Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile-And Adult-Onset Offenders

J Dev Life Course Criminology (2018) 4:92–119
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0074-5
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile-

and Adult-Onset Offenders
M. Vere van Koppen 1
Received: 31 January 2017 / Revised: 14 November 2017 / Accepted: 29 November 2017 /

Published online: 9 January 2018
# The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication
Abstract
Purpose Earlier studies tried to predict and explain adult-onset offending, most often
by comparing risk factors for juvenile and adult onset of criminal behavior. Little is
known, however, about how criminal careers of adult-onset offenders develop. The aim
of this study is to describe and compare juvenile- and adult-onset criminal careers of
both men and women in terms of frequency, intensity, duration, recidivism, crime mix,
seriousness, and specialization.
Methods Using a sample of 43,338 offenders who all had a criminal record in
2013, criminal careers are reconstructed retrospectively up to age 12 and
prospectively up to the 1st of July, 2014. Male and female juvenile- and
adult-onset offenders are identified and compared on the abovementioned pa-
rameters of their criminal careers.
Results Compared to all other groups, female adult-onset offenders commit fewer
crimes, offend at a lower rate, desist from crime earlier, have lower recidivism risks
at least up to the tenth crime, commit different types of offenses, commit more minor
and less serious crimes, and are more specialized in the types of crime they commit.
Male juvenile-onset offenders have the most serious career in terms of these career
dimensions.
Conclusions Criminal careers of adult-onset offenders, both men and women, develop
differently on all dimensions. Implications for life-course criminological theories and
prevention strategies are discussed.
Keywords Adult-onset offending . Criminal career dimensions
* M. Vere van Koppen

mv.van.koppen@vu.nl
1
Faculty of Law, Criminal Law & Criminology, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105,
1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile- and Adult-Onset Offenders 93
Introduction
Crime onset is a critical component of criminal careers as it might give insight into the
causes of crime. Onset is the moment at which individuals show discontinuity in their
behaviors for the first time; they make a transition from non-offender to offender. Most
life-course studies have traditionally focused on the onset of criminal behavior and its
correlates in children and adolescents [18, 40]. The advent of the group-based trajectory
methodology [43] enhanced the attention for other, less traditional, crime patterns such
as a delayed start of offending. For some individuals, criminal behavior was found only
to unfold later on in life.
Some scholars question the existence of true adult-onset offenders (onset at or after
age 18) and argue that adult onset in crime is so rare that it does not deserve research
attention at all [42]. Others contend that adult-onset offenders are an artifact of the use
of register data and that adult-onset offenders have most characteristics in common with
early-onset offenders [51, 70]. Over the last years, however, the study of adult-onset
offending has multiplied and provided evidence that “offending is not predominantly a
teenage phenomenon” ([14], p. 235), there is “a non-negligible amount of adult onset”
([22], p. 523), “evidence is mounting that late criminal onset exists, and that it can be
predicted early in the life course” ([73], p. 297). DeLisi and Piquero [8] identified this
understudied group of offenders as an important research gap in life-course criminology
that deserves serious research attention in the future. Also, more recently, Sapouna [56]
endorsed this argument by stating that “there is a non-negligible proportion of adult-
onset offenders that merits further research”.
Earlier studies have tried to predict and explain adult-onset offending, most
often by comparing risk factors for an early and adult onset of criminal behavior
(e.g., [1, 11]). It was found that several correlates do predict early-onset offending
but do not relate to adult-onset offending or vice versa (e.g., [10, 22, 35, 73, 74]).
It was to a lesser extent studied, however, how criminal careers of adult-onset
offenders develop. While other studies tried to identify psychological or
criminogenic correlates of a criminal onset, this study will rather describe and
compare criminal patterns of men and women with a juvenile or an adult onset. It
contributes to the existing knowledge because it is the first to systematically
describe a large set of criminal career dimensions for those with a delayed onset.
Not only will main components to the criminal career paradigm—participation,
frequency, seriousness, and career length—be analyzed, recidivism, crime mix,
seriousness of crimes, and specialization in types of crime will also be examined.
Findings for adult-onset offenders will be discussed in comparison to those for
juvenile-onset offenders. Moreover, all analyses will be gender-specific, allowing
for comparisons between male and female juvenile- and adult-onset offenders.
Theoretical Views on the Prevalence of Adult-Onset Offending
As early as 1986 [5], Blumstein and colleagues recognized that not all offenders start
early and estimated that four to five out of ten adult offenders do not have juvenile
records. Eggleston and Laub [11] confirmed the existence of those with a delayed onset
and challenged Moffitt et al. [42] by stating that “adult onset was not a rare event” in
94 M. V. van Koppen
their study. Up to date, however, it is unclear how large this group is and how their
behavior evolves.
Adult-onset offenders are disregarded by propensity and control theories, which
predominantly explain criminal behavior by a relatively stable underlying trait. Ac-
cording to such theories, individuals with certain characteristics are predisposed to
engage in crime [23, 41, 51]. This propensity for offending is more or less constant over
time and therefore, “adult antisocial behavior virtually requires childhood antisocial
behavior” ([51], p. 611). 1 The only explanation, according to this theory, for official
adult-onset offending is that prior offending (before age 18) simply has gone undetect-
ed and therefore adult onset is an artifact of the use of register data. Following this
argument, Moffitt et al. [42] argue that the “onset of antisocial behavior after adoles-
cence is extremely rare.” The traditional distinction of adolescence-limited and life-
course-persistent offenders does not allow for a delayed onset, i.e., after the age of 18
[41]. Also, more recently, it was argued by Beckley et al. [2] that the amount of adult-
onset offending is unremarkable and that, if existing at all, it can be explained in the
same way early-onset offending is explained.
Another line of reasoning is followed by dynamic life-course theories, explaining
delinquent and criminal behavior not only by personal characteristics but also by the
settings and opportunities for crime. Such theories allow for individual change in
offending at all times during the life course. Adult-onset offending is explained in
different, but related, ways by several dynamic theories. In their age-graded theory of
informal social control, Sampson and Laub [55] focus on the strength of bonds to
society, such as attachment to parents, (delinquent) friends, school, work, and supervi-
sion by parents or others. Changes over time in the strength of these bonds, whether or
not as a result of significant life events, can result in a turning point in behavior and
alter an individual’s choices. Individuals earlier engaged in crime can desist from crime
as a result of a positive life event (e.g., getting a job, marriage, becoming a parent), but
a negative life event (e.g., losing a job, divorce) can just as well be a stimulus to engage
in crime for individuals who have never engaged in crime before [53]. Individuals with
strong social bonds during childhood and adolescence may make the transition to crime
when these bonds weaken during the transition to adulthood or later in adulthood and
therefore, adult-onset offending is explained by transitions in adult life circumstances
[54].
From an interactional perspective, different factors explain crime onset at different
ages [64]. Important factors explaining an onset in early childhood (before age 6), for
example, are neuropsychological deficits and poor parenting. Individuals starting to
offend in later childhood (6–12 years) are influenced by their family and neighborhood,
while adolescent-onset offenders (12–18 years) act on the influence of their peers.
According to Thornberry and Krohn [64, 63], adult-onset offenders share individual
and psychological deficits with their early-onset counterparts, but differ from early-
onset offenders in that they had a supporting (family) environment that prevented them
from involvement in crime during childhood and adolescence. When individuals with
such strong ties make the transition to adulthood and independence, their buffer
1
It should be noted that definitions of crime can highly influence the assumptions embedded in a theory. For
example, Robins’ [51] definition of childhood antisocial behavior is much broader than the legal definition of
delinquent or criminal behavior, for example, including fighting and dropping out of school.
disappears, and they are incapable of managing higher education or a job. They are
unable to cope with the demands of adult life without the support of their family and as
a result, they seek for a solution in crime. Adult-onset offending then is explained by
strong family ties that accounted for inhibition of antisocial behavior in the early years
and the difficult transition to adulthood when protective factors fade away.
To summarize, traditional propensity theories consider adult-onset offending non-
existent or extremely infrequent and are not able to explain adult-onset offending other
than as being an artifact of measurement. More recent perspectives take a dynamic or
interactional approach by accounting for change in behavior due to changed propensity
or opportunities, thereby offering support for the existence adult-onset offending.
Empirical Evidence on the Prevalence of Adult-Onset Offending
Table 1 gives an overview of all known studies that described an offender sample based
on register data (police contacts, arrests, and convictions), followed individuals into
adulthood, and reported—or presented information enabling the inference of—the
proportion of individuals with an official crime onset at or after age 18 (in some
studies, adult-onset is defined as 20 or 21 years and older at first conviction).2 Excluded
are studies on special offender groups, such as samples of frequent or psychiatric
offenders (e.g., [12, 50]) and samples that do not reflect a randomly selected sample
from a population of individuals or offenders (e.g., [52]). The study conducted by
Glueck and Glueck [21], for example, is excluded because two groups of individuals
were selected for this study based on whether they committed crimes as juveniles.
Therefore, there is no offender group representing the population from which a
proportion of adult-onset offenders can be derived. Lastly, studies that used trajectory
modeling to identify adult-onset offenders are excluded from the table (e.g., [35]).
Trajectories are an approximation of a more complex underlying distribution and not all
individuals perfectly fit the trajectory they are classified to; instead, their crime pattern
fits that trajectory best [44]. Therefore, it is likely that some of those classified into an
adult-onset trajectory, in fact, committed their first crime before age 18.
In all 28 remaining longitudinal studies, evidence was found for the existence of
adult-onset offenders, although numbers vary from 9 to 72% of all offenders (Table 1).
On average, 39% of the offenders had an adult onset in these studies (median is 38%).
In 16 out of 28 studies, more than one third of the sample consists of adult-onset
offenders. The wide range of proportions is most likely due to methodological hetero-
geneity in the sampling procedures of the different studies (see also [2]). Samples used
in these studies range from 93 to 40,523 offenders, vary widely in the proportions of
males and females included (63 to 100% is male), use different definitions of offending,
and differ in follow-up from age 21 to age 72. The broader offending is defined, the
earlier crime onset takes place and the less adult onset was found. Secondly, time
windows should be wide enough to identify adult-onset offenders in the first place, and
2
This overview is different from the overviews given by Eggleston and Laub [11] and Beckley et al. [2] in that
it gives the proportion of adult-onset offending from all offenders (instead of all adult offenders) and that it
distinguishes between adult-onset offending among male and female offenders.
96
Table 1 Proportions of adult-onset offenders (≥ 18 years old) in register-based longitudinal studies
Authors City/country Type of sample Type of crime data N Follow-up % of Proportion adult startersA
(offenders) age males Both M e n Women
sexes (%) (%)
(%)
McCord [37]B Massachusetts, USA Treatment cohort 1939 Convictions 506 Appr. 46 100 62 62 –
Farrington [13] London, UK Age cohort 8- and 9-year-olds Convictions 136 24 100 24 24 –
in 1961–1962
Wolfgang et al. [71] Philadelphia, Birth cohort 1945 Police contacts 459 30 100 24 24 –
Pennsylvania, USA
Magnusson [34] Community in middle Age cohort 10 years in 1965 Convictions 328 29 81 45 39 75
Sweden
Shannon [57] Racine, Wisconsin, Birth cohort 1942 Police contacts 633 33 70 41 33 60
USA
USA
USA
Le Blanc and Fréchette [30] Montreal, Quebec, Random sample of 12- Court records 208 25 100 69 69 –
Canada to 17-year-olds
Stattin et al. [59] A larger city in Sweden Age cohort 10-year-olds Convictions 328 29 81 45 39 75
in 1965
Werner and Smith [68] Kauai, Hawaï Birth cohort 1955 Police contacts 113 32 75 9 9 7
and convictions
Tracy and Kempf-Leonard Philadelphia, Birth cohort 1958 Police contacts 7863 26 71 20 23 13
[65] Pennsylvania, USA
Farrington and Maughan [17]C London, UK Birth cohort 1952–1954 Convictions 140 40 100 18 18 –
Farrington and Maughan [17]C London, UK Birth cohort 1959–1960 Convictions 114 33 100 19 19 –
M. V. van Koppen
Table 1 (continued)
sexes (%) (%)
(%)
Kratzer and Hodgins [28]D Sweden Birth cohort 1953 Convictions 2799 30 84 41 39 52
Donnellan et al. [10] Tracy, California, USA Offender treatment cohort Arrests 2837 Appr. 40 100 48 48 –
1964/1965
Eggleston and Laub [11] Racine, Wisconsin, Birth cohort 1942 and 1949 Police contacts 284 25 and 32 73 29 22 48
USA
Carrington et al. [6] Canada, six provinces Birth cohort 1979/1980 Convictions 10,620 21 80 43 45 37
Gomez-Smith and Piquero Philadelphia, Sample of birth cohort 1959–1962 Police contacts and 298 36 or 39 – 26 – –
[22]E Pennsylvania, USA convictions
Lay et al. [29]F Mannheim, Germany Birth cohort 1970 Convictions and 93 25 80 48 51 37
self-reports
McGee and Farrington [38] London, UK Age cohort 8- and 9-year-olds Convictions 167 50 100 38 38 –
Harris [25]H Large south central Probation cohort October 1993 Convictions 3598 78 72 72 –
state, USA
Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile- and Adult-Onset Offenders
Blokland and Palmen [4] Netherlands Birth cohort 1984 Convictions 26,884 M = 29 92 65 65 66
Nilsson et al. [45]H Stockholm, Sweden Sample from birth cohort 1953 Police contacts 2741 23 83 35 32 45
Zara and Farrington [75] London, UK Age cohort 8- and 9-year-olds in Convictions 167 31 100 23 23 –
1961–1962
Blokland (2014, personal Netherlands Sample from offender cohort 1977 Convictions 4612 50 90 – 68 90
correspondence)
Sohoni et al. [58] Rochester, New York, Sample from age cohort Arrests 385 72 100 56 56 –
USA 13–15 year-olds (RYDS)
Thompson et al. [62] Queensland, Australia Birth cohort 1983/1984 Police contacts and 40,523 31–33 74 52 55 46
convictions
97
98
Table 1 (continued)
sexes (%) (%)
(%)
Beckley et al. [2]H Dunedin, New Zealand Birth cohort 1972/1973 Convictions 270 25 76 35 32 42
38
A
Adult starters are defined as those with a first judicial contact at age 18 or later. Frequencies and proportions are based on the offenders from the samples only
B
Percentages are not given in the paper, but derived from numbers presented in the paper
C
Farrington and Maughan [17] only present numbers of those with a first conviction after age 20, slightly underestimating the proportion of adult onset by the definition in the current
study
D
Kratzer and Hodgins [28] in their discussion report an incorrect percentage by stating that “the AS [adult-starter] type represented 55% of the male offenders and 78% of the female
offenders.” Based on the numbers given in the paper, it can be computed that the authors should have reported that “the AS type represented 55% of the male adult offenders and 78%
of the female adult offenders”. The percentages given in this table show the percentages of adult starters from the total offender sample in the study of Kratzer and Hodgins [28]. Yet
multiple authors reported the wrong percentages from the discussion in their publications (see, for example, [3], p. 78; [11], p. 614; [22], p. 517; [38], p. 533; [58], p. 157)
E
Information on the distribution of gender was not given. It should be noted that Gomez-Smith and Piquero [22] only report proportions male and female adult-onset offenders from the
total population, including non-offenders. They do not take into account that men disproportionally engage in crime compared to women and unfortunately, total numbers of offenders
in their sample are not given separately for men and women
F
Lay et al. [29] use a combination of official and self-reported offending to classify individuals. Therefore, official adult onset is likely to be higher based on official records alone
G
Pulkkinen et al. [49] use a combination of official and self-reported information on offending, probably underestimating the proportion of adult-onset offenders. Also, they use 21 as
cutoff age for adult onset, probably underestimating the proportion of adult-onset offenders
H
In some studies, another cutoff age is used to define adult-onset offenders. Harris [25] defines adult-onset offenders as those with a first conviction at or after age 17, slightly
overestimating the proportion of adult-onset offenders by the definition in the current study. Nilsson and colleagues [45] and Beckley et al. [2] respectively use a cutoff age of 19 and 20,
both slightly underestimating the proportion of adult-onset offenders
M. V. van Koppen
to follow their behavioral pattern over time and proportions of adult-onset offenders are
likely to rise as individuals are followed for longer periods.
Boys or men are generally found to engage in delinquent behavior at earlier ages
than women [50]. It is therefore not surprising that adult-onset offending is most often
found to be more prevalent in women than men [2, 4, 11, 25, 28, 34, 45, 57, 59]. As can
be seen in Table 1, proportions of adult-onset offenders among male offenders are
between 9 and 72% (M = 38%), proportions are between 7 and 90% for females (M =
48%). Some studies, however, found men to be more likely to experience an adult
crime onset than women [6, 62, 65, 68]. In other studies, no significant differences were
found between men and women in relationship to the amount of adult-onset offending
[11, 69].
Official and Self-Reported Adult-Onset Offending
Since most longitudinal studies of crime rely on official data, onset ages reflect
behavior that is observed by the authorities and is prohibited by law. Official adult-
onset offenders may, therefore, have expressed delinquent behavior before that has
gone undetected or was not severe enough to lead to arrest or conviction. Not all
criminal behavior is detected, not all detected crime is prosecuted, and not all prose-
cuted criminals are convicted. Therefore, it is likely that at least some official adult-
onset offenders have an unofficial history of criminal behavior [2, 38]. As a result of
detection effects in register data, onset age—and the amount of adult-onset offending—
to a certain extent is overestimated.
At the same time, other processes may lead to an underestimation of onset age.
Firstly, offenders of varying ages have unequal probabilities to get arrested. Older
offenders tend to commit offenses with a lower likelihood of detection than younger
offenders [38]. Furthermore, it has been found that age in itself affects the chance of
arrest. Individuals of different ages receive different levels of official control from the
authorities, resulting in a specific bias towards younger individuals [7]. Secondly, study
samples often only follow individuals up to a certain age, not covering the total life of
individuals. Proportions of adult-onset offenders are likely to increase as individuals are
followed up for longer periods (see also [6]). Studies that only have data available up to
age 25, for example, miss out on individuals starting to commit crime after that age,
lowering the proportion of adult-onset offenders. As a result of judicial selectivity and
research samples, onset age—and the amount of adult-onset offending—to a certain
extent is underestimated.
These factors influencing under- and overestimation of adult-onset offending are
best shown by the study of Zara and Farrington [73, 74]. Based on official records from
the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD), they identified 38 late
starters (first conviction at age 21 or later), 129 early starters (first conviction before
age 21), and 236 non-offenders. Based on these official records, 22.8% of the offenders
had an adult onset (38 / (38 + 129)). For all 403 men, Zara and Farrington also had
available self-reported information on offending. From the official non-offenders, 16
self-reported offenses in adulthood and eight self-reported offenses before age 18. Out
of 38 official late starters, three self-reported offending before age 21. Adjusted for self-
reported offending, 51 men had an adult onset (38 + 16 − 3), 140 had an early onset
(129 + 8 + 3), and 212 never offended (236 − 16 − 8). Both the group of adult-onset and
100 M. V. van Koppen
early-onset offenders became larger after adding information obtained from the indi-
viduals themselves. Based on a combination of official and self-reported offenses,
26.7% of the offenders had an adult onset. This shows that, at least in this study, the
underestimation of adult-onset offending due to official non-offenders committing
crimes in adulthood is larger than the overestimation of adult-onset offending due to
undetected crimes before age 18 by official adult-onset offenders.
Other studies containing both official and self-reported measures of offending
confirm that self-reported adult-onset offending exists. Lay et al. [29] used a
combination of officially recorded and self-reported crime to identify adult-onset
offenders in a sample of 321 8-year-olds with behavioral problems followed up to
age 25. Using this approach, they identified 45 offenders out of a total of 93
offenders (48%) who were convicted or self-reported crime only during adulthood.
Should they have considered official records, only 12 individuals would have been
identified as adult-onset offenders (13%). Thus, similar to studies conducted by
Zara and Farrington [73, 74], adult onset is not only overestimated by official
records, but self-reports also reveal offenders who start committing crime later on
in life who would have been classified as non-offender by official data. It was
found in studies comparing register data with self-reported information on crim-
inal behavior that a time gap of 3 to 5 years exists between the first self-reported
crime and the first official crime onset [27, 30, 33, 42, 61].
Dimensions of Adult-Onset Offending Careers
Although adult-onset offenders are disregarded by some scholars (e.g., [42]), the
studies presented in Table 1 show ample evidence of at least a substantial proportion
of adult-onset offenders among general offenders samples. Up to date, however,
juvenile-onset offending received overpowering research attention while still little is
known on those with a later onset in crime. While the correlates of adult-onset
offending received more and more attention during the past years, the study of adult-
onset offending has to a lesser extent focused on the criminal patterns that follow a
crime onset at a later age, although several studies touched upon several criminal career
parameters [6, 19, 38]. Some expectations can be derived from these earlier studies and
from general conclusions on the relationship between onset age and criminal career
characteristics.
Frequency, Intensity, and Duration
It was often found that an earlier onset in crime predicts a lengthier and more
frequent career [15, 20]. In line with this finding, adult-onset offenders were
previously found to offend less frequently than those who had an early start in
crime [2, 6]. For example, adult-onset offenders in the large-scale Queensland
Longitudinal Dataset comprise 52% of the sample, but only are responsible for
one out of four offenses [62]. In the CSDD, adult-onset offenders committed 2
crimes on average in their careers, while early-onset offenders on average com-
mitted 6 crimes in their careers [75]. Also, when comparisons are restricted to
crimes committed in adulthood, juvenile-onset offenders still tend to commit more
offenses than adult-onset offenders [48]. In most studies, it was found that the
average career length decreases as onset age increases [38, 65, 75]. In contrast to
these findings, Thornberry and Krohn [64] in their interactional theory predict that
individuals starting their criminal career in late adolescence or emerging adulthood
have more cognitive deficits and thus show more continuity in offending than
individuals with an early crime onset.
Recidivism
In general, it was found that offenders with a late crime onset recidivate less often than
offenders with an early crime onset. Of the late-onset offenders in the CSDD, 40%
committed more than one crime compared to 80% of the early-onset offenders [72]. In
the Queensland Longitudinal Dataset, most adult-onset offenders only offended once
(57%) or twice (19%). Only 9% of the adult-onset offenders committed more than five
offenses [62]. McGee and Farrington [38] found that the odds of becoming a recidivist
were six times lower for adult- than for juvenile-onset offenders.
Crime Mix
The onset of some offenses takes place at earlier stages in life than other types [32]. For
example, shoplifting, burglary, and vandalism tend to occur before adulthood, while
robbery, drug trafficking, and rape are typically first committed in adulthood [26, 30].
This tendency also emerges when the crime mix of juvenile- and adult-onset offenders
are compared. It was, for example, found that adult-onset offenders are relatively often
involved in sex offenses, theft from work, vandalism, fraud, and carrying an offensive
weapon. Compared to juvenile-onset offenders, they are less likely to be involved in
robberies, burglaries, drug offenses, and (vehicle) thefts [38, 56].
Seriousness of Offending
In general, an early onset is found to be an indicator of a more serious criminal

career [48]. Previous findings on the seriousness of adult-onset offending are
scarce, and those studies that report on the seriousness of adult-onset offenders
produce mixed findings. In some studies, it was found that crimes committed by
adult-onset offenders on average are less severe than those committed by juvenile-
onset offenders [2, 6]. For example, Thompson et al. [62] identified more than half
of their large sample as adult-onset offenders, and 95% of these adult-onset
offenders had brief offending careers and only committed minor offenses. One
out of ten adult-onset offenders ever committed a serious offense; 43% of the
adult-onset offenders only committed minor offenses [62]. Conversely, Wolfgang
et al. [71] found that crimes committed by adult-onset offenders are significantly
more serious than crimes committed by juvenile-onset offenders.
Offense Specialization
Overall, little specialization has been found over the life course [47]. Up to age 20,
offenders become more and more versatile as they are committing more and more
offenses [16]. From age 20 on, however, levels of specialization increase as offenders
age and gain experience [39, 46]. Piquero et al. [46] studied specialization in early- and
late-onset offender groups from the 1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort and found that
offenders with an early onset were more diverse than late-onset offenders. After
controlling for age, this association was no longer significant, indicating that aging in
itself attributes to increasing levels of specialization.
This Study
This study adds to the few recent studies that specifically focused on adult-onset
offending in several ways. First, the studies on this specific offender group mostly
focused on the correlates of adult-onset offending, trying to explain onset of
offending in adulthood (e.g., [22, 73, 74]). The current study shows how dimen-
sions of adult-onset criminal careers resemble or differ from those of juvenile-
onset careers. Second, the limited number of studies that specifically focused on
adult-onset offenders used rather small samples, from 93 to 385 individuals (e.g.,
[29, 58]).3 This study uses a large recent sample (N = 43,338), which represents a
proportionally stratified sample from a nationwide cohort of offenders and their
criminal careers. Third, most of the studies only followed individuals up to their
20s [29, 62] or 30s [2, 11, 22, 58], missing out on individuals with an even later
onset.4 The current study follows individuals far into adulthood, up to 94 years of
age. Fourth, the current study includes both men and women and is therefore able
to compare juvenile- and adult-onset careers across gender.
The central aim of the study is to identify, describe, and compare criminal
careers of men and women with a different onset age in terms of frequency,
intensity, duration, recidivism, crime mix, seriousness, and specialization. For
each measure of the criminal career, gender-specific comparisons are carried out
between juvenile- and adult-onset offenders (respectively onset before and after
age 18) and onset-specific comparisons are made between male and female
offenders. This results in four comparisons:
(1) juvenile-onset males vs. adult-onset males

(2) juvenile-onset females vs. adult-onset females
(3) juvenile-onset males vs. juvenile-onset females
(4) adult-onset males vs. adult-onset females
Overall, it is expected that juvenile-onset offenders have more serious careers

(highest frequency, highest intensity, highest recidivism rates, most serious crime,
and most diverse crime mix) than adult-onset offenders and that men have more serious
careers than women. Based on previous studies, it is expected that male juvenile-onset
offenders have the most serious criminal careers and that female adult-onset offenders
have the least serious criminal careers.
3
One exception is the study by Thompson et al. [62]. They, however, only follow individuals up to age 25.
4
Only the studies on adult-onset offenders conducted by McGee and Farrington [38] and Zara and Farrington
[75] followed individuals up to 50 years of age.
Data and Methods
Sample and Offending Careers
For this study, a representative sample of 50,000 from all 140,649 individuals (35.5%)
who had a criminal record in the Netherlands in 2013 is used. 5 The sample is
proportionally stratified by onset age and type of first offense in a way that the
distributions of these two variables in the sample resemble the distributions in the
population. The sample consists of 40,164 men (80.3%) and 9836 women (19.7%)
committing a crime in 2013 in the Netherlands. Information on all judicial records from
age 12 up to 1 July 2014 is derived from the Dutch Judicial Documentation System
(JDS), which contains information on all judicial contacts that resulted in a conviction,
acquittal, prosecutorial fine, or waiver. 6 Every record of a judicial contact contains
information on the crime (e.g., date, type of crime), the individual committing the crime
(e.g., gender, year of birth), and the way the crime was handled by the authorities (e.g.,
sentence). For the purpose of this study, traffic offenses were excluded. For the
remaining 43,338 individuals (13% of the sample only committed traffic offenses),
all criminal records from age 12 to his or her age at the end of the observation period or
death are available.7 We have information available on 988,152 age-years and together,
the individuals are responsible for 241,915 criminal records. The data are mainly
retrospective; individuals were selected because they had a judicial record in 2013;
information is gathered on their criminal behavior from age 12 up to 1 July 2014. A
small number of individuals died between their 2013 crime and the end of the
observation period (N = 161, 0.4%). They are followed up to the date of their death.
Because an offender cohort is used, individuals are followed up to different ages.
Offenders were between 13 and 95 years of age at the end of the observation period
(M = 34.8, sd = 14.3).
Measures
Official Age of Onset Onset age is defined as the individual’s age at the first
registration. The sample is divided into two groups based on the onset age of official
offending. Juvenile-onset offenders are those with an onset before age 18; adult-onset
offenders are those with an onset at or after age 18. Reasons for the use of 18 as cutoff
age conform with Eggleston and Laub [11]. First, the age 18 defines the start of
adulthood in most societies. Second, the age 18 is the legal age of majority in the
Netherlands. Third, onset peaks around age 16; therefore, 18 truly is a late onset.
Frequency, Intensity, and Duration Frequency of offending is the number of of-

fenses committed in a particular period. Crime intensity refers to the average number of
crimes per year in a particular period. Intensity is only examined for those individuals
who had at least two records over their life course. Both frequency and intensity
5
Because of budgetary reasons, a sample instead of the population was used for this study.
6
Cases that ended in an acquittal were excluded from the analyses. For more information on the Dutch
Judicial Documentation System (JDS), see Wartna et al. [66].
7
The first record in the dataset is in 1942. In 2013, the mean age of offenders in the sample equals to
33.3 years (sd = 14.3). The youngest offenders were 12, while the oldest offender was 95 in 2013.
measures are given for the total career (all crimes and years included) and the adult
career (only crimes and years included that were committed at or after age 18).
Duration is defined as the number of years between the individual’s earliest registration
and the individual’s last registration in the dataset, i.e., the age of desistance or
termination. Individuals committing a single crime have a career duration equal to zero.
Recidivism Recidivism identifies offenders by the number of crimes they commit.

One-shot offenders are those who only commit a single crime. Recidivists are offenders
who commit two or more crimes in their career. Chronics are offenders who commit ten
or more crimes in their career (also including recidivists).
Crime Mix Offense type is based on the standard classification of the Netherlands
Bureau of Statistics. Crimes are classified into one of five types: violent offenses
(including also sexual offenses and violent property offenses), property offenses,
vandalism, drugs offenses, and other offenses.
Seriousness of Offending Measuring seriousness is complex as definitions of crime

seriousness vary widely [31]. In this study, two simple measures of seriousness are
used. Firstly, crime seriousness is measured by the judicial settlement: was an uncon-
ditional prison sentence imposed and how long was this prison sentence? Since groups
of offenders are compared, this measure results in proportions of offenders who
received a prison sentence and means of the length of these prison sentences. A
disadvantage of this measure is that judicial settlements are not only based on the
seriousness of the crime but also depend on individual circumstances of the offender
and the offender’s judicial history. Therefore, a second measure of seriousness, inde-
pendent of other variables than the crime itself, is used. All crimes are categorized
based on their statutory maximum punishment threat under the Dutch law into minor (0
to 4 years punishment threat), moderate (4 to 8 years punishment threat), or severe
(8 years or more punishment threat).
Offense Specialization As a measure of offense specialization, the diversity index is

used. This individual measure of crime type versatility “reflects the probability that any
two offenses drawn randomly from an individual’s particular set of offenses belong to
separate offending categories” ([36], p. 1153). The diversity index is given by:
M
D ¼ 1− ∑ p2m ð1Þ
m¼1
where p equals the proportion of offenses (i.e., the relative frequencies of each
offense category) and m = 1, 2,…, M indicates the offense categories. The minimum
value of D equals 0, indicating complete specialization. The maximum value of D when
using five offense categories equals 0.8, indicating complete offense versatility.8 One of
the potential limitations of the diversity index is that the values of the index are
8
The maximum value of D depends on the number of offense categories used and is given by Dmax = (k − 1) /
k, where k gives the number of offense categories.
confounded by offense frequency [60]. For this reason and next to an overall diversity
index, juvenile- and adult-onset offenders with an equal number of total offenses are
compared on their level of offense specialization.
Analyses
Because of the large sample sizes, tests for significant differences (t test for ratio
variables and χ2 test for dichotomous and categorical variables) as well as effect
sizes (Cohen’s d for ratio variables, odds ratio for dichotomous variables, and
Cramer’s V for categorical variables) are used to indicate differences between the
subgroups. Within each table and for each measure, a letter indicates whether the
difference between two subgroups reaches significance with a conservative threshold of
p < .001:
M for a significant difference between juvenile- and adult-onset males
F for a significant difference between juvenile- and adult-onset females
J for a significant difference between juvenile-onset males and juvenile-onset
females
A for a significant difference between adult-onset males and adult-onset females.
Clinical significance is indicated by these letters in bold. In such cases, the effect size
d > .5 (for ratio variables), a significant odds ratio (for dichotomous variables), or
Cramer’s V is significant (p < .05; for categorical variables).
Findings
Official Age of Onset
In the total sample, the average age of onset equals 25 years (Table 2). From all
individuals, 39% had their first official record before their 18th birthday (juvenile-
onset offenders) and 61% experienced a crime onset at age 18 or later (adult-onset
offenders). If the first self-reported crime would have been 3 to 5 years earlier than
the first official record, as was suggested in earlier studies [27, 30, 33, 42, 61],
respectively, 42 to 36% of the sample would have an adult onset. Women are
overrepresented among the adult-onset offenders (OR = 2.76, CI = 2.61–2.91).
From all female offenders, 78% had an adult onset, compared to 57% from all
male offenders. Male and female juvenile-onset offenders do not differ on their
onset age (Table 3; both 15.5 years), but adult-onset females on average are a few
years older when they start committing crimes than adult-onset males (34.1 vs.
30.0, t(10,775) = − 20.30, p < .001, d = − 0.30).
Adult-onset offenders by definition start offending later in life. An expected conse-
quence of this and of the sampling procedure therefore is that adult-onset offenders are
older on average at the end of the observation period than juvenile-onset offenders are.
On average, male and female juvenile-onset offenders are followed-up to respectively
29 and 25 years of age. Both male and female adult-onset offenders are on average
followed up to 39 years of age. Although information for both juvenile- and adult-onset
offenders is available from age 12 on up to at least age 25, criminal careers of juvenile-
Table 2 Descriptives of the total sample (N = 43,340)
M sd Range
Official adult onset (0 = no; 1 = yes) 0.61 0–1

Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) 0.19 0–1
Official age of onset 25.0 13.2 11–95
Age at end of observation period 34.8 14.3 1396
Age of last crime in dataset 32.7 14.2 12–95
Career duration in dataset 7.7 10.1 0–62
Frequency total career 5.6 10.5 1–293
Frequency adult career 4.6 9.80 0–292
A
Intensity total career 0.9 0.9 0.04–19
Intensity adult careerB 0.7 1.1 0.03–97
A
Only those offenders who have committed more than one crime in total at different moments in time are
included (N = 26,417)
B
Only those offenders who have committed more than one crime in adulthood (from age 18) are included
(N = 22,274)
onset offenders cover a limited number of years compared to those of adult-onset

offenders. This should be kept in mind when interpreting the findings.9
Frequency, Intensity, and Duration
Altogether, the adult-onset offenders are responsible for 94,720 crimes (39% of all
crimes). Juvenile-onset offenders, although representing a smaller part of the sample,
together commit 147,195 crimes (61% of all crimes). Both juvenile-onset males and
females commit significantly more crimes than their adult-onset counterparts (Table 3; for
men, 9.1 vs. 4.0, t(23,336) = 41.35, p < .001, d = 0.45; for women, 4.7 vs. 2.5, t(2277) =
10.69, p < .001, d = 0.31). Although the careers of male juvenile-onset offenders are on
average 1.7 times longer than careers of male adult-onset offenders, male juvenile-onset
offenders on average commit 2.3 as many crimes. When only taking into account crimes
committed in adulthood, male juvenile-onset offenders on average commit 1.6 times more
crimes than male adult-onset offenders (6.5 vs. 4.0, t(24,469) = 21.60, p < .001, d = 0.23),
while female juvenile- and adult-onset offenders do not significantly differ on the number
of crimes committing in adulthood (2.9 vs. 2.5, t(2327) = 2.30, p = .022, d = 0.05). The
earlier the crime onset is, the more crimes are committed in the entire criminal career
(Fig. 1). However, differences in the intensity of the criminal career between juvenile- and
adult-onset offenders are small (for men, 1.0 vs. 0.9, t(19,793) = 12.26, p < .001, d = 0.11;
for women, both 0.9, t(2899) = .005, p = .996, d = 0). Adult-onset offenders offend at a
9
Furthermore, it should be noted that these descriptives are not controlled for by periods of incarceration.
However, as can be seen from Table 5, juvenile-onset offenders received three times as many prison sentences
and spent more time in prison during their total career than adult-onset offenders. Therefore, differences
between frequency, career duration, and intensity would only become larger when periods of incarceration
would be taken into account.
Table 3 Descriptives of the sample differentiated by onset and gender
Male Male Female Female Significant

juvenile adult onset juvenile adult differences*
onset (N = 19,804) onset onset
(N = 15,165) (N = 1,820) (N = 6,549)
M (sd) M (sd) M (sd) M (sd)
Official age of onset 15.5 (1.5) 30.0 (13.5) 15.5 (1.4) 34.1 (14.2) M F A
Age at end of observation period 28.5 (10.6) 39.1 (14.8) 24.5 (9.2) 39.3 (14.8) M F J
Age of last crime in dataset 26.5 (10.4) 36.7 (14.7) 22.8 (9.1) 37.7 (14.8) M F J A
Career duration in dataset 11.0 (10.3) 6.6 (9.9) 7.3 (9.0) 3.6 (7.4) M F J A
Frequency total career 9.1 (13.6) 4.0 (8.2) 4.7 (8.4) 2.5 (5.6) M F J A
Frequency adult career 6.5 (12.7) 4.0 (8.2) 2.9 (8.0) 2.5 (5.6) M J A
A
Intensity total career 1.0 (0.9) 0.9 (1.0) 0.9 (0.9) 0.9 (1.0) M J
Intensity adult careerB 1.0 (1.4) 0.4 (0.5) 0.8 (0.8) 0.3 (0.4) M A
*A letter indicates a significant difference between two subgroups (p <.001). A letter in bold indicates a
substantial effect (d < 0.5, a significant odds ratio, or a significant Cramer’s V (p < 0.05)). M indicates a
significant difference between juvenile- and adult-onset males; F indicates a significant difference between
juvenile- and adult-onset females; J indicates a significant difference between juvenile-onset males and
juvenile-onset females; A indicates a significant difference between adult-onset males and adult-onset females
A
Only those offenders who have committed more than one crime in total at different moments in time are
included
B
Only those offenders who have committed more than one crime in adulthood (from age 18) are included
lower rate and therefore commit fewer crimes than juvenile-onset offenders. Both for men
and women, career duration is longer for juvenile- than for adult-onset offenders (for men,
11.0 vs. 6.6 years, t(31,991) = 39.52, p < .001, d = 0.44; for women, 7.3 vs. 3.6, t(2553) =
16.03, p < .001, d = 0.45).
Recidivism
The odds of being a recidivist (two or more offenses) is 5.6 times higher for juvenile-
onset males than for adult-onset males (Table 4; 87 vs. 54%, OR = 0.18, CI = 0.17–
18
Median onset Men (N=34,969)
16 age men
Women (N=8,369)
Mean number of crimes in career
14
12 Median onset
age wo men
10
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Official onset age
Fig. 1 Mean number of crimes in career across onset age

Table 4 Recidivism and crime mix differentiated by onset and gender
Male juvenile Male adult Female juvenile Female adult Significant

onset onset (N = 19,804) onset (N = 1,820) onset (N = 6,549) differences*
(N = 15,165)
M (sd) / % M (sd) / % M (sd) / % M (sd) / %
Recidivists 86.5% 53.9% 72.3% 37.8% M F J A

Chronics 26.9% 8.2% 9.7% 3.1% M F J A
First crime M F A
Violence 22.0% 22.9% 25.1% 13.4%
Property 42.4% 26.9% 43.2% 46.2%
Vandalism 25.4% 18.9% 22.4% 8.0%
Drugs 1.0% 5.4% 0.7% 6.0%
Other 9.1% 25.9% 8.6% 26.4%
Total career
Total violence 1.9 (2.6) 0.8 (1.6) 0.8 (1.4) 0.3 (0.7) M F J A
Total property 4.6 (10.7) 1.6 (6.3) 2.7 (7.3) 1.5 (5.0) M F J
Total vandalism 1.5 (2.0) 0.6 (1.4) 0.6 (1.2) 0.2 (0.7) M F J A
Total drugs 0.4 (1.0) 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.5) 0.1 (0.5) M J A
Total other 0.8 (1.2) 0.7 (1.4) 0.4 (0.8) 0.4 (0.6) M J A
Any violence 66.2% 42.3% 46.6% 20.7% M F J A
Any property 71.3% 42.0% 66.9% 53.7% M F J A
Any vandalism 62.9% 33.5% 29.1% 13.4% M F J A
Any drugs 22.1% 14.2% 9.4% 8.9% M J A
Any other 45.8% 42.4% 29.8% 33.8% M F J A
*A letter indicates a significant difference between two subgroups (p < .001). A letter in bold indicates a
substantial effect (d < 0.5, a significant odds ratio, or a significant Cramer’s V (p < .05)). M indicates a
0.19) and 4.3 times higher for juvenile-onset females than for adult-onset females (72
vs. 38%, OR = 0.23, CI = 0.21–0.26). Also, adult-onset males recidivate more than
adult-onset females (54 vs. 38%, OR = 0.52, CI = 0.49–0.55). Almost half of all male
adult-onset offenders is a one-shot offender, while almost nine out of ten male juvenile-
onset offenders recidivate. Chronics (ten or more offenses) are overrepresented among
the juvenile-onset males (27%) compared to the adult-onset males (8%, OR = 0.24,
CI = 0.23–0.26). Also, compared to adult-onset females, adult-onset males more often
are chronics (OR = 0.36, CI = 0.31–0.42).
Figure 2 shows conditional probabilities differentiated by onset and gender. Condi-
tional probabilities give the probability of committing crime k given that crime k − 1 is
committed. The conditional probability for the third crime, for example, gives the
probability of committing a third crime given that a second crime has been committed.
Since we use an offender sample, all individuals commit at least one offense and
therefore the conditional probability of the first crime equals 1. All groups show the
same upward trend; the more crimes are committed, the higher probabilities are for a
0.9
Conditional probability
0.8
0.7
0.6 Male juvenile onset

Male adult onset
0.5
Female juvenile onset
0.4 Female adult onset
0.3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >15
nth crime
Fig. 2 Conditional probabilities for committing the next crime for juvenile- and adult-onset offenders
next crime. In other words, an offender who already committed ten crimes is more
likely to commit an 11th crime than an offender who committed his second crime is to
commit a third crime. As can be seen in Fig. 2, conditional probabilities are highest for
male juvenile-onset offenders, while female adult-onset offenders have the lowest
conditional probabilities. Once a juvenile man commits his first crime, he is very likely
to continue his criminal career. An adult woman committing a first or second crime is
less likely to commit a next crime. Conditional probabilities for the tenth offense and
next offenses converge for the different groups; once an offender commits about ten
crimes, he or she is likely to pursue committing crimes, irrespective of gender and onset
age.
Crime Mix
A comparison of the first crime and total career in terms of crime mix between the four
offender groups is shown in Table 4. The type of the first crime is different for males
with a juvenile and adult onset (χ2 = 2553.88, df = 4, p < .001; Cramer’s V = 0.27,
p < .001). While juvenile-onset males more often start a criminal career with a property
crime (adjusted residual = 30.5) or vandalism (adjusted residual = 14.7), adult-onset
males more often commit drug-related crimes (adjusted residual = − 22.0) or violence
(adjusted residual = − 2.0). Women with a juvenile and adult onset also differ on their
first crime (χ2 = 672.76, df = 4, p < .001; Cramer’s V = 0.28, p < .001); juveniles more
often start by committing vandalism (adjusted residual = 17.3) or violence (adjusted
residual = 12.0), while adults tend to start committing a drug-related crime (adjusted
residual = − 9.2) or property crime (adjusted residual = − 2.3). Adult-onset offenders of
a different gender also differ on their first crime (χ2 = 1164.87, df = 4, p < .001;
Cramer’s V = 0.21, p < .001); men are more likely to commit vandalism (adjusted
residual = 20.8) or violence (adjusted residual = 16.5), while women more often start
their criminal career by committing a property crime (adjusted residual = − 29.2) or
drug-related crime (adjusted residual = − 1.6).
Next to the type of the first offense, it can be questioned to what extent the types of
crimes committed later on in the lives of juvenile- and adult-onset offenders differ. On
average in their total career, male juvenile-onset offenders commit more crimes than
male adult-onset offenders of every offense; they commit more violent crimes (1.9 vs.
0.8, t(23,794) = 44.71, p < .001, d = 0.51), more property crimes (4.6 vs. 1.6,
t(23,039) = 30.53, p < .001, d = 0.34), more vandalism (1.5 vs. 0.6, t(25,431) = 44.63,
p < .001, d = 0.52), more drug-related crimes (0.4 vs. 0.2, t(26,276) = 16.89, p < .001,
d = 0.23), and more other types of crime (0.8 vs. 0.7, t(34,721) = 7.36, p < .001, d =
0.08). Male adult-onset offenders, however, commit more crimes of each type than
female adult-onset offenders do.
Seriousness of Offending
Offenders of the same gender but with a different onset (juvenile vs. adult) do not
significantly differ on the probability of a prison sentence after the first offense
(Table 5). Adult-onset offenders, however, who are imprisoned, receive longer prison
sentences than juvenile-onset offenders of the same gender (men, 0.8 vs. 0.2 years,
t(827) = −9.04, p < .001, d = 0.49; women, 0.8 vs. 0.2 years, t(92) = −4.11, p < .001,
d = −0.60). First crimes of adult-onset offenders more often are minor (men, 33%;
Table 5 Seriousness of offending differentiated by onset and gender
Male Male adult Female Female Significant

juvenile onset onset juvenile onset adult onset differences*
(N = 15,165) (N = 19,804) (N = 1,820) (N = 6,549)
M (sd) / % M (sd) / % M (sd) / % M (sd) / %
First crime
Prison sentence 12.3% 11.8% 5.7% 4.7% J A
Years prison sentenceA 0.2 (0.3) 0.8 (1.7) 0.2 (0.1) 0.8 (1.4) M F
Seriousness of offending M F J A
Minor crime 13.0% 32.6% 12.0% 30.7%
Moderate crime 77.6% 63.0% 84.0% 67.4%
Serious crime 9.4% 4.4% 4.0% 1.9%
Total career
Any prison sentence 55.3% 28.1% 26.3% 12.3% M F J A
Number of prison sentences 2.7 (5.3) 0.9 (2.9) 1.0 (3.1) 0.4 (1.9) M F J A
Total years prison sentenceA 1.7 (2.8) 1.4 (2.3) 0.8 (1.3) 0.7 (1.3) M J A
# of minor crimes 1.3 (1.9) 0.9 (1.9) 0.6 (1.3) 0.5 (0.9) M J A
# of moderate crimes 7.1 (11.7) 2.8 (6.9) 3.9 (7.5) 1.9 (5.1) M F J A
# of serious crimes 0.7 (1.4) 0.2 (0.7) 0.2 (0.7) 0.1 (0.4) M F J A
Any minor crime 58.4% 52.2% 37.1% 39.8% M J A
Any moderate crime 93.4% 76.3% 91.5% 73.4% M F A
Any serious crime 38.2% 13.3% 14.5% 4.7% M F J A
A
Only those offenders who received a prison sentence are included
women, 31%), while juvenile-onset offenders more often commit moderate (men, 78%;
women, 84%) and serious crimes (men, 9%; women, 4%). More than half of the
juvenile-onset males received a prison sentence at some point in their careers compared
to 29% of the adult-onset males (OR = 0.32, CI = 0.30–0.33). Juvenile-onset compared
to adult-onset females also twice as often are imprisoned at some points in their lives
(26 vs. 12%, OR = 0.39, CI = 0.34–0.45).
On average, juvenile-onset males more often received prison sentences than adult-
onset males (2.7 vs. 0.9, t(22,158) = 37.22, p < .001, d = 0.42) and also spent more time
in prison in total (1.7 vs. 1.4 years, t(7563) = 5.90, p < .001, d = 0.12). Compared to
adult-onset females, adult-onset males more often received prison sentences (0.9 vs.
0.4, t(17,049) = 17.59, p < .001, d = 0.20) and spent more time in prison (1.4 vs. 0.7,
t(685) = 8.89, p < 001, d = 0.37). More juvenile- than adult-onset males ever committed
a minor crime (58 vs. 52%, OR = 0.78, CI = 0.75–0.81). More juvenile- than adult-
onset males ever committed a moderate crime (93 vs. 76%; OR = 0.23, CI = 0.21–0.25)
and ever committed a serious crime (38 vs. 13%; OR = 0.25, CI = 0.24–0.26). Like
men, juvenile- and adult-onset females show about the same difference regarding
moderate and serious crimes. However, adult-onset females as often as juvenile-onset
females commit at least one minor crime (40 vs. 37%, χ2 = 4.37, df = 1, p = .037).
Some types of crime are more serious in nature than other types. Therefore, offense
seriousness is also distinguished by offense type for all offender groups (Table 6). Within
most types of crime and both for men and women, offenses committed by juvenile-onset
offenders more often are serious and less often are minor. Only for some offenses, where
the level of seriousness is mostly low (other) or moderate (property), numbers are equal for
juvenile- and adult-onset offenders. An exception is female adult-onset offenders, who
commit more serious vandalism than female juvenile-onset offenders do.
Offense Specialization
Only recidivists (those who commit more than one crime) can be diverse or specialized in
their offending. Therefore, one-shot offenders are excluded from the analyses on special-
ization. Overall, juvenile-onset offenders show higher levels of diversity in their offending
than adult-onset offenders (Table 7; men, 0.51 vs. 0.43, t(20,859) = 28.41, p < .001, d =
0.37; women, 0.40 vs. 0.28, t(2876) = 14.97, p < .001, d = 0.50) and men show higher
levels of diversity than women (juvenile onset, 0.51 vs. 0.40, t(1509) = 15.77, p < .001,
d = 0.51; adult onset, 0.43 vs. 0.28, t(3529) = 26.34, p < .001, d = 0.62). Because the
diversity index is confounded by offense frequency, individuals with an equal number
of offenses are also compared on their level of offense specialization. These comparisons
confirm that, regardless of the frequency of offending, adult-onset offenders show higher
levels of offense specialization than juvenile-onset offenders and women show higher
levels of offense specialization than men. However, the effect sizes indicate a small to
large difference between both offender groups (d = 0.09–1.05).
Conclusions and Discussion
The central aim of this study was to explore the criminal careers of those with a delayed
onset of offending. Using a sample of 43,338 offenders with criminal careers spanning from
112
Table 6 Seriousness of offending distinguished by crime type
Male juvenile onset Male adult onset Female juvenile onset Female adult onset Significant differences*
Minor Moderate Serious Minor Moderate Serious Minor Moderate Serious Minor Moderate Serious
Violence 1% 70% 29% 1% 83% 16% 1% 79% 20% 1% 87% 12% M F J A

Property 3% 97% 0% 5% 95% 0% 2% 98% 0% 3% 97% 0% M F J A
Vandalism 19% 76% 5% 27% 69% 4% 18% 80% 2% 33% 63% 4% M F J A
Drugs 29% 46% 25% 33% 49% 18% 32% 42% 26% 31% 53% 17% M
Other 94% 4% 2% 93% 6% 1% 95% 3% 2% 92% 8% 1% M F A
*A letter indicates a significant difference between two subgroups (p < .001). A letter in bold indicates a substantial effect (d < 0.5, a significant odds ratio, or a significant Cramer’s V (p
< .05)). M indicates a significant difference between juvenile- and adult-onset males; F indicates a significant difference between juvenile- and adult-onset females; J indicates a
significant difference between juvenile-onset males and juvenile-onset females; A indicates a significant difference between adult-onset males and adult-onset females
M. V. van Koppen
Table 7 Offense specialization
Male juvenile Male adult Female juvenile Female adult Significant

onset onset onset onset differences*
(N = 13,123) (N = 10,683) (N = 1,316) (N = 2,475)
Overall diversity index 0.51 (0.20) 0.43 (0.23) 0.40 (0.23) 0.28 (0.25) M F J A
Diversity index by number
of crimes
2 crimes 0.35 (0.23) 0.31 (0.24) 0.33 (0.24) 0.24 (0.25) M F A
3 crimes 0.46 (0.20) 0.42 (0.22) 0.39 (0.24) 0.30 (0.26) M F J A
4 crimes 0.51 (0.18) 0.47 (0.21) 0.45 (0.23) 0.30 (0.26) M F A
5 crimes 0.53 (0.17) 0.50 (0.20) 0.48 (0.20) 0.35 (0.25) M F A
6 crimes 0.55 (0.16) 0.52 (0.19) 0.43 (0.23) 0.30 (0.25) F J A
7 crimes 0.57 (0.15) 0.52 (0.19) 0.45 (0.20) 0.33 (0.25) M F J A
8 crimes 0.58 (0.15) 0.53 (0.19) 0.47 (0.21) 0.32 (0.21) M F J A
9 crimes 0.58 (0.16) 0.54 (0.19) 0.45 (0.24) 0.36 (0.20) J A
10 crimes 0.60 (0.13) 0.54 (0.19) 0.47 (0.19) 0.38 (0.23) M J A
> 10 crimes 0.46 (0.18) 0.43 (0.20) 0.36 (0.19) 0.26 (0.17) F J A
age 12 to a maximum of age 96, the underexplored group of offenders with a delayed onset
was compared to those with a juvenile crime onset. Almost two out of three offenders in this
study experienced an official onset in adulthood. This proportion is among the higher ones
found in offender samples in other studies. Juvenile-onset offenders, however, together
commit more crimes than adult-onset offenders; they are responsible for two out of three
crimes. While earlier studies showed mixed results in relation to gender and adult-onset
offending [4, 6, 62], the current study clearly showed that female offenders are overrepre-
sented among the adult-onset offenders; the odds of being an adult-onset offender is almost
three times higher for female offenders than for male offenders.
This study showed that features of criminal careers of adult-onset offenders are
significantly different from those of juvenile-onset offenders. The key finding that
emerged from the comparison is that criminal careers of both male and female adult-
and juvenile-onset offenders do not only differ in the timing of onset, but also in terms
of frequency, duration, recidivism, crime mix, seriousness, and specialization. Overall,
the same differences between juvenile- adult-onset offenders are found in males and
females, except for the prevalence and intensity of offending; juvenile-onset males
show a higher intensity of offending than adult-onset males, but no differences in crime
intensity were found between juvenile- and adult-onset females. Criminal careers of
both male and female juvenile-onset offenders are more serious than those of their
adult-onset counterparts; they commit approximately two times more crimes on aver-
age, three times more often are chronics, approximately two times more often receive
prison sentences and spend almost three times as long in prison in their total careers.
Furthermore, the crime mix of juvenile-onset offenders is more diverse; adult-onset
offenders show higher levels of crime type specialization. In general, juvenile-onset

offenders have more serious criminal careers than adult-onset offenders and men have
more serious criminal careers than women. Male juvenile-onset offenders have the
highest scores of all groups on most criminal career dimensions; they have the longest
careers, commit the most crimes, commit most serious crimes, are imposed the most
and longest prison sentences in their careers, most often recidivate, are most often
chronics, and have the most diverse crime mix. Female adult-onset offenders, both
compared to female juvenile-onset and male adult-onset offenders, have the shortest
careers, commit the least crimes, are least likely to recidivate or become a chronic,
receive the least prison sentences and spend the shortest time in prison in their career,
and have the highest levels of offense specialization.
Most findings from this study are in line with general assumptions on criminal
careers; career length decreases as onset age increases [65], recidivism rates decrease
when onset age increases [72], an early onset is an indicator of a more serious criminal
career [48], and crime type specialization is higher for older offenders [39]. In contrast
to earlier findings [38], both male and female adult-onset offenders were found to
relatively often start their career with a drug-related crime. Another remarkable finding
is that juvenile-onset offenders, both men and women, are more often sentenced to
prison following their first crime, but adult-onset offenders are imposed four times
longer prison sentences following the first crime than juvenile-onset offenders. A
possible explanation for this difference is that adult offenders are considered more
responsible for their actions than juveniles.
Several limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. Firstly, the current study
relies on official data, not including self-reported crime. The relatively high proportion
of adult-onset offenders may reflect the fact that not all crimes are detected and solved.
However, as argued before, the availability of self-reported offending does not per se
lower the proportion of adult-onset offending since official non-offenders also tend to
self-report offending that started in adulthood (e.g., [29, 73, 74]). It should be noticed
that large proportions of adult-onset offending do not contradict previous findings per
se that the onset of offending peaks at age 14 [14]. A juvenile crime onset ranges from
the moment individuals can be regarded delinquent to age 17, a period spanning around
10 years. An adult onset can take place not only at age 18, but also at age 70 or even
age 90 and any moment in between. Secondly, related to the previous argument,
selection bias may have a different effect on different onset and gender groups and
therefore may influence the findings of this study. For example, earlier studies show
that older offenders and men are less likely to get arrested than younger offenders and
women are [7, 9]. Therefore, real differences can be smaller than what is found in the
comparisons. Offenses committed by older and female offenders are possibly
underestimated since these are less likely to be detected by the authorities. Thirdly,
the downside of the large sample of offenders from a crime year cohort is that offenders
were born at different moments in time. This raises potential for different patterns of
prevalence of different probabilities of apprehension for different offenders. However,
as long as such cohort effects apply equally to men and women and juvenile- and adult-
onset offenders, these effects can be ruled out and do not influence the group compar-
isons made in this study. Fourthly, while the data used in this study are rich regarding
criminal detail (date and type of offense, sentencing information), it lacks personal
information on the offenders except for dates of birth and gender. Therefore, we were
not able to analyze criminal development in relation to development on other life

domains, such as employment, housing, and parenthood. Differences on such devel-
opments between both groups could help explain differences in their offense patterns.
For example, if adult-onset offenders are more likely to have children than juvenile-
onset offenders, this may affect their offense patterns.
While the theoretical and practical relevance of studying the criminal develop-
ment of young offenders is widely acknowledged, much less is known about the
group of offenders who only start offending later on in life. From a theoretical
perspective and in accordance with previous studies [6, 11, 22, 29, 38, 45, 62, 75],
the findings of this study contribute to existing knowledge in that it shows that
both male and female adult-onset offenders constitute a significant proportion of
all offenders and therefore challenges propensity theories of offending which
argue that crime onset after adolescence is extremely rare [42, 51]. The findings
of this study are more in line with dynamical theories, allowing differences
between offenders and changes within individuals over time. This study shows
that the timing of onset is related to the offense pattern that follows onset; adult-
onset offenders follow different crime patterns than juvenile-onset offenders. In
line with these findings, it can be expected that explanations for the criminal
behavior of adult-onset offenders may also be different. These empirical results,
therefore, challenge the claim that a tailored theory for adult-onset offenders is a
pointless exercise [2].
Knowledge on criminal career dimensions of adult-onset offenders can further
practical understanding of whether adult-onset offenders should be handled in the same
way juvenile-onset offenders are handled, in terms of prevention strategies and sen-
tencing. Firstly, prevention strategies should shift part of their focus to older offenders.
It was often argued that the best predictor of (criminal) behavior is previous (criminal)
behavior, and adult offenders are thought to have a long history of delinquent behavior.
Therefore, intervention strategies are mainly aimed at early prevention of juveniles (for
a review, see e.g., [67]) and are regarded the most cost effective [24]. The substantial
amount of adult-onset offenders found in this study suggests that early prevention
strategies should be complemented by a focus on those with a late onset, especially to
reduce the total number of offenders.
Secondly, once they have started their criminal career, further prevention should take
into account the differences in developmental patterns of those with a different onset
age, especially for women where adult-onset offending is even more prevalent than in
men. For example, recidivism rates are significantly different for juvenile- and adult-
onset offenders. Once an adult-onset offender has committed about ten offenses,
however, the probability that he or she recidivates is almost equal to the probability
that a juvenile-onset offender recidivates after the tenth offense. Based on the current
study, it can, therefore, be argued that a combination of the onset age and the number of
previous crimes of an offender should be taken into account when recidivism risks of
known offenders are estimated. Another dimension that calls for adjusting prevention
and investigation strategies to the type of offender is the specialization of offending.
While little specialization in offending is generally found [47], this study shows that
differentiation between offenders leads to different offense patterns in terms of special-
ization. Prevention and investigation strategies may, therefore, be differentiated based
on the age at which individuals are first caught. In sum, the findings of this study are a
call for a new focus of prevention and intervention strategies, for male, but even more
important, for female offenders.
Beyond the scope of this study, an imperative next step would be to explain a
delayed crime onset. Understanding of mechanisms underlying crime onset at different
ages is crucial to understanding the causes of criminal behavior. Past studies that aimed
at explaining adult-onset offending mostly used stable variables measured in adoles-
cence to explain adult behavior. Future research should also incorporate time-varying
variables available far into adulthood, such as longitudinal information on marriage,
employment, childbirth, life success, and major life events. By doing so, such studies
would be able to unravel the mechanisms and circumstances under which an adult
onset emerges and adult criminal careers develop.
Acknowledgements This study was funded by a VENI grant from the Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research (NWO), grant number 451-14-008.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
1. Andersson, F., & Torstensson Levander, M. (2013). Adult onset offending in a Swedish female birth
cohort. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 172–177.
2. Beckley, A. L., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., Houts, R. M., McGee, T. R., Morgan, N., Schroeder, F.,
Ramrakha, S., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2016). Adult-onset offenders: is a tailored theory warranted?
Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 64–81.
3. Block, C. R., Blokland, A. A. J., van der Werff, C., van Os, R., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2010). Long-term
patterns of offending in women. Feminist Criminology, 5(1), 73–107.
4. Blokland, A. A. J., & Palmen, H. (2012). Criminal career patterns. In R. Loeber, M. Hoeve, N. W. Slot, &
P. van der Laan (Eds.), Persisters and Desisters in crime from adolescence into adulthood: explanation,
prevention and punishment (pp. 13–50). Farnham: Ashgate Publishing.
5. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. A. (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Carrington, P. J., Matarazzo, A., & DeSouza, P. (2005). Court careers of a Canadian birth cohort. Crime
and justice research paper series, no. 6. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
7. Charette, Y., & van Koppen, M. V. (2015). A capture-recapture model to estimate the effects of extra-
legal disparities on crime funnel selectivity and punishment avoidance. Security Journal. https://doi.
org/10.1057/sj.2015.30.
8. DeLisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). New frontiers in criminal career research, 2000–2011: a state-of-
the-art-review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289–301.
9. Doerner, J. K., & Demuth, S. (2010). The independent and joint effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and age
on sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts. Justice Quarterly, 27, 1–27.
10. Donnellan, M. B., Ge, X., & Wenk, E. (2002). Personality characteristics of juvenile offenders:
differences in the CPI by age at first arrest and frequency of offending. Personality and Individual
Differences, 33, 727–740.
11. Eggleston, E. P., & Laub, J. H. (2002). The onset of adult offending: a neglected dimension of the
criminal career. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 603–622.
12. Elander, J., Rutter, M., Simonoff, E., & Pickles, A. (2000). Explanations for apparent late onset
criminality in a high-risk sample of children followed up in adult life. British Journal of Criminology,
40, 497–509.
13. Farrington, D. P. (1983). Offending from 10 to 25 years of age. In K. T. van Dusen & S. A. Mednick
(Eds.), Prospective studies of crime and delinquency (pp. 17–37). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
14. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250.
15. Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: key theoretical and empirical
issues—the 2002 Sutherland Award address. Criminology, 41, 221–255.
16. Farrington, D. P. (2014). Integrated cognitive antisocial potential theory. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 2552–2564). New York: Springer.
17. Farrington, D. P., & Maughan, B. (1999). Criminal careers of two London cohorts. Criminal Behaviour
and Mental Health, 9, 91–106.
18. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., Elliott, D. S., Hawkins, J. D., Kandel, D. B., Klein, M. W., McCord, J.,
Rowe, D. C., & Tremblay, R. E. (1990). Advancing knowledge about the onset of delinquency and
crime. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology, vol. 13 (pp. 283–
342). New York: Plenum.
19. Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Coid, J. W. (2009). Development of adolescence-limited, late-onset and
persistent offenders from age 8 to age 48. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 150–163.
20. Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2013). Offending from childhood to late middle age:
recent results from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. New York: Springer.
21. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1968). Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
22. Gomez-Smith, Z., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). An examination of adult onset offending. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 33, 515–525.
23. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
24. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (2016). The criminal career perspective as an explanation of crime and
a guide to crime control policy: the view from general theories of crime. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 53, 406–419.
25. Harris, P. M. (2011). The first-time adult-onset offender: findings from a community corrections cohort.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 949–981.
26. Harris, D. A. (2012). Age and type of onset of offending: results from a sample of male sexual offenders
referred for civil commitment. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,
57, 1226–1247.
27. Kazemian, L., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Comparing the validity of prospective, retrospective, and
official onset for different offending categories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 127–147.
28. Kratzer, L., & Hodgins, S. (1999). A typology of offenders: a test of Moffitt’s theory among males and
females from childhood to age 30. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 9, 57–73.
29. Lay, B., Ihle, W., Esser, G., & Schmidt, M. H. (2005). Juvenile-episodic, continued or adult-onset
delinquency? Risk conditions analysed in a cohort of children followed up to the age of 25 years.
European Journal of Criminology, 2, 39–66.
30. Le Blanc, M., & Fréchette, M. (1989). Male criminal activity from childhood through youth. New York:
Springer.
31. Liu, J., Francis, B., & Soothill, K. (2011). A longitudinal study of escalation in crime seriousness.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 175–196.
32. Loeber, R. (1988). Natural histories of conduct problems, delinquency, and associated substance use:
evidence for developmental progressions. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical
child psychology, vol 11 (pp. 73–124). New York: Plenum.
33. Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., & Petechuk, D. (2003). Child delinquency: early intervention and
prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
34. Magnusson, D. (1988). Individual development from an interactional perspective: a longitudinal study.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Mata, A. D., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2012). Adult-onset antisocial behavior trajectories: associations
with adolescent family processes and emerging adulthood functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
27, 177–193.
36. Mazerolle, P., Brame, R., Paternoster, R., Piquero, A., & Dean, C. (2000). Onset age, persistence, and
offending versatility: comparisons across gender. Criminology, 38, 1143–1172.
37. McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33, 284–289.
38. McGee, T. R., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Are there any true adult-onset offenders? British Journal of
Criminology, 50, 530–549.
39. McGloin, J. M., Sullivan, C. J., Piquero, A. R., & Pratt, T. C. (2007). Local life circumstances and
offending specialization/versatility: comparing opportunity and propensity models. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 321–346.
40. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental

taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
41. Moffitt, T. E. (2006). A review of research on the taxonomy of life-course persistent and adolescence-
limited offending. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & M. Coleman (Eds.), Taking stock: the status of
criminological theory. Advances in criminological theory, vol. 15 (pp. 277–311). New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
42. Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
44. Nagin, D. S. (2016). Group-based trajectory modeling and criminal career research. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 356–371.
45. Nilsson, A., Bäckman, O., & Estrada, F. (2013). Involvement in crime, individual resources and structural
contraints: process of cumulative (dis)advantage in a Stockholm birth cohort. British Journal of
Criminology, 53, 297–318.
46. Piquero, A. R., Paternoster, R., Mazerolle, P., Brame, R., & Dean, C. W. (1999). Onset age and offense
specialization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 275–299.
47. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. In M. Tonry
(Ed.), Crime and justice a review of research (pp. 359–506). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: new
analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Pulkkinen, L., Lyyra, A. L., & Kokko, K. (2009). Life success of males on nonoffender, adolescence-
limited, persistent, and adult-onset antisocial pathways: follow-up from age 8 to 42. Aggressive Behavior,
35, 117–135.
50. Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children growing up: a sociological and psychiatric study of sociopathic
personality. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company.
51. Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behaviour: replications from
longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611–622.
52. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: the salience of adult social
bonds. American Sociological Review, 55, 609–627.
53. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
54. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys
followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555–592.
55. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A general age-graded theory of crime: lessons learned and the
future of life-course criminology. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course
theories of offending (pp. 165–181). New Brunswick: Transaction.
56. Sapouna, M. (2015). Adult-onset offending: a neglected reality? Findings from a contemporary British
general population cohort. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15622429.
57. Shannon, L. W. (1988). Criminal career continuity: its social context. New York: Human Sciences Press.
58. Sohoni, T., Paternoster, R., McGloin, J. M., & Bachman, R. (2014). Hen’s teeth and horse’s toes: the
adult onset offender in criminology. Journal of Crime and Justice, 37, 155–172.
59. Stattin, H., Magnusson, D., & Reichel, H. (1989). Criminal activity at different ages: a study based on a
Swedish longitudinal research population. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 368–385.
60. Sullivan, C. J., McGloin, J. M., Ray, J. V., & Caudy, M. S. (2009). Detecting specialization in offending:
comparing analytic approaches. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25, 419–441.
61. Theobald, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2014). Onset of offending. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 3332–3342). New York: Springer.
62. Thompson, C. M., Stewart, A. L., Allard, T. J., Chrzanowski, A., Luker, C., & Sveticic J.. (2014).
Understanding the extent and nature of adult-onset offending: implications for the effective and efficient
use of criminal justice and crime reduction sources. Report to the Criminology Research Advisory
Council.
63. Thornberry, T. P. (2005). Explaining multiple patterns of offending across the life course and across
generations. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 156–195.
64. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2005). Applying interactional theory to the explanation of continuity
and change in antisocial behavior. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course
theories of offending (pp. 183–209). New Brunswick: Transaction.
65. Tracy, P. E., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (1996). Continuity and discontinuity in criminal careers. New York:
Plenum Press.
66. Wartna, B. S. J., Blom, M., & Tollenaar, N. (2011). The Dutch recidivism monitor. The Hague: WODC.
67. Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Raffan Gowar, B. (2015). Benefit-cost analysis of crime prevention
programs. Crime and Justice. A Review of Research, 44, 447–516.
68. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: high risk children from birth to adulthood.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
69. White, N. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2004). A preliminary empirical test of Silverthorn and Frick’s delayed-
onset pathway in girls using an urban, African-American, US-based sample. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 14, 291–309.
70. Wiecko, F. M. (2012). Late-onset offending: fact or fiction. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12458503.
71. Wolfgang, M. E., Thornberry, T. P., & Figlio, R. M. (1987). From boy to man, from delinquency to crime.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Zara, G. (2012). Adult onset offending: perspectives for future research. In R. Loeber & B. C. Welsh
(Eds.), The future of criminology (pp. 85–93). New York: Oxford University Press.
73. Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). Childhood and adolescent predictors of late onset criminal careers.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 287–300.
74. Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). A longitudinal analysis of early risk factors for adult-onset
offending: what predicts a delayed criminal career? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20, 257–
273.
75. Zara, G., & Farrington, D. P. (2013). Assessment of risk for juvenile compared with adult criminal onset:
implications for policy, prevention, and intervention. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 235–249.

Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile-And Adult-Onset Offenders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile-And Adult-Onset Offenders

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile-And Adult-Onset Offenders

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Dev Life Course Criminology (2018) 4:92–119

Criminal Career Dimensions of Juvenile-

M. Vere van Koppen 1

Received: 31 January 2017 / Revised: 14 November 2017 / Accepted: 29 November 2017 /

Keywords Adult-onset offending . Criminal career dimensions

* M. Vere van Koppen

Theoretical Views on the Prevalence of Adult-Onset Offending

Empirical Evidence on the Prevalence of Adult-Onset Offending

Table 1 Proportions of adult-onset offenders (≥ 18 years old) in register-based longitudinal studies

Official and Self-Reported Adult-Onset Offending

Dimensions of Adult-Onset Offending Careers

Frequency, Intensity, and Duration

In general, an early onset is found to be an indicator of a more serious criminal

(1) juvenile-onset males vs. adult-onset males

Overall, it is expected that juvenile-onset offenders have more serious careers

Data and Methods

Sample and Offending Careers

Frequency, Intensity, and Duration Frequency of offending is the number of of-

Recidivism Recidivism identifies offenders by the number of crimes they commit.

Seriousness of Offending Measuring seriousness is complex as definitions of crime

Offense Specialization As a measure of offense specialization, the diversity index is

Official Age of Onset

Table 2 Descriptives of the total sample (N = 43,340)

Official adult onset (0 = no; 1 = yes) 0.61 0–1

onset offenders cover a limited number of years compared to those of adult-onset

Frequency, Intensity, and Duration

Table 3 Descriptives of the sample differentiated by onset and gender

Male Male Female Female Significant

Fig. 1 Mean number of crimes in career across onset age

Table 4 Recidivism and crime mix differentiated by onset and gender

Male juvenile Male adult Female juvenile Female adult Significant

Recidivists 86.5% 53.9% 72.3% 37.8% M F J A

0.6 Male juvenile onset

0.4 Female adult onset

Table 5 Seriousness of offending differentiated by onset and gender

Male Male adult Female Female Significant

Conclusions and Discussion

Table 6 Seriousness of offending distinguished by crime type

Violence 1% 70% 29% 1% 83% 16% 1% 79% 20% 1% 87% 12% M F J A

Table 7 Offense specialization

Male juvenile Male adult Female juvenile Female adult Significant

offenders show higher levels of crime type specialization. In general, juvenile-onset

not able to analyze criminal development in relation to development on other life

40. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a developmental

You might also like