A key assumption underlying various components of criminological thought is the criminogenic effect of involvement with the criminal justice system. Prior assessments of this effect, however, have been mixed and all are subject to potential genetic confounding. In the current study, we employ twin difference scores using both monozygotic and dizygotic twins to isolate the effect of involvement with the criminal justice system on future criminal behavior. The findings illustrate null associations between a variety of interactions of the criminal justice system and subsequent criminal offending. The study illustrates the continued ineffectiveness of the standard social science methodological approach to assessing criminology’s main assumptions.
AsburyK.DunnJ. F.PikeA.PlominR. (2003). Nonshared environmental influences on individual differences in early behavioral development: A monozygotic twin differences study. Child Development, 74, 933-943.
2.
BarnesJ. C.BoutwellB. B. (2013). A demonstration of the generalizability of twin-based research on antisocial behavior. Behavior Genetics, 43, 120-131.
3.
BarnesJ. C.BeaverK. M.BoutwellB. B. (2011). Examining the genetic underpinnings to Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy: A behavioral genetic analysis. Criminology, 49, 923-954.
4.
BarnesJ. C.WrightJ. P.BoutwellB. B.SchwartzJ. A.ConnollyE. J.NedelecJ. L.BeaverK. M. (2014). Demonstrating the validity of twin research in criminology. Criminology, 52, 588-626.
5.
BeaverK. M. (2008). Nonshared environmental influences on adolescent delinquency involvement and adult criminal behavior. Criminology, 46, 341-369.
6.
BeaverK. M. (2011). Genetic influences on being processed through the criminal justice system: Results from a sample of adoptees. Biological Psychiatry, 69, 282-287.
7.
BeckerH. (1963). Outsiders. New York, NY: Free Press.
8.
BernburgJ. G. (2009). Labeling theory. In KrohnM. D.LizotteA. J.HallG. P. (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (pp. 187-207). New York, NY: Springer.
9.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
EriksonK. T. (1966). Wayward Puritans: A study in sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Wiley.
11.
FarringtonD. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 177-190.
12.
FergusonC. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of normal and disordered personality across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 659-667.
13.
HarrisK. M.FloreyF.TaborJ.BearmanP. S.JonesJ.UdryJ. R. (2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health: Research design. Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design
14.
HarrisK. M.HalpernC. T.SmolenA.HaberstickB. C. (2006). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health) twin data. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 9, 988-997.
15.
HirschiT. (1975). Labelling theory and juvenile delinquency: An assessment of the evidence. In GroveW. R. (Ed.), The labeling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective (pp. 181-203). New York, NY: Wiley.
16.
JacksonD. B.HayC. (2013). The conditional impact of official labeling on subsequent delinquency: Considering the attenuating role of family attachment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 300-322.
17.
JannB. (2014). Plotting regression coefficients and other estimates. The Stata Journal, 14, 708-737.
18.
KavishD. R.MullinsC. W.SotoD. A. (2016). Interactionist labeling: Formal and informal labeling’s effects on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 1313-1336.
19.
KitsuseJ. I. (1964). Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. In BeckerH. (Ed.), The other side (pp. 87-102). New York, NY: Free Press.
20.
LemertE. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21.
LillyJ. R.CullenF. T.BallR. A. (2015). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
LinkB. G. (1982). Mental patient status, work, and income: An examination of the effects of a psychiatric label. American Sociological Review, 47, 202-215.
23.
LinkB. G.CullenF. T.FrankJ.WozniakJ. F. (1987). The social rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels matter. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1461-1500.
24.
LoefflerC. E. (2013). Does imprisonment alter the life-course? Evidence on crime and employment from a natural experiment. Criminology, 51, 137-166.
25.
McGueM.OslerM.ChristensenK. (2010). Causal inference and observational research: The utility of twins. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 546-556.
26.
MoffittT. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
27.
MooreK. E.TangneyJ. P. (2017). Managing the concealable stigma of criminal justice system involvement: A longitudinal examination of anticipated stigma, social withdrawal, and post–release adjustment. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 322-340.
28.
NaginD. S.SnodgrassG. M. (2013). The effect of incarceration on re-offending: Evidence from a natural experiment in Pennsylvania. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 601-642.
29.
NedelecJ. L.BeaverK. M. (2014). The relationship between self-control in adolescence and social consequences in adulthood: Assessing the influence of genetic confounds. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 288-298.
30.
NedelecJ. L.ParkI.SilverI. A. (2016). The effect of the maturity gap on delinquency and drug use over the life course: A genetically sensitive longitudinal design. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 84-99.
31.
NedelecJ. L.RichardsonG.SilverI. A. (2017). Religiousness, spirituality, and substance use: A genetically sensitive examination and critique. Journal of Drug Issues, 47, 340-355.
32.
PaternosterR.IovanniL. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6, 359-394.
33.
PinkerS. (2003). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Penguin.
34.
PiqueroA. R.FarringtonD. P.BlumsteinA. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: New analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
PoldermanT. J.BenyaminB.De LeeuwC. A.SullivanP. F.Van BochovenA.VisscherP. M.. . . PosthumaD. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47, 702-709.
36.
RayM. C.DownsW. R. (1986). An empirical test of labeling theory using longitudinal data. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 169-194.
37.
SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
SmithD. A.PaternosterR. (1990). Formal processing and future delinquency: Deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society Review, 24, 1109-1131.
39.
TannenbaumF. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston, MA: Ginn.
40.
TittleC. R. (1980). Labelling and crime: An empirical evaluation. In GroveW. R. (Ed.), The labeling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective (pp. 241-263). New York, NY: Wiley.
41.
VitaroF.BrendgenM.ArseneaultL. (2009). The discordant MZ-twin method: One step closer to the holy grail of causality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33, 376-382.
42.
WileyS. A.SlocumL. A.EsbensenF. A. (2013). The unintended consequences of being stopped or arrested: An exploration of the labeling mechanisms through which police contact leads to subsequent delinquency. Criminology, 51, 927-966.
43.
WrightJ. P.BoisvertD. (2009). What biosocial criminology offers criminology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1228-1240.
