Abstract
The Age Graded Theory explain why people with propensity to commit crimes at early stages of their lives desist from offending later on in life while others do not. It was was advanced by Robert J Sampson and John H Laub in 1993. This paper critically analyses the Age Graded Theory. It looks into its historical background, the strengths and flaws associated with it with a view of establishing why its proponents thought that desistance could best be explained by the theory. To this end, it explores the three-fold limbs of the theory. Besides, it examines how its salient elements have found expression in contemporary criminal jurisprudence. Additionally, it reviews the Miller v Alabama case with a view of finding out how the theory was applied. Finally, it sums it up with recommendations on application of the criminological theory in contemporary jurisprudence.
The Age Graded Theory of crime was advanced by Robert J Sampson and John H Laub in 1993. In their Book: “Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life”, Sampson and Laub sought to theoretically explain why people with propensity to commit crimes at early stages of their lives desist from offending later on in life while others do not. To this end, they posited that strong social bonds and attachments are responsible for desistance from criminality by juvenile delinquents as they progress into adulthood.
This paper critically analyses the Age Graded Theory. It looks into its historical background, the strengths and flaws associated with it with a view of establishing why its proponents thought that desistance could best be explained by the theory. Besides, it examines how its salient elements have found expression in contemporary criminal jurisprudence. Additionally, it reviews the Miller v Alabama case with a view of finding out how the theory was applied.
The Age Graded Theory of crime was developed at the time in the history of criminological theories where scholars had accorded little focus on cessation to commit crimes by juvenile delinquents during their transition to adulthood. It is against the backdrop of apparent apathy among criminologists to venture into this field that Sampson and Laub spearheaded their theory. More so, most scholars focused on the role played by either macro-level factors or micro-level ones in shaping an individual’s disposition to commit crimes throughout the course of their life in isolation. According to Sampson and Laub however, there was need to study them together as there exists an intricate nexus between the two categories of variables.
Accordingly, Sampson and Laub developed a three-fold thesis foe examining the inter-relationships among the said categories of variables and how they influence propensity to criminal conduct at various stages of an individual’s life. Firstly, they posited that there is a causal relationship between structural variables such as informal controls comprising family and school factors and disposition to criminal behavior during childhood stage of an individual. Secondly, such disposition hypothetically characterizes the behavior of the said individual from their childhood all through to their adulthood. Finally, there is as well, another causal relationship between informal social ties and attachments later during adulthood to family and employment on one hand and changes in criminal dispositions at later phases in life on the other hand notwithstanding that the same individual had juvenile delinquency tendencies.
They then tested their thesis by critically assessing the Glueck and Glueck data on two sets of delinquent and non-delinquent juveniles compiled from their childhood all the way through to their seventies. Each set comprised 500 boys from Boston carefully picked based on homogeneity in their gender, age, economic background and IQ.
They concluded that social bonds and attachments later in adulthood phase have the effect of increasing an individual’s social capital. Consequently, they will be restrained by the fact that they have a lot to lose by engaging in criminal conducts. The social capital operates as a reversed bargaining chip that inspires an individual to be more risk-averse. For instance, attachment to a colleague at work may have an impact of reinforcing an individual’s self-control where the said individual had a low self –control. As a result, they will desist from engaging in criminal conduct. The same rule applies to those who develop spousal attachment due to marriage.
Sampson and Laub therefore predicted individuals with stable employment and strong marital bonds are likely to desist from criminal conduct in spite of their criminal propensities during childhood. This drastic change in their propensities was described as “turning points in life”. Nevertheless, there is an exception to the general rule. It covers those who are later involved in drunkenness and violence.
One of the major strengths of the Age Graded Criminology theory is that there is general consensus among researchers to the effect that its findings and arguments can be tested empirically. This extends credence to the theory and what its stands for.
Additionally, the Age Graded Criminological theory has proved to be comprehensive of most of the theories of crime. It successfully incorporated various aspects and perspectives from other theories and establishes a synergy among them. Strangely, it does so without losing its unique internal consistency and precision. As a result, it has gained more traction compared to other theories.
Another notable positive aspect of Sampson and Laub’s Age Graded Criminological Theory is its positive attitude towards theorizing crime. Unlike most criminological theories, the Age Graded Theory devotes more attention on desistance as opposed to the question as to why people commit crimes.
The Age Graded Theory of crime finds generous expression in most property crimes and violent crimes. According to Sampson and Laub, it bests explains the drastic increase in the rate at which teenagers are involved in violent and property crimes and the strange drastic decrease in the same rate as they transit from teenage to adulthood.
The Age Graded Criminological Theory is without flaws. To begin with, Sampson and Laub downplayed the significant role played by opportunities in criminal disposition of an individual. Instead, they termed opportunities as “ubiquitous” hence uncalled for. As a result, they disregarded impacts of situational effects on criminality.
Moreover, the theory is predicated on the assumption that there exists an inverse relationship between individual’s disposition to criminal conduct and age for all types of criminals. They placed unwarranted significance on the role played by change and unpredictability. As a result, they devoted little attention to the existence of persistent offenders.
More so, the theory does not take into account the change in an individual’s biological make up with age. As it has been argued by scholars such as Giordano, Schroeder and Cernkovich, there exists a direct relationship between emotional changes and changes in propensity to criminal conduct across an individual’s course of life. For instance, decrease in adolescents’ tendencies to engage in criminal conducts as they transit into adulthood can be attributed to reduction in negative emotions associated with criminal conduct. Moreover, some individuals may also develop emotional management mechanisms on their own without the influence of change and social controls. Therefore, exclusively attributing trends in desistance to informal social bonds of marital ties and employment attachments and blatantly disregarding the effects of emotional dynamics of an individual is illogical.
Additionally, they invested more resources in seeking to explain why people do not commit crimes as opposed to addressing the dogma itself as to why people commit crimes.
As aforementioned, this paper seeks to depict the manner in which the Age Graded Criminological Theory has found expression in our contemporary jurisprudence. To this end, it will review the decision in the Miller v Alabama case. Through the lenses of the three components of the Age Graded theory of crime as advanced by Sampson and Laub, this paper critically examines the Supreme Court’s reasoning for its decision in the case.
Court’s decision was predicated on two merged criminal cases: Jackson v Hobbes and Miller v Alabama. In the former case, Kuntrell Jackson had been charged with capital felony murder and aggravated robbery. It had been alleged that accompanied by two other teenagers, went to a video store in Arkansas with intention of robbing it. He allegedly had remained outside to keep watch while the other two entered the store. One of the two teenagers shot a clerk killing him. Despite being 14 years old at the time of commission f the crime, Jackson was tried as an adult. He was found guilty of both crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. He instituted a state habeas petition on the ground that the sentence amounted to an infringement of his Constitutional rights under the eighth amendment. The Court dismissed the petition. It was affirmed on appeal.
In the later case, Evan Miller had been charged with murder in the course of arson. It had been alleged that accompanied by another teenage boy, Evan killed a neighbor in the process of robbing him. They were changing the wallets of the deceased who was asleep but woke up in the process. That is when they hit him with a baseball bat. They then set fire to a trailer in frantic efforts to destroy the evidence. He succumbed to death owing to severe injuries and smoke inhalation. The two were allegedly high on marijuana and alcohol. Miller was 14 years old when he allegedly committed the offence. Just like Jackson in the former case, he was tried as an adult, convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. He appealed. However, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the sentence holding that his sentence was proportional to the gravity of the offence he committed.
They both applied for a certiorari to the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The Supreme Court held that Eighth Amendment “forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.”
While giving its reasoning, the Supreme Court admitted that in both cases, the sentencing authority lacked discretion as to imposition of a different punishment owing to the mandatory nature of the State Law regarding sentencing of juvenile offenders convicted of homicide. This provision of the law and the position taken by the lower courts amounted to an anti-thesis to the Age Graded Criminological Theory. It disregards the fact that in the course of their lifetime, delinquent juveniles have the potential to reform and desist from criminal conduct when they eventually reach their “turning points in life”. Instead, the State Law tied the hands of the sentencing authority in as far as sentencing of juvenile convicted of homicides is concerned. They are mandated to pronounce mandatory life in prison irrespective of whether in their own wisdom, they are of the opinion that a lesser sentence is appropriate by considering the juvenile’s “youth and its attendant characteristics along with the nature of the crime”.
In citing the Roper v Simmons and Graham v Florida, The Supreme Court reasoned that juveniles are not constitutionally similar with adults for purposes of sentencing. This interpretation was premised on the fact that juveniles have diminished criminal liability and greater prospects of reform compared to adults. As a result, their criminality ought to be meted with deservingly less severe sentences. To this end, the Supreme Court’s reasoning was persuaded by the fact that children are more susceptible to external negative influences that reduces their field of choice in committing crimes. Additionally, it reasoned that a child’s character is still under-developed hence it has the potential of reform. More so, the Supreme Court reasoned that mandatory life imprisonment deprived the Court of the opportunity to consider all the factors that may have reduced the minor’s field of choice. It listed such factors as family and home environment from where a minor cannot disentangle themselves. Besides, it blatantly disregards the possibility of reformation even in the most probable of circumstances. In so far as the Supreme Court’s reasoning was inspired by such grounds, it indirectly accommodated the Sampson’s and Lauba’s Age Graded Criminological Theory’s three-step criteria. Therefore, it qualified this case as a landmark decision in which the Age Graded theory of crime found generous expression.
Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and ordered the sentences to be remanded for further proceeding no in tandem with its opinion. This celebrated decision marked a jurisprudential departure from the norm to incorporation of insights from emerging criminological theories in contemporary jurisprudence.
In conclusion, this paper began by exposing the Age Graded Theory of crime. It critically analyzed its positive aspects and weaknesses as well. Additionally, it got to the conclusion that the theory has found expression mostly in violent and property crimes. Inspired by Age Graded Criminological Theory as advanced by Sampson and Lauba, this paper critically examined the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Miller v Alabama case as discussed above. It is a landmark case in which contemporary criminological theories found expression. Agreeing with the Supreme Court’s reasoning this paper sums it up by taking the position that no juvenile is born to be a criminal. As a result, no juvenile is to be condemned for life. Life imprisonment for juvenile offenders deprives them of the opportunity to experience their “turning points of life” where they might reform. Their lives do not necessarily take a straight trajectory associated with criminal conduct. Therefore, this paper calls for a paradigm shift in jurisprudential approach to juvenile justice system. Additionally, it calls for reformation of legislative, policy and institutional framework to align them with the precepts of the Age Graded Criminological Theory where necessary.
References
Davies, G. M., & Beech, A. R. (2012). Forensic Psychology: Crime, Justice, Law, Interventions. London: BPS Blackwell.
Lerner, R. M., & Lerner, J. V. (1999). Theoretical Foundations and Biological Bases of Development in Adolescence. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. London: Havard University Press.
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2015). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Stanford: Cengage Learning.
Stets, J. E., & Turner, J. H. (2014). Handbook of the Sociology of Emotions. New York: Springer.
Vito, G. F., Maahs, J. R., & Holmes, R. M. (2007). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. Sudbury MA: John and Bartlett Publishers Inc.
Walters, G. D. (2014). Drugs, Crime, and Their Relationships: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Burlington MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Winters, R. C., Globokar, J. L., & Roberson, C. (2014). An Introduction to Crime and Crime Causation. Boca Raton: CRS Press.
