Challenging Assumptions: A Genetically Sensitive Assessment of the Criminogenic Effect of Contact With the Criminal Justice System
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1043986218810599 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
2019, Vol. 35(1) 69 –86
Challenging Assumptions:
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
A Genetically Sensitive
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986218810599
DOI: 10.1177/1043986218810599
journals.sagepub.com/home/ccj
Assessment of the
Criminogenic Effect of
Contact With the Criminal
Justice System
Joseph L. Nedelec1 and Ian A. Silver1
Abstract
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.
Keywords
criminogenic effects, contact with CJS, labeling theory, twin difference, genetic confounds
Introduction
A widely held assumption within criminology is the criminogenic effect of official
contact with the criminal justice system (hereafter, CJS; e.g., Paternoster & Iovanni,
1989; Wiley, Slocum, & Esbensen, 2013). Scholars point to a variety of mechanisms
from social stigma to an accumulation of consistent rejections from conventional soci-
ety to explain continued and increased criminality after official interaction with the
CJS. Layered within this assumption is that contact with the CJS is the causal factor
1University of Cincinnati, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Joseph L. Nedelec, School of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 210389, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
45221-0389, USA.
Email: joseph.nedelec@uc.edu
70
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35(1)
that can lead to the unintended consequence of continued antisocial behavior. Indeed,
the argument is occasionally made that if not for the interjection of an official appara-
tus of the CJS an offender may not have engaged in continued criminal behavior.
While the empirical literature assessing the criminogenic effect of interaction with
the CJS appears to be mixed (e.g., Nagin & Snodgrass, 2013; Smith & Paternoster,
1990; Wiley et al., 2013), key to the discussion of offending over the life-course is the
effect of individual differences. Such factors may provide the initial propensity toward
offending, an increased likelihood of contact with the CJS, and an increased likelihood
of continued offending. Furthermore, when assessing the potential influence of indi-
vidual differences, scholars have called for a nuanced recognition of the variety of
both genetic and nongenetic factors that affect offending and contact with the CJS
(e.g., Barnes, Beaver, & Boutwell, 2011; Beaver, 2011; Nedelec, Park, & Silver, 2016).
However, these calls have gone relatively unanswered in the criminological literature
assessing labeling theory. Consequently, the current study addressed the potential
criminogenic effect utilizing longitudinal analyses of genetically sensitive data. The
analyses accounted for the additive influence of genetic factors, shared nongenetic
factors, and a variety of nonshared environmental factors by employing the twin-dis-
cordance methodology. What follows is a discussion of the potential criminogenic
effect of contact within the CJS as situated primarily within labeling theory as well as
a discussion of the potential manner in which this perspective is threatened by genetic
confounding.
Labeling Theory
As a prominent criminological perspective, labeling theory has guided a substantive
quantity of empirical literature on primary and secondary deviance (Lilly, Cullen, &
Ball, 2015). Various scholars have adapted the principles of the labeling perspective to
understand a variety of criminological issues (Lemert, 1951; Link, 1982; Sampson &
Laub, 1995). Consistent across these adaptations is the fundamental proposition that
criminal behavior is a function of the internalization of pro-criminal values associated
with the formal sanctioning of deviant behavior (Tannenbaum, 1938). Generally, the
internalization of pro-criminal values results from the stigmatization associated with
the formal physical and psychological punishment of nonnormative behaviors
(Tannenbaum, 1938).
An oft-cited adaptation of labeling theory was provided by Lemert (1951) who
argued that criminal behavior can be demarcated into two forms of deviance, primary
deviance and secondary deviance. Lemert (1951) opined that individuals engaging in
primary deviance—the onset of criminal behavior—rarely consider themselves pro-
criminal or internalize the pro-criminal identity associated with the formal punishment
of nonnormative behaviors. Criminal continuity, or secondary deviance, Lement
argued, results from the internalization of a pro-criminal identity in response to formal
punishment associated with primary deviance. Lemert (1951), and others since (e.g.,
Braithwaite, 1989), claimed that various psychological punishments (e.g., labeling and
stereotyping) are substantive when reinforcing the internalization of a pro-criminal
Nedelec and Silver
71
identity. The internalization of the deviant status further imbeds the individual in non-
conformity, generating continued involvement in criminal behavior.
While Lemert’s (1951) theoretical perspective informed scholars of the potential
negative effects of criminal stigmatization, the work of Becker (1963), Erikson (1966),
and Kitsuse (1964) positioned labeling theory at the forefront of the criminological
paradigm during the second half of the 20th century (Lilly et al., 2015). The combined
work of these scholars argued that the stigmatization associated with deviant behavior
reinforces group mentality, where individuals who engaged in criminal activity are
perceived differently than prosocial individuals (Becker, 1963; Erikson, 1966; Kitsuse,
1964). Generally, prosocial individuals perceive deviant individuals as amoral, defi-
cient in their desire to obey societal norms. Furthermore, the argument continues, the
group mentality encourages prosocial individuals to isolate themselves from any
potential deviant peers, resulting in various deviant peer networks. In combination, the
stigmatization and isolation resulting from formal sanctioning of deviant actions
encourages the internalization of a deviant status (Becker, 1963).
Contemporary labeling theorists remain consistent with their sentiments toward
society’s stigmatization of individuals who engage in criminal activity. Specifically, as
suggested by various scholars (e.g., Bernburg, 2009; Link, Cullen, Frank, & Wozniak,
1987; Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989; Sampson & Laub, 1995; Wiley et al., 2013), contact
with the CJS generates pro-criminal stigmatizations, diminishes access to prosocial
opportunities (e.g., employment, housing, noncriminal peer groups), and encourages
contact with pro-criminal peers. However, as noted above, the empirical validity of
these assertions remains mixed due, in part, to the various analytical strategies employed
in the literature.
The Unintended Consequences of CJS Intervention—
Examples of Recent Empirical Assessments
Contemporary scholarship assessing the empirical validity of labeling theory has
evolved over time from basic correlation and regression techniques to more sophisti-
cated quasi-experimental and experimental approaches. For example, regression anal-
yses by Smith and Paternoster (1990) exhibited a criminogenic effect of court
processing on delinquency. However, after accounting for potential selection effects
the association no longer held.
Although pragmatically difficult to conduct, experimental approaches have been
employed to assess labeling theory’s claims. For example, Nagin and Snodgrass (2013)
capitalized on Pennsylvania’s practice of county-level randomization of cases to judges
and employed a natural experiment approach. The authors compared cross-judge varia-
tion in punitiveness as exhibited in the likelihood of incarceration versus noncustodial
sentences to variation in reoffending (measured by rearrest). Overall, the findings indi-
cated a lack of a criminogenic effect of incarceration on rearrest. Loeffler (2013) also
employed data from the Pennsylvania court system to conduct a similar natural experi-
ment. The results of his analyses echoed Nagin and Snodgrass (2013) as the findings
revealed a null association between imprisonment and recidivism as well as
72
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35(1)
unemployment rates (another negative outcome of CJS intervention purported to be
causal in labeling theory). However, as recent scholarship argues, the effects of official
intervention such as imprisonment perhaps only manifest when accounting for a variety
of labeling processes and mechanisms. To account for such factors, other approaches
such as quasi-experimental methods have been employed in recent analyses.
Published in Criminology, Wiley and colleagues’s (2013) examination of the associa-
tion between criminal justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial