Delinquency in Emerging Adulthood: Insights into Trajectories of Young Adults in a German Sample and Implications for Measuring Continuity of Offending

Abstract

The majority of studies within the framework of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology focus on adolescence. There are even fewer studies that deal with heterotypic measures of delinquency. This study fills a gap in the literature by targeting exclusively the period of emerging adulthood (ages 18 to 28) and scrutinizing different trajectories and patterns of offending (offending portfolios) thereof. We discuss the topic of continuity of offending with changing opportunity structures for an adult population via contrast of one set of delinquent behaviors reflecting opportunity structures in adolescence (youth set) and one where adult-appropriate criminal activities were added (total set). We applied latent class growth analysis (LCGA) to both sets in a sample of 1810 German men and women aged 18 to 28 years. During emerging adulthood, average crime versatility and incidences increase slightly with items of the total set, while it decreases with only the youth set. LCGA on the total set reveals five meaningful trajectories with declining but also increasing slopes. Among these is one trajectory of innocuous adolescents, who start an offending career with mainly adult crimes during emerging adulthood. Of the sample, 45.25% reported at least one offense during that period. Traffic offenses and fraud are the most prevalent types of offending. While the sample’s majority is considered non-offenders, emerging adults do not entirely cease to commit offenses. Instead, they shift their preference towards age-appropriate and covert ways to act anti-socially. Trajectory groups reflect proclivities towards either youth, adult, or a mix of both types of crime.

Offending Trajectories in Violent Offenders: Criminal History and Early Life Risk Factors

“…Some studies have reported on offending trajectories in samples of serious offenders ( Jennings & Reingle, 2012 ; Loeber et al, 2008 ), but seldom in explicitly violent offender samples with an experience of incarceration ( McCuish et al, 2015 ), and infrequently focus on the general pattern of offending in violent offenders, as compared to specifically violent or other serious offences. Young adulthood is a crucial developmental stage in the understanding of offending progression through the life-course, but few studies report on offending throughout young adulthood ( Kessler, 2020 ; Sampson & Laub, 2003 ), especially in violent offender samples. Additionally, despite its argued value ( Moffitt, 2018 ; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001 ), reports of wide arrays of early life risk factors (e.g., Odgers et al, 2008 ) across offending trajectories in violent offenders are rare ( McCuish et al, 2015 ).…”

The Collateral Cost of Juvenile Adjudications in Adult Sentencing Guideline Recommendations: The Contribution of Policy to Cumulative Disadvantage

“… 16. See, for example, Hill, Blokland, and van der Geest (2018), Kessler (2020), Mowen and Boman (2018), Piquero et al (2002), and Walters (2018).…”

Move to improve

“…Existng research in antisocial behavior predominantly concentrates on adolescents as they show an increase in criminal behavior observed as the densest area in the age-crime curve, e.g., (Hubbard et al, 2010;Loeber et al, 1993;Maneiro et al, 2017;Moffitt, 2017;Pulkkinen, 2001;Sterzer, 2009;van der Laan et al, 2009). In contrast, there are far fewer studies focusing on emerging young adults (Basto-Pereira et al, 2020;Blonigen et al, 2010;Hill et al, 2018;Kessler, 2020), despite the identification of late-onset offenders without prior problem behavior (Donker et al, 2003;Eggleston & Laub, 2002). This trend can also be seen in traditional justice systems, as they are often designed for youth (aged < 18) or adults (aged > 18) and are therefore not equipped to address the needs of youths in transition (Hammer & Hyggen, 2010;Osgood et al, 2010), (but see, for example (Schmidt et al, 2021) for recent adaptations of the Dutch law).…”

“…One proposed way to increase treatment efficacy is by targeting the underlying (neurocognitive) correlates, rather than focusing on changing the behavioral outcome (Ogilvie et al, 2011). To do so, more insight is needed into which neurocognitive factors predict and enable antisocial behavior in young adults (Kessler, 2020). In this regard, cognitive control may be a particularly important source, as it might mitigate or facilitate socially unwanted behavior through the (ineffective) exertion of self-control and behavior regulation (Loeber et al, 2007;Siever, 2008).…”