Life Course Criminology

VI. Conclusion

On the basis of a review of the evidence, and with attention to the specific DLC theories covered in this research paper, it appears that there are many more questions than answers from this growing area of research and theorizing. This final section highlights several important research needs and anticipates several future directions for research on DLC criminology.

For instance, although DLC theories tend to express assumptions that have borrowed from research evidence across an array of disciplines, such as biology, public health, and the social sciences in general, there have not been many attempts to test these theories across the disciplines and/or involving cross-disciplinary collaborations among researchers in prior empirical tests. Second, recognizing that this is a relatively new area of criminological research, there have not been many attempts to date to incorporate multilevel models into tests of DLC theories. Studies such as these are likely to be highly beneficial to DLC research, because a number of these theories discuss risk and protective factors that are multilevel in nature (e.g., the importance of the school environment and residing in a disadvantaged neighborhood). Future research should attempt to collect and/or make use of macrolevel risk and protective factors when available and model these effects both independently and simultaneously alongside the individual-level risk and protective factors when empirically assessing DLC theories.

Another underdeveloped area of DLC research is an exploration of how many offender groups there may be. Although certain DLC theories suggest two offender groups (Moffitt, 1993; Patterson & Yoerger, 1999) and others discuss multiple pathways (Loeber et al., 1998, 1999), results from more than 80 studies using trajectory analysis have suggested between three to five offender groups (for a review, see Piquero, 2008). Some of these groups are consistent with notable DLC theories (e.g., adolescent-limited offenders and life-course-persistent offenders), whereas other groups that are not consistent with some DLC typologies, such as low-level chronic offenders and late-onset offenders (who do not begin their offending until adulthood) have also emerged from this research. Future DLC studies should continue their efforts at replicating prior trajectory-analysis-based research in attempt to shed more light on the consistencies regarding the number of offender groups as well as incorporating risk and protective factors in their research to determine what covariates are significant for distinguishing trajectory group membership.

Last, DLC theories and related empirical research in the future should devote specific attention to race and gender. For the most part, the current DLC theories are relatively quiet on how race and gender may matter, or at the very least there have been only a handful of studies testing the generalizability of these theories across race and gender. Furthermore, a lot of the existing research in this area (similar to criminological research in general) relies either on self-report or official data. Although the limitations of both sources are well-known to criminologists, future DLC research should recognize this issue and attempt, when possible, to use some sort of a triangulation of methods to provide a more definitive conclusion on the progression of delinquency and criminal involvement over the life course. Thus, it is indeed an exciting time to be involved in DLC criminology, and as the subfield moves forward, those interested in this area of research may benefit from the suggestions given in this research paper as they become involved or continue their involvement with DLC criminological theory development and modification and/or empirical testing. This research paper closes by providing the reader with Farrington’s (2003, pp. 229–230) excellent list of the key empirical and theoretical issues that need to be addressed by any DLC theory:

  1. Why do people start offending?
  2. How are onset sequences explained?
  3. Why is there continuity in offending from adolescence to adulthood?
  4. Why do people stop offending?
  5. Why does prevalence peak in the teenage years?
  6. Why does an early onset predict a long criminal career?
  7. Why is there versatility in offending and antisocial behavior?
  8. Why does co-offending decrease from adolescence to adulthood?
  9. Why are there between-individual differences in offending?
  10. What are the key risk factors for onset and desistance, and how can they be explained?
  11. Why are there long-term (over life) and short-term (over time and place) within-individual differences in offending?
  12. What are the main motives and reasons for offending?
  13. What are the effects of life events on offending?

Key theoretical issues:

  1. What is the key construct underlying offending?
  2. What factors encourage offending?
  3. What factors inhibit offending?
  4. Is there a learning process?
  5. Is there a decision-making process?
  6. What is the structure of the theory?
  7. What are operational definitions of theoretical constructs?
  8. What does the theory explain?
  9. What does the theory not explain?
  10. What findings might challenge the theory? (Can the theory be tested?)
  11. Crucial tests: How much does the theory make different predictions from another theory?

Read more about Criminology.


  1. Blumstein,A., Cohen, J., Roth, J.A., &Visher, C.A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals,” Vol. 1. Report of the Panel on Criminal Careers, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
  2. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  3. Elder, G. H. (1985). Perspectives on the life course. In G. H. Elder, Jr. (Ed.), Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968–1980 (pp. 23–49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  4. Farrington, D. P. (1986a). Age and crime. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice (Vol. 7, pp. 189–250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  5. Farrington, D. P. (1986b). Stepping stones to adult criminal careers. In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp. 359–384). New York: Academic Press.
  6. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41, 221–255.
  7. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Elliott, D. S., Hawkins, J. D., Kandel, D. B., Klein, M. W., et al. (1990). Advancing knowledge about the onset of delinquency and crime. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (pp. 283–342). NewYork: Plenum Press.
  8. Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1993). Criminal, penal, and life histories of chronic offenders: Risk and protective factors and early identification. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 3, 492–523.
  9. Glueck, S., & Gleuck, E. (1930). 500 criminal careers. New York: Knopf.
  10. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  11. Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1992). Communities that care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  12. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552–584.
  13. Horney, J., Osgood, D. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1995). Criminal careers in the short-term: Intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review, 60, 655–673.
  14. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238.
  15. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  16. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (Eds.). (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  17. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Moffitt, T., & Caspi, A. (1998). The development of male offending: Key findings from the first decade of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 141–172.
  18. Loeber, R., Wei, E., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Huizinga, D., & Thornberry, T. (1999). Behavioral antecedents to serious and violent juvenile offending: Joint analyses from the Denver Youth Study, Pittsburgh Youth Study, and the Rochester Development Study. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 245–263.
  19. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
  20. Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Life-course-persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.) Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 570–598). New York: Wiley.
  21. Nagin, D. S., & Farrington, D. P. (1992). The onset and persistence of offending. Criminology, 30, 501–524.
  22. Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111–140.
  23. Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (2000). Population heterogeneity and state dependence: State of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 117–144.
  24. Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70, 1181–1196.
  25. Paternoster, R., Dean, C. W., Piquero, A. R., Mazerolle, P., & Brame, R. (1997). Generality, continuity, and change in offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 13, 231–266.
  26. Patterson, G. R., &Yoerger, K. (1999). Intraindividual growth in covert antisocial behavior: A necessary precursor to chronic and adult arrests? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9, 86–100.
  27. Piquero, A. R. (2008). Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the life course. In A. Liberman (Ed.), Longitudinal research on crime and delinquency (pp. 23–78). New York: Springer.
  28. Piquero, A. R., Brame, R., Mazzerole, P., & Haapanen, R. (2002). Crime in emerging adulthood. Criminology, 40, 137–169. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 131–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  31. Shaw, C. (1930). The jack roller: A delinquent boy’s own story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  32. Simons, R. L., Johnson, C., Conger, R. D., & Elder, G., Jr. (1998). A test of latent trait versus life-course perspectives on the stability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 36, 217–244.
  33. Simons, R. L., Wu, C., Conger, R. D., & Lorenz, F. O. (1994). Two routes to delinquency: Differences between early and late starters in the impact of parenting and deviant peers. Criminology, 32, 453–480.
  34. Thornberry, T. P. (Ed.). (1997). Advances in criminological theory: Vol. 7. Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
  35. Tittle, C. R. (1988). Two empirical regularities (maybe) in search of an explanation: Commentary on the age/crime debate. Criminology, 26, 75–85.
  36. Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M. E., & Figlio, R. M. (1990). Delinquency in two birth cohorts. New York: Plenum.
  37. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1973). Who becomes delinquent? London: Heinemann.
  38. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  39. Wolfgang, M., Thornberry, T. P., & Figlio, R. M. (1987). From boy to man, from delinquency to crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.