When contrasting life-course persistent offenders with adolescent-limited offenders, researchers agree that: the causes and consequences of the two are very different.
One of the strongest correlates of crime is age, with a common empirical finding of an adolescent rise and peak of offending. One theory in particular, Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, advances a specific hypothesis for the age–crime relationship, with a focus on a specific typology of offenders, adolescence-limited who offend for specific reasons during adolescence. This chapter reviews the adolescence-limited hypothesis relevant empirical research, and concludes with summary statements, challenges to Moffitt’s adolescence-limited hypothesis, and directions for future research.
There are other theories that have been developed to explain the rise and peak of adolescent offending. Patterson (1997) set out a learning model in which decreases in parents monitoring and supervision during adolescence lead adolescents to offend. Another explanation is Agnew’s (2003) integrated theory of the adolescent peak in offending. Recalling that adolescents are given only some adult privileges and responsibilities, Agnew believes that this has important effects on increasing delinquency among adolescents, including a decline in supervision increased social and academic demands participation in a larger, more diverse peer-oriented social world an increase in the desire for adult privileges, and reduced ability to cope in a legitimate manner and an increase in the disposition to cope in an illegitimate (delinquency/crime) manner to attain the adult privileges and goods they want
Learn more about contrasting life-course persistent offenders
brainly.com/question/6258097
#SPJ4
