the individual may commit any of the following types of offences prior to the sentence expiration date: • “an offence causing death or serious harm to another person; • a sexual offence involving a child; or • a serious drug offence.” (Correctional Service Canada 2017) The decisions regarding statutory release take into consideration an individual’s entire profile: criminal history, performance in the prison setting, plans upon release, etc. Statutory release may be denied or the review may determine that the individual may only be released if he agrees to specific conditions that must be followed. There are standard conditions associated with mandatory release including, typically, reporting to a parole officer, not leaving specific geographic areas, and not breaking the law.



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  111

Much more rarely, those who have been denied statutory release are held until their warrant expiry date (WED). The WED is when the full prison sentence imposed by the court is completed. When released at WED, individuals no longer come under the jurisdiction of Correctional Service Canada or the National Parole Board. For those who reach WED, however, their involvement with the criminal justice system does not necessarily end as those who are detained until this date are automatically flagged for further consideration. Ninety days prior to WED, material is prepared by corrections authorities and provided to police in the geographic area that the individual plans to be released to. This information includes material about the individual’s conduct while in prison, all psychological or psychiatric evaluations, his willingness to participate in and responsiveness to treatment while incarcerated, plans made regarding leaving the institution, and the individual’s criminal history. This information is reviewed by police who then determine if they will pursue a peace bond under either Section 810.1 or 810.2 of the Criminal Code. The peace bond, like a probation order, is a method used to manage an individual in the community. It typically includes an array of conditions (see below) that could result in conviction if conditions are breached. If the police decide to proceed with a Section 810 application, the agency writes “an information” – a document laying out the grounds upon which the agency believes that the individual poses a risk and that proceedings should begin. The information goes before a judge who determines “on a balance of probabilities” whether or not to agree with the assessment of higher risk. Section 810.1 applies when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person will commit any sex-related offences against a person under the age of sixteen years. A Section 810.1 application focuses specifically on the fear that a child under the age of sixteen years may become a target of future offending (Public Safety Canada 2009). In situations where an individual has not previously sexually offended a person under sixteen, the peace bond is for one year. For those with previous sex offences against a person (or persons) under the age of sixteen, the peace bond is for two years. Section 810.2 focuses on the fear that an individual will commit a “serious personal injury offence” (regardless of the age of the potential victim) and states that “any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in section 752, may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared

112  Pathways to Ruin?

that the offence will be committed are named” (Justice Law 1985, 212). Essentially, the judge hears the application (by police or a private citizen), determines if it is reasonable to suspect that an individual is very likely to reoffend, and makes a decision on that basis. There is an additional form of oversight in the application of Section 810 orders since being subject to one of these peace bonds usually significantly curtails one’s freedom. In the case of a Section 810.1 peace bond, consent of the provincial Attorney General is not required; however, such permission is required to proceed in the case of an application for a Section 810.2 peace bond. When determining if a Section 810.1 or 810.2 peace bond is to be approved, the evidence must satisfy a judge that it meets the requirements of fearing on “reasonable grounds” that a person may reoffend. Again, depending upon the prior offence record, a Section 810.2 application without previous personal injury will result in a one-year peace bond, but for those with such an offence record, the maximum term of the peace bond is two years. Both Sections 810.1 and 810.2 peace bonds are renewable. Conditions of Compliance: Peace Bonds Individuals who have been identified as “high-risk” and who are subject to either a Section 810.1 or 810.2 peace bond typically have strict conditions associated with their bonds. The Criminal Code states that “the provincial court judge may add any reasonable conditions to the recognizance [peace bond] that the judge considers desirable to secure the good conduct of the defendant” (Justice Laws 1985, Sec. 810). In table 2, examples of conditions are identified that are part of many Section 810.1 or 810.2 peace bonds, such as keeping the peace, reporting, Table 2.  Conditions of Section 810.1 and 810.2 Peace Bonds Reporting The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable to require the defendant to report to the correctional authority of a province or to an appropriate police authority. Treatment Require the defendant to participate in a treatment program [drug, alcohol, psychiatric, anger mgmt.]. Bans and Prohibitions Prohibit the defendant from having any contact— including communicating by any means — with a person under the age of 16 years, unless the defendant does so under the supervision of a person whom the judge considers appropriate. [S. 810.1] Prohibit the defendant from using the Internet or other digital network, unless the defendant does so in accordance with conditions set by the judge. [S. 810.1]



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  113 Prohibit the defendant from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person identified in the recognizance, or refrain from going to any place specified in the recognizance, except in accordance with the conditions specified in the recognizance that the judge considers necessary. [S. 810.1] Require the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs except in accordance with a medical prescription, of alcohol or of any other intoxicating substance. Require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation on the demand of a peace officer, a probation officer or someone designated under paragraph 810.3(2)(a) to make a demand, at the place and time and on the day specified by the person making the demand, if that person has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant has breached a condition of the recognizance that requires them to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance; or (i) require the defendant to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of a bodily substance prescribed by regulation at regular intervals that are specified, in a notice in Form 51 served on the defendant, by a probation officer or a person designated under paragraph 810.3(2)(b) to specify them, if a condition of the recognizance requires the defendant to abstain from the consumption of drugs, alcohol or any other intoxicating substance. The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the defendant’s safety or that of any other person, to prohibit the defendant from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all of those things. If the judge decides that it is desirable to do so, the judge shall add that condition to the recognizance and specify the period during which the condition applies. Surrender, dispose of, detain, store or deal with items in the defendant’s possessions along with the authorizations, licences and registration certificates that are held by the defendant.

Geographic Prohibitions Prohibit the defendant from attending a public park or public swimming area where persons under the age of 16 years are present or can reasonably be expected to be present, or a daycare centre, school ground or playground. [S. 810.1] Require the defendant to remain within a specified geographic area unless written permission to leave that area is obtained from the provincial court judge. Require the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request. Require the defendant to return to and remain at his or her place of residence at specified times. Other conditions may include: appearing before the court when required; carrying one’s recognizance order at all times; seeking approval of one’s residence by probation or peace authority; seeking approval to change residence; seeking prior approval for travel and providing a detailed itinerary; actively seeking or maintaining employment or educational programming; no contacting criminal associates; no gambling/attending gambling establishments; no sexual relationship (or contact) with any person unless that person has been fully advised of criminal convictions and history of criminal conduct by a member of the police. Source: Criminal Code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-211. html#docCont, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-212.html#docCont, accessed 6 September 2020.

114  Pathways to Ruin?

curfew requirements, and bans and prohibitions. The peace bond, like a probation order, usually includes conditions that result in punishment if they are breached. The specific conditions are determined according to an individual’s risk level and personal offending profile. The conditions are meant to help prevent future offending, manage behaviour, and increase public safety – supervisory conditions applied to an individual may be both specialized and generic. However, conditions cannot contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “conditions must be the type of restrictions that are designed to prevent the commission of another offence, not punishment for past crimes” (Public Safety Canada 2009, 73). The use of various designations of high-risk and the application of different types of peace bonds in accordance with the offence(s) an individual has committed indicates that the CJS operates according to the notion that different “types” of offenders exist. These individuals are seen as specialized with a tendency to repeat similar crimes and/or have a proclivity for particular kinds of victims. However, the empirical evidence regarding specialization is mixed (see, for example, Miethe, Olson, and Mitchell 2006 and Humphrey and Gibbs Van Brunschot 2017). Criminal records provide some insight into patterns of behaviour and whether there is evidence of a tendency for certain crimes and victims. It is to this, and the research on specialization, that we turn next. Identifying Specialists “Sex offender charged.” Headlines and labels like these often provide very shorthand ways for audiences to understand and categorize what is likely a complicated set of circumstances. In this headline, we can readily determine that a certain type of criminal, a “sex offender,” has been caught by police and is being dealt with (“charged”) by the criminal justice system. These three words, however, obscure the nature of the individual referred to and what the individual has done (is it a sex offence? Or a past sex offender who has committed a different type of offence?), as well as obscures whether justice can or will be served. We do not know if the charge will be dismissed, if the individual will be represented in court by a competent attorney, or if the individual will ultimately be found not guilty. For many, the details may be inconsequential as we often use our cultural and personal stores of knowledge to make judgment even in the face of little information. More information may simply obscure what we think we know and how we come to understand aspects of our environments.



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  115

For example, psychology has taught us that humans try to understand complex phenomena and solve problems efficiently. One method through which this is done is the use of heuristics – mental shortcuts that allow us to quickly navigate and sort through a lot of information. Psychologists Tversky and Kahneman (1974) detail several heuristics that lead to biased judgements. One heuristic is “representativeness,” the idea that objects which superficially appear similar are therefore of a kind and belong to the same category. “Availability” is another heuristic based on the ease with which we can recall instances that fit within a category, or the ease with which examples can be generated that fit a category. “Adjustment” and “anchoring” are heuristics that provide a starting point, usually based on a limited piece of information that is known and that can be used as a frame of reference by which subsequent judgements are made. Yet Tversky and Kahneman found that our desire to use mental shortcuts does not often result in the most effective decision making or rational solutions. Instead, we may inadvertently create cognitive biases by failing to take full information into consideration, essentially cutting corners where we may be better served by the full story. The cognitive biases that Tversky and Kahneman describe can be readily applied to how we think about crime and those who commit it. For example, someone who has committed or is charged with a sex offence is automatically placed into the category of sex offender (representativeness). We hear about sex and violent offences more often than we hear about other types of crimes, so it is easy for us to come up with an example (availability) of a typical crime in that genre. Anchoring may come into play when we hear about responses to certain crimes – we hear most often of offenders ‘going to prison’ and therefore judge prison as the baseline response to crime. We far more rarely hear of offenders whose crimes require them to pay fines, make restitution, or do community service because these cases are less newsworthy and unlikely to be reported by the media. As a result, we don’t come to see these other ways of responding to crime as legitimate. Another heuristic may be added to our shorthand of understanding offending – the “affect” heuristic (Slovic et al. 2007). Slovic and his colleagues suggest that “reliance on affect and emotion is a quicker, easier, and more efficient way to navigate in a complex, uncertain, and sometimes dangerous world” (1334). Perhaps one of the best examples to which the affect heuristic is applied is sex crimes: our deeply held feelings about sex offending and the perceptions surrounding violation of the body have affected our thinking about these crimes and those who commit them. Yet this oversimplification prevents any other ways

116  Pathways to Ruin?

of thinking about this behaviour. As Edwards and Hensley (2001) note, sexual victimization is an issue charged with strong emotions and visceral responses. There is much evidence to suggest that it is seen as a pressing social problem in North America and elsewhere, with significant pressure on authorities to address the issue. Naming individuals as sex offenders is a shorthand label that not only reduces the complexity with which these crimes and the individuals who commit them are seen, but also points to a means of dealing with them, typically through an array of legislative responses. As noted by Meloy, Curtis, and Boatwright (2013), the timeline of contemporary legislation in the United States reflects a response to high-profile sex crimes against children. Tragic incidents in the US motivated elaborate legislative responses to manage sex offenders to prevent future sexual victimization (for example, Megan’s Law was based on the case of the murder of Megan Kanka by a convicted sex offender, which prompted the creation of sex offender registries across the United States). Community notifications, for example, are issued to provide residents with information geared toward reducing the likelihood of victimization. While community notifications provide information with respect to the risk of future offending, such notifications speak only to the “master status” of specific individuals convicted of a sex offence, but may not enable us to see connections with other types of offending or the complexity of the lives behind the label. Legislative pressure to do something about sex offending is coupled with a reticence toward being seen as “soft” on this issue; those who are seen as less emotional and who view sex offenders as similar to other offenders may be viewed as sympathetic to offenders over their victims (Edwards and Hensley 2001, 84). According to Edwards and Hensley, the popular images of sex offenders are one-dimensional, with sex offender as the only status that matters, obscuring other images and identities as well as similarities to other patterns of offending. They observe that “legislative actions regarding sex offenders have grown out of core assumptions that have yielded a legislative paradigm of punitiveness” (85), both reinforcing and building the public perception of these offenders as unique and sharing little in common with other offenders (Humphrey and Van Brunschot 2017). The notion of a “paradigm of punitiveness” may also speak to the anchoring heuristic in that we associate punitive responses (imprisonment) with offending and seem to have little time for punishment that falls outside of this baseline sentence. Our use of heuristics may be attributed to media representations of crime and those who commit crime. In her analysis of sex offenders, judges, and the media,



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  117

Fox (2013) observed a shift in how the media reports on sex offending, and how moral panics are sustained by adjusting their focus somewhat, in this case from the offender to the judge. Fox explains that the framing of the sex offending problem has shifted to judges who, according to many media outlets, fail to appropriately punish those who come before the courts. Fox’s analysis focused on the commentary of popular media outlets that criticized a judge’s sentence of a sex crime. The commentary suggested that not only were individuals who committed sex offences a threat to society, but those who do not offer judgments/ sentences in line with the punitive paradigm contribute to the problem of sex offending and are part of the problem. Specialization, in Fact It may be the case that we apply heuristics in our desire to identify and label specific kinds of individuals, such as, for example, sex offenders, even in the face of evidence that a sex offence is one among several types of crimes an individual may have committed. Despite the tendency to label offenders as being of a certain type, the vast majority show far greater versatility than these categorizations suggest. Studies have shown that greater versatility characterizes those who start their criminal careers earlier, while specialization tends to be the purview of individuals who begin to offend later in life (Mazerolle et al. 2000, 1167; Sullivan et al. 2006). There are several explanations for specialization as well as the lack thereof. Aging offenders may encounter fewer opportunities for versatility compared with younger individuals due to changes in life circumstances such as marriage and jobs. Men and women who begin offending in adulthood are more likely to be specialists than are those who began committing crime earlier because of limited exposure to crime opportunities in later life (van Koppen 2018, 102). Explanations for crime specialization over versatility may highlight a central difference between social learning and self-control theories. The social learning perspective maintains that individuals will tend to specialize in certain crimes because they have learned the skills and values appropriate to that type of crime. In self-control theories, on the other hand, individuals are expected to be versatile as the impetus (low self-control) pre-exists criminal behaviour. According to selfcontrol theorists, low self-control sets up an individual for versatility in offending as opportunities could theoretically be found in a variety of situations (Boman, Mowen, and Higgins 2019). Explaining specialization or versatility is also reflected in the concepts of state dependence and risk heterogeneity.

118  Pathways to Ruin?

In terms of subsequent offending, state dependence is the idea that one crime sets the stage for more crime. Essentially, prior crime acts as a contagion, making subsequent crime more likely (Nieuwbeerta et al. 2011). Individuals are thought to learn from their previous crime experiences and also determine whether certain types of crime are more rewarding than others, therefore becoming increasingly likely to commit the more rewarding crimes. Offending may also break bonds that may have previously held criminal activity in check, making subsequent crime more likely as there is less and less to lose as bonds continue to break. In other words, certain characteristics change over time, increasing the likelihood of subsequent crime. In contrast, the “risk heterogeneity” perspective on offending suggests there are time-stable characteristics that do not change with subsequent offending. As Nagin and Paternoster observe: “Generally, evidence of population heterogeneity would consist of an observed relationship between a time-stable individual characteristic (ex: self-control) measured early in life and subsequent criminal offending” (2000, 129); individuals have a preexisting propensity for criminal behaviour that does not change with the commission of crime, making them more likely to take advantage of any crime opportunity that comes their way. While much media attention has been paid to sex offending and specialization among offenders, the research literature on specialization is more nuanced than the labels of “sex offender” or “violent offender” suggest. Some of the difficulty in establishing specialization stems from variations in durations under consideration. Examining entire criminal records may suggest that criminal careers are characterized primarily by versatility. If there is a lifetime of offending to examine, criminal records tend to reveal participation in a variety of crime types. The more offences there are, the more likely they include many crime types. At the same time, if one considers specific periods or durations, evidence may be found for specialization. For example, DeLisi and his colleagues explain that “a happy medium can be reached which acknowledges the norm of offender generality while also exploring contexts, dynamics, and opportunities that lend themselves to offenders recurrently committing and getting arrested for the same offence” (2011: 85). Our own research, examining a subset of the individuals we focus on here, revealed evidence of a specialist group among those who sexually offend against children (Humphrey and Gibbs Van Brunschot 2017). Importantly, we considered individuals who were formally labelled by the criminal justice system (via Sec. 810.1 or Sec 810.2 CC), to determine if their profiles differed. Individuals designated as a high risk to reoffend against children were older, demonstrated greater specialization



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  119

according to their criminal records, and had fewer offences recorded overall. We turn to the case of Keith below, who exemplifies the complexity of applying the label “specialist.”

A Crime Pathway: Keith Keith, who is in his forties, was adopted as an infant. His adoptive parents divorced and he was sent to live with his adoptive father while his adoptive mother kept her birth son. He talks about feelings of anger and rejection because of this and has difficulty successfully negotiating ageappropriate relationships because he felt abandoned by his mother. His adoptive father was an alcoholic and physically abused Keith. Keith was also sexually assaulted during childhood by a stranger at a campground. Keith was sent to a work ranch as a teenager after stealing cars and illegally entering commercial properties. He opted to stay at the ranch longer than required as he did not want to return to his father. A year later, he went to live with a Christian foster family. By the age of twenty, he was convicted of his first sexual assault against a child. This was the first conviction of multiple sexual offences against children. He has over twenty charges and convictions on his criminal record. Keith strategically puts himself in positions of trust with young boys. His most recent conviction for sexual assault demonstrates this quite clearly as he befriended a single mother who needed childcare. He worked to establish trust with the mother and her young sons by helping with supervision and by playing with the boys over a long period before the sexual assaults began. These assaults were accompanied by threats to physically harm the boys if they told anybody about his assaultive behaviour. He finds young boys easy to manipulate and eager to please him, circumstances he appears unable to experience in his adult relationships. Although he has completed treatment programs that are meant to curb his attraction to boys, he was deemed high-risk as his attraction to young boys has not appeared to subside over the years. As a result, the conditions on Keith’s most recent peace bond, after last serving a sentence for sexual offences, were many, including reporting requirements, curfews, geographic restrictions (including places where alcohol is sold), restrictions regarding playgrounds, substance prohibitions, and non-contact orders, to name a few. Most recently, he was convicted of breaching the conditions of his peace order – for failing to stay away from playgrounds and attending a social function

120  Pathways to Ruin?

that young boys attended. According to police records, this behaviour was indicative of a build-up phase to committing a crime and required intervention in order to prevent reoffending.

In their research on sex offending, Farmer, McAlinden, and Maruna (2016) determined that a single conviction for a sexual offence was unlikely to predict a lifetime of sexual predation. In fact, researchers have found that a sex offence is more likely evidence of a transition in a crime career and not evidence of a new trajectory of sex offending. Among those who have committed a sex offence, Lussier et al. (2016) found that many claimed that the offence was not premeditated or created, but rather occurred due to an opportunity identified during otherwise routine circumstances. Individuals who committed these offences placed emphasis on the situational factors that affected their behaviour and motivated them to commit crimes that they would otherwise not have committed. These findings seem to demonstrate that both state dependence and risk heterogeneity fall short in explaining types of offending. Further, the study by Farmer and his colleagues drew on the observation that people assemble their own narratives and reconstruct their past with an eye to their imagined future: we highlight the aspects of our past that we believe will play a role in our future in order to create a unified story (2016,1761). In other words, if criminogenic circumstances had not arisen, the crime would not have occurred, and these individuals cannot therefore be seen to have engineered the crime themselves. Sex offending, from this perspective, cannot be construed as a type of specialization. Farmer and his colleagues consider how these explanations for behaviour can be interpreted. First, they may be accurate representations – the crimes occurred by chance and were not engineered by the perpetrators. Individuals may be genuinely unable to deal with situational opportunities and take advantage of vulnerabilities. Second, in contrast, maintaining that these events were situationally specific may be forms of “cognitive distortions, minimizations, neutralizations and excuses,” with individuals purposely framing their participation in these events to look less incriminating (2016, 1766). Maruna and Mann (2006), however, indicate that what has tended to be labelled as cognitive distortions when revealed by offenders is often found plausible when heard from others in different contexts. They state: pathologizing such aligning techniques when used by criminal justice clients places them in a no-win situation: If they make excuses for what



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  121 they did, they are deemed to be criminal types who engage in criminal thinking. If, however, they were to take full responsibility for their ­offences – claiming they committed some awful offence purely “because they wanted to” and because that is the “type of person” they are – then they are, by definition, criminal types as well. (158)

A third explanation is that there is a converging of several elements, specific circumstances, and choices. This enables a “de-emphasis on internal responsibility or pathological thinking” and a means of “post hoc revisionism” that serves as shelter against individuals’ feelings of guilt regarding their offending (Farmer, McAlinden, and Maruna 2016, 1767). Farmer notes that this shame management technique enables people to see themselves in a more positive light, allowing them to adopt a positive identity moving forward. These authors further note that this technique may serve the purpose of signalling to others that they recognize the seriousness of what has occurred, and because they are not “like that” the event is an aberration (1767). This work points to the importance of considering the interpretations offered by the individuals who have committed the offences when we think about whether there are “specialist offenders.” While Farmer, McAlinden, and Maruna’s research suggests that some offenders view the commission of a sexual offence as an aberration, not all evidence supports this view. The degree to which individuals consistently commit certain types of crimes may be influenced by characteristics associated not only with opportunities and their personal histories, but also by characteristics of victims and the relationship of victims to offenders. Keith’s case above seems to indicate this: he had established relationships with the victims of his offences and he also appeared to target particular types of victims and create opportunities for offending. In their research on domestic offending, Dugan and Apel (2005) found that through a combination of routine activities and rational choice, offenders strategically pick their victims and therefore also strategically pick the types of crimes they will commit. Routine activities theory tells us that there are regular schedules to our daily lives: we go to work at certain times, and we are home at certain times. As routine activities illuminated, for many, the home is vulnerable to property crimes when unoccupied during the day and less vulnerable to property crime at night and on weekends when occupied. At the same time, the home may provide access to vulnerable victims when occupied. For those who are victims of family violence, everyday features of routine lives of family members, such as times when the home is occupied by the family, provide opportunities to offend when

122  Pathways to Ruin?

victims are family members. Rational choice theory is incorporated to understand target selection: targets are chosen based on characteristics such as access, relationship, and attractiveness. Dugan and Apel found that some individuals’ motivation to offend was confined only to those who are vulnerable and captive: other family members. Potential targets, in turn, attempt to change their routines to reduce the time that they are alone with and exposed to offenders, making plans to be out of the home or encouraging offenders to leave as much as possible. This is referred to as “target initiated exposure reduction” (2005, 700). Offenders’ behaviours, according to Dugan and Apel, may be placed on a continuum of offender strategy through which targets are selected. On one end of the continuum is the opportunistic targeting described above by Lussier et al. (2016). Opportunistic targeting is most likely to occur among strangers, however, and is not likely to involve great potential for retaliation. There is less specialization with this opportunistic strategy. On the other end of the continuum, there is deliberate targeting, which is more characteristic of domestic offending whereby offenders have access to the personal and private spaces of their victims. The relationships that occur within the confines of the home are often built upon a level of trust and intimacy that is not characteristic of the public sphere. While those who are victimized within the private sphere may also have greater opportunity to retaliate against those who hurt them, unlike those victimized in the public realm, issues of trust and intimacy complicate straightforward responses to family crimes. Further, Dugan and Apel note that “a normalized culture of violence may prevent targets from making safe choices” (2005, 720). In families where violence has been the norm it may be more difficult to ensure that family members take protective measures to ensure wellbeing – other family members who may be able to provide protection may fail as they also try to avoid victimization. The intimacy and trust that comes with the private realm also points to the arsenal of strategies that some individuals who commit specific types of crimes use to their advantage. In some of our files, we note the concentrated efforts by some to capitalize on and create opportunities for their subsequent victimization of children. As the earlier narrative about Matthew in chapter 4 demonstrates, he used his positions of authority (Sunday school teacher, coach, and father) to develop relationships with his potential victims. In the case of non-familial victims, he used his position of coach or Sunday school teacher to gain the trust of both the children and their families. In the context of his own family, the trust that children have of their parents was leveraged to Matthew’s advantage giving him unparalleled access to his own children. Keith similarly leveraged the trust of both the parents and children he



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  123

targeted for assault. Like Keith and Matthew, the case of Brian below suggests his strategy was to befriend families and gain their trust in order to create opportunities for abuse and offending.

A Crime Pathway: Brian Brian’s parents were both alcoholics. His father was imprisoned when Brian was a child, and he and his siblings were placed in foster care where he was physically and mentally abused. He sustained a brain injury as a child when he fell off a shed as well as a facial injury when playing sports. His first sexual victimization was during elementary school when he was assaulted by two older children. He lost some of his hearing due to an assault by his father and was forcibly sterilized because of his mental deficiency through a provincial government program. When Brian was in his early teens, he sexually assaulted a child though he was not charged. There is little information about any adult relationships that he may have had over the years. Although Brian was not charged with any offence until his late forties, he used extensive grooming techniques targeting boys under the age of fourteen by “befriending the family to gain trust, establish[ing] a non-sexual relationship with the victim and then us[ing] substances (i.e. alcohol, cigarettes, etc.) to gain his victims’ compliance” (file notes). He also portrays himself as “mentally slow while having been found to be of average intelligence after IQ testing. He then uses his physical disability and this ‘slow’ nature to solicit the sympathy of well-meaning and empathetic people, primarily single-parent families with young male children. Once he is comfortable and trusted by the parent(s) and children in the home he offers to babysit and is rarely turned down … Once alone with the child Brian normalizes the sexual interaction and convinces the child to play along” (file notes). Brian portrays himself as a “born-again Christian” and it is noted that he feels he is not guilty of any crime, because he is talking about sins in the past, believing that in the eyes of God he was not guilty. Prior to his last release, it was recommended that a Dangerous Offender application be submitted for him due to his offence history and presenting himself as a simple-minded and devout Christian. He is described as a “sufficiently clever, cunning, manipulative, sexually deviant man” (file notes). Although he has only been convicted of two instances of sexual assault, Brian has admitted to over a dozen sexual assaults. Two of the victims Brian sexually assaulted have since committed suicide.

124  Pathways to Ruin?

Brian voluntarily committed to his peace bond orders as he felt that this structure helped to control his urges. At one point, he also received medical injections as a form of chemical castration (file notes).

Brian’s history of offending includes all the elements of specialization. Consistent with some research findings that point to offending that appears to begin in adulthood, Brian’s formal history of offending began at age forty-eight. He has consistently targeted a certain type of victim (young boys) for certain types of offences (sexual offences). It would be difficult to theoretically pinpoint the reasons for his behaviour and whether self-control or social learning better explain his behaviour. Low self-control appears to factor into most offending, but Brian has not committed any non-sexual crimes and has strategically developed a modus operandi that enables him to continue to develop relationships that put children in harm’s way. This highly developed strategy suggests that Brian has learned rewarding and efficient patterns of behaviour over the years. Despite the apparent clarity of Brian’s case, ultimately, establishing specialization is fraught. Complicated by various ways of measuring specialization, durations under consideration, relationships, and offender age, specialization is difficult to confirm. On top of these factors is our impulse to label the presence or absence of crime types as evidence of our previously held beliefs about “kinds of offenders” or types of crime. Responses to High-Risk Offending It is important to note that there are differences among Section 810 highrisk offenders and other formal high-risk designations. While all designations are reserved for individuals who have offended in a violent interpersonal manner (with or without a sexual assault component), there are nuances between the designations that have an impact on an individual’s interaction with the CJS. In contrast to the Section 810.1 or 810.2 designations, a “Dangerous Offender” designation occurs at the point of sentencing and is reserved for those who have been convicted of a third serious personal injury offence of either a violent or sexual nature, after having been convicted on two previous occasions for similar offences that resulted in sentences of at least two years. The third time an individual is convicted of these designated offences, the Crown automatically informs the court that the individual is to be designated



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  125

a dangerous offender as these individuals are deemed to display patterns of repetitive violent behaviour and are therefore considered most dangerous. It is up to the individual to demonstrate why he should not be given this designation. Court-imposed sentences are to ensure public safety with the option of an indeterminate sentence with no chance of parole for at least seven years, though other options may include a regular sentence and a “Long-Term Supervision Order” (up to ten years after time served) (Correctional Service Canada 2018). Breaches of the conditions of a long-term supervision order again place the individual’s fate in the hands of the court, and may result in additional jail time and/or imposition of additional or harsher conditions. The “long-term offender” (LTO) designation, a third form of highrisk designation, also occurs at sentencing and may be applied to individuals awaiting sentences for “serious personal injury offences” and sexual offences (Justice Laws 1985, Sec. 753.1(2)); the court must be satisfied that the offence under consideration would result in at least a two-year sentence. In addition, the court must be convinced that an individual poses a substantial risk to reoffend causing injury, serious harm, or death in the future, but also that the risk of reoffence can eventually be managed in the community. An individual declared an LTO is given a sentence of at least two years and a supervision order of ten years. For both the dangerous offender and long-term offender designations, the individual is required to be remanded before sentencing for a psychological assessment. Table 3 summarizes the types of highrisk offender designations and management by the courts. Upon release from incarceration, all three designations carry with them the possibility of an accompanying public media release if disclosure of an individual’s identity is believed to be in the public interest (Province of Alberta 2020). Let’s return for a moment to Anthony, who was introduced in chapter 3. Anthony’s behavioural difficulties began as a toddler and he was removed from his adoptive family by the age of eleven for his extreme behaviour. After being permanently removed from his home, he was shuffled between foster homes, and was expelled from high school at age fifteen after failing to achieve in school. By seventeen, Anthony was living on his own supporting himself through drug sales and sex work. His first major crime at nineteen resulted in several years in prison. At the end of his prison term, fourteen of his twenty-six years had been spent in ‘the system’ either as a foster child or as a prisoner. His first prison sentence was followed by break and enters and a second manslaughter conviction for which he served the full sentence. When it came time for Anthony’s release after his second manslaughter

126  Pathways to Ruin? Table 3.  Comparing High-Risk Designations S. 810.1 and 810.2 Offenders

Dangerous Offenders

Long-Term Offenders

Applications are made to the judge who, upon hearing the evidence, must be satisfied that the informant has reasonable grounds to fear that the defendant will commit a serious offence against someone under the age of sixteen years (S. 810.1) or has reasonable grounds to fear that the defendant will commit a serious personal offence (S. 810.2) as defined in Sec. 752 CC. The application of a Section 810.1 or 810.2 designation comes after a sentence is fully served and results in a one-to-twoyear renewable peace bond with specific conditions.

“Dangerous offender” designations are often sought upon sentencing for those who meet the “dangerousness test”: i.e., they have demonstrated repetitive, persistent, and brutal behaviour posing a threat to others; for sexual assault, the court must be satisfied that the individual repeatedly fails to control sexual impulses. The court may “(a) impose a sentence of detention in a penitentiary for an indeterminate period; (b) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted [a minimum punishment of two years] and order that the offender be subject to longterm supervision for a period that does not exceed 10 years; or (c) impose a sentence for the offence for which the offender has been convicted.”a

A designation sought by the court when there is a substantial risk that an offender will reoffend, has been convicted of repeat violent or sexual offences, and has shown a pattern of repetitive behaviour. If the court so finds, it shall impose a minimum sentence of two years in prison followed by a long-term supervision order up to a maximum of ten years.b

a b

 Criminal Code, sec. 753. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-753.html.   Criminal Code, page 203. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-203.html.

conviction, he wrote a letter expressing his concerns over an upcoming media release about his criminal history: … To have a media release is to put me in jeopardy which may result in some headhunter being injured. Also it announces to the criminal subculture that I am there. I may be considered a threat … Like showcasing a toothless, clawless, over-the-hill lion in a state-of-the-art cage for all the public to have something to concentrate on and fear. There are probably a dozen or more actual dangerous people being released that are being overlooked because they haven’t fit the profile as a scary dangerous-looking type or they are sex offenders which we all know police prefer to killers. So whatever, do what you gotta do. I have a feeling you couldn’t give a shit ‘cause I’m just some shit bird con with no



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  127 use to anything or anybody. I’m still going to succeed no matter what. So bite me. (file notes)

Anthony’s case demonstrates the difficulties associated with attempting to manage and address offending behaviour. One might argue that the responses to Anthony’s behaviour have been entirely ineffective: Anthony has been in several institutions, none of which appear to have altered his trajectory of crime behaviour. Although Anthony was removed from the general public during his multiple imprisonments, there is little evidence to suggest that there has been any changed behaviour and his crime trajectory has continued. Rather than derailing his criminal behaviour, it is likely that the responses to his behaviour have further entrenched him in a life of crime, as he himself suggests. His dependency on the “system” and on the police have created difficulties for him, he claims, including the fact that his reintegration is unlikely as he is now a marked man. Anthony’s distress with the media release appears twofold. On the one hand, he is angry with the police who he suggests want to hold him up as an example of what happens to those who pursue a life of crime, though he implies that he is not the threat that he once was. On the other hand, Anthony is clearly distressed by how the media release itself might endanger him by announcing to the criminal subculture that he is back and possibly making him a target. Further, his release highlights the stigma associated with being a former convict and the difficulties that his reintegration into mainstream society may pose. We consider this further below with Jeremy’s and Wayne’s stories.

A Crime Pathway: Jeremy Jeremy is a white male in his fifties with a long history of crime, including early sexual offences. He grew up in an abusive home where, from the age of four, his father sexually abused him. He started using drugs in elementary school and began to commit his first sexual offences around the same time, scoping his neighbourhood for potential victims. During this period, he had his first youth court appearance where he received a warning after sexually assaulting his cousin. He ran away from home while a pre-teen and lived with a male relative who also abused him. He received his first conviction for committing a robbery as a teenager and was in his late twenties when first convicted of sexual assault. While incarcerated, he was able to complete high school. Jeremy typically targets victims who are incapacitated or appear weak in some way and he becomes increasingly aroused at the suffering of

128  Pathways to Ruin?

his victims (file notes). After one of his most recent sexual offences against a female victim, he admitted that he thought about killing his victim after assaulting her. Prior to the assault, he borrowed a gun from a friend and confessed that he planned to shoot the victim and hide her body afterwards. Jeremy has extensive substance abuse problems. He has been addicted to alcohol for most of his life and has a history of intravenous drug use. His records indicate substance abuse as a major factor contributing to his violent offending. The use of any substance is reported to significantly increase his risk to reoffend by lowering his inhibitions. Jeremy had little contact with his family during his late teens. At one point, when in his mid-thirties, there was a family meeting with Jeremy, his father, and his siblings. He accused his father of abuse, though his siblings denied the accuracy of these accusations, and the meeting ended with Jeremy assaulting his father. His family members expressed fear of him and his violent and inappropriate behaviour. Up until his most recent imprisonment, Jeremy had been a model prisoner, appearing to exhibit self-control and successfully completing a variety of treatment programs, including those specifically directed toward sex offending. Outside of the structured environment of prison, however, he quickly fails and often reoffends within hours after release. The conditions as part of his peace bond were many and included: curfews, weapons restrictions, geographic restrictions, substance prohibitions, no intimate relationships (without fully revealing his criminal history), non-contact orders, and pornography prohibitions. Despite these restrictions, Jeremy committed his latest sexual offence shortly after his release. After completing his sentence, he was once again released into the community and was quickly arrested for several breaches of the conditions of his peace bond, mostly alcohol related. Over the past few years, his behaviour, health, and overall demeanour have deteriorated, he has had physical and mental health problems, was hospitalized several times for suicidal ideation, and for overdosing on his medication. These behavioural instabilities and health issues are believed to increase his risk of reoffending.

A Crime Pathway: Wayne Wayne grew up in an abusive household and his parents separated when he was twelve years old. His parents were alcoholics and all members of the family – his mother, Wayne, his two siblings – were



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  129

physically and verbally abused by his father. Wayne is also noted to have a learning disability. It was also around this same age when he began to drink alcohol. His first formal conviction was during his early teens, but it is noted that he was basically out of his home and institutionalized since he was thirteen years of age. He accumulated numerous convictions by the time he turned eighteen and his record includes property offences, breaches of probation/recognizance orders, uttering threats, assaults, and robbery. Wayne’s file suggests that the assaults he has committed have been unprovoked. “Impulsive violence is the usual answer to anyone who he thinks has wronged him in any way, and violence seems to be the only way to solve his problems” (file notes). One example is when he walked up to an individual at a bus stop and began punching him in the head. Another assault was over a carton of cigarettes and an argument with his sister and her boyfriend. In this incident, Wayne grabbed a kitchen knife and threatened to stab the boyfriend. He would not release the knife until the police were called to the scene and ordered him at gunpoint to release the knife. He complied by putting the knife down and then physically attacked the attending officers. Wayne’s institutional behaviour is noted as being very problematic. For example, he “became extremely enraged when advised a peace bond application had been initiated” and broke a window after the interview, which resulted in him being placed in segregation (file notes). He is considered an untreated offender and has consistently refused programming. It appears that after his admission to the federal system, there was an escalation in his violence: “Wayne’s defiance of authority, substance abuse and criminal activity became acceptable ways to deal with pent-up feelings stemming from his abused childhood and the frustrations of dealing with a learning disability” (file notes). Despite multiple issues, his behaviour under close supervision eventually improved to the point that he was no longer under any peace bonds.

After Prison There is a scene in the movie The Shawshank Redemption where the inmates are talking in the prison yard about the impact of being locked up for long periods of time. Red, the character played by Morgan Freeman, says, “These walls are funny. First you hate ’em, then you get used to ’em. After long enough, you get so you depend on ’em. That’s institutionalized” (Daily Script 2020). Institutionalization or “prisonization”

130  Pathways to Ruin?

is the adaptive process inmates go through in order to survive the experience of incarceration, which include the physical and psychological isolation, tensions and violence between inmates and prisoner groups, and cruelty toward inmates (Haney 2001). These learned patterns of thinking and behaving while behind bars are necessary for day-to-day life in prison but are often dysfunctional post-release (Haney 2001). Jeremy’s story above is a familiar one: he was a model prisoner, but outside of the structure of the prison walls, he lacks the skills to be successful and often turns to alcohol, likely as a coping mechanism to deal with his release. We often found notes such as the one that appears in Wayne’s file (above): Wayne has essentially been incarcerated since he was 13 and has committed several violent assaults over his criminal career; his file indicates that “it is suspected that he is institutionalized … he has learned how to handle the institutional environment but has little knowledge about what he needs to do in the community and experiences anxiety/fear” (file notes). The file notes typically go on to say that “there is the possibility that he prefers incarceration, where the structured environment allows for the guarantee that his primary needs are met, compared to being in the community where his basic living requirements are less than assured.” Wayne even stated during one of his check-ins with the police that “it is way easier on the inside, if not for the violence, it would be the place to be” (file notes). The examples of reintegration difficulties are numerous. We next consider the cases of Glen and Adam.

A Crime Pathway: Glen Glen was physically abused by his father and states that he hates his father. He was also sexually assaulted by an adult male as a pre-teen, which appears to have caused him to question his sexual orientation increasing his anxiety and stress. He also demonstrated signs of a conduct disorder at an early age and formally began his offending career just before turning eighteen. For the over the next two decades, until his forties, he rarely spent more than eleven months in the community as he typically reoffended within two to three months of being released from custody. Although most of his convictions are for break and enters, Glen has committed serious sexual offences against female strangers. In his latest known sexual offence, he broke into a house and waited for



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  131

the woman’s return, at which point he confronted her with a knife, bound and gagged her, held a knife to her throat, and repeatedly sexually assaulted her. It was noted that Glen committed this assault after he escaped from the custody of federal officers while on an escorted release. The circumstances surrounding another sexual assault conviction include dragging a woman into a wooded area to sexually assault her and again this offence occurred while on mandatory supervision. One report notes that “no supervision strategies exist to effectively manage the risk that Glen would pose in the community” (file notes). Glen is described as a social isolate with inadequate social skills who appears to have difficulty coping with daily stressors. He has a tendency to seek control and it is suggested that “part of Glen’s potential for sexual assault ensues from his need to exert power over women and to convince himself of his own masculinity and heterosexuality,” as well as his having unresolved anger issues toward women (file notes). A Crime Pathway: Adam Adam is the youngest of seven children. Both of his parents consumed alcohol and his mother drank throughout her pregnancy. It is not known if he possesses any FASD traits as a result of her drinking. He was removed from his mother when he was an infant due to her “excessive drinking, neglect and abusiveness” (file notes). He was cared for by his father and an older sister but also spent a lot of time in foster care. Adam’s father died when he was a pre-teen and he then began to live with his mother. His sister, who was a few years older than Adam, assumed a parental role but found him impossible to control at this age. Adam indicates that he was very disruptive and rebellious and no one from his immediate family was able to exert any control over his misbehaviour. As a result, he became a ward of the government. It is noted that he felt abandoned and “harboured anger toward his mother and sister for a long time over this decision” (file notes). Until the age of sixteen, Adam lived in foster homes and various facilities. After turning eighteen, Adam moved in with his girlfriend. They lived together for a few years until she died in a car accident. After her death, Adam states that “his drinking spiralled out of control” (file notes). He also admitted to “using, lying and manipulating women” and has not been in any long-term stable relationships since her death (file notes). Although Adam denies his spiralling offences were related to the death of his girlfriend, it is noted that her death coincided with his mother’s declining health and subsequent death. Prior to her death, Adam’s

132  Pathways to Ruin?

mother had gained custody of his niece and nephew – shortly after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Adam then “assumed responsibility for the care of his mother, his niece and nephew, and was also working”; he admits that this proved to be more than he could handle and he was under a lot of stress at this time (file notes). After his mother’s death, Adam committed two serious sexual assaults which resulted in ten-year prison terms. It is noted that substance abuse is directly related to his offences. During this time, he was also found to have been sexually assaulting his niece and regularly experienced blackouts from alcohol consumption. He was convicted of these offences and served his sentence until his warrant expiry date. During imprisonment, Adam is noted to display little insight into his offending and evidences minimization of his offences. Upon release, Adam was placed on a peace bond which he was found to have breached conditions multiple times.

While these narratives suggest that individuals are quite opposed to being monitored upon release, and often reoffend while under supervision in the community, there also appears to be some value to police supervision, through 810 peace bonds or otherwise: supervision provides some individuals with the structure that is often needed to successfully reintegrate back into the community. Some individuals even go so far as to reach out to police when they are at their wits end in the community, as did Glen (above). Glen, who has persistently offended since 1977 and has spent less than 11 months in the community since that time, contacted a detective and confessed to three break and enters and requested “psychiatric help as he felt he was falling back into his offence cycle” (file notes). He indicated that he committed these offences in an effort to be “arrested and returned to the psychiatric centre for treatment … It appears he is reaching out for help; unfortunately he has approached this problem the wrong way … [this suggests] he is dependent on a structured institutionalized setting to deal with his problematic behaviour” (file notes). Institutionalization is just one of the hurdles that individuals experience upon re-entry to society. Rogers, Corley, and Ashforth (2017) highlight the issue of stigma and how the prison experience is a weight that is carried by all who experience incarceration. As the Rogers study emphasizes, the experience of prison is a negative social mark: those who have been incarcerated are often met with extreme disapproval and are discredited and labelled because of the experience. Notifications



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  133

about the release of offenders into the community are an especially public way of marking these individuals. As mentioned above, public media releases regarding the release of an inmate into the community are permissible for individuals deemed to present a risk to the safety of the public (Province of Alberta 2020). In these cases, a disclosure that contains the name of the individual being released, a picture, a physical description including any distinguishing marks such as tattoos, as well as a list of their crimes and the conditions they are subject to in the community, is seen as superseding the rights to individual privacy. Keep in mind that many of the individuals subject to this type of disclosure have already completed their sentences and do not owe time to the justice system. This type of disclosure is one that the men in our study were noted to feel a great deal of apprehension about; recall Anthony’s letter to the police protesting his impending media release. Several other men also wrote letters to the police to dissuade them from approving these public disclosures. For example, Adam (above) took issue with his being labelled an “untreated sexual and violent offender [and] a high risk to reoffend” (file notes). In his letter, he detailed a list of programs that he had completed while incarcerated that he claims were meant to “assist with his sexual offending and propensity for violence. As a result of these programs, Adam claims to have gained some insight into his offending and his crime cycle as well as how his actions affect others around him … [He] feels that a media release would bring undue and unwanted attention to members of his family who share his name” (file notes). The letter further indicates, “Adam doesn’t want to cause them any grief and is considering their feelings and what a media release might do to them. Adam doesn’t want to re-victimize his family for his past actions.” He reflected on his incarceration and how he has used this time to improve himself. [He] wishes “to be a productive member of society and requests an equal chance to start over and get his life back on track. Adam states that he chose not to contest the peace bond application because he sees it as an opportunity to prove his sincerity” (file notes). There was also a repeated concern over the impact that these public disclosures would have on their ability to maintain relationships, obtain jobs, and find a place to live. The experience of imprisonment generally tends to erode social and human capital, elements that are critical to success both inside and outside of prison and even more so when there are particularly public markers of one’s stigma such as a media release. Employment is central to ensuring not only that individuals are able to support themselves and their dependents legally, but also to providing a means to develop

134  Pathways to Ruin?

prosocial relationships and assist in desisting from crime. Power and Nolan (2017) studied individuals released from prison and found that the most valued aspects of work – in addition to monetary earnings – is the opportunity to develop social capital, prosocial relationships, and a sense of community. Yet obtaining employment post-imprisonment is very challenging, regardless of public notifications, and especially among those who face racial barriers. As Pager (2003) illuminates in her study of post-incarceration outcomes for job seekers, the barriers to finding employment are even larger for some individuals. Pager’s findings point to the negative impact of the increasing use of incarceration for more and more offences, coupled with discriminatory practices by employers. Pager’s approach considered a criminal record as tantamount to a “negative credential” and describes it as a state-certified form of discrimination and social exclusion: “it is this official status of the negative credential that differentiates it from other sources of social stigma, offering greater legitimacy to its use as the basis for differentiation” (942). Using an experimental approach, Pager presented matched pairs of applicants (testers) to employers with real job openings. She found that testers/applicants posing as ex-offenders were half as likely to get call-backs as non-offenders, and that those posing as Black non-offenders were even less likely to get call-backs than white ex-offenders. As Pager identifies, the impact of a criminal record coupled with racial discrimination significantly reduces the likelihood of finding employment after prison. A study by Harding and colleagues (2018) considered the stigma associated with conviction and attempts to secure employment. Employers can conduct background checks which will reveal if there are previous criminal convictions. What employers are not necessarily able to determine from background checks is whether a conviction resulted in imprisonment. Convictions, however, may enable employers to formally exclude individuals from work opportunities but may also allow for informal exclusions, such as informally setting applications aside that may have evidence of criminal backgrounds. Employers may simply not want to hire those who have criminal records of any kind. Further, while background checks may not directly reveal incarceration, gaps in work histories will undoubtedly raise questions for employers. There are social consequences associated with lack of employment as a result of incarceration: Goulette and Frank (2018) refer to these barriers as collateral consequences of conviction and obstacles to reintegration that are associated with many of those who have been in prison.



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  135

Haney (2018) considered the significance of the prison/work nexus among fathers who are incarcerated. Haney explores “penal-welfare hybridization” and how corrections and welfare work in tandem to undermine fathers who are in prison and, by extension, undermine their families. She found that there are “feedback loops of disadvantage” (4) and fathers who must provide child support have added pressure to obtain employment once released from prison. Haney found that many of the fathers she interviewed owed an average of $36,000 upon release which serves to further complicate their ability to reintegrate with their families. While incarcerated, fathers must navigate the child support system, often unaided. The debt that these men accumulate while incarcerated, and the types of jobs in the labour market that they qualify for upon release, is often motivation for bypassing formal work channels for other means of funding, such as illicit work. Haney (2018) concludes that “the imprisonment of debt can complicate men’s desistance from crime” (33), often resulting in further offending. And yet, finding a job may be secondary to obtaining a place to live. As with finding employment, finding accommodation is dependent on the housing market, which will give the landlords more or less latitude to be discriminatory. In the context of a restricted housing market, the experience of imprisonment will be even more detrimental and likely lead to housing instability. Keene, Smoyer, and Blankenship (2018) note that discrimination from landlords against those formerly incarcerated is one of the few legal avenues of discrimination in the US as landlords may be able to deny housing based on criminal records (800). Although legislation may not always be as explicit as Keene and her colleagues observe, the practice of revealing a criminal record turns the past into the present – one cannot shed the weight of the criminal record regardless of legislation. By being denied access to housing, the formerly incarcerated are also subsequently denied access to space that would allow them to “parent their children, obtain jobs, desist from crime, avoid reincarceration due to parole violations, resist addiction or establish health promoting behaviors” (801). It is easy to see how the cycle of crime continues as even the best intentions to “go straight’” are easily thwarted by structural disadvantages including the criminal justice system’s activities, few social supports, and a lack of healthy coping mechanisms. It is a wonder how anyone manages to stay out of prison, let alone those who have spent decades behind bars. And yet, one thing that life-course theories of criminology make clear, there is always space for turning points that allow for a change of course away from crime and toward pathways of desistance, which we consider in chapter 6.

136  Pathways to Ruin?

Summary Criminal records provide details of the nature and types of convictions that offenders have received yet they do not provide an all-inclusive account of criminal behaviour; some criminal activity may never find its way into the official record. Some criminal behaviour is simply not caught, while other behaviour may not have the evidence required to result in criminal charges, let alone convictions. Although official criminal records are far from perfect, they do provide a standardized measure of criminal activity across individuals. Perhaps most noteworthy regarding criminal records and the criminal justice approach to offending is the symbolic value of a criminal record and what it means both to the individual with the criminal record and to those with whom that individual interacts. Occupational aspirations may be curtailed by the presence of a criminal record, and the designation of “high-risk” often follows an individual long after his sentence has been completed. Those who have received a Section 810 peace bond are subject to conditions that are meant to prevent offending activity, but these conditions come after their time has been served and instead are an anticipatory means of addressing the possibility (risk) of crime. What is apparent from Anthony’s, Jeremy’s, Wayne’s, Glen’s, and Adam’s stories, however, is that the relationship that these individuals have with the criminal justice system is complicated. While many of us are unable to imagine the constant presence of police in our lives, for others this constant presence is a source both of anxiety and of support. In Anthony’s case, for example, he stated that he would not know what to do without the police: the presence of the “system,” however negative it has been for him, is one of the few constants he has experienced. At the same time that the police attempt to control his behaviour, for Anthony this control has been a source of stability in an otherwise chaotic life. This relative fondness for the stability offered by the police is not evident across all individuals, as others harbour animosity or other ill-feelings toward the criminal justice system and those who represent it. We can see that the involvement of high-risk individuals with the criminal justice system varies widely, from those who had constant contact with authorities, to others who managed to avoid any sort of formal intervention for much of their lives. Some, like Brian, who began his formal record of sexual assaults later in life, have had less contact with the criminal justice system and far fewer crimes on their official records perhaps due either to luck or to the nature of this type of offending, which often happens over a longer time and requires more



The Criminal Justice Experience and Specialization  137

planning. Conceivably some of the factors that are implicated in avoiding criminal detection are also the factors that may be implicated in desisting from criminal activity. For example, we know that interpersonal (often romantic) relationships may, in some instances, insulate individuals from crime as these relationships are threatened by, and potentially lost due to, criminal activity. These and other protective factors that encourage desistance from crime are considered further in chapter 6.

6 Approaching Desistance

“The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.” Our lives might be easier if this maxim were irrefutably the case. If true, those with serious offending records could be expected to continue to commit such crimes, whereas those who may have committed less serious crimes would not escalate to more serious crimes. We could do away with assessment tests that attempt to predict future behaviour and rely strictly on what an individual has previously done. Yet this maxim oversimplifies and does not necessarily lead us toward further understanding. While the past is always implicated to some degree in the future, we also know that both people and situations change. Some individuals manage to step away from crime as readily as they step into it, while others appear to have breaks and timeouts from offending, only to return to it. Predictions of future behaviour based on the past also rely on situations remaining the same, yet the likelihood of recreating future events just as they occurred in the past is very low. The degree to which the past predicts the future depends on the time frame under consideration; predictions are always more accurate within shorter time frames than longer. Just as there are many factors that converge for a crime to occur or for a criminal career to be maintained, there are a similar number of factors that converge for individuals to desist from crime. Few of the individuals considered in our study could be said to have unequivocally desisted from crime though many have reduced their offending or de-escalated during various periods of their lives. Incarceration, for example, might be a time when individuals acquire fewer formal convictions (although some do face further criminal charges due to offending while in prison). As Kazemian and her colleagues point out (i.e., 2009), desistance is best perceived as a process as there is rarely an abrupt stop to crime. Knowing if an individual has completely



Approaching Desistance  139

desisted, or permanently stopped committing crime, is difficult to calculate unless, of course, the individual dies. Several factors are potentially involved in crime de-escalation. Studies have considered a range of factors from reconfigured identities, changing one’s self image as a criminal to a non-criminal (i.e., LeBel et al. 2008, Keene, Smoyer, and Blankenship 2018), to employment patterns and relationships with law-abiding others (i.e., McAlinden, Farmer, and Maruna 2017). Still other research has focused on the fact that the most common pattern among those who commit crime is that their offending begins to wane with age. The reasons for criminal activity declining with age are similar to those who begin to de-escalate offending at other times: often assuming adult roles, such as husband and father, and changing routines limit opportunities for crime. In this chapter we explore the elements that contribute to de-escalation of offending, if not full desistance. As we observed in the last chapter, our criminal pasts tend most often to catch up with us in adulthood. In chapter 5, we saw that the official picture of offending histories cascade into the future by limiting or curtailing opportunities. The likelihood of reintegrating into a crime-free life is often negatively affected by past criminal experiences that are exceptionally costly, in terms of social capital and the stigma associated with criminal activity, for example, but also in terms of financial capital and productive years that are often lost due to incarceration or criminal involvement. As difficult as these hurdles are, some individuals embedded in crime activity begin to explore pathways less scattered with crime. In this chapter, a discussion of desistance sets the stage for a consideration of imprisonment and a discussion of social and environmental factors that encourage or discourage offending. We consider the impact of incarceration and how it is that experiencing incarceration may decrease the likelihood of offending (though the opposite can also occur, as noted in chapter 5). We then consider subjective or individual-level factors that contribute to how and why it is that some individuals embark on the often-bumpy journey to desistance. Stalling and Stopping: Desisting from Crime “… The progression [to desistance] is faltering, hesitant and oscillating.” (Bottoms et al. 2004, 383)

In their examination of desistance, Bottoms and his colleagues begin by explaining that desistance has been defined in a variety of ways including ceasing or stopping, but also refraining from or abstaining. The significance of the definition of desistance is whether the inactivity

140  Pathways to Ruin?

under consideration is or is not permanent. Ceasing to commit crime, for example, may be simply an interlude of inactivity but may not be a permanent state. Yet gaps in offending may be as meaningful as ceasing altogether and some of the factors that contribute to full stops and to gaps are likely similar. Desistance is therefore best described as “any significant lull or crime-free gap in the course of a criminal career” (Bottoms et al. 2004, 371). Several factors must be taken into account when considering desistance. The research by Bottoms and his colleagues suggests there are five significant dimensions that come into play when attempting to understand desistance. These include, first, programmed potential which refers to probabilities of reoffending as determined through instruments and risk assessments. These tools tell us, for example, that certain characteristics, such as lengthy criminal records, a person’s age, sex, etc., are associated with increased likelihoods of offending. These probabilities, however, often describe group characteristics and may not describe specific individuals within that group. A second dimension is structure, which is defined as “social arrangements external to the individual which enable or limit action by that individual” (Bottoms et al. 2004, 372; see also Farrall, Bottoms, and Shapland, 2010). For example, an individual may find himself seeking stable employment in a job market characterized by few good jobs, which means that employers can be more selective in who they hire and refuse those applicants with criminal records. Those who enter a tight job market with a criminal record will be affected by the structure of that market and that may encourage a return to criminal activity. A third dimension is culture, defined as the “social world where the members share certain assumptions, beliefs, and patterns of behaviour often passed on within the group” (Bottoms et al. 2004, 373). These shared assumptions and beliefs are often referred to as habitus, where “durable individual dispositions” are a product of culture: what we come to believe and assume about our situations is determined in part by the social order we inhabit. Bottoms and colleagues provide examples of gender roles and how it is that individuals who have grown up in certain cultural contexts view gender and masculinity in ways that may contribute to offending. A fourth dimension is situational contexts, which refers to occasions having certain characteristics that may influence crime potential. For example, bars, which serve alcohol and encourage alcohol consumption, may signal to some individuals that aggression is an appropriate response to perceived slights. A final dimension described by Bottoms and colleagues is agency. This concept refers to the understanding an individual has regarding



Approaching Desistance  141

his participation in certain activities. This is like the idea of setting an intention: an actor conducts himself based on a self-understanding that includes, for example, quitting crime. Like quitting smoking, however, maintaining the intention (to quit smoking or crime) may be more difficult than making the initial choice. For example, one can imagine a scenario in which an individual who has been incarcerated and who has undergone counselling to deal with various issues, is released from prison with the intention of getting a “real job” and finding a place to live. If the individual fails to find a job and re-enters the community from which he went into prison, the intention to quit crime may be steadily undermined and difficult to maintain. According to Bottoms et al. (2004), agency is not completely explained by self-awareness. For example, when we explain our own behaviour, we do so according to the information we have, as well as the self-awareness that we possess. Further, we explain what we have done based upon our understanding of the contexts in which we have acted. Yet self-awareness and information may both be lacking, causing individuals to explain their actions incompletely. As Bottoms and colleagues observe, the choices that we make are specific to certain contexts and we exercise more responsibility in some contexts over others. This discussion confirms that many factors are implicated in desistance, yet research suggests that even the most chronic and persistent offenders take breaks from offending; crime-free gaps are potentially important steps in the overall desistance process. The idea that intermittency is a signal of the start of the process of desistance points to the methodological issues that also abound in the study of desistance. Bushway, Thornberry, and Krohn (2003) consider the difficulties involving static and dynamic determinations of desistance. The static approach views desistance as complete – one has either desisted from offending or one has not. One criticism of this approach is arbitrary cutoff points and the question of which period of offending is compared with another. For example, in some studies, period A is compared with period B, but the logic of how long these periods are is arbitrary (Bersani and Doherty 2018). Do we compare these five years with the next five years? Or these eighteen months with a subsequent eighteen months? If one period is compared with another that has arbitrary cut offs and demarcations, a second issue is that it is difficult to understand how individuals who have different criminal careers vary when only the presence or absence of crime is noted. As these authors observe, those who offend with minor crimes in one period and desist in the next period, are likely much different than those who offend with serious crimes in one period and desist in the next. Recording only the presence

142  Pathways to Ruin?

or absence of offending assumes a homogeneity among offenders that cannot be assessed by a static approach. Finally, another problem with a static determination is whether there is persistence in desistance. In other words, if mere presence or absence is considered, we cannot say with any certainty that the absence (or desistance) in one period is not followed by an uptake in criminal activity in a subsequent time frame. A dynamic approach to desistance is described by Bushway and colleagues (2003) as more in line with a developmental approach that views the transition from offending to non-offending as a process including several pathways (see also Bersani and Doherty 2018). As these authors note: “Since everyone does not offend at the same rate during their active career and everyone does not cease offending at the same time, the dynamic approach recognizes that there may, in fact, be different paths or trajectories to desistance” (Bushway et al. 2003, 133). Just as individuals do not start at the same place, their pathways to desistance will also differ. We cannot expect that the evolution of criminal careers will be terminated in exactly the same way given that individuals’ careers have also been highly varied. A familiar theoretical perspective that explains desistance focuses on ties to institutions of social control, both informal and formal institutions. A wealth of research has established the link between marriage, employment, and desistance from crime (Berg and Huebner 2011; Bersani and Doherty 2013; Carlsson 2013; Craig, Diamond, and Piquero 2014; Skardhamar and Savolainen 2014; Skardhamar et al. 2015). These bonds have been shown to impart a tangible break between one’s past life and one’s present, providing social support through emotional attachment and the accumulation of social capital, as well as the supervision and monitoring that comes along with a set of daily routines (Laub and Sampson 2001). Further, these social bonds may be tangible indicators of the reorientation of life priorities, accompanied by cognitive shifts and identity transformations that occur as an individual begins the process of desistance (e.g., Giordano et al. 2002). As we explain later in this chapter, breaks from offending may represent the beginning of assuming a new crime-free identity that is incompatible with offending. We turn now to the experience of incarceration, its impact on identity, and the role it has in desistance. The Impact of Incarceration Imagine that you have been in prison for the past eight years. During your time there, decisions were made for you: you are told when to eat, sleep, and, if you are lucky, what to do during your day. Finally, your



Approaching Desistance  143

sentence ends. What is the first thing one might do after being released from prison? Most of us would assume that we would find a place to live and get a job. But imagine this: After your years in prison you have little money and must reside in a halfway house or a shelter until you get a job. You apply for jobs and indicate that you are living at a shelter. Your potential employer asks if that is your permanent address and you indicate that it is temporary until you get back on your feet. Where did you live prior to this shelter? Do you tell the truth and admit that your former residence was prison? What do you imagine your chances are of obtaining a job after admitting that you have been incarcerated? One of the ongoing debates in criminology has to do with reintegration and the challenges that individuals face because of their incarceration once they are released. Erving Goffman (1961) first introduced the notion of total institution when he wrote about the experience of living in an asylum. He defined a total institution as a “place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered way of life” (xi). Prisons, like mental institutions, are an example of a total institution. Every aspect of one’s existence is defined by the physical and social characteristics of the prison setting. As Goffman further observed, how identities are built is limited to the resources that one finds in the institution. The identity that one had, as husband, father, worker, student, etc., is no longer available within the walls of the prison. For example, there are few opportunities for sports within the prison, so one’s former identity as a physically fit individual will be limited by the rules and resources for sports found within the prison setting (Norman 2017). The means by which identities can be created, or recreated, during one’s time in prison are compromised by the physical and social limitations of the prison. As Norman notes regarding sport: sport is one of the few, however limited, means available through which to construct an identity in prison. For others, the means to create identities may be found through educational programs, work experience within the institution, or programs designed to address drug, alcohol, and offending issues. In their study of identity construction within prison, Rogers, Corley, and Ashforth (2017) focused on the positive identity transformation associated with receiving respect through work experience while in prison. The prison context infuses its residents with a “derogated inmate identity” (223) making it difficult for prisoners to construct a positive self-identity. Rogers and her colleagues draw on the notion of the future work self and suggest that individuals motivate themselves to perform

144  Pathways to Ruin?

in certain ways based on who they hope to become or their desired work selves. These identities become real in the face of acceptance by important others, such as supervisors, family, etc. The prison experience for many is dehumanizing and is often preceded by negative familial experiences. On the other hand, the experience of work enabled some prisoners to partake in a “reinventive institution” (258) and allowed individuals to reinvent themselves with a positive identity. Work experience enabled individuals to decouple their denigrated prison identity from their work identity, often through “displaying desirable attributes, behaviors, or achievements” that are respectfully acknowledged (242). Eventually, many individuals were transformed by their work experiences and were able to achieve identity holism. For those who continued with the prison work experience, they no longer felt themselves as being one person in one context (the prison self) and one person outside of prison (the competent work self) and became more secure in their abilities to experience validation in both realms, using their prison experience as a means of complementing the competencies that they had come to find in employment. For those who reached this stage, Rogers and her colleagues found that because the individual had taken on new aspects of self-identity, such as growth and self-confidence, through work, these identities “invigorated the rehabilitative function of their prison sentence which had largely been absent to this point” (253–4). The individuals in the Rogers study had the good fortune of attaining work experience that, for many, enabled them to manage the difficulties associated with life in a total institution. Their study speaks to the critical importance of developing, through work (and other) experience, the personal assets that will make for positive identities outside of prison. Before we consider these elements in greater detail, we first introduce Mark. Mark’s history of offending began when he was ten years old, after he himself was subjected to various forms of victimization. Mark offended over a long period of time, from age ten through forty-eight; he has spent a considerable amount of time incarcerated; has undergone drug therapy to curb his sex drive; and experienced heightened surveillance (through the application of an 810 peace bond). These factors, along with aging, appear to have reoriented Mark to a period of de-escalation and possibly desistance.

A Crime Pathway: Mark Mark is the second youngest of six siblings. His father died in an accident when he was an infant and his mother gave up her children to



Approaching Desistance  145

foster care as she could not handle caring for them on her own. She still maintained contact with the children but they did not live with her. During his time in foster care, Mark was sexually, physically, and emotionally abused. He later took on the role of perpetrator and, as a preteen, began sexually molesting other children. He was convicted of indecent assault in his early teens and released two years later. His first conviction as an adult was for gross indecency where he was again incarcerated. In his early twenties, he was convicted of sexual assault on a young male, served time for that offence and was again convicted of a similar offence in his mid-twenties. Mark appears to have been conviction-free during most of the next decade, but in his late thirties, was convicted of sexual assault and buggery on multiple boys and received another prison sentence. He was next convicted in his late forties for sexually assaulting his friend’s child and was sentenced to nine years – he was also convicted of sexually assaulting a pre-teen boy but received a sentence of three months due to the victim failing to attend court. In all, Mark has around ten sexually related convictions but admits to over two hundred victims (this cannot be corroborated). Details for his early convictions are relatively sparse, but he is a groomer who gains the trust of his victims by giving gifts and befriending them. This was precisely his method when he befriended four young boys who met him while they were camping. File notes indicate that his pattern of offending in this case included “hang[ing] around the riverbank fishing. He would befriend the children and in turn would be introduced by them to their parents, he would tell them that he was a handy man and could do Mr. Fix-it jobs around the house. He then would semi-attach himself to the family and take the boys fishing, drive-ins, camping, and would be employed as a babysitter” (file notes). During these activities, he would force the boys into committing a variety of sexual acts with him, with each other, and with some of their friends. He would physically force them into these acts and threaten to kill them if they told anyone. Circumstances around the assault on his friend’s child were similar, when Mark moved into a multi-family dwelling at his friend’s insistence. He had previously lived with his elderly mother when he was not incarcerated but she could no longer care for him. He would babysit the child as a favour to the parents and during one such time he sexually assaulted the child. The boy’s parents knew of Mark’s history, but he had assured them that he was able to manage his urges as he was taking hormone treatments. Shortly after, he moved in with the family and stopped taking his medication. File notes indicated, “it appears, therefore … that Mark had either an exaggerated sense of personal control or that he misleads those involved with him as he purposely

146  Pathways to Ruin?

put himself in a position of access to children.” His mother is reported to have commented: “I was wondering when he started bringing children around again. I was afraid that someday he might get carried away when he does these things and he might strangle and kill one of them” (file notes). [Mark was reportedly fond of his stepfather, who along with his mother continued to be supportive of him. He reports that his siblings taunted him and ostracized him. His mother reports that she felt she lost her other children, except one other son, because she has supported Mark.] The pre-teen that Mark was convicted of assaulting was also a resident of this complex. He had somehow led the boy’s parents to believe that he had a son the same age as the boy (file notes). His social worker believes that his blaming the medication (or lack thereof ) is too simplistic a reason for his offences (file notes). Additional reports state that “over reliance on medication decreases Mark’s ability to address the seemingly unimportant decisions and high risk factors related to his offence … [and] past release failure was due to, not only, Mark’s dependency on Depo-Provera, but also, the system as they accepted Mark’s deceit in regards to his use of medication” (file notes). Although he has completed programming, various reports state that Mark requires continual treatment. Upon his release after his almost decade long sentence, he was subject to a peace bond. Mark appeared to welcome the help and support: “I feel that the peace bond is not just a deterrent with me as I had planned on taking on all those things with the doctors anyway. I was the one that asked for the police to supervise me and be a support system to me when I came out of prison … I felt that they would be a greater support for me … I do not want any more victims in the future and I do not want to go back to jail for the rest of my life, which will happen the next time that I commit this kind of offence” (file notes). Mark’s file indicates that there are substantial time periods between convictions which may be indicative of “the fact that the subject can be productive. In terms of the current situation [assaulting the child and the preteen], the only appreciable change in circumstance over the past ten years has been the subject’s decision to place himself in a position where opportunity and access to children was more prevalent” (file notes). After being subject to the peace bond, Mark appeared to be doing well in the community and was actively trying to engage in adult-only social events. He appears to have been conviction-free for the past sixteen years (when data collection ended).



Approaching Desistance  147

Re-entry after Incarceration: Possible Turning Points? This description of Mark’s life indicates the prevalence of repeated episodes of incarceration. Starting with being detained at fifteen years of age for two years, with a most recent nine-year sentence as he turned forty-eight, Mark served over twenty years in prison. Prisons, as total institutions, do not provide the skills and resources that ensure success for individuals upon release. “Re-entry research” – re-entry back into society – is a growing and critical area of study, especially in the United States where the mass incarceration rate is among the highest globally. One of the focuses of re-entry research is the likelihood of “success” among those released from prison. Success in this context is not necessarily straightforward but is commonly defined as either avoiding reconviction or not returning to prison. In their study of the factors that increase the likelihood of success after imprisonment, LeBel et al. (2008) underscore the fact that there are both static and dynamic factors included in risk assessments that impact re-entry into society, just as there are static and dynamic factors affecting desistance. As LeBel and colleagues explain, static factors are those that one cannot change, such as age, race, gender, family background, and criminal history. Dynamic factors are characterized by change and may be either social or subjective (or both). Dynamic social factors refer to “institutions, developmental events and processes that can be fairly reliably measured” (133), whereas dynamic subjective factors refer to attitudes, motivations, goals, etc., elements that are internal to the individual actor. A great deal of research has focused on establishing the relevance of static and dynamic factors included in risk assessments, and how these factors play into success post-incarceration. Hanson et al. (2014) investigated the interpretation of risk assessments and how we may place greater weight on what we believe to be static or unchanging factors over dynamic factors. They note that this is especially true among certain categories of offenders. In their investigation of recidivism among individuals who have committed sexual offences, a group often seen as “incurable,” they measured individuals’ risk assessments at the time of release and the length of time that elapsed before an individual reoffended (committed another sex crime). Among those considered high risk to reoffend, the risk of reoffence was greatest in the first few years after release; the longer these high-risk individuals were offence free, the lower their risk of reoffending. What this means is that “static risk factors (e.g., prior offences, victim characteristics) are valid, but time dependent, markers for risk-relevant propensities” (2805).

148  Pathways to Ruin?

Further, Hanson and his colleagues note that if, upon release from custody, individuals do not reoffend when given the opportunity in the face of being assessed as high risk, then static factors may become less influential over time, suggesting that risk assessments change over time as well. Their study reiterates the importance of post-release circumstances even in the face of risk assessments that suggest higher risk to reoffend. As alluded to above and in chapter 5, one of the most persistent structural issues that plague those who have been incarcerated has to do with the labour force consequences of imprisonment. In their study of labour market outcomes among those sentenced in felony1 cases, Harding and his colleagues (2018) sorted out the consequences of imprisonment for those attempting to find work upon release. The challenge for their study was to establish and isolate the consequences of the prison experience itself as causing future employment difficulties; they wanted to be sure that negative consequences were due to prison and not due to, for example, poor labour prospects for these men regardless of imprisonment. In other words, those who found it difficult to find work after prison may also be those who would find it difficult regardless of their prison experience. Harding and his colleagues found that the experience of incapacitation, being removed from the labour market altogether while in prison, had a large impact on subsequent employment due to lost work experience and earnings. They use the term secondary incapacitation to refer to the effect of initial incarceration on subsequent (or secondary) incarceration. For those who have served time in prison, the likelihood of going back increases because of the extra scrutiny and surveillance measures that come with post-release supervision, such as parole (Harding et al. 2018, 55). This scrutiny results in being subject to curfews, drug and alcohol tests, and technical violations that risk reincarceration. At the same time, being removed from the labour market does not affect all equally, including those who have had the opportunity to work while in prison. Employment before prison, or the lack thereof, appears to have a larger impact on finding work on release. Among those who had a work history prior to entering prison, the negative impact of incarceration was evident. However, somewhat counterintuitively, those who had no work history faced significantly better work prospects in the period directly following incarceration than

1 The term felony is often used in the US criminal justice system to denote a serious crime that is punishable by one or more years in prison.



Approaching Desistance  149

those with a work history. (It may be that those who had prior employment had higher expectations but were unable to attain the same level of employment post-imprisonment.) Harding’s study supports the idea that immediately following imprisonment there may be a degree of optimism among those recently released. Unfortunately, this optimism appears to quickly fade as those without prior work experience are also those most likely to experience secondary incarceration and are once again removed from the labour pool. The quality of employment is also affected by a prison stay. Those who were imprisoned were more likely to find themselves in the secondary labour market characterized by work that pays less, is temporary, and is characterized by poor working conditions (Harding et al. 2018, 55). While there are serious hurdles to obtaining employment among those who have been either imprisoned or convicted, employment figures prominently in desisting from crime. As we learned from the Rogers (2017) study, often the key to creating a non-criminal outside identity is a transformation that occurs while still in prison. Prison can serve as a turning point away from crime, either through offering work skills or counselling programs that may facilitate positive change, or simply by serving as a wake-up call regarding the path one is on. The significance of work to re-establishing a positive identity cannot be overstated as it is a pivotal pillar to which many other achievements are anchored. Employment is part of a web of interrelated governance structures, institutional (government) resources that both control and provide opportunities by virtue of eligibility requirements, such as welfare and education. Having employment enables one to access more resources in this web of institutional structures. For example, the economic benefits of employment provide opportunities to obtain housing and buy food. In the case of Carl (below), we note that despite his initially spotty record of employment and his entrenchment in gang life, his employment appears to have contributed positively to de-escalation of his offending and is central to the well-being of his family.

A Crime Pathway: Carl Carl and his sister were born in South-East Asia and were raised by a nanny, never knowing their biological father. Their mother immigrated to Canada when her children were infants, and before Carl was ten years old, he and his sister moved to Canada to join their mother and her new husband. The stepfather was very strict and there was

150  Pathways to Ruin?

violence in the home. Carl’s mother divorced her husband and subsequently had to spend a lot of time at work to provide for her children. In his teens, Carl lived with his mother or with his sister, moving from one residence to the other when his relationship with one or the other became strained. He is reported to have contributed little financially, or in terms of housework, to either residence. Carl reports that he gravitated toward negative and antisocial peers. He dropped out of high school and maintained employment for only short periods of time. He found work in unskilled labour positions because of his lack of educational and vocational skills. Carl reports being convicted for his first break and enter as a minor before he was thirteen and receiving probation. He was convicted of bank fraud when he was in his mid-teens and received a fine. At a New Year’s party when he was in his mid-teens, his sister was assaulted by an intoxicated individual. Carl subsequently went to this individual’s house with a gun, but mistakenly shot another resident. A few years later, he committed several auto thefts. He also gave the police and the court a false name and had fake insurance forms to use for stolen vehicles. His crimes were motivated during this time “for money to continue his compulsive gambling” (file notes). During the early part of his sentence for these theft-related crimes, he was noted to have exemplary institutional behaviour. However, once transferred to a federal institution, he participated in distribution [of illicit items such as drugs and cigarettes] and enforcement activities for a gang and was described as having deeply entrenched criminal values: “His actions clearly demonstrate that he has learned little from his numerous program completions. His gang affiliations appear stronger than previously identified and impact upon every aspect of his life” (file notes). It is further noted that “… the psychologist observed that Carl derives a sense of satisfaction from his past exploits, enjoying his ability to deceive others including the authorities. Carl conveyed to the psychologist a perception of himself as superior to others” (file notes). Upon his release, Carl married and had children. Although he subsequently divorced his wife, he remained actively involved in his children’s lives. His ex-wife confirms that he is “a dedicated and loving father who spends time with his children and works hard to meet their financial needs. She further says that he is her main source of childcare and she relies upon this since she works shifts” (file notes). Despite a spotty employment record prior to incarceration, he has been steadily employed as a labourer since his release. His employer is very supportive of Carl and wanted to continue to employ him despite his most recent (drug-related) crime. Despite the seriousness



Approaching Desistance  151

of this offence – Carl sold drugs to undercover police officers on a few ­occasions – the judge sentenced him to two years less a day which allowed him to serve his sentence in the community and continue working. The judge notes: “the presentence report satisfies me that since his [past conviction] Carl has done a great deal to turn his life around. He is a contributing member of society and a loving father and spouse, in part because those qualities were absent from his parents” (file notes).

Structural and Identity Changes on the Pathway to Desistance When asked to describe ourselves, many of us focus on familiar categories having to do with work, family, and relationships. We are employees, parents, spouses. We may also refer to geographic spaces as part of our identities, such as “I am Canadian” or “I’m from Calgary.” Using these categories enables us to create a sense of closeness or proximity with those also in certain categories as well as distancing us from those who do not belong to our categories. Our identities are fuelled by our interactions with others and the categories that we belong to are implicated in how interactions unfold. Interestingly, while we often formulate our identities based on subjective experiences with others, there are many occasions when elements of our physical space intersect with who we believe we are and who we want to be. Keene and her colleagues considered the importance of housing to the self-perception of those released from prison. Beyond physical shelter, housing has symbolic value that alters self-identity by suggesting one is self-sufficient and deserving and, post-imprisonment, housing serves to reduce the stigma associated with incarceration. The Keene study also establishes that not all housing serves the same symbolic purpose. Halfway houses and shelters, for example, reinforce a spatial stigma as “vilified and degraded locales” (Keene, Smoyer, and Blankenship 2018, 801) that also vilify and degrade those who live there. These housing spaces make it difficult to shed the social stigma of imprisonment and reinforce difficulties going forward: “stigma can restrict access to a valuable material and symbolic resource (housing) resulting in ongoing stigmatization and contributing to the enduring and discrediting mark of incarceration” (802). For these individuals, decent housing took on great symbolic significance and often enabled shedding the identity of convict. When faced with challenges finding

152  Pathways to Ruin?

housing, formerly incarcerated individuals are often forced to reside in areas or locations that they perceive maintains their ongoing stigmatization. Living at a halfway house, for example, was felt to simply reproduce the stigmatized identity that many were anxious to leave behind once out of prison. In their interviews with those formerly incarcerated, Keene and her colleagues identified why housing is central to de-escalation from crime. First, housing was seen to be a mark of selfsufficiency and decency. Decent housing allowed individuals to erase or reduce the stigmatization associated with incarceration and to begin to define themselves, and have others define them, as full citizens. Paying one’s way, as evidenced through housing, was proof of economic self-sufficiency (805). Second, acquiring decent housing enabled individuals to rid themselves of the stigmatization of incarceration and become legitimate citizens. They felt that certain addresses, halfway houses or shelters, flagged their continued marginalization and made visible their history of incarceration. Individuals who could achieve a job and other markers of success such as a romantic relationship with a prosocial partner are also more likely to shed the stigmatized label of “ex-convict.” These two bonds (employment and marriage) make up what Giordano and colleagues (2002) refer to as the “respectability package” and they argue that the impact on transitioning out of crime is maximized when both a marital relationship and employment occur together. The importance of bonds to these institutions is the focus of structural explanations of desistance from crime, which emphasize the role of external events in inducing change (see Laub and Sampson 2001; Sampson and Laub 2003 and 2005). As explained earlier, some accounts and explanations of desistance emphasize the role of agency, changes in cognition and motivation, and redefinitions of identity, redefinitions that often occur in tandem with the development of these important relationships to family and work, as essential for the successful exit from offending (Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph 2002; Maruna 2012). From this perspective, individuals must be open to the possibility of change and must be exposed to opportunities for change, what Giordano and colleagues (2002) refer to as “hooks for change,” which often occur through relationships and job opportunities. The most successful hooks for change are those that provide a “blueprint” for normative behaviour because these opportunities provide a vision of what an alternative self can look like. The intersection of structural constraints (such as an inability to get decent housing) with one’s self-identity often remains in the background for many of us who do not have to deal with a devalued identity, such as ex-convict or high-risk offender. While not all of the individuals that we focus on in this book have been incarcerated, most have been subject



Approaching Desistance  153

to conviction and have had to work around the barriers created by such stigma – ignoring it, or somehow reorienting and creating modified self-identities because of it. McAlinden and her colleagues note that turning points include not only structural factors such as getting a new job, having a child, or getting married, but also include subjective/cognitive changes that have to do with one’s self-conception and identity. Their research found that it takes more than just a change in external circumstances to begin to desist from crime; desistance also requires internal changes or changes in identity. In their interviews with those convicted of sex offences, they found that individuals initially began to desist from crime due to the realization that their intimate relationships were negatively impacted by their offending behaviour (McAlinden, Farmer, and Maruna 2017, 275). These individuals felt that there was a redemptive aspect to having the continued support of a partner; “desistance narratives were strongly characterized by themes of forgiveness and the importance of social support throughout extraordinarily difficult times” (275). Fully transitioning out of offending behaviour required imagining a new self along with the actual enactment of prosocial behaviour. McAlinden and her colleagues observed that transitioning from an offender identity to a nonoffender identity “requires not just the ethereal imagining of a new self and the aspirational commitment to pro-social goals but the corporeal realization of this new self through active commitment to conventional pro-social roles” (2017: 278). In other research by this team, Farmer, McAlinden, and Maruna (2016), through their interviews with individuals who have committed sex offences, found that these individuals relied largely on “situationist” explanations for their past behaviour. Much like routine activities theory that suggests that crimes only occur when three elements converge in time and space (a motivated offender, a vulnerable victim, and lack of suitable guardianship), these individuals claim that their crimes would not have occurred if the situations hadn’t presented themselves. These authors observe that explanations relying on situations may be both accurate and serve to reduce responsibility. They note that this “post-hoc, revisionist self-history” (see chapter 5) may be a technique of shame management enabling individuals to accept (some) responsibility for what they have done yet creating and working toward a new identity that would not include “sex offender.” LeBel and his colleagues (2008) summarize the desistance literature with respect to subjective-level themes found among individuals who desist from crime. The first theme is “hope and self-efficacy” (136). Hope is the “desire for a particular outcome” along with the expectation that the desired outcome can be achieved (136). Individuals who

154  Pathways to Ruin?

believe that they can achieve a desired outcome (in this case, desistance) maintain that they have the wherewithal, or agency, to achieve the goal of desistance. A second theme is “shame and remorse” (136). Those who regret and accept their past behaviour as problematic are more likely to desist from criminal activity. LeBel and his colleagues point out, however, that the relationship of shame to desistance is not straightforward, and too much shame may result in feelings of powerlessness to address future activity. A third theme is “internalizing stigma” (137). An individual who sees himself as having committed a criminal act but not seeing himself as “a criminal” will be more likely to desist from crime. In contrast, a person who feels that he has become inseparable from the act that he has committed will be much less likely to desist. A fourth theme is that of “alternative identities” (137). This theme includes a revisionist angle whereby the individual creates a new identity that is cut off from one’s past identity as an offender. Those who are able to separate their current selves from their former offending selves are more likely to desist from crime. While many individuals may experience guilt and shame due to the crimes they have committed, the self-narratives of those who sexually offend may require greater effort to create an identity that is strong enough to counter the crime narrative that our culture sustains about those who commit sex offences. As mentioned in chapter 5, there is strong and vociferous public condemnation of those who commit sex crimes. The strength of the cultural narrative condemning sex offending means that those who have been labelled as sex offenders may have to work harder to establish identities that distance themselves from the person who committed the sex offences. The basis of much offender programming, regardless of type of offence, however, is rehabilitation and an attempt to reorient individuals toward a life without crime through programs geared to address various specific internal issues. Correctional Service Canada (CSC), for example, provides programs to “address offenders’ criminal behaviour” and focuses on four different types of programs: correctional, educational, social, and vocational (Correctional Service Canada 2019). CSC describes its correctional programs as focusing on risk factors that have been implicated in criminal behaviour with the goal of teaching individuals the skills and strategies required to reduce future criminal behaviour and enable reintegration into society upon release. Programs designed for men include those geared toward general (nonviolent) crime prevention, with an emphasis on targeting attitudes among those who do not have drug or alcohol issues. A second type of program is specifically designed for those who have committed violent offences, with different programming depending upon an assessment of risk levels. A third type is geared toward



Approaching Desistance  155

those who have committed family violence; a fourth addresses those who have sex offended; and a fifth is directed toward those with substance abuse issues. For CSC, programming is divided by crime type (non-violent, violent, domestic, and sexual) and by addiction issues. The education programs offered by CSC are geared toward achieving basic literacy, general education, as well as preparation for postsecondary education. The social programs are geared primarily toward reintegration back into the community and include some direction regarding finding jobs and accessing community supports. Other social programs focus on parenting training and, for women, programming regarding healthy lifestyles. Finally, the vocational programs are described as offering “a wide range of work areas that are relevant to job opportunities that exist within the institution, as well as in the community” (Correctional Service Canada 2016). The basis of much offender programming is the creation and management of identities associated with nonoffending, and the provision of basic skills and tools that have been found to support nonoffending, such as literacy or acquiring a trade. The general correctional programs that CSC categorizes by crime type appear to be based on certain assumptions, such as the nature of the crime providing insight into the nature of the offender. Our discussion of offence specialization in chapter 5 undermines the notion that individuals commit certain types of crime to the exclusion of others. As a result, efforts to rehabilitate and create nonoffending identities through specialized programs based on the presence or absence of particular types of crimes may ultimately be ineffective. Further, few assessments can definitively say that the programming was the cause of any change in offending behaviour. Instead, changes may be due to incapacitation and the impact that this experience has for future behaviour. The changes in one’s life circumstances, or turning points, can either reduce or ignite the likelihood of continued crime. We turn now to Jeffrey who provides an interesting example of refusing to take the identity of a sexual offender. He is clearly supported by his family who appears to believe that these accusations (and convictions) are simply a character assassination.

A Crime Pathway: Jeffrey Jeffrey has one conviction on his record for sexual assault committed when he was in his early forties against a teenaged male. This victim was under supervision in the community for having committed a minor criminal offence and Jeffrey was his supervisor. Inappropriate

156  Pathways to Ruin?

and escalating sexual behaviour occurred over more than a year. These acts took place after the counselling sessions that Jeffrey led and when the victim participated in community service hours. Jeffrey added more hours than the victim was required to serve in order to continue the sexual assaults and gained the victim’s compliance by threatening to send the victim to a youth detention centre if the victim failed to comply with his demands. Jeffrey was convicted of sexual assault and was sentenced to less than a year of prison and one-year probation. He unsuccessfully appealed his sentence. Even though he was seen as a risk to reoffend, a sufficient pattern of behaviour was not established to “bring his current risk of reoffending to the ‘imminent’ threshold” (file notes). Given this determination, Jeffrey was not subject to a peace bond order, nor to a public disclosure. However, concern was raised over his attempts to “establish non-sexual, trusting and helping ‘relationships’ with the victims with a view toward obtaining their compliance” (file notes) especially while in a position of authority over his victims. Jeffrey also failed to accept responsibility for his actions and a psychological assessment indicates that he “likely harbors a deviant pattern of sexual fantasy and arousal” (file notes). The same report indicates that he is a poor candidate for treatment because he denies any culpability or wrongdoing. Jeffrey appears to have had a relatively stable upbringing and still enjoys the close support of his family. After the death of his father, he has helped to financially support his mother. He has spent his adult life consistently employed. His sister described him as “driven and successful” and she expressed anger that Jeffrey had been subjected to this “character attack” (conviction for sexual assault), insisting he was “not like that.” Jeffrey is deeply religious and is active in his church. He helped to establish and participated as a counsellor in a church-based group for at-risk youth and it is through this group that he met his victim. Jeffrey’s criminal record indicates no subsequent convictions, which demonstrates a modicum of success in terms of re-entry.

Aging Out of Crime Although there are several factors implicated in the evolution of crime de-escalation, a consistent element is the simple fact of aging. The age-crime curve describes the frequency of offending as the population ages. The consistent observation among most populations is that crime escalates over the teen years to its peak during the late teens or



Approaching Desistance  157

early twenties and declines thereafter. Some explanations for this typical age-crime curve rely on factors such as maturity, changing identities, increased costs of non-conformity, and less time for socializing (and getting in trouble) as one ages. Other research suggests that as one ages, crime versatility also declines. This may be due to individuals’ experience of turning points such as marriage, which has been found to decrease versatility (Hill, Blokland, and van der Geest 2016). The highrisk individuals that we consider here have similar age-crime curves, with typically the greatest frequency of crime occurring during their early twenties, although their frequency of offending occurs more consistently over more years. Hill and colleagues’ (2016) study considered the acquisition of adult roles and how this figures into perceptions of the self. Their research dug deeper into Moffitt’s observations that the bulk of individuals conclude their offending at the end of adolescence while others continue to offend throughout adulthood. Moffitt (1993) had suggested that there were two groups of offenders and, although both began offending during adolescence, one group stopped offending by early adulthood (adolescence limited) while the other group continued to offend over the course of their entire lives (life-course persistent). Moffitt maintained the reason the adolescence-limited individuals began to offend in the first place was because of the “maturity gap”: the wish for the status and privileges that accompany adulthood yet having limited means to acquire that status and privilege other than through delinquency. As individuals move into adulthood, they find legitimate ways of attaining social status through attaining legitimate adult social roles, including through jobs, marriage, and parenthood. Today, however, we see a different scenario than has traditionally been the case. Young people no longer leave the family home the moment they turn 18, nor do they acquire jobs in their early twenties that last a lifetime. Instead, “emerging adulthood,” according to Arnett (2000), occurs during the period from eighteen to twenty-five years and is presumed to be conceptually distinct from either adolescence or adulthood, marking a period of transition. What can be said about offending when adolescence is extended and adulthood emerges later than was previously the case? Hill and her associates (2016) found a picture of emerging adulthood that is not entirely positive. They found that emerging adulthood meant, for some, increased freedom from various sources, such as parents, jobs, and education, at the same time there are fewer opportunities to advance into adult roles. For these individuals, desistance from delinquency does not occur as quickly. Their work confirms that the markers that we have traditionally associated with adulthood, such as permanent housing and jobs, long-term

158  Pathways to Ruin?

relationships, children, etc., are increasingly delayed for today’s generation and may be more fluid than was the case in the past. Moffitt’s theory maintained that this maturity gap, when biological adulthood and social responsibility do not match, would cause frustration, stress, and crime. The Hill study found that taking on adult roles, jobs, relationships, etc., was not necessarily a pathway to crime reduction, which depended upon other aspects of one’s life, such as the permanence of the roles that one had assumed and whether one felt emotionally ready to assume them. Essentially these authors found that adolescence limited was not as limited as Moffitt predicted and delinquent activity occurs beyond the confines of adolescence for many, despite the acquisition of adult roles. We conclude with Andrew’s story where we can see that an emotional readiness (or lack thereof) to assume particular adult roles can affect one’s trajectory toward crime but we also see the role of education, programming, employment, and family ties in facilitating turning points away from offending.

A Crime Pathway: Andrew Andrew is the younger of three children and his childhood was characterized by dysfunction, primarily as a result of his father’s behaviour. His father was a heavy drinker who was verbally abusive toward Andrew’s mother and physically violent with Andrew. His father had a criminal record for driving while intoxicated and growing marijuana [then illegal] in the family home. His mother described the household as “a difficult place for Andrew” (file notes). Andrew would often try to please his father, but states that his efforts were never satisfactory. His parents separated because of his father’s alcoholism when Andrew was in his mid-teens. He lived with his grandparents while his parents finalized their separation and then moved back in with his mother for a brief period. He describes his mother as the primary caregiver and states that he had a close relationship with her throughout his childhood which continued into his adult years. Andrew completed grade 12 and was noted to be a good student. He reported that school was a positive experience for him. Upon graduating, he moved to a different province in order to pursue a career in the trades. He was with the same company for almost ten years where he worked his way up to a supervisory role. His employer indicates that he was “very happy with Andrew’s work ethic and would have



Approaching Desistance  159

continued his employment” (file notes) if it had not been for Andrew’s criminal convictions. While he was employed, Andrew was engaged to be married for two years – this is noted as his only serious relationship. This relationship ended when he committed a violent sexual assault against his fiancée (see below). Andrew began abusing drugs and alcohol in his early teen years. His substance abuse intensified during his employment where cocaine became his drug of choice. On his days off, he would consume a bottle of hard liquor and use cocaine daily. A report states that Andrew attributes some of his issues with alcohol to his family’s history of alcoholism as his father and both his paternal and maternal grandfathers had alcohol abuse issues. These issues were exacerbated by his job that was: “a source of his addiction as the individuals hired usually have the lifestyle [of] excessive drug and alcohol consumption. Andrew indicates that the peer pressure placed on him at times was very stressful” (file notes). His first offence was for driving under the influence and alcohol use is implicated in his subsequent criminal activity. About two years after Andrew’s first conviction, he perpetrated several violent interpersonal offences against two different victims. These crimes were committed over two days against two different victims, included sexual and non-sexual assault, the use of weapons, forcible confinement, and robbery. One sexual assault was perpetrated against an escort whom he held at knife point while demanding that she return the money he already had paid her. The next day, Andrew again hired a sex worker and upon her arrival, brandished a knife and tried to block her exit from his residence although she managed to escape. He was intoxicated and high on cocaine at the time of both offences. Andrew was arrested, charged with these offences, and released on bail with the requirement to adhere to certain conditions. A year and a half later he breached this order when, after purchasing and consuming alcohol (violating his recognizance order), he sexually assaulted his fiancée. As with the previous assaults, he forcibly confined and threatened her with a weapon. He was sentenced to just under five years in prison for these offences. Reports indicated that he was very remorseful for his offending and he recognized the need for drug and alcohol counselling. Despite this, he did not complete any programs while incarcerated as he “found them discouraging in terms of other inmates always blaming other people for their actions and never accepting responsibility for themselves” (file notes). However, Andrew appeared to demonstrate insight into his offending as he admitted that “in his previous job he held too much responsibility for a person his age and maturity level which in

160  Pathways to Ruin?

turn caused tremendous stress. He admits that he coped by using alcohol and drugs … [and that these] played a role in his offences” (file notes). Given the violent nature of his offences, the high-risk unit was notified of his upcoming release. It was subsequently determined that Andrew was not at a high risk to reoffend. Because he had maintained ties with his family and had two job opportunities lined up, it was felt that his risk was manageable in the community and that he did not require additional supervision. He has not reoffended since his release a decade ago.

Summary Given the nature of the individuals we have focused on, those who are considered higher risk to reoffend and who have often had long criminal careers, it is somewhat difficult to assess the impacts of specific factors that contribute to observed declines in criminal activity for any individual, much less its permanent cessation. It is the case, however, that offending careers are not consistent across time and space and each of the factors we considered above, from changed identities, the acquisition of home and (meaningful) work, to relationships, programs, and aging, are likely to contribute in various ways to the de-escalation of criminal activity. This mirrors the integrated theory of desistance put forward by Rocque (2017) that suggests multiple domains of maturation including cognitive/neurological, psychosocial/personality, identity/cognitive transformation, and civic and social role maturation can provide a holistic account of a move toward desistance. However, maturation across these domains does not happen at the same rate for everyone, or even at the same rate within individuals (Rocque 2017). The ebbs and flows of a criminal career are not perfectly predicted at the individual-level; we can’t know in each specific case, for example, that marriage is a turning point and will result in less participation in crime, or that the experience of imprisonment results in a changed noncriminal identity. Furthermore, those who appear to have fully desisted in crime may begin anew due to factors that – in other cases − may not similarly trigger the re-engagement of criminal activity.

7 Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative

We began this book with a consideration of popular crime narratives that pervade the collective conscience, that “crimes are violent and are perpetrated by individuals who have made strategic choices to harm others,” and offered a critique of the one-dimensional stories of crime that often arise from media reports focusing on the sensational aspects of offending. With superficial headlines spotlighting the gore and violence, and few or very limited details regarding the broader circumstances surrounding offending, we are rarely exposed to the contexts and the life histories behind the headlines and therefore often fail to understand the circumstances of the individuals who perpetrate these serious crimes. At the same time, providing details about the lives of these individuals should not be viewed as an apologist argument for their harmful and destructive behaviour. We fully recognize and acknowledge the pain and suffering that they have caused many victims over the course of their criminal careers. Instead, our goal has been to consider the complexity of the lives that these people have led, including their own experiences of victimization, in order to broaden how we think about crime, how we think about those who perpetrate crime, and how we respond to it. If, for example, we take into consideration that many perpetrators of serious crimes are also previous victims of serious crime and abuse, we may be able to imagine more meaningful ways to reduce victimization among all parties involved. The individuals we have focused on here are identified as high risk; they have been considered more likely than others to continue to commit crime. Some of these individuals were informally flagged for further consideration and assessment, while others were formally identified by the courts as high risk. Some of these individuals have a long history of involvement with the criminal justice system, while others committed few crimes and have moved “off the radar,” if only temporarily, of criminal justice officials. As our analysis has shown, it is as

162  Pathways to Ruin?

important to understand how individuals come to the often-continued attention of the authorities as it is to know why others recede from or fail to maintain authorities’ attention. What factors are associated with beginning a criminal career? Why do some individuals become less involved in crime over time? Despite the de-escalation in offending that characterizes some individuals’ life histories, high-risk individuals are often prolific and commit a disproportionate amount of all crime, reason in itself to devote time and energy to understanding their life stories and reducing their negative impacts. Through our examinations of life histories and crime pathways, we reveal certain patterns, but we are also left with incomplete answers. In the discussion that follows, we highlight the insights of our analysis but also consider the questions that linger. And we make suggestions as to where we can best direct future attention not only to understand the life course pathways that have characterized the lives of “high-risk” individuals, but also to reduce future victimization and offending. The “Offender” Narrative The Gestalt approach to perception in psychology suggests that we navigate our world based upon how we put component parts together (Cherry 2019). The underlying principle of the Gestalt approach is that we make sense of the world by grouping various shapes together to come up with a whole that is different than its constituent parts. In the same way that we consider our environment, we bring certain parts of the landscape (our experience) into focus while blurring other aspects. Another aspect of the Gestalt approach is that we differentiate between objects in a visual scene by grouping elements together and determining what is our focus, or the “figure” of the scene, paying less attention to extraneous information, or “ground.” One of the most famous examples is the Rubin vase. This is the outline of a vase or the profiles of two faces, depending on how you look at it. Seeing that there is both a vase and profiles is integral to capturing the complexity of the image. We maintain that the individuals whose stories we have featured in this book must also be revealed and open to similar sorts of perceptions as the Rubin vase/faces. Consider this description: “Smith’s first conviction was for theft at age 19. He was next convicted of sexually assaulting a young girl and continued to commit physical assaults, sexual assaults. and thefts over the course of his life. It was later found that he had sexually assaulted his own children. Smith is described as an untreated sex offender.” Now this description: “Smith was born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) and contracted meningitis by the age of two. He was hit by a car



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  163

at age six which caused permanent brain injury – he was unable to complete early education or hold a job, and committed a number of crimes. Smith is considered very low functioning.” These descriptions offer us two images of Smith. In the first instance, we see the “crime vase,” which is the enduring narrative presented by the media. Typically, this is a focus on the offences and the misdeeds associated with the individual we perceive as “the offender.” The other part of the story (or the face profiles of the Rubin vase) is found in the details of injury and illness occurring in childhood, and the subsequent reduced ability to cope at school or at work during adolescence and adulthood, factors that constitute “the individual.” Although this analogy oversimplifies the complexity of criminal careers, it reminds us that what we determine as figure or as ground is incomplete without acknowledging that the other exists – one aspect (figure or ground) gives shape to the other. While it is true that high-risk individuals are indeed offenders, they have also experienced various forms of victimization and disadvantage that have shaped who they are. We have examined the lives of high-risk individuals in order to rewrite the popular crime narrative by considering the life experiences through which offending has emerged. We maintain that through contextualizing their crimes within the totality of their lives, we can better understand high-risk offending. The lens of life-course criminology provides a sense of where these individuals have come from and the factors that might have impacted their lives. We have shed light on the factors that figure prominently during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood and which appear to have influenced criminal activity. We know that many who are considered a high-risk to reoffend have endured various forms of abuse, compromised family situations, school failure, early experimentation with and continued use of drugs and alcohol, adolescent offending, broken relationships, and reduced employment opportunities. We have also considered the elements that are implicated in crime de-escalation – such as access to adequate housing, acquiring meaningful jobs and relationships, as well as simply aging out of crime. Clearly not all the individuals considered here have experienced the same set of background issues, nor are their reasons for entering or de-escalating criminal careers exactly alike, nonetheless, patterns of hardship are evident. Completing the Crime Narrative Emotional responses to serious crimes, while understandable, tend to derail our ability to consider the evolution of crime and its circumstances. Often the public focuses on swift and severe punishment while

164  Pathways to Ruin?

the circumstances that contribute to the offence take a backseat. The life-course perspective allows for a more complete examination of how individual histories intersect with social contexts to explain how behaviour is influenced by both past and present experiences, and the social structure in which an individual is located. Typical descriptions of crime and offending often focus attention on the specifics of the act or actor. What is often missing from these descriptions is the life circumstances that have evolved and may contribute to individuals’ participation in crime. Some might argue that the past is irrelevant to the situation at hand. Is it irrelevant that someone who has committed a serious assault, for example, was physically abused as a child, failed to earn a basic education, and dropped out of school during his teen years? A life-course perspective would suggest that this is indeed relevant to begin to understand how such events have come to fruition and how we might be able to prevent such occurrences in the future. While we wish to draw attention to the complexity of the lives that high-risk individuals have lived, and continue to live, we have drawn upon police information, often a key data source upon which the popular crime narrative is also constructed. As noted throughout our book, that narrative is essentially that “bad guys who do bad things are arrested and thrown into jail.” The proliferation of cop shows on television rarely strays too far from this conventional and linear plot. We acknowledge the limitations of our data and accept that police data supports this linear progression through the criminal justice system. Our examination of the files from which our analysis is drawn, however, reveals a much richer crime narrative that goes well beyond this orthodox presentation. Crime pathways are not as direct as Hollywood and the media would have us believe: not every serious offence leads to arrest and imprisonment. Investigations may be unsuccessful, witnesses may be unreliable, arrests may not be made, and individuals often return for repeat crime performances. Real life is often much messier when considering specific individuals and their experiences. Their pathways are rarely as linear as the television shows might suggest. Similarly, the life-course perspective also draws upon the notion of stages, although these stages are developmental: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. While we present the individual crime stories and have organized our book in a fashion that mirrors this developmental pathway, our goal was not to test theory and establish causality, but rather to anchor these narratives to the life-course and associated explanatory perspectives. We cannot say that childhood victimization, for example, was the pivotal factor that caused later offending.



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  165

The specific influence a risk factor has on an outcome cannot be stated with any certainty on a case-by-case basis. While it is difficult to establish with certainty how or why specific factors in individuals’ histories affect later behaviours using the approach we have used here, the advantages to considering the entire life course are that we can be assured of accurate time ordering with earlier developmental stages preceding later events. Close examination of individuals’ stories contributes to a more integrated consideration of the diversity of offending trajectories and their associated distinctive personal circumstances. Circumstances that, for many of these individuals, are mortgaged over a lifetime of crime. These narratives provide insight into the impact that these early factors may have had on subsequent behaviour. At the same time, we have focused on a unique selection of individuals, those flagged as high-risk, who have committed a range of offences both more and less serious, and/or whose frequency of offending has contributed to their assessment as likely to reoffend. The criminal careers of those determined to be high-risk involves a number of factors, some of which include behavioural patterns established in childhood, while other factors emerge over the course of their adolescent and adult lives. These high-risk individuals are flagged as a particularly important group to consider because of the frequency and seriousness of their offending and the presumed likelihood of reoffending. Trajectories Without a doubt, the early years play a vital role and launching platform for productive and healthy lives. As the literature on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) has shown, early exposure to various forms of trauma, such as abuse, neglect, and victimization, can set children on a course characterized by health, medical, and social problems. The specific mechanics as to why ACEs wreak havoc on children’s lives tends to rest on the general agreement that children go through critical stages of development and that upset during these critical stages has a lasting negative impact. Trauma that might be incurred during these particularly sensitive stages is likely to produce significant changes in the brain itself. For example, the experience of trauma during childhood may result in “neurotoxicity.” During times of stress, the body produces cortisol (a stress hormone), normally a positive biological process, but extended exposure to trauma can result in overproduction of the hormone over longer time periods, which may negatively alter the configuration of the brain. This early stress exposure reduces the ability to successfully navigate one’s environment.

166  Pathways to Ruin?

Exposure to childhood trauma of various sorts accurately describes most of the individuals who we have examined here. Our ability to get a clear picture of the duration of certain forms of trauma is, however, limited by the administrative data we had access to. We cannot say with accuracy that these individuals were exposed for durations that would absolutely produce physiological change. What we can accurately say is that most of these individuals were noted to have experienced some form(s) of trauma during critical times in their lives. While our analysis cannot confirm that these experiences were pivotal and led to a life of crime, they are a flag in the roster of life experiences for subsequent offending. Although our study is limited to individuals identified as high risk to reoffend, ideally, we would like to be able to say how ACEs figure among those who commit crime but who have not been labelled as high risk. What is especially important to understand among those who are not considered high risk (and indeed do not have criminal records) and yet who have experienced ACEs are the factors that appear to insulate children from and undermine the impact of the long-term negative implications of ACEs. We need to better understand the protective elements that disrupt a seemingly inevitable chain of cumulative disadvantage: obviously, not every child who has experienced an ACE commits crime or, even less likely, becomes identified as high-risk to reoffend. The early trauma that is experienced by these individuals is trauma that is most often inflicted by parents or by adults in trust positions. The centrality of the family in creating the people who we become cannot be understated. The perpetration of trauma against children by family members (especially parents against children) is significant on several levels, from undermining the trust and protection that the family is thought to provide (the idea that the home is a safe haven), to exhibiting behaviour that members of the family mimic as they age. Social learning theory, for example, suggests that parents model behaviour for children and it is through parents that children learn how to deal with various situations. One cannot help but think of Paul, featured in chapter 2, who was socialized (and abused) by his mother, a woman who not only suffered from alcohol addiction but also was unable to address basic needs for Paul such as health care and safety. The maladaptive responses that characterized Paul’s approach to early situations are likely emblematic of the intersection of physiological damage (acquired through injury associated with abuse) and ineffective parenting. The strength and warmth of parental bonds, along with monitoring, contact, and supervision, according to Apel and Kaukinen (2008), have been found to be the most important elements of families



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  167

that help socialize children into conforming citizens. But sometimes the warmth, love, and supervision of a parent or family is not enough to steer individuals away from crime as other forces come into play during adolescence. The teenage years are often a time of experimentation, characterized by increasing access to peers as teens spend less time with their families and more time in independent activities and at school. Peers may play a pivotal role in introducing one another to drugs and alcohol, as well as to delinquent behaviour. As Moffitt (1993) notes, there are some individuals who begin to commit various crimes during adolescence and are heavily influenced by peers, but who also conclude their delinquent behaviour in later adolescence. She refers to this group as adolescencelimited. Very few of our high-risk individuals conform to this pattern. Instead, most of the individuals we have considered appear minimally influenced by delinquent peers and are on a trajectory that is relatively independent of associates. It is worth noting, however, that the information that we have on this aspect of their lives is somewhat limited as peers may be less salient to policing and corrections during adulthood when most come into formal contact with the authorities. It could be that peers were more influential than what we are able to reveal. (The exception to this may be gang involvement, another form of peer influence, which we also found limited. The gang association that we noted, however, was more prominent during imprisonment than outside of the prison walls.) Thus, questions remain about the impact that peers have on the more serious and chronic offending we’ve discussed here. While peer influence appears less significant to the lives of many individuals that we have considered, what is pivotal during the teenage years is school achievement. School success is central to teenage lives as it not only provides an avenue to legitimate (non-criminal) adult opportunities, but it also provides a means of acquiring social capital during that phase of life, adolescence, when social capital is simply more difficult to come by. While families set the initial life trajectory, schools and the school experience are foundational to these initial pathways, since, as children, the school is where we spend most time outside of time with the family. The social capital provided by school is not only its contribution to future career and economic opportunities, but also its facilitation of opportunities to make friends with peers, associate with adults who are not our parents, and provide us with information and the chance to identify our strengths (and weaknesses) through extracurricular activities, to name a few. Some of the individuals we considered had positive or neutral school experiences, though the more typical pattern was that the problems developed within the

168  Pathways to Ruin?

family setting simply continued through, and were amplified by, the school experience. The individuals who had the most positive school experiences tended to begin offending later in life. On the other hand, and consistent with the notion of cumulative disadvantage among the individuals we considered here, negative school experiences were often both preceded by, and contributed to, adverse experiences and antisocial behaviour. It is important to consider the mutual interactions and feedback loops between family and school environments with specific individuals. Families socialize children who then learn to respond to environmental cues. These responses may not necessarily generate positive reactions in future exchanges either within the family or at school. Individual temperament and traits may be enhanced or undermined within the context of the family and school and result in behavioural patterns that contribute to negative outcomes. As Finkelhor et al. (2009a, 2009b) note, children who are easily agitated or antagonized, for example, may interact negatively with those around them and parents and teachers may inadvertently reinforce such behaviours. These feedback loops likely contribute to the cumulative disadvantage identified by Sampson and Laub (1993), which refers to negative experiences setting the foundation for future negative occurrences. Despite the compromised environments that characterize the early years of many individuals we considered here, the life-course perspective reinforces the notion that lives are not set in stone and negative trajectories can be derailed under various circumstances or due to particular events. Although our data is limited to individual factors such as those found within families or school experiences, trajectories are also dependent on structural locations. For example, the relative wealth of some neighbourhoods compared with others will affect a range of behavioural outcomes, as lower income neighbourhoods may have less available resources for parents and families to access. Certain communities may be more likely to offer help in the face of abusive situations, and schools may be unevenly equipped to deal with evidence of abuse among their student populations. Greater detail of the environmental contexts in which high-risk individuals lived their childhood and adolescent lives would add depth to our understanding of their experiences. Another part of the environmental context that plays into our collective (and individual) experience is the historical periods in which we exist. The individuals that informed this study were a range of ages, from nineteen to eighty-nine years. The opportunities and challenges relative to individuals are partially age-dependent, but experiences also vary as a result of historical context. The individual who is



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  169

twenty years old in 2008 faces a much different world than the individual who is seventy years old that year. What society held as the standard of “adequate supervision” in the seventy-year-old’s upbringing, for example, was likely much different than what was considered adequate supervision for the twenty-year-old. We do not have enough information to fully investigate the impact of historical period on individual lives, though we can say that many, regardless of their current ages, endured hardship such as familial abuse and neglect. While it may have been part of the seventy-year-old’s upbringing that “family issues” such as abuse were not identified or discussed, this background is common despite the historical differences. We suspect that our consideration of this range of men strengthens our identification of common, and potentially impactful, features of their histories and enriches the integrative perspective of our approach. Turning Points You may remember Jeremy from chapter 5. Jeremy might be considered, in many ways, the poster boy of a life plagued by crime and victimization, not only in terms of the crimes that he perpetrated, but also in terms of those he experienced on the victim side of the equation. Jeremy was sexually and physically abused at a young age, was using alcohol before the age of ten, and started his life of crime during his preteen years by violating neighbourhood kids. He continued throughout his teens and adulthood to commit robberies and sexual assaults, specifically targeting those he identified as vulnerable. Jeremy developed serious addiction issues, has had little job experience, and has spent much of his adult life in prison with little family support. One wonders if there might have been anything – any turning point – along the way that could have derailed the cumulative disadvantage that characterizes his life. Yet Jeremy has experienced turning points of a kind, although these have never lasted for too long and appear to be strongly correlated with time spent in jail. These turning points also seem strategic as Jeremy has learned that good behaviour is more likely to be rewarded in prison than is bad behaviour. What appears not to have changed for Jeremy during his time in prison is an identity or ability to see himself as a “law-abiding citizen” once outside the prison walls, despite his ability to successfully complete programs while in prison. Perhaps Jeremy’s criminal identity remains unchanged while outside of prison because he has few external markers that would serve as anchors to viewing himself as law-abiding. For example, Jeremy faces extremely

170  Pathways to Ruin?

low prospects of secure employment and little likelihood of obtaining a willing romantic partner. At the same time, the prison identity is less likely to be shed when one faces several peace bond conditions that re-assert, privilege, and maintain a criminal identity. For Jeremy, the peace bond serves as a reminder that he is an “offender” – an identity he appears at ease with because he also told authorities that he deliberately offends in order to get back to prison where he is comfortable. Turning points are those that register as “game changers,” junctures in the path that individuals associate with potential losses if one proceeds as one has. If, for example, one finds a romantic partner who is law abiding and does not drink or take drugs, then continuing on a pathway characterized by crime and substance abuse risks the loss of that relationship. Similarly, if one acquires a job that demands regular drug testing, continuing to use drugs puts one’s job at risk. The pressure of the loss, whether the loss is status, a relationship, or a job, clearly needs to outweigh the gains that are had by continuing to commit crime. Having said this, identifying a turning point is not always clear and will vary between individuals. If one is subject to the cumulative disadvantage that has characterized Jeremy’s life, for instance, the start of a romantic relationship is unlikely to redirect his life of crime to one of conformity. The weight of the past is too heavy to tip the balances in favour of a non-criminal pathway. For others who may have experienced less negativity in their past, the loss of a romantic partner might be considered meaningful enough to be a turning point. The contexts in which events occur, contexts of both advantage and disadvantage, will determine if they qualify as significant enough to constitute a turning point. Having said this, the idea that decisions are made to carry on with or desist from crime may be overly rationalistic. As the literature suggests (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Pratt and Cullen 2000), those who commit crime are often found to have lower levels of self-control, which suggests that their behaviours are spontaneous and impulsive rather than a product of rational assessment as we typically understand it. And yet, research by Wright and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that the establishment of prosocial ties, another type of turning point, had the strongest deterrent effect for individuals with the lowest levels of self-control. In other words, they found that the best counterweight to low self-control is prosocial ties. Another issue relevant to turning points is aging. The process of aging may allow individuals to consider their lives and their criminal careers in ways that earlier stages did not allow for; aging may bring the so-called wisdom of experience to bear in behavioural decisions. Individuals who have been engaged



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  171

in criminal lifestyles for a number of years may be able to use their experience to better assess the impact of committing further crime and its consequences and costs to themselves and others. Among those who appear to begin to commit crime in adulthood, referred to as adult-onset offenders, perhaps the turning point that leads to engaging in crime for them is also a higher threshold event: law-abiders similarly have the weight of their histories to derail before beginning to commit crime. In Larry’s case (below), the weight of conformity appears compromised by gambling addiction issues and yet the enduring relationship of family members also provides a source of support as Larry ages.

A Crime Pathway: Larry Larry grew up with his mother, father, and siblings. He states that his father was abusive toward all members of his family, especially after drinking. He indicates that his father was involved in gambling and he modelled his own gambling habits as well as his intoxicant use after his father. Despite this, Larry describes his childhood as “fair” (file notes). His father, with whom Larry has been very close throughout adulthood, remembers their early family life differently and describes it as a “loving, supportive, functional, middle-class familial environment” (file notes). Larry’s formal history of offending began during adolescence with property crime and failing to appear convictions. He describes this period of his life as “hanging around with ‘bad kids’ and use of intoxicants” and that “he never really suffered any consequences as a youth  – mostly fines and probation were issued and so he never took his offending seriously” (file notes). In his early twenties, he was convicted of two robberies, including the armed robbery of a bank. He served five years and managed to quit gambling as a result of this sentence. When he came out of prison, he was crime-free for nearly a decade. He attributes this crime-free period to “good paying jobs and staying out of spousal relationships that are over controlling” (file notes). Yet over this period, Larry’s relationship with his wife deteriorated. He claimed that his wife had to have the ‘best of everything’ and they eventually separated. He soon began to face financial difficulties: he was behind on child maintenance payments and his ex-wife threatened that he would not see their child again. Larry indicated that he felt that because he had done a bank robbery before, this was the best way for him to get out of his financial difficulties.

172  Pathways to Ruin?

He committed another bank robbery and was arrested with his girlfriend, but both claimed that she had no knowledge of his plan to rob the bank. All charges against the girlfriend were dropped in exchange for his guilty plea. Reports on his offending suggest he has an inability to effectively deal with problems as well as poor money management skills. “When debt loads rise to the level that the subject is unable to sustain, feelings of desperation set in and criminal acts to raise cash are used”; financial crisis appears to have “triggered a criminal relapse” (file notes). Further, Larry states that he is a “sucker for a pretty face and often tries to impress these women with a lavish standard of living that he is unable to sustain” (file notes). His father was wary of Larry’s current common-law partner and “identifies her consistent monetary over-indulgence as a contributing factor to the crime” (file notes). Regardless of these sentiments, both Larry’s father and his common-law spouse are noted as very prosocial community supports for him. A community assessment states that Larry’s father “expressed a sincere love and care for the subject and is prepared to provide him with any support necessary to maintain a prosocial, law-abiding lifestyle” (file notes). His father supported Larry’s common-law spouse by providing accommodation and was willing to support Larry in whatever ways were needed upon his release. Despite the accumulation of serious robbery convictions, it was noted that Larry is “non-criminalized” (file notes). He was described as displaying a positive attitude and was assessed as having a high reintegration potential, gaining an “increased awareness of problemsolving steps … improvement in his ability to cope with unpleasant emotions … [and he] demonstrated an understanding of critical reasoning skills” (file notes). Further, he was noted to be a “loving, caring father who was actively involved in his child’s upbringing” as well as a “gregarious, caring, even-tempered, organized, hard-working, energetic, creative individual” (file notes). Larry had no further offences on his record.

Responding to High-Risk Offending “The CSC does not believe that there are any sufficient safeguards in the community to manage the risk you present to the public.” Correctional Service Canada (CTV News 2017)



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  173

In 2017, a media report on the release of an individual convicted of sexual assault focused on where this individual would live post-release. The relatively short story highlights the statement by Correctional Service Canada declaring that after having served his entire twenty-year sentence (to warrant expiry date), the CSC feels that this individual is, essentially, unfit to live in the community despite being placed on a Section 810 peace bond. (Importantly, once a sentence is completed, CSC has no formal say in the future of former prisoners, but they recommend or support post-release measures such as peace bonds.) This statement is revealing in at least two ways. First, the statement is an admission that time spent in prison, even as long as twenty years, in no way reforms, rehabilitates, or “cures” those who receive such sentences. The implication is that this individual is no different after having served his sentence than he was prior to incarceration. Second, the statement reveals that the individual is perceived as such a high risk that there is nothing that the community can do to protect itself from this offender, suggesting that the only solution to this threat is to keep this person behind bars apparently indefinitely. So, what are we to do about high-risk offending? Is there any way of protecting ourselves from being victimized? This question is far from straightforward. On the Alberta Solicitor General’s website regarding High-Risk Offenders, although readers are encouraged to “take suitable precautions to ensure your safety,” a disclaimer states: “Use of the information contained in this web site is voluntary and is at the sole risk of the user. Reliance on such information should only be undertaken after an independent review of its accuracy, completeness, efficacy and timeliness.” Undertaking an independent review is an impossible task for the average citizen. This disclaimer also underscores some of the central problems with attempting to address high-risk offending: data may be inaccurate, incomplete, inapplicable, or dated. Crime prediction is a moving target and far removed from the one-dimensional portrayals we find in the popular crime narrative (bad people deserving of harsh punishment). While websites like the Alberta Solicitor General’s attempt to put actual faces to this crime narrative by providing photographs, as though we would recognize these individuals if we happened upon them, what should actually be done in terms of precautionary measures is left unsaid. In effect, the disclaimer suggests that what we might do is up to us: “Alberta is not responsible for, and expressly disclaims all liabilities for, damages of any kind arising out of the use, reference to, or reliance on such information” (Government of Alberta 2020d).

174  Pathways to Ruin?

As individual citizens, we have become familiar with a range of precautionary measures associated with different types of crimes. To prevent property crime, we are told to use locks, hide valuables, never leave property unattended, park in well-lit areas, install motion detectors or surveillance cameras, and so on. Crime prevention tips for violent crimes are somewhat less “hardware-based” and focus on being aware of one’s surroundings, acting confidently, letting people know where you are going, going out with friends, minimizing drinking, etc. While all of these methods make sense, they are limited in that they are situationally based measures. Locking the doors of your car may prevent it from being stolen (this time), but the theft may simply be displaced to your neighbour’s car, or a car down the street. Similarly, we can learn to avoid areas where muggings are known to occur, but the mugging may still occur – with another victim. The point is that while individuals may be able to reduce their personal likelihood of being victimized, other opportunities for crime may leave someone else as victim. There is also the problem that the precautionary measures for avoiding personal crime do little to deter crime when offending occurs among intimates, among family members, or in the context of individuals who may have used grooming techniques to gain proximity to vulnerable individuals/victims. A substantial portion of crimes committed by individuals who are high-risk are exactly these types of crimes. Precautionary measures tend to limit our focus to the immediate conditions associated with crime situations and are both part of and bolster the popular crime narrative by suggesting that the immediate situation is the crime story: victims probably didn’t take the right precautions and criminals took full advantage. Dealing with crime is a matter, then, of individuals altering situations to make them less conducive to crime. “Doing something about crime” or “taking suitable precautions” means that participants must take responsibility for crime occurrences. Potential victims must mindfully take suitable precautions (left undefined) and potential offenders must recognize and avoid situations that offer temptations and opportunities for crime. This is the definition of “responsibilization,” where individuals take on responsibility for their own security. We hope that the stories presented here make it clear that precursors to offending happen well in advance of the crime scene. The pathways of individuals in this book suggest that offences emerge out of personal and social histories that far precede immediate situations. While it is true that opportunity plays a role in crime, trajectories that enable crime are often launched long before the situational opportunity occurs. The life-course perspective highlights the



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  175

notion of cumulative disadvantage with the circumstances preceding a crime under way well in advance. Recognizing the multitude of factors that may influence the likelihood of crime enables us to understand much more about crime than the popular narrative allows for, as well as to more accurately assess how interventions might be better placed much before the “situation,” which often places misdirected weight on immediate circumstances, such as the alcohol consumed or the lack of guardianship characterizing a crime event. For many of the individuals considered here, there were missed opportunities not only for specific individuals to derail crime careers and step in with positive support, but also for entire support systems that instead appear to have disengaged. For example, school failure is not simply a reflection of the students’ and teachers’ performances but is also often evidence of systemic issues that pave the way for failure over success. Abused students who attend schools that are overcrowded and underfunded, for example, may not come to the attention of teachers who are overworked and struggling to find time for every student. Similarly, the overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black individuals in the justice system is evidence of the systemic issues that plague those and other communities where individuals are overpoliced and underserved in education, healthcare, employment, and other vital areas. The police are tasked with the job of monitoring high-risk offenders who come under the purview of Section 810 peace bonds. Certain ethical issues could be raised regarding those who have “done their prison time” then being monitored closely by police upon their release. Assessments, however, indicate that these individuals are less likely to reoffend when monitored. Further, while those under Section 810 supervision are less likely to reoffend in terms of substantive crime, pressure is placed on these individuals to conform to an onerous list of conditions that can easily be breached (especially while being closely monitored) and therefore they are in danger of adding to their criminal records through administrative breaching charges. Monitoring is therefore a double-edged sword. Although many monitored individuals may acquire further (often administrative) charges, the active monitoring that the police provide is often the most enduring relationship that these individuals have experienced. While undoubtedly the police are a positive influence in the lives of many of those they keep track of, it is apparent that the criminal justice system is a stop-gap method of dealing with issues that should be identified much earlier in the life course. As we have noted throughout this book, there are multiple instances of system failure within institutions such as the family, education, and healthcare, etc., that have contributed to where these men

176  Pathways to Ruin?

end up. Clearly, there are multiple prevention and intervention points before individuals have their first contact with police and this is where we must focus our attention. Turning to the police, or the criminal justice system, as a means of dealing with crime must be a method of last resort. The identification of flags and signs associated with high-risk offending seem nearly obvious when looking back on the lives of these individuals. Psychological assessments upon arrest or during prison admission, however, can do little to reverse either past abuses endured by these individuals or the pain suffered by their victims. Increasingly, correctional facilities are considered a “first resort” and are asked to address issues that long precede admission. The criminal justice system is often tasked with managing a variety of problems from abuse and addictions to mental illness, issues that lie well outside of their expertise. What is increasingly apparent is that, as it stands, the criminal justice system can only be expected to manage offending but is not well-positioned to effectively treat and respond to the wide-ranging issues that contribute to offending in the first place. While the correctional system attempts to offer some programming to those they house, the reality is that these programs are voluntary, often understaffed, and, perhaps most important, offered in the context of punishment. The criminal justice system has tended to be overly focused on retribution, to the detriment of other goals such as rehabilitation and reintegration. While there is no doubt that those who commit serious crime require punishment, our analysis suggests that in order to meaningfully reduce crime it is necessary to deal with the backgrounds and underlying issues that appear to contribute to offending and must be addressed if criminal activity is to stop. Our examination reinforces the necessity to look beyond the siloed approaches that the criminal justice system is currently mired in, giving equal time to rehabilitation, for example, as it does to retribution. Progress has been made regarding psychological and addictions programming, but we suggest that these efforts require that medical and mental health professionals are considered equal partners in the effort to address offending: the police cannot be the only service provider dedicated to reducing crime and its associated precursors, such as mental health. Reducing offending and victimization requires a multidisciplinary approach. If we consider crime as a public health issue (i.e., Reingle et al. 2014), we begin to circumvent some of the hurdles associated with labels that pin blame exclusively on depraved offenders or on unwitting victims who should have known better. A public health model considers crime



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  177

as a matter to be dealt with not unlike the health implications that accompany a range of risky behaviours, from poor diet, unprotected sex, to drug and alcohol abuse, and so on. Rather than attempting to address crime through the criminal justice system alone and making crime an enforcement issue, a health model views crime as similar to other potentially health-threatening behaviours. And rather than waiting for emergency services to address the outcomes of exposure to health threats, the emphasis in a health model is to prevent exposure and redress vulnerabilities as they occur. Among children who have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), for example, instead of waiting for issues to emerge (such as ill health, addictions, and participation in crime), these exposures ought to be managed as early as possible to prevent conditions from developing. In chapter 2, developmental cascades were described as negative events that set off processes that may colour our perspectives and affect the way we navigate our environments for many years to come, at the same time predisposing us to other negative experiences. The challenge, of course, is to not simply identify the issues that research has confirmed are implicated in subsequent behaviour, but also to address these issues immediately in order to derail pathways to future negative consequences. A health model applied to high-risk offending shifts the focus from the individual to the social conditions that create and sustain criminal activity and the means by which crime can be prevented. While we encourage a response to crime that goes beyond punishment and involves health and other professionals, we understand and appreciate that the criminal justice system is highly influenced by the public’s retributive approach to crime, which is bolstered by the popular crime narrative. The public is generally supportive of the notion that offenders require punishment while appearing to care little about the contexts from which offending emerges. This may change, however, as the police and criminal justice system are increasingly put under the microscope. Recent protests regarding police brutality and defunding the police may be leveraged to re-examine the larger role that police (and the criminal justice system) have played in addressing offending, encouraging room for other voices and other means of responding to offending. We feel somewhat encouraged as well by the “bystander intervention” orientation that has emerged in recent years which encourages people to act when they see crime and abusive behaviour. Perhaps people will be more willing to call out and identify wrongdoing, such as abuse and neglect among children, long before these victims potentially emerge as offenders later in life.

178  Pathways to Ruin?

The Future “… you cannot negotiate with these people in crimes. They’re very, very difficult … You’re not going to change their way of thinking is I guess what I’m trying to say.” John Douglas, former FBI agent (Levy 2019)

John Douglas, a former FBI agent, has made a career of interviewing society’s most dangerous offenders, developing a means of profiling serial killers in order to stop their continued destruction. His profiling method has become world famous and he has trained many agents in what he calls an investigative perspective, suggesting that the experts in crime are those who perpetrate crimes. This is very likely true; individuals who commit crimes know a lot about committing crime. We would argue, however, that understanding why individuals commit crime is a very different task and hearing individuals’ perspectives into themselves is one among many sources that can provide insight into their behaviours and how they have evolved. Most important, a lifecourse perspective maintains that trajectories of crime can be derailed. Pathways, while in some cases difficult to alter, are not set in stone. Specifically, we are drawn to the life-course perspective due to the firm belief that the past and present matter. If we want to truly begin to understand why crime occurs, we must consider the historical, social, and personal contexts that underlie crime events. Central to the lifecourse perspective is the notion that individuals are, in fact, not predetermined to be a certain way or to become a certain thing. A focus on the life course suggests a degree of plasticity or adaptability to the circumstances of one’s environment (both individually and socially), especially when we consider the neurotoxicity hypothesis which relies on the interaction between our body’s biology and the environment. Changes to the environment can redirect individuals toward pathways that are less self- and other-destructive. The labels that we use to identify particular individuals, such as high risk or long term, are not labels that necessarily apply for entire lifetimes. Even the courts recognize that the label high risk can change, as we note that the application of the “long-term serious offender” label includes regular psychological reassessments to determine if the label still applies. This underscores that circumstances can change, and formal designations become outdated. Further, if the public cannot be provided with specific information that might reduce their chances of future victimization (at the hands of highrisk offenders), it is difficult to suggest that these labels do anything



Conclusion: Revisiting the Crime Narrative  179

more than instil fear in the public. At the same time, these labels may reduce feelings of self-efficacy among those labelled as high-risk and reduce motivation to change. During the course of collecting this data, our hearts broke many times over. The horrific crimes that some of these individuals perpetrated are seared into our brains and we will never again look at basement windows, bungee cords, or cable ties the same way. When we started the process of data collection, we were told that we could take advantage of police counselling services, a comment that, at the time, we knew “we would never need.” As we read the files, however, we began to understand. Just as basement windows may now disturb us, so too does the idea that during our own childhoods, our peers at kindergarten or at elementary or high school might have been the victim of the horrific abuses that some of these high-risk individuals experienced or perpetrated. Yet, in our reading of the files, we saw again and again many missed opportunities for compassion and help throughout the lifetimes of these individuals and observed that so many systems (and people) could have better served them and their often-struggling families. The life-course perspective offers a lens through which to view crime and its participants that offers hope that turning points can, in fact, occur. While we strongly condemn the crimes these individuals have committed, we hope that looking beyond the popular crime narrative forces us to view high-risk individuals with as much compassion as condemnation; the Rubin vase of high-risk offending requires that we do both.

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix: Methods

The stories of the individuals we consider here were identified through a large government-funded collaborative research project undertaken by the authors. Our partners included the Alberta Government’s Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General and several police units from different municipalities. The goal of that study was to assess the effectiveness of offender management strategies used to monitor individuals released into the community, especially those designated as a high risk to reoffend. As noted in chapter 1, the formal designation of “high-risk” is applied by the courts typically to individuals who are suspected “on reasonable grounds” to be likely to commit a serious personal injury. These formal designations are often applied to those who have a history of crimes against the person of a violent and sometimes sexual nature in an effort to ensure the safety of the public (Solicitor General Canada 2001). The stories we take up in this book are from a police unit that was tasked with assessing potentially “high-risk” individuals and monitoring those who received this designation. Here, we begin with a brief discussion about the ethical principles that guided our research and the processes involved in undertaking this research project. Following this, we discuss the methods involved in data collection for the larger project and for our book specifically. To better contextualize the stories of these men, we discuss our data sources, provide a description of the characteristics of the population to which these individuals belong, include a brief explanation of the variables we have included in other publications and that we sometimes discuss throughout the book, and finish with a brief account of our methodological approach. Research Ethics Ethical concerns are critical when engaging in research with people or their information. These considerations are essential as ethical principles,

182  Appendix: Methods

and guidelines of research ensure that we pursue and advance knowledge while protecting and respecting research participants (Panel on Research Ethics 2010). A central mechanism that helps to guarantee that research is undertaken ethically involves receiving approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). All research connected to a postsecondary institution involving humans and/or their data require such approval (University of Calgary 2020). A detailed description of this project was submitted to the University of Calgary Conjoint Research Ethics Board (CFREB) for ethical approval in 2011. We also submitted a Research Data Application form to respective police services to obtain permission from them to conduct research regarding offender management and gain access to data files on those who came under the purview of such units. We also received the necessary security clearance allowing us to be on site at police headquarters. Our approval extended to multiple sites and provided us with access to the records management system and paper records provided by the police for the purpose of this project. There was no direct contact with any of the individuals who had offended. A more detailed description of the data follows. Population and Data Sources The broader project included data collected in several metropolitan areas on individuals subject to Section 810.1/810.2 peace bonds as well as individuals who came under the purview of a high-risk policing unit for assessment. This second group of offenders, who were ultimately deemed not to present a significant and imminent risk to the safety of the public, had criminal histories that were serious enough that either Correctional Service Canada flagged them for assessment prior to their release from prison, or they were referred to the unit by other means. Thus, all individuals who were issued a Section 810.1/810.2 order between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2014, as well as all those considered for high-risk identification were included in this larger study. The start date of January 1997 reflects the year during which legislation was passed by the federal government that allowed for the creation of a Section 810.2 order in an effort to protect the public against those who might commit a serious personal injury offence against any person (Solicitor General Canada 2001). The end date of 2014 reflects the end date of our study. It is important to note this is not a random sample of people who have offended but instead better describes the small group of individuals labelled “chronic and serious offenders” responsible for the bulk of offending (Blumstein et al. 1986). A total of 411 individuals were included in the study.



Appendix: Methods  183

The individuals included in the study were identified through an examination of relevant electronic databases and paper files pertaining to all individuals who came under the purview of the high-risk policing unit. Data for this project are secondary administrative data. Specific records include case notes from investigations conducted by the police, victim and witness statements, sentencing transcripts, criminal records, criminal profile reports, psychological assessments, discharge summaries, and National Parole Board reports. Data were often inconsistently available yet ranged from an individual’s date of birth to the point at which they were assessed, and, if warranted, the duration of supervision by the police. The multitude of files on each offender were combed through and we constructed a study database by pulling out as much information as possible from all the available documentation. These documents often contained information dating back to an individual’s childhood, information on parents and siblings, whether they experienced abuse as a child and what type, whether their parents were together, educational attainment, interpersonal relationships including romantic and peer relationships, work history, substance abuse, crimes committed as a youth, and adult criminal history. A key source of information regarding criminal history was the availability of criminal records for all individuals who were part of the study. The greatest challenge that we faced reconstructing individual narratives was, first and foremost, inconsistent information both between and within files. While the volume of information varied between individuals, information also varied within files. For some cases, we found that childhood histories were differently remembered (and/or reported) at one point in time versus another. For example, at age fifteen, an individual may be able to detail types of abuse experienced in childhood, whereas at forty-five years of age, that same individual may fail to even mention the abuse that occurred in childhood. Different audiences and different tellings of one’s history produced different accounts of past events. This was also the case with the retelling of crime events and the inclusion (or lack of) particular details. We managed this problem by generating narratives that focused on the most frequently occurring (and, in some cases, plausible) version of events. The limitations of using criminal justice data are well known, especially in relation to their generalizability: these data only capture a portion of all offending as they are limited to crimes that come to police attention and, often, result in arrest and conviction (Blumstein et al. 1986; Horney et al. 1995; Sampson and Laub 2003). While there are advantages to directly collecting information through self-reports, such as providing a more complete picture of offending over the life course

184  Appendix: Methods

(Elliott 1994; Widom 1989), that type of data also has limitations due to memory loss and social desirability. Further, few would self-identify as high-risk. While self-report data are noted to provide a more complete picture of offending over the life course (Elliott 1994; Widom 1989), many scholars have noted that official records are reliable in terms of capturing more serious offences since the likelihood of arrest increases with the severity of the offence committed: crimes such as murder and aggravated assault, albeit rare, result in a higher arrest rate (Blumstein et al. 1986; Sampson and Laub 2003; Widom 1989). These types of offences are more common among the population considered here as it is by virtue of the severity of their crimes that many have come to attention of the high-risk unit. Furthermore, due to the supervision many of these individuals experience, they have been subject to greater surveillance and thus even “nonserious” crimes (or non-interpersonal crimes) committed by these individuals are more likely to be detected. Consequently, given the population under study here, it is likely that the official data provide a more complete picture of offending over the life course than for less serious offending samples. A further limitation of the data, however, may be the additional form of bias that is introduced by using police files: information collected by the police is geared toward collecting evidence to secure a successful conviction in court. Thus information that has credibility as evidence for investigative or formal criminal proceedings will be prioritized. We acknowledge this and have made every effort to use information that has been confirmed by reports from the individuals themselves, as well as from other sources including pre-sentence reports and family history interviews. Some of our identified individuals were involved in high-profile court cases and we were able to use the information generated through media reports of court proceedings to substantiate the narratives we generated. These external reports may not reproduce the same biases that characterize information gathered by police. Given the type and extensiveness of the data available, this study affords the opportunity to link “criminal careers to personal characteristics and to other life events” over the life course (Blumstein et al. 1986, 11), a worthy endeavour according to pioneers of the criminal career paradigm. The range of information is remarkable as this data set has information that spans the life course from early childhood to late adulthood, something that is very rare among samples of individuals who offend. Despite the weaknesses associated with these data, they are collected from a unique population that provide valuable insight into offending across the life course.



Appendix: Methods  185

Population Characteristics The study included 411 individuals; this represents the population or total number of individuals either designated as high-risk or who were flagged as possible high-risk offenders from the period 1997 to 2014. Most were identified as men (401 or 98 per cent), leaving just nine or 2 per cent who were identified as women (the gender of one individual was not specified). Over half the population were white (57 per cent), 17 per cent were Indigenous or Metis, and 13 per cent were members of other racialized groups (e.g., Sudanese, South Asian, Filipino, etc.). A further 13 per cent of the sample had no information regarding race or ethnicity. As a reminder, the categories of gender and race/ethnicity reflect the details in the police documentation and formal histories. We suspect that certain assumptions are made about race/ethnicity (and gender) therefore we interpret these figures with caution. The men and women considered here were born between 1925 and 1995, meaning that their ages ranged from nineteen to eighty-nine years, with an average age of forty-six years old (in 2014 when data collection ended). Their ages at first conviction ranged from twelve to fifty-eight years old. Nearly half (47.5 per cent) were first convicted at age seventeen or younger, with nearly 87 per cent first convicted by thirty years of age. Thirteen per cent of these individuals received their first convictions after the age of thirty. Slightly over half of these individuals (52 per cent) had not been convicted during their adolescence, acquiring formal criminal records after the age of eighteen. Key Concepts and Measures Throughout the book, we refer to several key concepts and measures such as criminal career length, rates of employment, romantic relationships, and ACE scores. The following section provides a description of these concepts and how they were measured. These are included here to contextualize and provide additional details regarding patterns observed among the individuals from this project. It is important to note that these descriptive statistics reflect measures of the entire population. Some of these have appeared in other publications (see, for example, Humphrey and Gibbs Van Brunschot 2015 and 2018). Criminal career length and frequency of offending. Criminal career length and frequency of offending are both key dimensions of the criminal career paradigm and life-course studies in criminology. Criminal career length is defined as the length of time over which an individual offends and includes the sequence of crimes over time committed by

186  Appendix: Methods

an individual (Piquero et al. 2004). To understand patterns among the individuals in this population, we restricted the length of one’s criminal career to adulthood; thus, it is measured as the time in years between an individual’s first adult conviction (from eighteen years of age) and the end date of his most recent sentence (see Piquero et al. 2004 for a similar measurement). Frequency of offending is the total number of charges individuals incurred from the time they turned eighteen to the end of the study period. These charges may or may not have resulted in a conviction. This method allows for a more complete picture of an individual’s criminal activity than only counting charges that resulted in a conviction or only counting the most serious offence from a conviction event (Harris et al. 2009; Lyngstad and Skardhamar 2013; Sampson and Laub 2003). If an individual was found not guilty, if the charges were dismissed or there was an acquittal, these were not included in calculating frequency of offending. The information for these measures came from formal criminal records. These records contain several important pieces of information including convictions, conviction dates, court locations, associated charges (if any), and sentencing outcomes such as convictions (or other). There are several different outcomes possible such as: acquittal, not guilty, stay of proceedings, charges withdrawn, absolute or conditional discharges, probation, suspended sentence and probation, fine, conditional sentence, intermittent sentence, indeterminate sentence, and life sentence. If the outcome of the crime/charge is prison time, the length of sentence is also included. If a charge resulted in a not guilty verdict or an acquittal, these were not included in the counts. Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) score. The ACE score, made up of eight categories of experiences, is used to measure childhood exposure to abuse and family dysfunction in the first eighteen years of one’s life. The score is an additive index where the total number of ACEs each individual experienced is summed up (Anda et al. 2010; Felitti et al. 1998; Chapman et al. 2004). Given the inconsistent nature of the information from the police files, not all of the measures that have been included in more recent studies employing the ACE measure (see Baglivio et al. 2014, 2015a, and 2015b; Bellis et al. 2013; Craig et al. 2016) were available to us. For example, information on the experience of physical and emotional neglect, as well as the prevalence of household mental illness, was not uniformly available across all subjects so these measures were not included. The ACE index we created includes: 1. Emotional abuse: Reports indicate that the individual was insulted, put down, was threatened with violence and was spoken to or



Appendix: Methods  187

acted toward in a way that resulted in the individual being afraid (Baglivio et al. 2015b; Chapman et al. 2004; Felitti et al. 1998). 2. Physical abuse: There is indication that the person was a victim of physical abuse by a family member (Baglivio et al. 2015b). 3. Sexual abuse: Sexual abuse by an adult in the household (could include a relative, family friend, or stranger) was perpetrated against the individual (Baglivio et al. 2015b; Dube et al. 2001; Felitti et al. 1998). 4. Family violence: The subject witnessed conflict between parents that included verbal, threatening, aggressive, and/or overtly violent behaviour (Baglivio et al. 2015b). 5. Household substance abuse: There is a history of alcohol abuse or the use of street drugs among household members (Baglivio et al. 2015b; Chapman et al. 2004; Dube et al. 2001; Felitti et al. 1998). 6. Parental separation/divorce: Parents were either separated or divorced and the individual did not live with both his mother and father (Baglivio et al. 2015b; Chapman et al. 2004; Dube et al. 2001). 7. Foster care: The individual was placed in the care of someone other than his mother or father during childhood. This measure has not previously been part of the ACE score but was included here as an additional indicator of family dysfunction since individuals may have experienced both parental separation/divorce and foster care. Research indicates that placement in foster care is comorbid with previous experience of abuse and neglect (Osei, Gorey, and Hernandez Jozefowicz 2016) and that rates of mental illness and substance abuse are two to four times higher among children in foster care compared with those who are not in care (Havlicek, Garcia, and Smith 2013). Furthermore, research has shown that children in foster care are more likely to be arrested than those who were not in care (Stott and Gustavsson 2010; Yang, McCuish, and Corrado 2017). Given the deleterious effects noted, it is plausible that foster care adds to the accumulation of adversity experienced in childhood and should be included as separate from parental separation/divorce. 8. Criminal behaviour: A household member was involved in criminal activity and may have a history of incarceration (Baglivio et al. 2015b; Chapman et al. 2004; Dube et al. 2001; Felitti et al. 1998). The ACE score ranges from 0 to 8 where “0” indicates no exposure and “8” indicates exposure to all categories. Consistent with the literature in this area, if case records indicated that an individual had experienced

188  Appendix: Methods Table 4.  Frequency Distribution of ACEs ACE Score

Frequency

Per cent

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

195 50 34 38 40 33 13 13 0

47.91 12.29 8.35 9.34 9.83 8.11 3.19 3.19 0

one of the eight ACE indicators, they were coded as “1” for that ACE, while non-exposure resulted in a code of “0.” Given the imperfect nature of these data, if there was incomplete information about any given ACE, the person with the missing information was coded as not having been exposed; this is consistent with previous studies that have used the ACE score (see Felitti et al. 1998; Chapman et al. 2004; Dube et al. 2001). Table 4 shows the frequency distribution of the ACE score among the study population. Prosocial bonds. We also refer to several forms of relationships and attachments in adulthood that may serve as turning points in individual trajectories: employment, romantic relationships, children, and other support. Employment measures whether an individual has held employment for six months or longer as an adult (see Verbruggen, Blokland, and van der Geest (2012) for a similar threshold). Romantic relationships represent an individual’s ties to at least one live-in marital or common-law partner. We also included a measure for whether individuals had children as this has been noted as important turning point away from offending (Giordano et al. 2002; Monsbakken, Lyngstad, and Skardhamar 2013), and whether the individuals here had any positive and non-romantic relationships. These relationships are noted to be especially supportive for the individual and include relationships with parents, children, other family members, friends, or support groups in the community that individuals joined of their own volition. Several other measures were also used to better understand the patterns and distributions of key factors such as frequency of offending in adolescence, onset age, substance abuse, and time served. Frequency of offending in adolescence is the number of arrests an individual has incurred prior to the age of eighteen. Age at onset is the individual’s age at which they committed the first act that could or did result in a



Appendix: Methods  189

Table 5.  Descriptive Statistics for the Population and Key Measures (N = 407a) Measure

Mean or percentage

Standard deviation

Range

Gender (per cent men) Race/ethnicity (per cent White) Age Criminal career length (years) Frequency of offending ACE Score Per cent employed Per cent at least 1 romantic relationship Per cent with children Per cent with other support Frequency of offending in adolescence Per cent age of onset (13 years or older) Per cent with substance abuse issues Time served (years)

97.8% 57.7% 46.04 18.38 29.20 1.63 20.9% 58.0% 42.5% 48.6% 3.31 74.7% 61.7% 11.05

0.15 0.50 12.25 10.87 25.17 1.90 0.41 0.49 0.50 0.50 5.93 0.45 0.49 7.25

0–1 0–1b 19–89 0–55.99 0–150 0–8 0–1 0–1 0–1 0–1 0–39 0–1 0–1 0–31.47

 Listwise deletion was used to handle missing cases and this resulted in a total N of 407 offenders (out of 411) who were included in the calculation of these statistics. b  Eleven per cent of the sample was missing on this measure. In order to retain as many cases for analysis as possible, the decision was made to simply dichotomize this measure and include all missing cases as “non-White.” This does not have implications for the qualitative analysis carried out through this book and is simply to communicate broad patterns from the study population. a

criminal charge or conviction and was coded dichotomously so that 0 = younger than thirteen and 1 = thirteen or older (see Thornberry 2005). Substance abuse was a measure that considered whether an individual abused alcohol or drugs. Time served is total amount of time measured to the closest year that an individual has been incarcerated (see table 5). To get a better sense of their criminal careers, these individuals have a number of convictions on their official criminal records, ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 129 convictions. The average number of convictions was 27. Up to the end of 2014, these individuals had amassed more than 11,000 individual convictions. Of these 411 individuals, over 85 per cent (351) had at least one conviction for either a violent or sex crime. (Keep in mind that these people were specifically identified as high-risk due, often, to the nature of the crimes they have committed.) The types of convictions varied widely, ranging from relatively minor property offences to violent crimes such as physical and sexual assault. The table below (table 6) provides an indication of the types and nature of the charges and convictions that these individuals have on their records.

190  Appendix: Methods Table 6.  Percentage Distribution of Charges and Convictions by Offence Type Offence type

% (f)

Violent offence Sex offence Sex offence – against children Sex offence – other Threats Theft/Property Drugs Driving Administration Disorder

18.4 (2480) 3.2 (434) 5.9 (801) 0.1 (20) 3.7 (499) 28.6 (3860) 3.1 (414) 5.5 (744) 27.3 (3677) 4.1 (550)

We coded the charges and convictions in table 6 into ten different categories: violent offence consists of personal injury crimes such as robbery or assault and weapons-related offences; sex offence includes crimes such as sexual assault or voyeurism against adults; sex offence against children includes sexual interference or sexual assault against children; sex offences – other consists of crimes such as nudity or prostitution where the victim is over the age of consent (age sixteen); threats consist of crimes that include uttering threats and criminal harassment; theft/property consists of theft, arson, or fraud; drugs includes possession or trafficking of drugs; driving includes offences such as failing to stop at the scene of an accident or driving while ability impaired; administrative consists of crimes such as failing to attend court or breaching probation, and obstruction; and, finally, disorder consists of crimes such as causing a disturbance, vagrancy, and public destruction of property. Methodological approach While the data discussed above are included to provide more information about the broader population from which we draw our case studies, we use a qualitative approach in our effort to reduce the social distance we, both as researchers and members of the “law-abiding” public, feel with a group of people who are marginalized and othered (Jacques 2014). By examining their histories and weaving together their life stories we hope to better understand the complexity of their lives. We attempt to provide a holistic account of individual lives by developing a comprehensive picture of offending that incorporates a multitude of factors involved in offending over the life course (Cresswell 2013). In our effort to acknowledge the complex interactions between



Appendix: Methods  191

developmental history, relationships with parents, family members, teachers, partners, employers etc., engagement with various members of the justice system, and substance abuse, we use a case study approach. Case study research is often undertaken to reach an in-depth understanding of a small number of cases in order to better understand realworld behaviour (Yin 2012). While there are several ways in which to select cases in case study research, the starting point for our selection process was the use of a compelling theoretical framework (Yin 2009; see also Merriam 1998): developmental and life-course criminology applied to a group of individuals engaging in chronic and violent offending. Individuals designated as high risk present a challenge when examining offending as these are extreme offending cases and are not representative of the “average” street criminal. However, extreme cases which generate unusual interest (Cresswell, 2013) – also referred to as critical cases (Flyvbjerg 2006; Yin 2014) or intrinsic cases (Stake, 1995) – can provide theoretical refinement and verification. Investigation into outliers allows for greater reconciliation between theory and the real world (Sullivan 2011; see also Flyvbjerg 2006; Wright and Bouffard 2016; Yin 2014). Case studies provide rich, concrete, and contextdependent knowledge (Flyvbjerg 2006) that affords a more nuanced view into the complex processes, conditions, and contexts that give rise to offending (Flyvbjerg 2006; Wright and Bouffard 2016). We sought to provide a more integrated understanding of the diversity of offending trajectories that would incorporate the uniqueness of the personal conditions and experiences and go beyond isolated variables or popular crime narratives. As detailed above, our research relies on administrative criminal justice data rather than direct observations or interviews with individuals who have offended. As certain files were more complete than others, we endeavoured to select cases that had the most complete information from several different sources, from birth to interactions with the police, and including details such as family history, education, and the timing of events around employment history, onset of antisocial behaviour in childhood or youth, substance use, romantic relationships, the birth of children, and important deaths. Recall that all the men have a history of violent interpersonal offences and some of the men we discuss here have also committed sexual offences against adults and/or children. We provide a thick description of each life story organized into chronologies; analyse across cases to compare them; and discuss them in relation to key theoretical paradigms throughout the book (Cresswell 2013). While the case studies are our units of analysis, these

192  Appendix: Methods

cases are embedded in institutional and relationship contexts including policing, corrections, education, and employment, and less formal family and relationship systems. In addition to understanding the interplay between and among individual lives over time with these various systems, we comment on these broader relationship contexts and systems and discuss how different understandings of life histories emerge according to one’s position, i.e., the individual himself, arresting officer, parole officer, corrections officials, mental health professionals, family members, etc. We highlight these different perspectives where possible to demonstrate the multitude of forces that interact in the telling of a story.

References

Abracen, Jeffrey, and Jan Looman. 2015. Treatment of High-Risk Sexual Offenders: An Integrated Approach. England: Wiley Blackwell. Adalbjarnardottir, Sigrun. 2002. “Adolescent Psychosocial Maturity and Alcohol Use: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Longitudinal Data.” Adolescence 37(145): 19–53. Agnew, Robert. 2002. “Experienced, Vicarious, and Anticipated Strain: An Exploratory Study on Physical Victimization and Delinquency.” Justice Quarterly 19(4): 603–33. DOI: 10.1080/07418820200095371. Akins, Scott, Brett C. Burkhardt, and Charles Lanfear. 2014. “Law Enforcement Response to ‘Frequent Fliers’: An Examination of High-Frequency Contacts between Police and Justice-Involved Persons with Mental Illness.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 27(1): 1–18. DOI: 10.1177/0887403414559268. Anda, Robert F., Alexander Buchart, Vincent J. Felitti, and David W. Brown. 2010. “Building a Framework for Global Surveillance of the Public Health Implications for Adverse Childhood Experiences.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 39(1): 93–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.03.015. Apel, Robert, and Catherine Kaukinen. 2008. “On the Relationship between Family Structure and Antisocial Behavior: Parental Cohabitation and Blended Households.” Criminology 46(1): 35–70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125 .2008.00107.x. Apel, Robert, and Gary Sweeten. 2010. “The Impact of Incarceration on Employment during the Transition to Adulthood.” Social Problems 57(3): 448–79. DOI: 10.1525/sp.2010.57.3.448. Armstrong, Todd A. 2008a. “Exploring the Impact of Changes in Group Composition on Trends in Specialization.” Crime and Delinquency 54(3): 366–89. DOI: 10.1177/0011128707306120. Armstrong Todd A. 2008b. “Are Trends in Specialization across Arrests Explained by Changes in Specialization Occurring with Age?” Justice Quarterly 25(1): 201–22. DOI: 10.1080/07418820801954654.

194 References Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 1997. “Young People’s Conceptions of the Transition to Adulthood.” Youth and Society 29(1): 3–23. DOI: 10.1177/0044118X9702 9001001. Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2000. “Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens through the Twenties.” American Psychologist 55(5): 469–80. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469. Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2007. “Suffering, Selfish, Slackers? Myths and Reality about Emerging Adults.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36(1): 23–9. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-006-9157-z. Arum, Richard, and Irene R. Beattie. 1999. “High School Experience and the Risk of Adult Incarceration.” Criminology 37(3): 515–40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745 -9125.1999.tb00495.x. Ayers, Charles D., James Herbert Williams, J. David Hawkins, Peggy L. Peterson, Richard F. Catalano, and Robert D. Abbott. 1999. “Assessing Correlates of Onset, Escalation, De-Escalation, and Desistance of Delinquent Behaviour.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15(3): 277–306. DOI: 10.1023/A:1007576431270. Baglivio, Michael T., Nathan Epps, Kimberly Swartz, Mona Sayedul Huq, Amy Sheer, and Nancy S. Hardt. 2014. “The Prevalence of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) in the Lives of Juvenile Offenders.” OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice 3(2): 1–23. Baglivio, Michael T., Kevin T. Wolff, Nathan Epps, and Randy Nelson. 2015a. “Predicting Adverse Childhood Experiences: The Importance of Neighborhood Context in Youth Trauma Among Delinquent Youth.” Crime and Delinquency 63(2): 166–88. DOI: 10.1177/0011128715570628. Baglivio, Michael T., Kevin T. Wolff, Alex R. Piquero, Shay Bilchik, Katherine Jackowski, Mark A. Greenwalk, and Nathan Epps. 2016. “Maltreatment, Child Welfare, and Recidivism in a Sample of Deep-End Crossover Youth.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45(4): 625–54. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-015 -0407-9. Baglivio, Michael T., Kevin T. Wolff, Alex R. Piquero, and Nathan Epps. 2015b. “The Relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) and Juvenile Offending Trajectories in a Juvenile Offender Sample.” Journal of Criminal Justice 43: 229–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.04.012. Bandura, Albert, Gian Vittoria Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli, Maria Gerbino, and Concetta Pastorelli. 2003. “Role of Affective Self-Regulatory Efficacy in Diverse Spheres of Psychosocial Functioning.” Child Development 74(3): 769–82. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00567. Beaver, Kevin M. 2008. “Nonshared Environmental Influences on Adolescent Delinquent Involvement and Adult Criminal Behavior.” Criminology 46(2): 351–69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00112.x. Beckley, Amber L., Avshalom Caspi, Louise Arseneault, J.C. Barnes, Helen L. Fisher, Honalee Harrington, Renate Houts, Nick Morgan, Candice L.



References 195

Odgers, Jasmin Wertz, and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2017. “The Developmental Nature of the Victim-Offender Overlap.” Journal of Developmental and Life Course Criminology 4(1): 24–49. DOI: 10.1007/s40865-017-0068-3. Beckley, Amber L., Avshalom Caspi, Honalee Harrington, Renate M. Houts, Tara Renae Mcgee, Nick Morgan, Felix Schroeder, Sandhya Ramrakha, Richie Poulton. and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2016. “Adult-Onset Offenders: Is a Tailored Theory Warranted?” Journal of Criminal Justice 46: 64–81. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.03.001. Beckmann, Laura. 2019. “Family Relationships as Risks and Buffers in the Link between Parent-to-Child Physical Violence and Adolescent-to-Parent Physical Violence.” Journal of Family Violence 35: 131–41. DOI: 10.1007 /s10896-019-00048-0. Bellis, Mark A., Karen Hughes, Nicola Leckenby, Lisa Jones, Adriana Baban, Margarita Kachaeva, Robertas Povilaitis, Iveta Pudule, Gentiana Qirjako, Betül Ulukol, Marija Ralevah, and Natasa Terzic. 2014. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Associations with Health-Harming Behaviours in Young Adults: Surveys in Eight Eastern European Countries.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 92(9): 641–55. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.13.129247. Bellis, Mark A., Helen Lowey, Nicola Leckenby, Karen Hughes, and Dominic Harrison. 2013. “Adverse Childhood Experiences: Retrospective Study to Determine Their Impact on Adult Health Behaviours and Health Outcomes in a UK Population.” Journal of Public Health 36(1): 81–91. DOI: 10.1093 /pubmed/fdt038. Benson, Michael L. 2012. Crime and the Life Course: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Berens, Anne E., Sarah K.G. Jensen, and Charles A. Nelson III. 2017. “Biological Embedding of Childhood Adversity: From Physiological Mechanisms to Clinical Implications”. BMC Medicine 15(1): 1–12. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0895-4. Berg, Mark T., and Beth M. Huebner. 2011. “Reentry and the Ties That Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism.” Justice Quarterly 28(2): 382–410. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2010.498383. Bersani, Bianca E., and Elaine Eggleston Doherty. 2013. “When the Ties That Bind Unwind: Examining the Enduring and Situational Processes of Change behind the Marriage Effect.” Criminology 51(2): 399–433. DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12008. Bersani, Bianca E., and Elaine Eggleston Doherty. 2018. “Desistance from Offending in the Twenty-First Century.” Annual Review of Criminology 1: 111–34. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092112. Beutel, Mandred E., Ana N. Tibubos, Eva M. Klein, Gabriele Schmutzer, Iris Reiner, Ruya-Daniela Kocalevent, and Elmar Brahler. 2017. “Childhood Adversities and Distress – The Role of Resilience in a Representative Sample.” PLoS ONE 12 (3): e0173826. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173826.

196 References Blackstock, Cindy, Nico Trocmé, and Marlyn Bennett. 2004. “Child Maltreatment Investigations among Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Families in Canada.” Violence against Women 10(8): 901–16. DOI: 10.1177/1077801204266312. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, and David P. Farrington. 1988. “Criminal Career Research: Its Value for Criminology.” Criminology 26(1): 1–35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00829.x. Blumstein, Alfred, Jacqueline Cohen, Jeffrey A. Roth, and Christy A. Visher. 1986. Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals.” Vol. 1. of Report of the Panel on Research on Criminal Careers, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Boman, John H., Thomas J. Mowen, and George E. Higgins. 2019. “Social Learning, Self-Control, and Offending Specialization and Versatility among Friends.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 44(1): 3–22. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-018-9445-7. Bottoms, Anthony, Joanna Shapland, Andrew Costello, Deborah Holmes, and Grant Muir. 2004. “Towards Desistance: Theoretical Underpinnings for an Empirical Study.” The Howard Journal 43(4): 368−89. http://dx.doi.org .ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2004.00336.x. Bouffard, Jeffrey A. 2002. “The Influence of Emotion on Rational Decision Making in Sexual Aggression.” Journal of Criminal Justice 30(2): 121–34. DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00130–1. Bouffard, Jeffrey A., and Tasha Kunzi. 2012. “Sexual Arousal and Self-Control: Results from a Preliminary Experimental Test of the Stability of Self-Control.” Crime and Delinquency 58(4): 514–38. DOI: 10.1177/0011128708327645. Bouffard, Jeffrey A., and Stephen K. Rice. 2011. “The Influence of the Social Bond on Self-Control and the Moment of Decision: Testing Hirschi’s Redefinition of Self-Control.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 36(2): 138–57. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-010-9095-x. Boutwell, Brian B., J.C. Barnes, and Kevin M. Beaver. 2013a. “LifeCourse Persistent Offenders and the Propensity to Commit Sexual Assault.” Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 25(1): 69–81. DOI: 10.1177/1079063212452616. Boutwell, Brian B., J.C. Barnes, Raelynn Deaton, and Kevin M. Beaver. 2013b. “On the Evolutionary Origins of Life-Course Persistent Offending: A Theoretical Scaffold to Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 322: 72–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.01.005. Brannigan, Augustine. 1997. “Self Control, Social Control and Evolutionary Psychology: Towards an Integrated Perspective on Crime.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 39(4): 403–31. DOI: 10.3138/cjcrim.39.4.403. Brown, Jason, Aamena Kapasi, and Elizabeth Nowicki. 2019. “Expectations of Youth with a Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Adulthood: Caregiver



References 197

Perspectives.” Journal of Developmental Disabilities 24(2): 30–42. https:// canfasd.ca/wp-content/uploads/publications/41028-JoDD-24-2-v11f-30-42 -Brown-et-al.pdf. Bryan, Brielle. 2017. “Paternal Incarceration and Adolescent Social Network Disadvantage.” Demography 54(4): 1477–501. DOI: 10.1007/s13524-017-0589-8. Bushway, Shawn D., Terence P. Thornberry, and Marvin D. Krohn. 2003. “Desistance as a Developmental Process: A Comparison of Static and Dynamic Approaches.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19(2): 129−53. DOI: 10.1023/A:1023050103707. Capaldi, Deborah M., David C.R. Kerr, J. Mark Eddy, and Stacey S. Tiberio. 2016. “Understanding Persistence and Desistance in Crime and Risk Behaviours in Adulthood: Implications for Theory and Prevention.” Prevention Science 17(7): 785–93. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-015-0609-0. Capaldi, Deborah M., Hyoun K. Kim, and Lee D. Owen. 2008. “Romantic Partners’ Influence on Men’s Likelihood of Arrest in Early Adulthood.” Criminology 46(2): 267–99. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00110.x. Carlsson, Christoffer. 2013. “Masculinities, Persistence and Desistance.” Criminology 51(3): 661–93. DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12016. Carlsson, Christoffer, and Jerzy Sarnecki. 2016. “Life-Course Theories of Crime and Deviance.” In An Introduction to Life-Course Criminology, ed. C. Carlsson and J. Sarnecki, 29−51. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Carroll, Annemaree, Stephen Houghton, Robert Wood, Kerrie Unsworth, John Hattie, Lisa Gordon, and Julie Bower. 2009. “Self-Efficacy and Academic Achievement in Australian High School Students: The Mediating Effects of Academic Aspirations and Delinquency.” Journal of Adolescence 32(4): 797–817. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.10.009. Carter, Angela. 2019. “The Consequences of Adolescent Delinquent Behavior for Adult Employment Outcomes.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48(1): 17–29. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-018-0934-2. Cater, Asa K., and Johanna Sjogren. 2016. “Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence Describe Their Experiences: A Typology-Based Qualitative Analysis.” Children Adolescent Social Work Journal 33(6): 473–86. DOI: 10.1007/s10560-016-0443-7. Cauffman, Elizabeth, and Laurence Steinberg. 2000. “(Im) maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Why Adolescents May Be Less Culpable than Adults.” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 18(6): 741–60. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.416. CBC News. 2016. “Coming Soon to Your Community: The Sex Offender Next Door.” Cerda, Jessica A., Douglas M. Stenstrom, and Mathew Curtis. 2015. “The Role of Type of Offense and Work Qualifications on Perceived Employability of Former Offenders.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 40(2): 317–35. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-014-9244-8.

198 References Cernkovich, Stephen A., and Peggy C. Giordano. 1987. “Family Relationships and Delinquency.” Criminology 25(2): 295–321. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987 .tb00799.x. Chan, Jody, Lorraine Chuen, and Marsha McLeod. 2017. “Everything You Were Never Taught about Canada’s Prison Systems.” Intersectional Analyst. http://www.intersectionalanalyst.com/intersectional-analyst/2017/7/20 /everything-you-were-never-taught-about-canadas-prison-systems, accessed 2 September 2020. Chang, Xuening, Xueyan Jiang, Tamara Mkandarwire, and Min Shen. 2019. “Associations between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Health Outcomes in Adults Aged 18–59 Years.” PLoS ONE 14(2): e0211850. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211850. Chaparro, M. Pia, Michaela Benzeval, Elizabeth Richardson, and Richard Mitchell. 2018. “Neighborhood Deprivation and Biomarkers of Health in Britain: The Mediating Role of the Physical Environment.” BMC Public Health 18: 801 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5667-3. Chapman, Daniel P., Charles L. Whitfield, Vincent J. Felitti, Shanta R. Dube, Valerie J. Edwards, and Robert F. Anda. 2004. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and the Risk of Depressive Disorders in Adulthood.” Journal of Affective Disorders 82(2): 217–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2003.12.013. Chauhan, Preeti, Amie M. Schuck, and Cathy Spatz Widom. 2017. “Child Maltreatment, Problem Behaviors, and Neighborhood Attainment.” American Journal of Community Psychology 60(3–4): 555–67. DOI: 10.1002 /ajcp.12203. Chauhan, Preeti, and Cathy Spatz Widom. 2012. “Childhood Maltreatment and Illicit Drug Use in Middle Adulthood: The Role of Neighbourhood Characteristics.” Development and Psychopathology 24(3): 723–38. DOI: 10.1017/S0954579412000338. Cherry, Kendra. 2019. “Figure-Ground Perception in Psychology.” verywellmind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-figure-ground -perception-2795195, accessed 3 August 2019. Clark, Scott. 2019. Overrepresentation of Indigenous People in the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Causes and Responses. Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng /rp-pr/jr/oip-cjs/oip-cjs-en.pdf. Cohen, Lawrence E., and Bryan J. Vila. 1996. “Self-Control and Social Control: An Exposition of the Gottfredson-Hirschi/Sampson-Laub Debate.” Journal of Scandinavian Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 5(2): 125–50. Collins, James. 2009. “Social Reproduction in Classrooms and Schools.” Annual Review of Anthropology 38: 33–48. DOI: 10.1146/annurev .anthro.37.081407.085242.



References 199

Corburn, Jason. 2017. “Urban Place and Health Equity: Critical Issues and Practices.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(2): 117. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14020117. Corman, Hope, Kelly Noonan, Nancy E. Reichman, and Ofira SchwartzSoicher. 2011. “Life Shocks and Crime: A Test of the ‘Turning Point’ Hypothesis.” Demography 48(3): 1177–202. DOI: 10.1007/s13524-011-0042-3. Correctional Service Canada. 2016. “CORCAN: Employment and Employability Skills Training.” https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/correctional -process/002001-2004-eng.shtml, accessed 6 September 2020. Correctional Service Canada. 2017. “Detention.” https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca /lois-et-reglements/712-2-cd-eng.shtml#s8, accessed 6 September 2020. Correctional Service Canada. 2018. “Long-Term Supervision Orders.” https:// www.csc-scc.gc.ca/policy-and-legislation/719-cd-eng.shtml#d3, accessed 6 September 2020. Correctional Service Canada. 2019. “Programs for Offenders.” https://www .csc-scc.gc.ca/correctional-process/002001-2000-eng.shtml, accessed 6 September 2020. Craig, Jessica M., Michael T. Baglivio, Kevin T. Wolff, Alex R. Piquero, and Nathan Epps. 2016. “Do Social Bonds Buffer the Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences on Reoffending?” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(1): 3–20. DOI: 10.1177/1541204016630033. Craig, Jessica M., Brie Diamond, and Alex R. Piquero. 2014. “Marriage as an Intervention in the Lives of Criminal Offenders.” In Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders, edited by J. Humphrey, and P. Cordella, 19−37. New York: Springer. Creavey, Kristine L., Lisa M. Gatzke-Kopp, and Gregory M. Fosco. 2018. “Differential Effects of Family Stress Exposure and Harsh Parental Discipline on Child Social Competence.” Journal of Child Family Studies 27(2): 483–93. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-017-0913-3. Cresswell, J.W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. CTV News. 2017. “Convicted Toronto Rapist Released, Now Living in Montreal.” (5 May). http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/convicted-toronto -rapist-released-now-living-in-montreal-1.3399547; http://news.national post.com/news/canada/rejected-for-early-release-and-labelled-a-risk -high-park-rapist-back-on-the-streets-after-20-years-in-jail, accessed 7 September 2020. Cuevas, Celina, Kevin T. Wolff, and Michael T. Baglivio. 2017. “Self-Efficacy, Aspirations, and Residential Placement Outcomes: Why Belief in a Prosocial Self Matters.” Journal of Criminal Justice 52: 1–11. DOI: 10.1016 /j.jcrimjus.2017.06.006.

200 References Daily Script. 2020. The Shawshank Redemption. http://www.dailyscript.com /scripts/shawshank.html, accessed 6 September 2020. Damian, Rodica Ioana, Marion Spengler, Andreea Sutu, and Brent W. Roberts. 2019. “Sixteen Going on Sixty-Six: A Longitudinal Study of Personality Stability and Change across 50 Years.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117(3): 674–95. DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000210. Dannefer, Dale. 1987. “Aging as Intracohort Differentiation: Accentuation, the Matthew Effect, and the Life Course.” Sociological Forum 2 (2): 211–36. DOI: 10.1007/BF01124164. Dannefer, Dale. 2003. “Cumulative Advantage/Disadvantage and The Life Course: Cross-Fertilizing Age and Social Science Theory.” Journal of Gerontology: Series B 58(6): S327–37. DOI: 10.1093/geronb/58.6.S327. Darabont, Frank. 1994. The Shawshank Redemption [Motion Picture]. United States: Castle Rock Entertainment. (http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts /shawshank.html). Davis, Jordan P., Tara M Dumas, Benjamin L. Berye, Gabriel J. Merrin, Joseph R. Cimpian, and Brent W. Roberts. 2017. “Effect of Victimization on Impulse Control and Binge Drinking among Serious Juvenile Offenders from Adolescence to Adulthood.” Journal of Youth Adolescence 46(7): 1515–32. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-017-0676-6. DeLisi, Matt. 2005. Career Criminals in Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DeLisi, Matt, Justin Alcala, Abdi Kusow, Andy Hochstetler, Mark H. Heirigs, Jonathan W. Caudill, Chad R. Trulson, and Michael T. Baglivio. 2017. “Adverse Childhood Experiences, Commitment Offense, and Race/Ethnicity: Are the Effects Crime-, Race- and Ethnicity-Specific?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14(3): 331. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14030331. DeLisi, Matt, Kevin M. Beaver, Kevin A. Wright, John Paul Wright, Michael G. Vaughn, and Chad R. Trulson. 2011. “Criminal Specialization Revisited: A Simultaneous Quantile Regression Approach.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 36: 73–92. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-010-9083-1. DeLisi, Matt, Michael J. Elbert, and Alan J. Drury. 2018. “Federal Criminal Careers: An Empirical Examination of the Post-Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA).” American Journal of Criminal Justice 43: 792–809. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-018-9436-8. DeLisi, Matt, and Alex Piquero. 2011. “New Frontiers in Criminal Careers Research, 2000–2011: A State-of-the-Art Review.” Journal of Criminal Justice 39(4): 289–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.05.001. DiPrete, Thomas A., and Gregory M. Eirich. 2006. “Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments.” Annual Review of Sociology 32: 271–97. DOI: 10.1146 /annurev.soc.32.061604.123127.



References 201

Dong, Beidi, and Marvin D. Krohn. 2016. “Dual Trajectories of Gang Affiliation and Delinquent Peer Association during Adolescence: An Examination of Long-Term Offending Outcomes.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45(4): 746–62. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-016 -0417-2. Dube, Shanta R., Robert F. Anda, Vincent J. Felitti, Janet B. Croft, Valerie J. Edwards, and Wayne H. Giles. 2001. “Growing Up with Parental Alcohol Abuse: Exposure to Childhood Abuse, Neglect and Household Dysfunction.” Child Abuse and Neglect 25(12): 1627–40. DOI: 10.1016 /S0145-2134(01)00293-9. Dugan, Laura, and Robert Apel. 2005. “The Differential Risk of Retaliation by Relational Distance: A More General Model of Violent Victimization.” Criminology 43(3): 697–729. DOI: 10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00021.x. D’Unger, Amy V., Kenneth C. Land, P.L. McCall, and Daniel Nagin. 1998. “How Many Latent Classes of Delinquent/Criminal Careers? Results from Mixed Poisson Regression Analyses.” American Journal of Sociology 103(6): 1593–930. DOI: 10.1086/231402. Dupre, Matthew E. 2007. “Educational Differences in Age-Related Patterns of Disease: Reconsidering the Cumulative Disadvantage and Age-asLeveler Hypotheses.” Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 48(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/002214650704800101. Edwards, William, and Christopher Hensley. 2001. “Contextualizing Sex Offender Management Legislation and Policy: Evaluating the Problem of Latent Consequences in Community Notification Laws.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 45(1): 83–101. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X01451006. Elander, James, Michael Rutter, Emily Simonoff, and Andrew Pickles. 2000. “Explanations for Apparent Late Onset Criminality in a High-Risk Sample of Children Followed Up in Adult Life.” The British Journal of Criminology 40(3): 497–509. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/40.3.497. Elliott, Delbert S. 1994. “Serious Violent Offenders: Onset, Developmental Course, and Termination – The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address.” Criminology 32(1): 1−21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994 .tb01144.x. El Sayed, Sarah A., Daniel F. Pacheco, and Robert G. Morris. 2016. “The Link between Onset Age and Adult Offending: The Role of Developmental Profiles.” Deviant Behaviour 37(9): 989–1002. DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2016 .1161458. Evans, Sara Z., Leslie Gordon Simons, and Ronald L. Simons. 2012. “The Effect of Corporal Punishment and Verbal Abuse on Delinquency: Mediating Mechanisms.” Journal of Youth Adolescence 41(8): 156–71. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-012-9755-x.

202 References Evans, Sara Z., Leslie Gordon Simons, and Ronald L. Simons. 2016. “Factors That Influence Trajectories of Delinquency through Adolescence.” Journal of Youth Adolescence 45(1): 156–71. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-014-0197-5. Fagan, Jeffrey, and Sandra Wexler. 1987. “Family Origins of Violent Delinquents.” Criminology 25(3): 643–69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00814.x. Fagan, Jeffrey, and Deanna L. Wilkinson. 1998. “Social Contexts and Functions of Adolescent Violence.” In Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective, edited by D.S. Elliott, B.A. Hamburg and K.R. Williams, 55−93. New York: Cambridge University Press. Farmer, Mark, Anne-Marie McAlinden, and Shadd Maruna. 2016. “Sex Offending and Situational Motivation: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis of Desistance from Sexual Offending.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60(15): 1756–75. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X16668175. Farrall, Stephen, Anthony Bottoms, and Joanna Shapland. 2010. “Social Structures and Desistance from Crime.” European Journal of Criminology 7(6): 546−70. DOI: 10.1177/1477370810376574. Farrington, David P. 1989. “Early Predictors of Adolescent Aggression and Adult Violence.” Violence and Victims 4(2): 79–100. DOI: 10.1891/0886 -6708.4.2.79. Farrington, David P. 1992. “Criminal Career Research in the United Kingdom”. British Journal of Criminology 32(4): 521–36. DOI: 10.1093 /oxfordjournals.bjc.a048255. Farrington, David P. 2000. “Explaining and Preventing Crime: The Globalization of Knowledge – The American Society of Criminology 1999 Presidential Address.” Criminology 38(1): 1–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745 -9125.2000.tb00881.x. Farrington, David P. 2003. “Developmental and Life-Course Criminology: Key Theoretical and Empirical Issues – The 2002 Sutherland Award Address.” Criminology 41(2): 221–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00987.x. Farrington, David P, ed. 2005a. Integrated Developmental and Life-Course Theories of Offending: Advances in Criminological Theory. Vol 14. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers Farrington, David P. 2005b. “Childhood Origins of Antisocial Behavior.” Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 12(3): 177–90. DOI: 10.1002/cpp.448 Farrington, David P., Katherine M. Auty, Jeremy W. Coid, and Richard E. Turner. 2013. “Self-Reported and Official Offending from Age 10 to Age 56.” European Journal of Criminal Policy Research 19(2): 135–51. DOI: 10.1007 /s10610-012-9195-x. Farrington, David P., Darrick Jolliffe, J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, Karl G. Hill, and Rick Kosterman. 2003. “Comparing Delinquency Careers in Court Records and Self-Reports.” Criminology 41(3): 933–58. DOI: 10.1111 /j.1745-9125.2003.tb01009.x.



References 203

Farrington, David P., John F. MacLeod, and Alex R. Piquero. 2016. “Mathematical Models of Criminal Careers: Deriving and Testing Quantitative Predictions.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53(3): 336–55. DOI: 10.1177/0022427815620237. Farrington, Robert. 2014. “A College Degree Is the New High School Diploma.” Forbes, 29 September. https://www.forbes.com/sites /robertfarrington/2014/09/29/a-college-degree-is-the-new-high-school -diploma/#556f23bf4b44. Felitti, Vincent J., Robert F. Anda, Dale Nordenberg, David F. Williamson, Alison M. Spitz, Valerie Edwards, Mary P. Koss, and James S. Marks. 1998. “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine 14(4), 245–58. DOI: 10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8. Felson, Richard B., and Keri B. Burchfield. 2004. “Alcohol and the Risk of Physical and Sexual Assault Victimization.” Criminology 42(4): 837–59. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00538.x. Felson, Richard B., and Jeremy Staff. 2006. “Explaining the Academic Performance-Delinquency Relationship.” Criminology 44(2): 299–319. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00050.x. Fergusson, David M., Joseph M. Boden, and L. John Horwood. 2008. “Exposure to Childhood Sexual and Physical Abuse and Adjustment in Early Childhood.” Child Abuse and Neglect 32(5): 607-619. DOI: 10.1016 /j.chiabu.2006.12.018. Fergusson, David M., L. John Horwood, and Michael T. Lynskey. 1997. “Childhood Sexual Abuse, Adolescent Sexual Behaviors and Sexual Revictimization.” Child Abuse and Neglect 21(8): 789–803. DOI: 10.1016 /S0145-2134(97)00039-2. Ferreira, Joana. 2016. “Life-Course Criminology: Comparing the Dual Taxonomy and Age-Graded Theories of Criminal Behavior.” Inquiries Journal 8(6). DOI: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=1421. Finkelhor, David, Richard K. Ormrod, and Heather A. Turner. 2007. “PolyVictimization: A Neglected Component in Child Victimization.” Child Abuse and Neglect 31(1): 7–26. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.06.008. Finkelhor, David, Richard K. Ormrod, and Heather A. Turner. 2009a. “Lifetime Assessment of Poly-Victimization in a National Sample of Children and Youth.” Child Abuse and Neglect 33(7): 403–11. DOI: 10.1016 /j.chiabu.2008.09.012. Finkelhor, David, Richard K. Ormrod, Heather A. Turner, and Melissa Holt. 2009b. “Pathways to Poly-Victimization.” Child Maltreatment 14(4): 316–29. DOI: 10.1177/1077559509347012. Fitzgerald, Megan E., Annette D. Miles, and Sislena Ledbetter. 2019. “Experiences and Strategies of Young, Low-income, African-American

204 References Men and Families Who Navigate Violent Neighborhoods and Lowperforming Schools.” Societies 9(3): 1−36. DOI: 10.3390/soc9010003. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” In Qualitative Research Practice, edited by C. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium, and D. Silverman, 420−34. London: SAGE Publications. Ford, Julian D., Jon D. Elhai, Daniel F. Connor, and B. Christopher Frueh. 2010. “Poly-victimization and Risk of Posttraumatic, Depressive, and Substance Use Disorders and Involvement in Delinquency in a National Sample of Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent Health 46(6): 545–52. DOI: 10.1016 /j.jadohealth.2009.11.212. Fox, Bryanna Hahn, Nicolas Perez, Elizabeth Cass, Michael T. Baglivio, and Nathan Epps. 2015. “Trauma Changes Everything: Examining the Relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders.” Child Abuse and Neglect 46: 163–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.011. Fox, Kathryn J. 2013. “Incurable Sex Offenders, Lousy Judges and The Media: Moral Panic Sustenance in the Age of New Media.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 38: 160–81. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-012-9154-6. Franken, Aart, Terrie E. Moffitt, Christian E.G. Steglich, Jan Kornelis Dijkstra, Zeena Harakeh, and Wilma A.M. Vollebergh. 2016. “The Role of Self-Control and Early Adolescents’ Friendships in the Development of Externalizing Behavior: The SNARE Study.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45(9): 1800–11. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-015-0287-z. Freeman, Richard. 1996. “The Supply of Youths to Crime.” In Exploring the Underground Economy, edited by S. Pozo, 81−102. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Garbarino, James. 2017. “ACEs in the Criminal Justice System.” Academic Pediatrics 17(7): S32−3. DOI: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.09.003. Geller, Amanda, Irwin Garfinkel, Carey E. Cooper, and Ronald B. Mincy. 2009. “Parental Incarceration and Child Well-Being: Implications for Urban Families.” Social Science Quarterly 90(5): 1186–1202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540 -6237.2009.00653.x. Gibbs, John J., Dennis Giever, and Jamie S. Martin. 1998. “Parental Management and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(1): 40–70. DOI: 10.1177/0022427898035001002. Giele, Janet Z., and Glen H. Elder Jr. 1998. “The Life Course Mode of Inquiry.” In Methods of Life Course Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, edited by J.Z. Giele and G.H. Elder, 1−27. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Jennifer L. Rudolph. 2002. “Gender, Crime and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive



References 205

Transformation.” American Journal of Sociology 107(4): 990–1064. DOI: 10.1086 /343191. Giordiano, Peggy C., Jill A. Deines, and Stephen A. Cernkovich. 2006. “In and Out of Crime: A Life Course Perspective on Girls’ Delinquency.” In Gender and Crime: Patterns in Victimization and Offending, edited by Karen Heimer and Candace Kruttschnitt, 17−40. New York: New York University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1959. “The Moral Career of the Mental Patient.” Psychiatry 22(2): 123–42. DOI: 10.1080/00332747.1959.11023166. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation. New York: Penguin Random House. Goffman, Erving. 1969. “The Insanity of Place.” Psychiatry 32(4): 357–88. DOI: 10.1080/00332747.1969.11023600. Gottfredson, Michael. 2017. “Self-Control Theory and Crime.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology, 1−27. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/97801902 64079.013.252. Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gottfredson, Michael, and Travis Hirschi. 1986. “The True Value of Lambda Would Appear to Be Zero: An Essay on Career Criminals, Criminal Careers, Selective Incapacitation, Cohort Studies, and Related Topics.” Criminology 24(2): 213–34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb01494.x. Goulette, Natalie, and James Frank. 2018. “Examining Criminal Justice Practitioners’ Views on Collateral Consequences Policy.” American Journal of Criminal Justice 43(3): 724–44. DOI: 10.1007/s12103-017-9423-5. Government of Alberta. 2020a. “High-Risk Offenders.” https://www.alberta .ca/high-risk-offenders.aspx. Government of Alberta. 2020b. “High-Risk Offenders – Other Areas.” https:// www.alberta.ca/high-risk-offenders-other-areas.aspx#toc-0. Government of Alberta. 2020c. “Media Release.” https://www.alberta.ca /assets/documents/jsg-media-release-linden-bird.pdf. Government of Alberta. 2020d. “High-Risk Offenders – Calgary.” https:// www.alberta.ca/high-risk-offenders-calgary.aspx. Government of Canada. 2018. “Types of Conditional Release.” https://www .canada.ca/en/parole-board/services/parole/types-of-conditional-release .html, accessed 6 September 2020. Government of Canada. 2021. “Parole Decision-Making: Myths and Realities.” https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board/corporate/publications-and -forms/parole-decision-making-myths-and-realities.html, accessed 13 September 2021. Hagan, John, and Alberto Palloni. 1988. “Crimes as Social Events in the Life Course: Reconceiving a Criminological Controversy.” Criminology 26(1): 87–100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00833.x.

206 References Hagler, Matthew, Sherry Hamby, John Grych, and Victoria Banyard. 2016. “Working for Well-Being: Uncovering the Protective Benefits of Work through Mixed Methods Analysis.” Journal of Happiness Studies 17(4): 1493–510. DOI: 10.1007/s10902-015-9654-4. Haney, Craig. 2001. “The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison Adjustment.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved 31 August 2019 from https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report /psychological-impact-incarceration-implications-post-prison-adjustment#II. Haney, Lynne. 2018. “Incarcerated Fatherhood: The Entanglements of Child Support Debt and Mass Imprisonment.” American Journal of Sociology 124(1): 1–48. DOI: 10.1086/697580. Hanson, R. Karl, Andrew J.R. Harris, Leslie Helmus, and David Thornton. 2014. “High-Risk Sex Offenders May Not Be High Risk Forever.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29 (15): 2792–813. DOI: 10.1177/0886260514526062. Harding, David J., Shawn D. Bushway, Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Anh P. Nguyen. 2018. “Imprisonment and Labor Market Outcomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” American Journal of Sociology 124(1): 49–110. DOI: 136.159.235.223. Harris, Danielle A., Paul Mazerolle, and Raymond A. Knight. 2009. “Understanding Male Sexual Offending: A Comparison of General and Specialist Theories.” Criminal Justice and Behaviour 36(10): 1051–69. DOI: 10.1177/0093854809342242. Harrison, Karen. 2010, ed. Managing High Risk Sex Offenders in the Community: Risk Management, Treatment and Social Responsibility. London: Willan. Havlicek, Judy, Antonio Garcia, and Douglas C. Smith. 2013. “Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders among Foster Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: Past Research and Future Directions.” Child Youth Service Review 35(1): 194-203. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.10.003. Hay, Carter. 2001. “Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of SelfControl Theory”. Criminology 39(3): 707–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001 .tb00938.x. Haynie, Dana L. 2002. “Friendship Networks and Delinquency: The Relative Nature of Peer Delinquency.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 18(2): 99–134. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015227414929. Hildyard, Kathryn L., and David A. Wolfe. 2002. “Child Neglect: Developmental Issues and Outcomes.” Child Abuse and Neglect 26(6–7): 676–95. DOI: 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00341-1. Hill, Gary D., and Maxine P. Atkinson. 1988. “Gender, Familial Control and Delinquency.” Criminology 26(1): 127–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988. tb00835.x. Hill, Jessica M., Arjan A. J. Blokland, and Victor R. van der Geest. 2016. “Desisting from Crime in Emerging Adulthood: Adult Roles and the



References 207

Maturity Gap.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53(4): 506–35. DOI: 10.1177/0022427816628586. Hirschi, Travis. 2004. “Self-Control and Crime.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications, edited by R.F. Baumeister and K.D. Vohs, 537–52. New York: Guilford Press. Hoffman, John P., and Felicia Gray Cerbone. 1999. “Stressful Life Events and Delinquency Escalation in Early Adolescence.” Criminology 37(2): 343–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00489.x. Horan, Jacqueline M., and Cathy Spatz Widom. 2015. “Does Age of Onset of Risk Behaviors Mediate the Relationship between Child Abuse and Neglect and Outcomes in Middle Adulthood?” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44(3): 670–82. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-014-0161-4. Horney, Julie D., D. Wayne Osgood, and Ineke Haen Marshall. 1995. “Criminal Careers in the Short-Term: Intra-Individual Variability in Crime and Its Relation to Local Life Circumstances.” American Sociological Review 60(5): 655–73. DOI: 10.2307/2096316. Hoskins, Natalie, and Adrianne Kunkel. 2020. “‘I Don’t Even Deserve a Chance’: An Ethnographic Study of Adverse Childhood Experiences among Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence.” The Qualitative Report 25(4): 1009–37. Howell, James C. 1999. “Youth Gang Homicides: A Literature Review.” Crime and Delinquency 45(2): 208–41. DOI: 10.1177/0011128799045002003. Huebner, Beth M. 2005. “The Effect of Incarceration on Marriage and Work over the Life Course.” Justice Quarterly 22(3): 281–303. DOI: 10.1080/07418820500089141. Humphrey, Tamara, and Erin E. Gibbs Van Brunschot. 2015. “Post-Sentencing Supervision: Punishment and/or Protection?” International Criminal Justice Review 25(4): 379–401. DOI: 10.1177/1057567715604716. Humphrey, Tamara, and Erin E. Gibbs Van Brunschot. 2017. “Measurement Matters: Offence Types and Specialization.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence: 1–24 (Online ahead of print). DOI: 10.1177/0886260517729401. Humphrey, Tamara, and Erin E. Gibbs Van Brunschot. 2018. “Accumulating (Dis)advantage: Do Social Bonds Mediate the Relationship between Multiple Childhood Adversities and Persistent Offending?” Journal of Development and Life Course Criminology 4(3): 297–321. DOI: 10.1007 /s40865-018-0083-z. Jacques, Scott. 2014. “The Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Criminology: A Theory of Ideas’ Importance, Attractiveness, and Publication.” Theoretical Criminology 18(3): 317–34. DOI: 10.1177/1362480613519467. Jennings, Wesley G. 2015. “Life Course/Developmental Theories.” In The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, edited by W.G. Jennings, 1st ed, 1−8. New York: Wiley and Sons. DOI: 10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx152.

208 References Jennings, Wesley G., Rolf Loeber, Lia Ahonen, Alex R. Piquero, and David P. Farrington. 2018. “An Examination of Developmental Patterns of Chronic Offending from Self-Report Records and Official Data: Evidence from the Pittsburgh Girls Study (PGS).” Journal of Criminal Justice 55(C): 71–9. DOI: 10.1016/j. jcrimjus.2017.12.002. Jennings, Wesley G., Alex R. Piquero, Michael Rocque, and David P. Farrington. 2015. “The Effects of Binge and Problem Drinking on Problem Behavior and Adjustment over the Life Course: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.” Journal of Criminal Justice 43(6): 453–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.09.002. Jimenez, Manuel E., Roy Wade, Yong Lin, Lesley M. Morrow, and Nancy E. Reichman. 2016. “Adverse Experiences in Early Childhood and Kindergarten Outcomes.” Pediatrics 137(2): e20151839. DOI: 10.1542 /peds.2015-1839. Johnson, Monica Kirkpatrick, Rayna Amber Sage, and Jeylan T. Mortimer. 2012. “Work Values, Early Career Difficulties, and the U.S. Economic Recession.” Social Psychology Quarterly 75(3): 242–67. DOI: 10.1177/019027 2512451754. Jones, Damon E., Mark Greenberg, and Max Crowley. 2015. “Early SocialEmotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship between Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness.” American Journal of Public Health 105(11): 2283–90. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630. Justice Laws. 1985. Criminal Code. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46, accessed 6 September 2020. Kandel, Denise, and Mark Davies. 1991. “Friendship Networks, Intimacy, and Illicit Drug Use in Young Adulthood: A Comparison of Two Competing Theories.” Criminology 29(3): 441–67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991. tb01074.x. Kane, Jennifer B., and Claire Margerison-Zilko. 2017. “Theoretical Insights into Preconception Social Conditions and Perinatal Health: The Role of Place and Social Relationships.” Population Research Policy Review 36(5): 639–69. DOI: 10.1007/s11113-017-9430-8. Kaplan, Sandra J., David Pelcovitz, and Victor Labruna. 1999. “Child and Adolescent Abuse and Neglect Research: A Review of the Past 10 Years. Part I: Physical and Emotional Abuse and Neglect.” Journal of the American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychiatry 38(10): 1214–22. DOI: 10.1097/00004583-199910000-00009. Kaufman-Parks, Angela M., Alfred DeMaris, Peggy C. Giordano, Wendy D. Manning, and Monica A. Longmore. 2018. “Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration from Adolescence to Young Adulthood: Trajectories and the Role of Familial Factors.” Journal of Family Violence 33(1): 27–41. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-017-9924-5.



References 209

Kazemian, Lila, and David P. Farrington. 2018. “Advancing Knowledge about Residual Criminal Careers: A Follow-Up to Age 56 from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.” Journal of Criminal Justice 57(C): 1–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.03.001. Kazemian, Lila, David P. Farrington, and Marc Le Blanc. 2009. “Can We Make Accurate Long-Term Predications about Patterns of De-escalation in Offending Behavior?” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38: 384–400. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-008-9338-z. Kazemian, Lila, David P. Farrington, and Alex Piquero. 2018. “Developmental and Life-Course Criminology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, edited by D.P. Farrington, L. Kazemian, and A. Piquero, 3−10. New York: Oxford. Kazemian, Lila, Cathy Spatz Widom, and David P. Farrington. 2011. “A Prospective Examination of the Relationship between Childhood Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.” International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies 2(1/2): 65–82. DOI: 10.18357/ijcyfs21/220115427. Keene, Danya E., Amy B. Smoyer, and Kim M. Blankenship. 2018. “Stigma, Housing and Identity after Prison.” The Sociological Review Monographs 66(4): 799–815. DOI: 10.1177/0038026118777447. Kemshall, Hazel. 2008. Understanding the Management of High-Risk Offenders. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. King, Ryan D., Michael Massoglia, and Ross MacMillan. 2007. “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending in Early Adulthood.” Criminology 45(1): 33–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00071.x. Krieger, Nancy. 2001. “Theories for Social Epidemiology in the 21st Century: An Ecosocial Perspective.” International Journal of Epidemiology 30(4): 668–77. DOI: 10.1093/ije/30.4.668. Kruttschnitt, Candace, David Ward, and Mary Ann Sheble. 1987. “AbuseResistant Youth: Some Factors That May Inhibit Violent Criminal Behavior.” Social Forces 66(2): 501–19. DOI: 10.1093/sf/66.2.501. Kyvsgaard, Britta. 2002. The Criminal Career: The Danish Longitudinal Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lagrange, Randy L., and Helene Raskin White. 1985. “Age Differences in Delinquency: A Test of Theory.” Criminology 23(1): 19–45. DOI: 10.1111 /j.1745-9125.1985.tb00324.x. La Prairie, Carol. 1996. Examining Aboriginal Corrections in Canada. Department of the Solicitor General. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns /xmnng-brgnl-crrctns/xmnng-brgnl-crrctns-eng.pdf. La Prairie, Carol. 2002. “Aboriginal Over-Representation in the Criminal Justice System: A Tale of Nine Cities.” Canadian Journal of Criminology 44(2): 181–208.

210 References Laub, John H., and Janet L. Lauritsen. 1993. “Violent Criminal Behavior over the Life Course: A Review of the Longitudinal and Comparative Research.” Violence and Victims 8(3): 235–52. DOI: 10.1891/0886-6708.8.3.235. Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 1993. “Turning Points in the Life Course: Why Change Matters to the Study of Crime.” Criminology 31(3): 301–25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01132.x. Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 2001. “Understanding Desistance from Crime.” Crime and Justice 28: 1–69. DOI: 10.1086/652208. Lauritsen, Janet L., John H. Laub, and Robert J. Sampson. 1992. “Conventional and Delinquent Activities: Implications for the Prevention of Violent Victimization among Adolescents.” Violence and Victims 7(2): 91–108. DOI: 10.1007/BF02221121. Lauritsen, Janet L., Robert J. Sampson, and John H. Laub. 1991. “The Link between Offending and Victimization among Adolescents.” Criminology 29(2): 265–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01067.x. LeBel, Thomas P., Ros Burnett, Shadd Maruna, and Shawn Bushway. 2008. “The Chicken and Egg of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance from Crime.” European Journal of Criminology 5(2): 131–59. DOI: 10.1177/1477370807087640. Levenson, Jill S., Michael Baglivio, Kevin T. Wolff, Nathan Epps, William “Chip” Royall, Katherine C. Gomez, and Dahlia Kaplan. 2017. “You Learn What You Live: Prevalence of Childhood Adversity in the Lives of Juveniles Arrested for Sexual Offences.” Advances in Social Work 18(1): 313–34. DOI: 10.18060/21204. Levy, Lisa. 2019. “John Douglas on his Life’s Work: Talking with Killers.” CrimeReads (29 May). https://crimereads.com/john-douglas-on-his-lifes -work-talking-with-killers/, accessed 7 September 2020. Liem, Johan Huser, Joan Gately O’Toole, and Jacquelyn Boone James. 1996. “Themes of Power and Betrayal in Sexual Abuse Survivors’ Characterizations of Interpersonal Relationships.” Journal of Traumatic Stress 9(4): 745–61. DOI: 10.1007/BF02104100. Loeber, Rolf, and Dale F. Hay. 1997. “Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence from Childhood to Early Adulthood.” Annual Review of Psychology 48(1): 371–410. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.371. Logan-Greene, Patricia, Paula S. Nurius, Carole Hooven, and Elaine Adams Thompson. 2015. “Life Course Associations between Victimization and Aggression: Distinct and Cumulative Contributions.” Childhood Adolescence Social Work Journal 32(3): 269–79. DOI: 10.1007/s10560-014-0358-0. Loppie, Charlotte and Fred Wien. 2009. Health Inequalities, Social Determinants, and Life Course Health Issues among Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. Prince George, BC: National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. Lussier, Patrick, Raymond R. Corrado, and Evan McCuish. 2016. “A Criminal Career Study of the Continuity and Discontinuity of Sex Offending during



References 211

the Adolescence-Adulthood Transition: A Prospective Longitudinal Study of Incarcerated Youth.” Justice Quarterly 33(7): 1123–53. DOI: 10.1080 /07418825.2015.1028966. Lussier, Patrick, Nadine Deslauriers-Varin, and Tricia Ratel. 2010. “A Descriptive Profile of High-Risk Sex Offenders under Intensive Supervision in the Province of British Columbia, Canada.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 54(1): 71–91. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X08323236. Lyngstad, Torkild H., and Torbjørn Skardhamar. 2013. “Changes in Criminal Offending around the Time of Marriage.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 50(4): 608–15. DOI: 10.1177/0022427812469516. MacMillan, Ross. 2000. “Adolescent Victimization and Income Deficits in Adulthood: Rethinking the Costs of Criminal Violence from a Life-Course Perspective.” Criminology 38(2): 553–88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000 .tb00899.x. Manzoni, Patrick, and Christian Schwarzenegger. 2018. “The Influence of Earlier Parental Violence on Juvenile Delinquency: The Role of Social Bonds, Self-Control, Delinquent Peer Association and Moral Values as Mediators.” European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research 25(1): 225–39. DOI: 10.1007/s10610-018-9392-3. Maruna, Shadd. 2012. “Elements of Successful Desistance Signalling.” Criminology and Public Policy 11(1): 73–86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00789.x. Maruna, Shadd, and Ruth E. Mann. 2006. “A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions.” Legal and Criminological Psychology 11(2): 155–77. DOI: 10.1348/135532506X114608. Matsueda, Ross L., and Kathleen Anderson. 1998. “The Dynamics of Delinquent Peers and Delinquent Behavior.” Criminology 36(2): 269–306. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01249.x. Maynard, Robin. 2017. Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing. Mazerolle, Paul, Robert Brame, Ray Paternoster, Alex Piquero, and Charles Dean. 2000. “Onset Age, Persistence, and Offending Versatility: Comparisons across Gender.” Criminology 38(4): 1143–72. DOI: 10.1111 /j.1745-9125.2000.tb01417.x. McAlinden, Anne-Marie, Mark Farmer, and Shadd Maruna. 2017. “Desistance from Sexual Offending: Do the Mainstream Theories Apply?” Criminology and Criminal Justice 17(3): 266–83. DOI: 10.1177/1748895816670201. McCord, Joan. 1991. “Family Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, and Adult Criminality.” Criminology 29(3): 397–417. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991 .tb01072.x. McGee, Tara R. and David P. Farrington. 2010. “Are There Any True Adult-Onset Offenders?” The British Journal of Criminology 50(3): 530-49. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azq008.

212 References McGloin, Jean Marie, Christopher Sullivan, Alex R. Piquero, and Sarah Bacon. 2008. “Investigating the Stability of Co-offending and Co-offenders among a Sample of Youthful Offenders.” Criminology 46(1): 155–88. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00105.x. McGloin, Jean Marie, Christopher Sullivan, Alex R. Piquero, Arjan Blokland, and Paul Nieuwbeerta. 2011. “Marriage and Offending Specialization: Expanding the Impact of Turning Points and the Process of Desistance.” European Journal of Criminology 8(5): 361–76. DOI: 10.1177/14773708114 14103. McGloin, Jean Marie, Christopher Sullivan, Alex R. Piquero, and Travis C. Pratt. 2007. “Local Life Circumstances and Offending Specialization/ Versatility: Comparing Opportunity and Propensity Models.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 44(3): 321–46. DOI: 10.1177/002242780 7302664. McLachlan, Kaitlyn, Allison McNeil, Jacqueline Pei, Ursula Brain, Gail Andrew, and Tim F. Oberlander. 2019. “Prevalence and Characteristics of Adults with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Corrections: A Canadian Case Ascertainment Study.” BMC Public Health 19(43): 1–10. DOI: 10.1186 /s12889-018-6292-x. Meloy, Michelle, Kristin Curtis, and Jessica Boatwright. 2013. “Policy-Makers’ Perceptions on Their Sex Offender Laws: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Criminal Justice Studies 26(3): 273–88. DOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2012.744307. Meningitis Foundation. 2020. “After Meningitis.” https://www.meningitis .ca/en/After-Meningitis, accessed 1 September 2020. Merriam, Sharan B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Miethe, Terance D., Jodi Olson, and Ojmarrh Mitchell. 2006. “Specialization and Persistence in the Arrest Histories of Sex Offenders: A Comparative Analysis of Alternative Measures and Offence Type.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43(3): 204–29. DOI: 10.1177/0022427806286564. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Antisocial Behaviour: A Developmental Taxonomy.” Psychological Review 100(4), 674–701. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674. Moffitt, Terrie E. 1997. “Neuropsychology, Antisocial Behavior, and Neighborhood Context.” In Violence and Childhood in the Inner City, edited by J. McCord, 116−70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moffitt, Terrie E. 2018. “Male Antisocial Behaviour in Adolescence and Beyond.” Nature Human Behaviour 2: 177–86. DOI: 10.1038/s41562 -018-0309-4. Moffitt, Terrie E., Donald R. Lynam, and Phil A. Silva. 1994. “Neuro­ psychological Tests Predicting Persistent Male Delinquency.” Criminology 32(2): 277–300. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01155.x.



References 213

Monchalin, Lisa. 2016. The Colonial Problem: An Indigenous Perspective on Crime and Injustice in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Monsbakken, Christian Weisӕth, Torkild Hovde Lyngstad, and Torbjørn Skardhamar. 2013. “Crime and the Transition to Parenthood: The Role of Sex and Relationship Context.” The British Journal of Criminology 53(1): 129–48. DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azs052. Montez, Jennifer Karas, and Mark D. Hayward. 2014. “Cumulative Childhood Adversity, Educational Attainment and Active Live Expectancy among U.S. Adults.” Demography 51(2): 413–35. DOI: 10.1007/s13524-013-0261-x. Mortimer, Jeylan T. 2012. “The Evolution, Contributions, and Prospects of the Youth Development Study: An Investigation in Life-Course Social Psychology.” Social Psychology Quarterly 75(1): 5−27. DOI: 10.1177/019027 2511434911. Mortimer, Jeylan T., Michael D. Finch, Timothy J. Owens, and Michael Shanahan. 1990. “Gender and Work in Adolescence.” Youth and Society 22(2): 201–24. DOI: 10.1177/0044118X90022002005. Muller, Robert T., Helen H. Goh, Kathryn E. Lemieux, and Sandra Fish. 2000. “The Social Supports of High-Risk, Formerly Maltreated Adults.” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 32(1): 1–8. DOI: 10.1037/h0087095. Muraven, Mark, R. Lorraine Collins, Saul Shiffman, and Jean A. Paty. 2005. “Daily Fluctuations in Self-Control Demands and Alcohol Intake.” Psychology of Addictive Behaviours 19(2): 140–7. DOI: 10.1037/0893-164X .19.2.140. Murray, Joseph, and David P. Farrington. 2008. “Parental Imprisonment: Long-Lasting Effects on Boys’ Internalizing Problems through the Life Course.” Development and Psychopathology 20(1): 273–90. DOI: 10.1017 /S0954579408000138. Nagin, Daniel S., and David P. Farrington. 1992. “The Onset and Persistence of Offending.” Criminology 30(4): 501–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992 .tb01114.x. Nagin, Daniel S., and Kenneth C. Land. 1993. “Age, Criminal Careers, and Population Heterogeneity: Specification and Estimation of a Nonparamentric, Mixed Poisson Model.” Criminology 31: 327–62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01133.x. Nagin, Daniel S., and Raymond Paternoster. 1993. “Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime.” Law and Society Review 27(3): 467–96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3054102. Nagin, Daniel S., and Raymond Paternoster. 2000. “Population Heterogeneity and State Dependence: State of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 16(2): 117−44. Nagin, Daniel S., and Richard Tremblay. 2005. “Developmental Trajectory Groups: Fact or a Useful Statistical Fiction?” Criminology 43(4): 873–904.

214 References https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005 .00026.x. Nagin, Daniel S., David P. Farrington, and Terrie E. Moffitt. 1995. “LifeCourse Trajectories of Different Types of Offenders.” Criminology 33(1): 111–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01173.x. Nieuwbeerta, Paul, Arjan A.J. Blokland, Alex R. Piquero, and Gary Sweeten. 2011. “A Life-Course Analysis of Offence Specialization across Age: Introducing a New Method for Studying Individual Specialization over the Life Course.” Crime and Delinquency 5(1): 3–28. DOI: 10.1177/0011128710 376336. Noel, Melanie, Maria Pavlova, Lauren McCallum, and Jillian Vinall. 2017. “Remember the Hurt of Childhood: A Psychological Review and Call for Future Research.” Canadian Psychology 58(1): 58–68. DOI: 10.1037 /cap0000098. Norman, Mark. 2017. “Sport in the Underlife of a Total Institution: Social Control in Canadian Prisons.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 52(5): 598–614. DOI: 10.1177/1012690215609968. OECD. 1998. Human Capital Investment: An International Comparison. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publications. Office of the Correctional Investigator. 2018. http://publications.gc.ca /collections/collection_2018/parl/xc76-1/XC76-1-1-421-22-eng.pdf, accessed 1 September 2020. O’Rand, Angela M. 2003. “Cumulative Advantage Theory in Life Course Research.” In Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics. Vol. 22, Focus on Economic Outcomes Later in Life, edited by S. Crystal, D. Shea and K. Warner Schaie, 14−30. New York: Springer. Osei, Gershon K., Kevin M. Gorey, and Debbie Hernandez Jozefowicz. 2016. “Delinquency and Crime Prevention: Overview of Research Comparing Treatment Foster Care and Group Care.” Child Youth Care Forum 45(1): 33–46. DOI: 10.1007/s10566-015-9315-0. Osgood, D. Wayne. 2005. “Making Sense of Crime and the Life Course.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602: 196–211. DOI: 10.1177/0002716205280383. Ozkan, Turgut. 2016. “Reoffending among Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Developmental Perspective.” Journal of Criminal Justice 46: 18–31. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.02.017. Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Journal of Sociology 108(5): 937–75. DOI: 10.1086/374403. Pager, Devah, and Lincoln Quillian. 2005. “Walking the Talk? What Employers Say versus What They Do.” American Sociological Review 70(3): 355–80. DOI: 10.1177/000312240507000301. Panel on Research Ethics. 2010. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Section 2, Free and Informed Consent. Retrieved



References 215

22 April 2020 (https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/tcps2-eptc2_2018_chapter2 -chapitre2.html). Parker, Howard. 1996. “Young Adult Offenders, Alcohol and Criminological Cul-De-Sacs.” British Journal of Criminology 36(2): 282–98. DOI: 10.1093 /oxfordjournals.bjc.a014086. Patterson, Gerald R., Elizabeth DeBaryshe, and Elizabeth Ramsey. 1989. “A Developmental Perspective on Antisocial Behaviour.” American Psychologist 44: 329–35. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.2.329. Patton, Wendy, and Patricia Noller. 1990. “Adolescent Self-Concept, Effects of Being Employed, Unemployed or Returning to School.” Australian Journal of Psychology 42(3): 247–59. DOI: 10.1080/00049539008260123. Pearlin, Leonard I. 1989. “The Sociological Study of Stress.” Journal of Health and Social Behaviour 30(3): 241–56. DOI: 10.2307/2136956. Perez, Nicholas M., Wesley G. Jennings, Alex R. Piquero, and Michael T. Baglivio. 2016. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Suicide Attempts: The Mediating Influence of Personality Development and Problem Behaviors.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45(8): 1527–45. DOI: 10.1007 /s10964-016-0519-x. Piquero, Alex R., and Jeff A. Bouffard. 2007. “Something Old, Something New: A Preliminary Investigation of Hirschi’s Redefined Self-Control.” Justice Quarterly 24(1): 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/07418820701200935. Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, and Donald Lynam. 2004. “Studying Criminal Career Length through Early Adulthood among Serious Offenders.” Crime and Delinquency 50(3): 412–35. DOI: 10.1177/0011128703260333. Piquero, Alex R., Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, and Rudy Haapanen. 2002. “Crime in Emerging Adulthood.” Criminology 40(1): 137–69. DOI: 10.1111 /j.1745-9125.2002.tb00952.x. Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2003. “The Criminal Career Paradigm.” Crime and Justice 30: 359–506. DOI: 10.2307 /1147702. Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2007. Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. Piquero, Alex R., Raymond Paternoster, Paul Mazerolle, Robert Brame, and Charles W. Dean. 1999. “Onset Age and Offence Specialization.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36(3): 275–99. DOI: 10.1177/00224278990 36003002. Pogarsky, Greg, Sean Patrick Roche, and Justin T. Pickett. 2017. “Heuristics and Biases, Rational Choice, and Sanction Perceptions.” Criminology 55(1): 85–111. DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12129. Power, Jenelle, and Amanda Nolan. 2017. “What Makes a ‘Good Job’ after Incarceration? Perceptions of Offenders in the Community.” Journal of Correctional Education 68(3): 53–71. DOI: 10.2307/26508033.

216 References Pratt, Travis C. 2016. “A Self-Control/Life-Course Theory of Criminal Behavior.” European Journal of Criminology 13(1): 129–46. DOI: 10.1177 /1477370815587771. Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-analysis.” Criminology 38(3): 931–64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x. Pratt, Travis C., Michael G. Turner, and Alex R. Piquero. 2004. “Parental Socialization and Community Context: A Longitudinal Analysis of the Structural Sources of Low Self-Control.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41(3): 219–43. DOI: 10.1177/0022427803260270. Province of Alberta. 2020. “Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.” Sec. 32. https://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F25.cfm&leg _type=Acts&isbncln=9780779822010. Public Safety Canada. 2008. “Family-Based Risk and Protective Factors and Their Effects on Juvenile Delinquency: What Do We Know?” National Crime Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada. Public Safety Canada. 2009. “The Investigation, Prosecution and Correctional Management of High-Risk Offenders: A National Guide.” https://www .publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/2009-pcmg/index-en.aspx, accessed 6 September 2020. Public Safety Canada. 2016. Tyler’s Troubled Life: The Study of One Young Man’s Path towards a Life of Crime. Research Division, Catalogue No. PS18–33/2016E-PDF. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs /pblctns/2016-r005/2016-r005-en.pdf, accessed 6 September 2020. Pulkkinen, Lea, Anna-Liisa Lyrra, and Katja Kokko. 2009. “Life Success of Males on Nonoffender, Adolesence-Limited, Persistent, and Adult-Onset Antisocial Pathways: Follow-up from Age 8 to 42.” Aggressive Behavior 35(2): 117–35. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20297. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Reavis, James A., Jan Looman, Kristina A. Franco, and Briana Rojas. 2013. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Adult Criminality: How Long Must We Live before We Possess Our Own Lives?” The Permanente Journal 17(2): 44–8. DOI: 10.7812/TPP/12-072. Reckdenwald, Amy, Christina Mancini, and Eric Beauregard. 2013. “The Cycle of Violence: Examining the Impact of Maltreatment Early in Life on Adult Offending.” Violence and Victims 28(3): 466–82. DOI: 10.1891/0886 -6708.VV-D-12-00054. Regina Police Service. 2020. http://reginapolice.ca/category/news/high -risk-offenders/. Reingle, Jennifer M., Wesley G. Jennings, Alex R. Piquero, and Mildred M. Maldonado-Molina. 2014. “Is Violence Bad for Your Health?



References 217

An Assessment of Chronic Disease Outcomes in a Nationally Representative Sample.” Justice Quarterly 31 (3): 524–38. DOI: 10.1080 /07418825.2012.689315. Rocque, Michael. 2017. Desistance from Crime: New Advances in Theory and Research. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Rogers, Kristie M., Kevin G. Corley, and Blake E. Ashforth. 2017. “Seeing More than Orange: Organizational Respect and Positive Identity Transformation in a Prison Context.” Administrative Science Quarterly 62(2): 219–69. DOI: 10.1177/0001839216678842. Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 2020. https://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca /en/news. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1990. “Crime and Deviance over the Life Course: The Salience of Adult Social Bonds.” American Sociological Review 55(5): 609–27. DOI: 10.2307/2095859. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1997. “A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency.” In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, edited by T.P. Thornberry, 1−29. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2003. “Life-Course Desisters? Trajectories of Crime among Delinquent Boys Followed to Age 70.” Criminology 41(3): 301–40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00997.x. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2005. “A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602: 12–45. DOI: 10.1177/0002716205280075. Sampson, Robert J., John H. Laub, and Christopher Wimer. 2006. “Does Marriage Reduce Crime: A Counterfactual Approach to Within-Individual Causal Effects.” Criminology 44(3): 465–508. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006 .00055.x. Sapouna, Maria. 2017. “Adult-Onset Offending: A Neglected Reality? Findings from a Contemporary British General Population Cohort.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 61(12): 1392–408. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15622429. Savage, J. (Ed.) 2009. The Development of Persistent Criminality. New York: Oxford University Press. Schaefer, Jonathan D., Terrie E. Moffitt, Louise Arseneault, Andrea Danese, Helen L. Fisher, Renate Houts, Margaret A. Sheridan, Jasmin Wertz, and Avshalom Caspi. 2017. “Adolescent Victimization and Early-Adult Psychopathology: Approaching Causal Inference Using a Longitudinal Twin Study to Rule Out Noncausal Explanations.” Clinical Psychological Science 6(3): 352–71. DOI: 10.1177/2167702617741381.

218 References Scheiner, Joachim. 2017. “Mobility Biographies and Mobility Socialisation – New Approaches to an Old Research Field.” In Life-Oriented Behaviour Research for Urban Policy, edited by J. Zhang, 385−401. Tokyo: Springer. Schreck, Christopher J., and Bonnie S. Fisher. 2004. “Specifying the Influence of Family and Peers on Violent Victimization: Extending Routine Activities and Lifestyle Theories.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19(9): 1021–41. DOI: 10.1177/0886260504268002. Schreck, Christopher J., Richard A. Wright, and J. Mitchell Miller. 2002. “A Study of Individual and Situational Antecedents of Violent Victimization.” Justice Quarterly 19(1): 159–80. DOI: 10.1080/07418820200095201. Sedlak, Andrea J., Jane Mettenburg, Monica Basena, Ian Petta, Karla McPherson, Angela Greene, and Spencer Li. 2010. Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Selingo, Jeffrey J. 2017. “Is a College Degree the New High School Diploma.” Washington Post, 13 January. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news /grade-point/wp/2017/01/13/is-a-college-degree-the-new-high-school -diploma-heres-why-your-degrees-worth-is-stagnant/?noredirect =on&utm_term=.504b969b6f17. Shen, Yu-Tang, Kylie Radford, Gail Daylight, Robert Cumming, Tony G.A. Bore, and Brian Draper. 2018. “Depression, Suicidal Behaviour, and Mental Disorders in Older Aboriginal Australians.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15(3): 447. DOI: 10.3390 /ijerph15030447. Sigurdardottir, Sigrun, and Sigridur Halldorsdottir. 2018. “Screaming Body and Silent Healthcare Providers: A Case Study with a Childhood Sexual Abuse (CSA) Survivor.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15(1): 94. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15010094. Silver, Eric. 2002. “Mental Disorder and Violent Victimization: The Mediating Role of Involvement in Conflicted Social Relationships.” Criminology 40(1): 191–212. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00954.x. Simons, Ronald L., Leslie Gordon Simons, Yi-Fu Chen, Gene H. Brody, and Kuei-Hsiu Lin. 2007. “Identifying the Psychological Factors That Mediate the Association between Parent Practices and Delinquency.” Criminology 45(3): 481–518. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00086.x. Skardhamar, Torbjørn, and Jukka Savolainen. 2014. “Changes in Criminal Offending around the Time of Job Entry: A Study of Employment and Desistance.” Criminology 52(2): 263–91. DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12037. Skardhamar, Torbjørn, Jukka Savolainen, Kjersti N. Aase, and Torkild H. Lyngstad. 2015. “Does Marriage Reduce Crime?” Crime and Justice 44: 385–446. DOI: 10.1086/681557.



References 219

Slomkowski, Cheryl, Richard Rende, Katherine J. Conger, Ronald L. Simons. and Rand D. Conger. 2001. “Sisters, Brothers and Delinquency: Evaluating Social Influence during Early and Middle Adolescence.” Child Development 72(1): 271–83. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8624.00278. Slovic, Paul, Melissa L. Finucane, Ellen Peters, and Donald G. MacGregor. 2007. “The Affect Heuristic.” European Journal of Operational Research 177: 1333–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006. Solicitor General Canada. 2001. High-Risk Offenders: A Handbook for Criminal Justice Professionals. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns /hghrsk-ffndrs-hndb/index-en.aspx. Sousa, Cindy, Todd I. Herrenkohl, Carrie A. Moylan, Emiko A. Tajima, J. Bart Klika, Roy C. Herrenkohl, and M. Jean Russo. 2011. “Longitudinal Study on the Effects of Child Abuse and Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence, Parent-Child Attachments, and Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26(1): 111–36. DOI: 10.1177/0886260510362883. Staff, Jeremy, and Jeylan T. Mortimer. 2007. “Educational and Work Strategies from Adolescence to Early Adulthood: Consequences for Educational Attainment.” Social Forces 85(3): 1169−94. DOI: 10.1353/ sof.2007.0057. Staff, Jeremy, and Jeylan T. Mortimer. 2008. “Social Class Background and the School-to-Work Transition.” New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 2008(119): 55–69. DOI: 10.1002/cd.209. Stake, Robert E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Statista. 2020. “Average Job Tenure in Canada in 2020, by Occupation.” https://www.statista.com/statistics/439028/multiple-jobholders-canada/, accessed 2 September 2020. Statistics Canada. 2018. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x /2018001/article/54972-eng.htm?wbdisable=true, accessed 1 September 2020. Stinson, Jill D., and Judith V. Becker. 2012. Treating Sex Offenders: An EvidenceBased Manual. England: The Guilford Press. Stolzenberg, Lisa, and Stewart J. D’Alessio. 2008. “Co-offending and the AgeCrime Curve.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45(1): 65–86. DOI: 10.1177/0022427807309441. Stott, Tonia, and Nora Gustavsson. 2010. “Balancing Permanency and Stability for Youth in Foster Care.” Children and Youth Services Review 32(4): 619–25. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.12.009. Sullivan, Christopher J. 2011. “The Utility of the Deviant Case in the Development of Criminological Theory.” Criminology 49(3): 905–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00236.x.

220 References Sullivan, Christopher J., Jean Marie McGloin, Travis C. Pratt, and Alex R. Piquero. 2006. “Rethinking the ‘Norm’ of Offender Generality: Investigating Specialization in the Short-Term.” Criminology 44(1): 199–233. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00047.x. Sutherland, Edwin H., and Donald R. Cressey. 1970. Criminology. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Swisher, Raymond R., and Christopher R. Dennison. 2016. “Educational Pathways and Change in Crime between Adolescence and Early Adulthood.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53(6): 840–71. DOI: 10.1177/0022427816645380. Szentagotai-Tatar, Aurora, and Andrei C. Miu. 2016. “Individual Differences in Emotion Regulation, Childhood Trauma and Proneness to Shame and Guilt in Adolescence.” PloS ONE 11(11): e0167299. DOI: 10.1371/journal .pone.016299. Tanner, Julian, and Harvey Krahn. 1991. “Part-Time Work and Deviance among High-School Seniors.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 16(3): 281–302. DOI: 10.2307/3340678. Teachman, Jay, and Lucky Tedrow. 2016. “Altering the Life Course: Military Service and Contact with the Criminal Justice System.” Social Science Research 60: 74–87. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.04.003. Thornberry, Terence P. 1987. “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency.” Criminology 25(4): 863–91. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00823.x. Thornberry, Terence P. 2005. “Explaining Multiple Patterns of Offending across the Life Course and across Generations.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602(1): 156–95. DOI: 10.1177/0002716205280641. Thornberry, Terence P., Carolyn Smith, and Gregory J. Howard. 1997. “Risk Factors for Teenage Fatherhood.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59(3): 505–22. DOI: 10.2307/353942. Tosh, Sarah. 2019. “Drugs, Crime, and Aggravated Felony Deportations: Moral Panic Theory and the Legal Construction of the Criminal Alien.” Critical Criminology 27: 329–45. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-019-09446-8. Turner, Heather A., Anne Shattuck, David Finkelhor, and Sherry Hamby. 2017. “Effects of Poly-Victimization on Adolescent Social Support, SelfConcept, and Psychological Distress.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 32(5): 755–80. DOI: 10.1177/0886260515586376. Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. “Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185(4157): 1124–31. DOI: 10.1126/science .185.4157.1124. Uhlenberg, Peter. 1996. “Mutual Attraction: Demography and Life-Course Analysis.” The Gerontologist 36(2): 226–9. DOI: 10.1093/geront/36.2.226.



References 221

University of Calgary. 2020. “Human Research Ethics.” https://research .ucalgary.ca/conduct-research/ethics-compliance/human-research-ethics, accessed 19 April 2020. Vaish, Amrisha, Tobias Grossmann, and Amanda Woodward. 2008. “Not All Emotions Are Created Equal: The Negativity Bias in SocialEmotional Development.” Psychological Bulletin 134(3): 383–403. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383. Van Koppen, M. Vere. 2018. “Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile and Adult-Onset Offenders.” Journal of Developmental and Life Course Criminology 4: 92–119. DOI: 10.1007/s40865-017-0074-5. Verbruggen, Janna, Arjan Blokland, and Victor R. van der Geest. 2012. “Effects of Employment and Underemployment on Serious Offending in a High-Risk Sample of Men and Women from Ages 18 to 32 in The Netherlands.” British Journal of Criminology 52(5): 845–69. DOI: 10.1093 /bjc/azs023. Warr, Mark, and Mark Stafford. 1991. “The Influence of Delinquent Peers: What They Think or What They Do?” Criminology 29(4): 851–66. DOI: 10.1111 /j.1745-9125.1991.tb01090.x. Weiss, Harald E., and Lesley Williams Reid. 2005. “Low-Quality Employment Concentration and Crime: An Examination of Metropolitan Labor Market.” Sociological Perspectives 48(2): 213–32. DOI: 10.1525/sop.2005.48.2.213. Wertz, Jasmin, Jessica Agnew-Blais, Avshalom Caspi, Andrea Danese, Helen L. Fisher, Sidra Goldman-Mellor, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Louise Arseneault. 2018. “From Childhood Conduct Problems to Poor Functioning at Age 18 Years: Examining Explanations in a Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Journal of American Academy of Child Adolescent Psychology 57(1): 54–60. DOI: 10.1016 /j.jaac.2017.09.437. Widom, Cathy Spatz. 1989. “The Cycle of Violence.” Science 244(4901): 160–5. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1702789. Widom, Cathy Spatz. 2017. “Long-Term Impact of Childhood Abuse and Neglect on Crime and Violence.” Clinical Psychology, Science and Practice 24(1): 186–202. DOI: 10.1111/cpsp.12194. Widom, Cathy Spatz, and Michael G. Maxfield. 2001. An Update on the “Cycle of Violence.” Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Wikström, Per-Olof H., and Robert Svensson. 2008. “Why Are English Youths More Violent Than Swedish Youths? A Comparative Study of the Role of Crime Propensity, Lifestyles and Their Interactions in Two Cities.” European Journal of Criminology 5(3): 309–30. DOI: 10.1177/1477370808090835. Wikström, Per-Olof H., and Robert Svensson. 2010. “When Does Self-Control Matter? The Interaction between Morality and Self-Control in Crime Causation.” European Journal of Criminology 7(5): 395–410. DOI: 10.1177 /1477370810372132.

222 References Wikström, Per-Olof H., and Kyle Treiber. 2007. “The Role of Self-Control in Crime Causation: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime.” European Journal of Criminology 4(2): 237–64. DOI: 10.1177/1477370 807074858. Wittebrood, Karin, and Paul Nieuwbeerta. 2000. “Criminal Victimization during One’s Life Course: The Effects of Previous Victimization and Patterns of Routine Activities.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(1): 91–122. DOI: 10.1177/0022427800037001004. Wolff, Kevin T., and Michael T. Baglivio. 2017. “Adverse Childhood Experiences, Negative Emotionality, and Pathways to Juvenile Recidivism.” Crime and Delinquency 63(12): 1495–521. DOI: 10.1177/0011128715627469. Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wright, Bradley R. Entner, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil A. Silva. 2001.“The Effects of Social Ties on Crime Vary by Criminal Propensity: A Life-Course Model of Interdependence.” Criminology 39(2): 321–52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00925.x. Wright, Kevin A., and Leana A. Bouffard. 2016. “Capturing Crime: The Qualitative Analysis of Individual Cases for Advancing Criminological Knowledge.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60(2): 123–45. DOI: 10.1177/0306624X14549308. Yang, Jennifer, Evan C. McCuish, and Raymond R. Corrado. 2017. “Foster Care beyond Placement: Offending Outcomes in Emerging Adulthood.” Journal of Criminal Justice 53(C): 46–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.08.009. Yin, Robert K. 2009. “How to Do Better Case Studies: (With Illustrations from 20 Exemplary Case Studies).” In The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, edited by L. Bickman, and D.J. Rog, 254−82. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DOI: 10.4135/9781483348858. Yin, Robert K. 2012. Applications of Case Study Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Zara, Georgia, and David P. Farrington. 2009. “Childhood and Adolescent Predictors of Late Onset Criminal Careers.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(3): 287–300. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-008-9350-3. Zoe, Hilton N., Elke Ham, and Michelle M. Green. 2016. “Adverse Childhood Experiences and Criminal Propensity among Intimate Partner Violence Offenders.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 34(19): 4137–61. DOI: 10.1177/0886260516674943.

Index

abuse, childhood. See emotional abuse; physical abuse; sexual abuse of offenders as children Adam, 131–2, 133, 136 adolescence, 5, 8, 11–12, 24–5, 54–63; and delinquent peers, 64–8; and drug and alcohol use, 68–70; and parental addiction, 66; and parental incarceration, 66; and school performance, 70–4; and victimization, 67 adolescence-limited criminal behaviour. See Moffitt, Terrie: dual taxonomy of offender types adoption, 21, 63, 119, 125 adulthood, 5, 11, 25–6, 76, 81–3; divorce and separation, 5, 39, 94, 104, 150; and employment, 98–102; and family, 87, 94–5, 102–5, 188; and marriage, 5, 11, 108; and relationships, 95–7; and selfcontrol, 88–95; and Situational Action Theory (SAT), 83–8. See also adult-onset criminal behaviour; desistance; substance use; unemployment adult-onset criminal behaviour, 25, 26, 76–80, 105, 171

adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), 42–6, 165–9, 177; ACE score, 186–7; maltreatment, 37, 40–2, 43, 57. See also emotional abuse; neglect; physical abuse; sexual abuse of offenders as children aggravated assault, 8, 14, 22, 59, 184 alcohol. See substance abuse allostatic load, 41, 69. See also cumulative disadvantage Anderson, Kathleen, 65 Andrew, 158–60 Anthony, 63–4, 66, 72, 75, 125–7, 133, 136 Apel, Robert, 47–8, 102, 121, 122, 166–7 Arnett, Jeffrey, 77, 157 Ashforth, Blake, 132–3, 143–4, 149 assault, 8, 12, 14, 40, 59, 77–8, 162, 164, 184, 189–90. See also Anthony; Carter; Daniel; Edward; Jamie; Jeremy; Michael; Paul; Robert; sexual assault; Wayne Ayers, Charles, 71 Baglivio, Michael, 44, 72, 75 Beckley, Amber, 24, 25, 76–7, 78 Bennett, Marlyn, 50

224 Index Benson, Michael, 6 Berens, Anne, 41 Beutel, Mandred, 45 Black individuals and communities, 49, 50, 175 Blackstock, Cindy, 50 Blankenship, Kim, 135, 151–2 Blokland, Arjan, 95, 157–8 Blumstein, Alfred, 9, 12, 59, 182, 184 Boatwright, Jessica, 116 Bottoms, Anthony, 139–41 Bouffard, Jeffrey, 90 Boutwell, Brian, 58–9 Brian, 123–4, 136 Brown, Jason, 32 Bryan, Brielle, 45, 66 Burchfield, Keri, 69 Bushway, Shawn, 141, 142 Capaldi, Deborah, 96 career criminal, label of, 9 Carl, 149–51 Carlsson, Christoffer, 10–11 Carroll, Annemaree, 72 Carter, 20–2, 23, 107 case study approach, advantages of, 19, 191 Cauffman, Elizabeth, 67–8 Chauhan, Preeti, 48–9 child sexual abuse. See sexual abuse of offenders as children childhood, 5, 8, 28; abuse and victimization in, 29, 39–42; adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), 42–6, 165–9, 177, 186–7; and fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), 24, 32, 131; and fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), 24, 32, 33, 48, 162–3; and language development, 32–3; maltreatment, 37, 40–2, 43, 57. See also emotional abuse; family: centrality of; neglect;

physical abuse; sexual abuse of offenders as children children, effects on offenders of having, 87, 94–5, 103–4, 188 Cohen, Jacqueline, 9, 59, 182, 184 control theory, 65–6, 84, 88, 93 Corley, Kevin, 132–3, 143–4, 149 Corman, Hope, 103 Corrado, Raymond, 94, 120, 122 Correctional Service of Canada, 110, 154–5, 172–3 Creavey, Kristine et al., 45 crime narrative, popular, 4–6, 83–4, 154, 161–5, 173–4, 177 criminal career paradigm, 9, 184, 185–6, 189 table 5 criminal records: impacts of, 5, 25, 103, 108, 134–6, 140; researching, 107. See also high-risk designations Cuevas, Celina, 72, 75 cumulative disadvantage, 104, 166, 169–70, 174–5; and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), 42–3, 166; and delinquent behaviour, 62–3; marginalized communities and, 49–50; and neuropsychological deficit, 34; schools and, 70–1, 168 Curtis, Kristin, 116 cycle of violence theory, 35–6 Damian, Rodica, 79 dangerous offender designation, 124–5, 126 table 3. See also Section 810 Daniel, 73–4, 75, 104 Davis, Jordan, 68–9 death of loved ones, 5, 97, 104, 131–2, 156 delinquent peers. See peers: delinquent DeLisi, Matt, 118

Dennison, Christopher, 70, 73, 100 desistance: and changes in identity, 153–4; employment and, 78, 133–4, 139, 142, 144, 148–9, 152, 158; marriage and, 93, 94, 95–7, 102–4, 142, 152, 160 development. See adolescence; adulthood; childhood developmental cascades, 39–41, 177 developmental criminology, 10 developmental and life-course criminology, 6, 8–10, 13, 190–1 divorce and separation, 5, 39, 94, 104, 150; parental, 43, 48, 55, 119, 150, 158, 187 Donald, 104–5 Douglas, John, 178 drugs. See substance abuse Dugan, Laura, 121, 122 Edward, 37–9, 40, 46, 48, 52, 97 Edwards, William, 116 Elander, James, 77, 78 Elder, Glen Jr., 10, 11–12 emotional abuse, 29, 37, 40, 43, 44, 186–7. See also Anthony; Jamie; John; Mark; physical abuse; sexual abuse of offenders as children employment, benefits of, 5, 7, 61, 76, 98–102, 113, 188; and desistance, 78, 133–4, 139, 142, 144, 148–9, 152, 158. See also unemployment Evans, Sara, 41–2, 47, 62, 63, 64, 87 Fagan, Jeffrey, 45 family: centrality of, 29–30, 31, 34–7, 43, 47–8, 53; and turning points, 102–4. See also adoption; divorce and separation; family violence; marriage; sexual abuse of offenders as children

Index 225 family violence, 121–2, 155, 187. See also sexual abuse of offenders as children; sexual assault of others Farmer, Mark, 120, 121, 153 Farrington, David, 9, 10, 12, 31, 63, 77–8 Felitti, Vincent et al., 43, 44 Felson, Richard, 69, 70 fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD), 24, 32, 131 fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), 24, 32, 33, 48, 162–3. See also Paul Finkelhor, David et al., 29, 31, 34, 40, 42, 52, 168 foster care, 187. See also Adam; Anthony; Brian; Edward; John; Keith; Mark; Michael; Paul Fox, Bryanna Hahn, 41, 44–5 Fox, Kathryn, 116–17 Frank, James, 134 Franken, Aart, 66 Freeman, Richard, 101 frequency of offending, 8–9, 13, 103–4, 156–7, 165, 185–6, 188, 189 table 5 gang affiliation, 3, 18, 149, 150, 167 Garbarino, James, 44 Gibbs, John, 37 Giele, Janet, 10, 11–12 Giever, Dennis, 37 Giordano, Peggy, 152 Glen, 130–1, 132, 136 Goffman, Erving, 143 Gottfredson, Michael, 11, 36, 37, 71, 88, 89 Goulette, Natalie, 134 Government of Alberta Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General, 14–15, 16, 17, 26, 173 Grossman, Tobias, 41–2

226 Index Hagler, Matthew, 100 Halldorsdottir, Sigridur, 40 Haney, Lynne, 135 Hanson, R. Karl, 147–8 Harding, David, 134, 148–9 Hay, Carter, 37 Hensley, Christopher, 116 high-risk designations, 6, 13–17, 126 table 3; management of under the Criminal Code, 17–19. See also Section 810 Hill, Jessica, 95, 157–8 Hirschi, Travis, 11, 36, 37, 71, 88, 89, 90 homicide. See murder Hooven, Carole, 39, 40–1 Huebner, Beth, 101–2 impulse control, 32, 68–9, 81, 83–4 incarceration, stigma: impact on employment, 134–5, 140, 148–9, 163, 169–70; impact on family, 132–3; impact on marriageability, 101–2 Indigenous individuals and communities, 49–50, 51, 175. See also Anthony institutionalization, 129–30 intervention points. See trajectories; transitions; turning points Jamie, 3, 7, 23, 33, 106 Jeffrey, 155–6 Jensen, Sarah, 41 Jeremy, 127–8, 130, 136, 169–70 John, 46–7, 48, 52 Kahneman, Daniel, 115 Kane, Jennifer, 51 Kaukinen, Catherine, 47–8, 166–7 Kazemian, Lila, 138 Keene, Danya, 135, 151–2

Keith, 119–20, 121, 122–3 Kim, Hyoun, 96 King, Ryan, 96 Krieger, Nancy, 51 Krohn, Marvin, 141, 142 Kruttschnitt, Candace, 35 Land, Kenneth, 58 Larry, 171–2 Laub, John: age-graded theory of informal social control, 11, 99–100; cumulative continuity of disadvantage, 62, 168; delinquent peers and victimization, 67; impact of marriage, 95–6, 102; importance of social ties to others, 78, 88; trajectories and transitions over the life course, 59–61, 62, 63, 75, 88; turning points in life, 93 Lauritsen, Janet, 67 LeBel, Thomas, 147, 153–4 Levenson, Jill, 43, 44 life-course criminology, 10, 163 life-course-persistent offending. See Moffitt, Terrie, dual taxonomy of offender types Logan-Greene, Patricia, 39, 40–1 long-term-offender designation, 125, 126 table 3. See also Section 810 Lussier, Patrick, 94, 120, 122 MacMillan, Ross, 67, 71–2, 96 Mann, Ruth, 120–1 Margerison-Zilko, Claire, 51 Mark, 144–7 marriage: association with adulthood, 5, 11, 108; and desistance, 93, 94, 95–7, 102–4, 142, 152, 160; impact of incarceration on, 101–2; impact on offence specialization, 117, 157 Martin, Jamie, 37

Maruna, Shadd, 120–1, 153 Massoglia, Michael, 96 Matsueda, Ross, 65 Matthew, 91–2, 122 maturational reform, 93–4 Maynard, Robin, 49 Mazerolle, Paul, 117 McAlinden, Anne-Marie, 120, 121, 153 McCord, Joan, 47 McCuish, Evan, 94, 120, 122 McGee, Tara, 77 media: coverage of high-risk offenders, 14–15, 115, 116–17, 118, 125–7, 133, 171; and moral panics, 117; and the popular crime narrative, 4–7, 26–7, 161, 163 Meloy, Michelle, 116 memory bias, 28–9 mental illness, 78, 81–2, 176, 186, 187 Michael, 54–6, 59, 71–2, 75 Moffitt, Terrie: dual taxonomy of offender types, 11, 24–5, 56–60, 76, 157–8, 167; neuropsychological research, 31, 32, 33, 34, 48, 52; peer pressure, 68; school socialization, 71 moral beliefs and values, 81–8, 105 Mortimer, Jeylan, 98, 99, 100 Muller, Robert, 35–6 Muraven, Mark, 89–90 murder, 8, 44, 59, 74, 80, 184 Nagin, Daniel, 31, 58, 63, 93, 118 National Parole Board of Canada, 109, 110, 111, 183 neglect, 31, 34, 37, 41, 42, 43, 44, 107, 165, 169, 177, 186, 187. See also Adam; Edward; emotional abuse; physical abuse; sexual abuse of offenders as children Nelson, Charles, 41

Index 227 Noel, Melanie, 28, 29 Nolan, Amanda, 134 Norman, Mark, 143 Nurius, Paula, 39, 40–1 offence specialization, 9, 108, 114–24, 155; aging and, 13, 26, 79, 105; impact of marriage on, 117, 157 Office of the Correctional Investigator, 50 onset age, 12, 13, 23, 24, 188–9, 189 table 5; adolescent, 77–8; adult, 25, 26, 76–80, 105, 171. See also Moffitt, Terrie, dual taxonomy of offender types Ormrod, Richard, 29 Owen, Lee, 96 Pager, Devah, 134 parental separation and divorce. See divorce and separation: parental parole, 50, 109–11, 125, 148 Paternoster, Raymond, 93, 118 Paul, 20, 30–2, 33, 34, 46, 48, 52, 59, 166 peace bonds. See Section 810: peace bonds Pearlin, Leonard, 51 peers: delinquent, 25, 40, 56, 57–8, 59, 63, 64–8, 75, 77, 78, 93, 96, 108, 167; as positive influences, 24, 45, 71; as socialization agents, 5, 11, 54, 61; victimization, 29, 46, 70. See also Andrew; Carl Perez, Nicolas, 43–4 physical abuse, 6, 8, 29, 37, 39–46, 52, 57, 62, 69, 73, 107, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168–9, 183, 187. See also Brian; Carter; Edward; emotional abuse; Glen; Jamie; Jeremy; Keith; Mark; Michael; Paul; Robert; sexual abuse

228 Index of offenders as children; Thomas; Wayne Piquero, Alex, 12, 90–1, 96, 186 police: management and monitoring of high-risk offenders, 16, 17–19, 88–9, 106–7, 175; and media releases, 4, 14–15, 14n1; systemic failures and, 175–7. See also individual offender narratives; Section 810 Power, Jenelle, 134 Pratt, Travis, 89, 92–3, 94 prosocial bonds. See children; employment; other support; romantic relationships Public Safety Canada, 107n1, 114 racial discrimination, 63, 134. See also Black individuals and communities; Indigenous individuals and communities; racialized communities racialized communities, 51, 185. See also Black individuals and communities; Indigenous individuals and communities rational choice theory, 90, 121–2 RCMP. See police re-entry after incarceration, 147–9 Reid, Lesley Williams, 101 Rice, Stephen, 90 risk factor prevention paradigm, 10 Robert, 80–1, 87–8 Rocque, Michael, 160 Rogers, Kristie, 132–3, 143–4, 149 romantic relationships, 5, 54, 76, 95, 96, 108, 137, 152, 170, 188; parental, 38. See also divorce and separation; marriage Roth, Jeffrey, 59, 182, 184 routine activities theory, 96, 121, 153

Sampson, Robert: age-graded theory of informal social control, 11, 99–100; cumulative continuity of disadvantage, 62, 168; delinquent peers and victimization, 67; impact of marriage, 95–6, 102; importance of social ties to others, 78, 88; trajectories and transitions over the life course, 59–61, 62, 63, 75, 88; turning points in life, 93 Sapouna, Maria, 78 Sarnecki, Jerzy, 10–11 Schaefer, Jonathan, 24 schools, 45, 51, 60, 167–8; absence from, 24, 37, 55, 67; bullying at, 29; performance at, 25, 35, 36, 49, 52, 54, 70–4, 93, 95, 98–100, 163, 175; residential, 50; as socialization agents, 24, 61, 63; suspension and expulsion from, 33–4, 55, 63, 72, 108, 125. See also Andrew; Anthony; Carl; Carter; Daniel; Jamie; Jeremy; Michael; Paul; peers; Thomas Schuck, Amie, 48–9 Section 810: high-risk offender designation, 17, 118, 124, 126 table 3; peace bonds, 17–18, 18n2, 19, 109–14, 132, 136, 173, 175, 182 self-control, 32–3, 45, 79, 85–91, 92–3, 117, 118; Gottfredson and Hirschi’s concept of, 11, 36–7, 84, 88, 89, 90; and life-course perspective, 93–5; low, 59, 62, 66, 103–4, 124, 170–1; and school achievement, 70, 72; strength, 68–9, 75, 89–90, 93 self-efficacy, 67, 72, 75, 153, 179 sex offender, designation, 15, 20, 114, 115–16, 153, 154, 162; media coverage of, 116–17, 118. See also Michael; Paul; Robert

sexual abuse of offenders as children, 38, 40, 187. See also Anthony; Daniel; Edward; Glen; Keith; Jeremy; John; Mark; Michael; Paul; Robert sexual assault of others, 8, 16, 111, 118, 154, 162. See also Adam; Andrew; Brian; Edward; Glen; Jeremy; John; Mark; Matthew; Michael; Paul; Robert; Thomas Sheble, Mary Ann, 35 Sigurdardottir, Sigrun, 40 Simons, Ronald, et al., 42, 47, 62, 87 Situational Action Theory (SAT), 79, 83–8, 105 Slovic, Paul, 115 Smoyer, Amy, 135, 151–2 social bonds, 11, 47–8, 61–3, 90, 100, 103, 142, 188. See also children; employment; romantic relationships; social capital social capital, 61–2, 64, 99–100, 102, 103, 104, 106, 133–4, 139, 142, 167 social learning theory, 35, 45–6, 65, 166–7 Solicitor General Canada, 17–18, 182 specialization. See offence specialization Staff, Jeremy, 70, 98, 99, 100 Stafford, Mark, 65 statutory release date (SRD), 109–10 Steinberg, Laurence, 67–8 substance use, 5, 6, 13, 40, 41, 43, 52, 58, 60, 67, 68–70, 177, 183, 188–9, 191; drug charges, 190; exposure to in childhood and adolescence, 24, 25, 35, 36, 43, 45, 54, 57, 66, 70, 75, 187; and likelihood of reoffending, 14, 140, 163; and mental health, 78; and peace bond bans and prohibitions,

Index 229 112–13, 148; peers and, 66, 96, 167; programs to address, 143, 154–5; and relationships, 96, 97, 170; unemployment and, 100. See also Adam; Andrew; Anthony; Brian; Carl; Carter; Donald; Edward; Jamie; Jeremy; John; Keith; Paul; Thomas; Wayne suicidal ideation and behaviour, 40, 43–4, 91, 92, 128 Svensson, Robert, 86 Sweeten, Gary, 102 Swisher, Raymond, 70, 73, 100 Teachman, Jay, 94–5 Tedrow, Lucky, 94–5 Thomas, 97–8, 104 Thompson, Elaine Adams, 39, 40–1 Thornberry, Terence, 23–4, 62, 141, 142 time served, 125, 189 Tosh, Sarah, 82 trajectories, transitions, and turning points, 8, 10–12, 165–71; of disadvantaged communities, 49; and the life-course perspective, 60–3, 75. See also adolescence; adulthood; childhood Treiber, Kyle, 84–5, 86, 87, 88 Trocmé, Nico, 50 Turner, Heather, 29, 42, 43 Tversky, Amos, 115 unemployment, 21, 49, 50, 56; resulting from incarceration, 134–5, 140, 148–9, 163, 169–70. See also employment, benefits of U.S. National Institute of Justice, 9 Vaish, Amrisha, 41–2 van der Geest, Victor, 95, 157–8

230 Index van Koppen, M. Vere, 79, 117 violence. See assault; family violence; murder; sexual assault Visher, Christy, 59, 182, 184 Ward, David, 35 Warr, Mark, 65 warrant expiry date (WED), 111 Wayne, 128–9, 130, 136 Weiss, Harald, 101

Wexler, Sandra, 45 Widom, Cathy Spatz, 48–9 Wikström, Per-Olof, 84–5, 86, 87, 88 Wimer, Christopher, 95, 96 Wolff, Kevin, 72, 75 Woodward, Amanda, 41–2 Wright, Bradley, 170 Zara, Georgia, 77