You may have noticed that many traditional criminological theories, such as Shaw and McKay’s (1942) theory of social disorganization, the theories about gang formation by Cohen (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960), and the control theories by Reckless (1961) and others, have tended to focus on explaining juvenile delinquency or offending that occurs in adolescence. This is the case for two reasons. First, most offending begins during adolescence—the transitional phase that begins around puberty and ends at adulthood—so most theories assume that the causes of offending can be found during this phase of life. Second, delinquency is fairly common during the adolescent years. Put differently, it is pretty normal for pre-teens and teenagers to do things that are illegal and test the boundaries of what they can get away with.

During infancy and childhood, parents hold a great deal of responsibility over their children’s needs and behaviors. However, as children age, they become increasingly independent and responsible for their own behavior. Adolescence is often a period of experimentation, testing boundaries, and questioning figures of authority, including parents, teachers, and other adults. It is also the time when peers become much more important sources of influence and socialization. Research shows that adolescents are unique from adults in at least three ways: (1) they have lower levels of self-control; (2) they are less likely to consider the future; and (3) they are more sensitive to external influences, such as peers or incentives. All of these factors may elevate adolescent involvement in risky behaviors such as delinquency and crime.

Recent developments in neuroscience tell us that adolescence is a uniquely risky period because the psycho-socio-emotional system (which governs the processing of emotions, risk-taking, and sensation-seeking behavior) has finished developing, but the cognitive control system (which governs decision-making and self-regulation) has not. In fact, the cognitive control system does not finish developing until around the mid-20s. What this means is that adolescents are more likely to make risky decisions under heightened emotional conditions. It is not until well past the age of legal adulthood (age 18 in most jurisdictions and circumstances) that individuals have the capacity to engage in adult decision-making. This reality is reflected in our crime statistics.

The Age-Crime Curve

As early as the 19th century, French statistician Adolphe Quetelet (discussed in Chapter 3) saw that the propensity for criminal behavior was greater among young people (ages 21–25) and lower among older people (Beirne, 1987). The age-crime curve refers to the relationship between age and crime that has been demonstrated in numerous datasets (Farrington, 1986) and is often displayed graphically. An example is shown in figure 7.4, which plots the age of individuals convicted of crime in 2021 using data gathered through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) program you learned about in Chapter 2. As you can see, the crime rate rises throughout adolescence, peaks during the 20s, and then declines on a steady basis thereafter.

One explanation for kids being able to engage in delinquent behavior without becoming “lifelong criminals” comes from Gresham Sykes and David Matza’s (1964) drift theory. Drift theory explains that juveniles drift in and out of delinquency, especially when social controls like parental supervision are weak, and learn to justify their behavior in one of five ways. These justifications are known as techniques of neutralization, and they allow adolescents to avoid conflicting and uncomfortable feelings that can arise when your behavior does not match your beliefs (known in psychological terms as cognitive dissonance). Sykes and Matza (1957) identified five techniques of neutralization:

1. Deny responsibility: Juveniles learn to use this technique to deny that they are responsible for the criminal behavior they committed. This might look like, “It was not my fault; it was an accident or beyond my control.”
2. Deny injury: Juveniles learn to use this technique to deny the wrongfulness of their behavior or deny that their behavior caused any actual harm. This might look like, “It was only a prank; I didn’t hurt anyone” or “I just borrowed it; I didn’t steal it.”
3. Deny victim: Juveniles learn to use this technique to dehumanize or downplay the victim of their behavior. In other words, they neutralize their actions by claiming that they were acceptable because of who the victim was. Members of marginalized groups are easily targeted by this technique. This might look like, “The trans woman had it coming by wearing women’s clothing here.”
4. Condemn the condemners: Juveniles learn to use this technique to shift the blame to others, especially those who would disapprove of the behavior, as the juvenile sees them as hypocritical or corrupt. This might look like, “Who are they (parents) to tell me not to drink alcohol when they drink it themselves?”
5. Appeal to a higher loyalty: Juveniles learn to use this technique to justify their actions as necessary for a greater good or to maintain loyalty. This might look like, “I didn’t do it for me; I did it for God,” or “I did it to help a buddy out.”

While drift theory can help us understand how youth engage in delinquency without fully adopting definitions favorable to crime (learning theories) or embracing a subculture’s values (subcultural theories), it does not actually explain why or how juveniles stop committing crime.

The age-crime curve is one of the most consistent empirical facts in criminology and has been widely documented in Western countries such as the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, and Great Britain. It presents a criminological question that goes beyond whether or not the criminal justice system works: why do virtually all people who commit crimes ultimately desist from (slow down or completely stop) offending on their own? The majority of people who commit crimes when they are young stop committing crimes when they are in their 20s, and almost all of them stop by the time they reach their 40s, but why? Is it purely driven by age and physiological development, or are there other things at play? The developmental life course perspective may provide answers.

Check Your Knowledge

Licenses and Attributions for Why Do People Stop Committing Crime?

Open Content, Original

“Why Do People Stop Committing Crime?” by Taryn VanderPyl and Mauri Matsuda is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Revised by Jessica René Peterson.

“Activity: Applying Techniques of Neutralization” by Jessica René Peterson is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Figure 7.4. “2021 Offenders by Age Group per FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System” by Taryn VanderPyl is licensed under CC BY 4.0.

“Why Do People Stop Committing Crime? Question Set” was created by ChatGPT and is not subject to copyright. Edits for relevance, alignment, and meaningful answer feedback by Colleen Sanders are licensed under CC BY 4.0.