Stability is defined as “persistence in behavior or style of interacting over time” (Wright, Chapter 2, pg. 4). From the criminological point of view then a person who engages in criminal behavior over a lengthy period of time or who routinely chooses criminal or deviant behavior as the manner by which he or she interacts with the world, the person is said to be demonstrating stable criminal behavior. By evaluating this person’s past behavior we are better able to predict the future behavior of the person. For example, if the person has demonstrated aggressive confrontational types of behaviors (e.g., threats, fighting, and the like) when faced with real or imagined slights, we can reasonably predict that in a future such event, the person will react in the same manner.
The ability to evaluate stability and predict future behavior is demonstrated by the study of Pertersilia as discussed in Wright, Chapter 2. The Pertersilia study found that the likelihood of being arrested for criminal behavior was actually quite high in the cohorts studied. One arrest did not correlate to a second arrest. However, a second arrest was highly predictive of third arrest, and the probability of a fourth arrest after being arrested a third time was eighty percent (80%) (Wright, Chapter 2).
It is not, however, merely criminal behavior that is predictive of future criminal behavior. Caspi, A., et al., Children’s Behavioral types at Age 3 Are Linked to Their Adult Personality Traits at Age 26 (2003), reported a high correlation between a three-year old’s Temperament Type personalities at age 18, and later at age 26. For example, Under-Controlled type children (“impulsive, restless, negativistic, distractible, and labile in their emotional responses”) were likely to score high on alienation (mistreated, deceived, betrayed), stress reaction (usually by way of strong negative emotional reaction), traditionalism (authoritarian, moralistic, intolerant, endorse strict child-rearing practices). These adults also scored low on the Self-Control and Social Closeness (Caspi, et al. 2003). A much earlier report (Loeber 1982) found that youths who “engage in extremely high rates of misbehavior early in life are more likely to continue over time to engage in antisocial conduct, that youths who show antisocial behavior across settings, such as school and home, are more likely to continue their antisocial conduct, that youths who engage in a variety of antisocial acts, as opposed to a limited number of acts, are at increased risk of continuing antisocial behavior into the future and, that the earlier the onset of antisocial behavior, the more likely it is to continue” (Wright, Chapter 2, pg 19).
Continuity, at first blush, appears to be the same as stability. Continuity “refers to the psychological structures, traits or learned behaviors that carry forward from one developmental time period to another” (Wright, Chapter 3). It differs from stability in that stability measures “relative consistency over time in rankings of delinquency and crime” (Wright, Chapter 3). It would be possible for a person to show high stability as to antisocial tendencies and ideals, but lack continuity because previous experiences and behaviors have set up a new model for future behavior (Wright, Chapter 3).
Not all young children who demonstrate antisocial behaviors (lying, stealing, cheating, punching, kicking) or attitudes will continue such behaviors into the next developmental cycle. Any number of environmental factors, such as the method by which parents, teachers, or other caretakers, deal with the problem can cut off these behaviors or attitudes (Wright, Chapter 3). In other words, there is discontinuity between the behavior and attitudes at one developmental stage and the behaviors and attitudes at another stage. When the behaviors, traits, attitudes, etc. are found in one developmental stage and then found in a subsequent developmental stage then there is continuity. When the behaviors are the same (lying, stealing, cheating, punching, kicking) in both stages, then the continuity is said to be homotypic (Wright, Chapter 3). When the behaviors are different, but both represent similar psychological structures, traits or learned behaviors then the continuity is said to be heterotypic (Wright, Chapter 3). An example of heterotypic continuity is when antisocial behavior is demonstrated at one developmental stage by lying, stealing, cheating, punching, kicking but has become drug abuse, car theft, fraud, child abuse in another stage (Wright, Chapter 3).
To a large extent continuity explains or is predictive of how a person will react to a new situation based on their psychological structures, traits or learned behaviors to-date (Wright, Chapter 3). These can be, structure, traits or behaviors from the individual level (Person X), from social relationships, or the social environment (Farley and Roberts, 2005). Research cited in Wright, Chapter 3 (Reiss, et al.; Glasser, et al.; Hyman and Nestler) indicates that genetic influences also can be a source of continuity. This research indicates that some gene functioning can be linked to environment, particularly when the environment is conducive to functioning. Continuity finds expression in the idea of self-selection. This refers to the concept that people generally, whether prosocial or antisocial, intelligent or not so, even attractive or unattractive select people like themselves for their social interactions. This includes not only peer networks but also mate selection (Wright, Chapter 3).
The study of stability and continuity provide us with important insights into criminal behavior that can be useful in addressing and correcting criminal behaviors. Consider the judge trying to find the appropriate punishment for an offender before him or her. The judge has to balance the sometimes-conflicting goals in sentencing – retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence. With an understanding of the concepts of stability and continuity the judge would be better able to make an informed sentencing decision. Knowing that an offender who has been arrested three times is 80% likely to be arrested again would certainly suggest that the goal of incapacitation is the weightiest of the goals under that circumstance. Or where there is a strong continuity factor, the judge must craft a punishment that will be a “turning point” to bring about a shift in the continuity of the offender.
The gains of this type of understanding is not limited to just the judge making a sentencing decision. Indeed, it crosses across all components of the criminal justice system. It can be used by parole boards in making early release decisions; it can be used by probation and parole officers in deciding on appropriate treatment or educational programs. But, if this knowledge, or at least the high-level concepts can be passed onto decision-makers, legislators, and governmental administrators it could have significant impact in the development of public policy for dealing with “the crime problem.”
REFERENCES