Cours 4 Flashcards
What is the definition of prevalence?
Prevalence refers to the proportion of individuals who participate in crime at any given time period.
What are the findings of piquero and al study about prevalence?
Their analyses showed that the 1) early to middle teenage years saw a steady increase in annual prevalence. 2) the cumulative prevalence of convictions through age 40 evinced a rapid rise until about age 18, at which point it became asymptotic up to age 40. 3) there were few differences in offending prevalence across offence types, as involvement across most offence types decreased over time. 4) offending prevalence assessed using self-report surveys among the south london males approached 100% by age 40.
What are the findings of moffitt et al. about prevalence?
First through age 21 and across multiple data sources, males emerged as more antisocial than females with two exceptions: a) males and females were most similar in their antisocial behaviour during middle adolescence and b) males and females were most similar in their drug and alcohol related offences. Second, males tended to engage in more serious offences than females, and not surprisingly tended to be overrepresented in official criminal records. Third , chronic offending was observed among both males and females, but even the most active females offended at much lower rate than the most active males. Finally prevalence rises through late childhood into adolescence, peeking in the mid-to-late teens and declining soon thereafter.
What is the definition of frequency?
Frequency references the number of crimes committed.
What are the findings of loeber et al about the frequency of violence and theft in the two pys- based cohorts at different age blocks?
Their analysis indicated that the average annual frequency of moderate and serious violence increased over three age blocks, while annual reported violence frequency peaked at about four offences per offender per year during late adolescence before dropping off in early adulthood. To summarise, the annual self-reported frequencies of all thefts were higher among the older pys cohort and theft-frequency tended to be higher in most comparisons than violence-frequency. Frequent that was more common in the early part of criminal careers for the oldest cohort while frequent violence was more common in the later part of their careers and the frequency of offending largely followed an age-crime curve in the oldest but not the youngest cohort.
What are the finding of loeber et al when they examined persistence in offending
using an all-source measure that combines self-reports and official conviction records, and found that: 1) almost one in five young serious offenders became persistent serious offenders over a period of 6+ years; 2) a higher level of persistence of serious offending (71%) was found for those with an onset during late childhood, compared to those with an onset during early adolescence and serious offenders early in life persisted in their offending over a period of about 7-9 years.
What do we need to remember about continuity?
Across most studies, there exists strong continuity in offending, particularly in adjacent time periods and the strength of
this continuity increases linearly with the number of offences previously committed; that is the most frequent offenders tend to exhibit the strongest and longest continuity in their offending behaviour. At the same time, there does not exist a pattern of discontinuity such that not all offenders have continuous and persistent criminal careers, a finding that is in a large part a function of the number of offences committed. Stil, some evidence suggests that the measurement of offending continuity may lead to some bias in the conclusions reached. For example,not all offenders who commit crimes are detected and subsequently punished by the criminal justice system. If police think someone is an offender, they may be more likely to arrest that person.
What are the findings of kratzer and hodgins search about adult onset-offenders?
Findings regarding the predictors of adult-onset offending indicated that measures of childhood and adolescent characteristics, specifically intelligence test scores, could be important predictors of adult-offset offending.
What are Eggleston and Laub finding about adult onset-offenders?
The authors concluded that adult-onset involves a nontrivial percentage of cases, regardless of time period, country and measurement of crime.
What are the findings about trends in specialisation, diversification, and escalation from adolescence into adulthood?
First, most studies indicate that frequent offenders engage in a wide variety of crimes over their criminal career, with only a few concentrating on a select set of crime types. Second, those offenders who show some evidence of specialisation appear to concentrate their offending within a large category of offences (e.g. property crimes) and appear to switch within these larger categories (e.g. from theft to burglary to fencing. Third, there is some minimal evidence regarding a slight trend toward increasing specialisation with age, but its premature to draw any definitive conclusion regarding this finding.
What are the findings about piquero et al trends in specialisation, diversification and escalation from adolescence into adulthood?
Found little evidence of specialisation-in-violence, and also concluded that the strongest predictor of a violent conviction over the course of a career was the number of convictions. First, there was much diversity in individual, officially recorded offending patterns over the life course. Second, the authors found evidence of an age-diversity curve, in which there was an increasing diversity between early adolescence and young adulthood but then specialisation during adulthood. Finally when they isolated frequent offenders and further disaggregated the age- diversity curve, they found that high diversity was the most common pattern during adulthood, followed by a pattern of specialisation
What are the findings of loeber et al relating to trends in specialisation, diversification and escalation from adolescence into adulthood?
First, using an all-source measure of offending based on self-reported delinquency and convictions, they found that, while most offenders were versatile in committing theft and violence, a non-trivial proportion committed only theft or only violence. Second they found mixed evidence regarding changes in specialisation across age. Based on the all-source measure of offending, offence specialisation for theft and violence in the youngest cohortspecialisation in violence increased with age, whereas theft specialisation was curvilinear, lowest during late adolescence and increasing during early adulthood. Third, when they examined the specialisation question through the lens of dual-trajectory analysis, they found that boys who follow a specific trajectory in one form of serious delinquency also tended to follow a similar trajectory in the other forms of serious delinquency.
What does escalation mean?
Escalation refers to an increase in the severity of offences committed by individuals over time while de-escalation relates to the opposite process, a progression from serious to minor offending over time.
What are the findings about stability and change?
The former explanation suggests that the correlation is due to time-stable population differences in the underlying proclivity to crime. The latter explanation suggests that crime exerts an undesirable effect on social bonds, conventional attachments, and so forth. A third explanation combines the two perspectives and suggests that both processes relate to future criminal activity in varying respects and magnitude over the life course.
What are the findings of stattin and magnusson?
First they observed modest correlation reflecting the stability of officially recorded criminal activity. Second, there was little evidence of specialisation in crime across the time periods and into adulthood, even among those individuals who offended across time periods. Finally, as found in many other criminological studies, a small number of males who offended in all three time periods were responsible for most of the crime in the sample, and showed little specialisation.
What are the findings of ezell and cohen?
Found 1) a positive association between past and future arrests; 2) after controlling for persistent unobserved heterogeneity using both parametric and nonparametric methods there was still a significant relationship between prior and future offending, i.e., a state dependence effect; and 3) the state dependence effect did not vary across distinct latent classes of offenders.
What are the findings of stolzenber and d’alessio?
Two key findings emerged from their study. First, co-offending arrest patterns by age do not offer much insight into why the classic aggregate age- crime curve appears the way it does, as results indicate that the age-crime curve appears the same for both solo-and co-offending. Second, a supplemental analysis using crimes reported to the police replicated the arrest-based results reported above.
Quels sont les constats important concernant l’évaluation de Don andrews and James Bonta?
- Manque de standardisation et de rigeur face aux pratiques, varie d’un professionnel à l’autre.
- Les gens à l’époque n’ont pas nécessairement de formation universitaires ou collégiale. Formation diverses: travail social, en criminologie, en éducation/orientation, en sociologie… vont avoir des regards très différent de la personne.
- Beaucoup trop subjectif et n’informe pas sur le risque de récidive
- pas de lien entre les connaissances scientifiques et la pratique.
- Les facteurs évalués ne sont pas nécessairement associées à la récidive criminelle. On va s’intéresser au caractère de la personne. Ce sont des vieux termes. Les milieux pratiques n’ont pas évaluer avec la méthode scientifique.
Quels sont les constats concernant l’intervention de Don andrews and James Bonta?
- Critique les conclusions de Martinson: évidemment que tous les programmes ne sont pas efficaces.
- Les programmes d’intervention et l’importance de moduler l’intensité de l’intervention en fonction du niveau de risque de récidive de la personne. changement de paradigme, anterieurement, offre de traitement en fonction de la motivation, prognostic
- intervention devrait etre directement liee au niveau de risques de la récidive
- le pairage niveau de risque- intervention, risque supervision est determinant.
- devrait refleter les niveaux de risque de recidive (intervention)
En quoi consiste le principe des besoins?
correspond aux modalites et objectifs du plan d’intervention en milieu correctionnel axes sur les besoins en matiere d’intervention qui favorise/encourage la récidive criminelle. identifier les facteurs criminologiques et cibler les facteurs pour le pic. Cibler les facteurs criminogenes, contribue à la criminalisation de la personne.
- faux de penser que ces facteurs sont uniques à chaque personne.
- faux de penser que tout ce qui est negatif est automatiquement criminogene.
- intervention doit etre axees sur les facteurs criminogenes.
En quoi consiste cibler les besoins criminogenes?
Le principe des besoins est etroitement lie a celui de risque de recidive criminelle.
Les besoins sont des facteurs de risque associees empiriquement à la récidive.
Le niveau de besoin est proportionnelle au niveau de risque.
Intervenir efficacement sur les besoins implique une diminution des probabilités de récidive.
Expliquer: ‘‘Ces besoins sont dynamques”
Une des implications pratiques du principes des besoins est l’importance d’évaluer et de réévaluer le risque et les besoins en matière d’intervention.
L’évaluation repose sur des facteurs potentiellement variables.
Doit réévaluer le risque d’un individu tout au long de la trajectoire pénale de la personne contrevenante.
En quoi consiste le principe de la réceptivité?
suggere que plus les personnes contrevenantes receptives à leur pic ne sont pas tous efficace.
certains programmes ne ciblent pas des facteurs criminogènes.
D’autres ne reposent pas sur une théorie de la conduite criminelle.
Les contrevenants n’ont pas tous les mêmes besoins.
Doit revoir les façons de faire avec des clientèles involontaires.
On fait quoi avec les gens qui n’ont pas de facteurs à cibler.
On doit s’adapter aux différents besoins, cibler différent profils et facteur de risque.
Population carcérale est très hétérogènes.
Quels sont les constats concernant la supervision communautaire de Don Andrews et James Bonta?
Le niveau de supervision est davantage une question de flair et jugement personnel.
Manque de standardisation des pratiques
Devrait etre integrer et en continuite avec l’evaluation et l’intervention
Etudes experimentales montrent bien qu’une supervision inadequates (mauvais pairage) peut avoir l’effet contraire)
Important que le travail d’intervention soit en continuite avec le travail fait et l’evaluation.
Ils proposent une série de principes pour organiser l’offre de services en milieu correctionnel
Services d’évaluation, d’intervention et de supervision.
Ces principes vont devenir un modele sur la scene international
Risque- besoins- receptivite et developper en continuite.
