Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T12:13:07.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of marriage in criminal recidivism: a longitudinal and co-relative analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2017

K. S. Kendler ,
S. L. Lönn ,
J. Sundquist Open the ORCID record for J. Sundquist [Opens in a new window]  and
K. Sundquist
K. S. Kendler*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Department of Human and Molecular Genetics, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
S. L. Lönn
Affiliation:
Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
J. Sundquist
Affiliation:
Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
K. Sundquist
Affiliation:
Center for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: K. S. Kendler, MD, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics of VCU, Box 980126, Richmond, VA 23298-0126, USA. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims.

Marriage is associated with a reduced rate of criminal recidivism, but the underlying mechanisms have only partly been elucidated. We seek to clarify the nature of the association between marriage and recidivism and how that relationship may be moderated as a function of gender, deviance of spouse, a history of violence and familial risk.

Method.

We utilise a longitudinal cohort design consisting of Swedish men (n = 239 328) and women (n = 72 280), born between 1958 and 1986, who were convicted of at least one crime before age 20 and were not married prior to age 20. The analyses used Cox regression with marriage as a time-dependent covariate. We also perform co-relative analyses in sibling and first cousin pairs.

Results.

Marriage after a first crime substantially reduces risk of recidivism in both males (hazard ratio (HR) with key covariates and 95% confidence intervals 0.55, 0.53–0.57) and females (HR = 0.38, 0.34–0.42), although the effect is stronger in females. Marriage to a deviant spouse increases recidivism rates in males. In males, a history of violent criminality and high familial risk, respectively, decrease and increase sensitivity to the protective effect of marriage on recidivism. Consistent with a causal effect of marriage on recidivism, marriage was associated with a decline in risk for criminal relapse comparable with that in the population in both male–male sibling pairs (raw HR = 0.53, 0.45–0.62) and cousin pairs (HR = 0.55, 0.47, 0.65) concordant for prior convictions.

Conclusions.

The protective effect of marriage on risk for criminal recidivism is likely largely causal and is of importance in both males and females. Those at high familial risk for criminal behaviour are more sensitive to the protective effects of marriage.

Keywords

Co-relative controlcrimegendermarriage
Type
Original Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 655 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrews, DA, Bonta, J (2010). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th edn. Anderson Publishing: New Providence, NJ, LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Andrews, DA, Guzzo, L, Raynor, P, Rowe, RC, Rettinger, LJ, Brews, A, Wormith, JS (2012). Are the major risk/need factors predictive of both female and male reoffending?: a test with the eight domains of the level of service/case management inventory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 56, 113–133.Google Scholar
Barnes, JC, Beaver, KM (2012). Marriage and desistance from crime: a consideration of gene-environment correlation. Journal of Marriage and Family 74, 19–33.Google Scholar
Blokland, AAJ, Nieuwbeerta, P (2005). The effects of life circumstances on longitudinal trajectories of offending. Criminology 43, 1203–1240.Google Scholar
Brown, SL, St Amand, MD, Zamble, E (2009). The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: a three-wave prospective study. Law and Human Behavior 33, 25–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, SA, Donnellan, MB, Humbad, MN, Hicks, BM, McGue, M, Iacono, WG (2010). Does marriage inhibit antisocial behavior?: an examination of selection vs causation via a longitudinal twin design. Archives of General Psychiatry 67, 1309–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobbina, JE, Huebner, BM, Berg, MT (2012). Men, women, and postrelease offending: an examination of the nature of the link between relational ties and recidivism. Crime and Delinquency 58, 331–361.Google Scholar
Craig, JM, Diamond, B, Piquero, AR (2014). Marriage as an intervention in the lives of criminal offenders. In Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders (ed. Humphrey, JA and Cordella, P), pp. 19–37. Springer Science + Business Media: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, DP, West, DJ (1995). Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. In Current Perspectives on Aging and The Life Cycle: Vol. 4, Delinquency and Disrepute in the Life Course (ed. Blau, ZS and Hagan, J), pp. 249–281. JAI Press, Inc.: Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Fazel, S, Danesh, J (2002). Serious mental disorder in 23000 prisoners: a systematic review of 62 surveys. Lancet 359, 545–550.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fazel, S, Bains, P, Doll, H (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction 101, 181–191.Google Scholar
Gendreau, P, Little, T, Goggin, C (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works. Criminology 34, 575–607.Google Scholar
Jaffee, SR, Lombardi, CM, Coley, RL (2013). Using complementary methods to test whether marriage limits men's antisocial behavior. Developmental Psychopathology 25, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS, Neale, MC, Kessler, RC, Heath, AC, Eaves, LJ (1992). The genetic epidemiology of phobias in women. The interrelationship of agoraphobia, social phobia, situational phobia, and simple phobia. Archives of General Psychiatry 49, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS, Larsson Lönn, S, Morris, NA, Sundquist, J, Långström, N, Sundquist, K (2014). A Swedish national adoption study of criminality. Psychological Medicine 44, 1913–1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS, Lonn, SL, Lichtenstein, P, Sundquist, J, Sundquist, K (2015). Psychological strength assessed in late adolescence and risk for criminal behavior: a Swedish prospective cohort and twin analysis. Psychological Medicine 46, 63–72.Google Scholar
Kendler, KS, Lönn, SL, Maes, HH, Lichtenstein, P, Sundquist, J, Sundquist, K (2016 a). A Swedish population-based multivariate twin study of externalizing disorders. Behavior Genetics 46, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, KS, Lönn, SL, Salvatore, J, Sundquist, J, Sundquist, K (2016 b). Effect of marriage on risk for onset of alcohol use disorder: a longitudinal and co-relative analysis in a Swedish national sample. American Journal of Psychiatry 173, 911–918.Google Scholar
Kim-Cohen, J, Caspi, A, Taylor, A, Williams, B, Newcombe, R, Craig, IW, Moffitt, TE (2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene–environment interaction predicting children's mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry 11, 903–913.Google Scholar
King, RD, Massoglia, M, MacMillan, R (2007). The context of marriage and crime: gender, the propensity to marry, and offending in early adulthood. Criminology 45, 33–65.Google Scholar
Krueger, RF, Moffitt, TE, Caspi, A, Bleske, A, Silva, PA (1998). Assortative mating for antisocial behavior: developmental and methodological implications. Behavior Genetics 28, 173–186.Google Scholar
Laub, JH, Sampson, RJ (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 28 (ed. Tonry, M), pp. 1–69. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Monsbakken, CW, Lyngstad, TH, Skardhamar, T (2013). Crime and the transition to parenthood the role of sex and Relationship Context. British Journal of Criminology 53, 129–148.Google Scholar
Polderman, TJ, Benyamin, B, de Leeuw, CA, Sullivan, PF, van, BA, Visscher, PM, Posthuma, D (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics 47, 702–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhule-Louie, DM, McMahon, RJ (2007). Problem behavior and romantic relationships: assortative mating, behavior contagion, and desistance. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 10, 53–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampson, RJ, Laub, JH, Wimer, C (2006). Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within-individual causal effects. Criminology 44, 465–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slater, E & Cowie, V (1971). The Genetics of Mental Disorders. Oxford University Press: London.Google Scholar
Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (2008). Victims’ Tendency to Report Crime (Report No. 2008: 12). Brottsforebyggande radet, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Theobald, D, Farrington, DP (2009). Effects of getting married on offending results from a prospective longitudinal survey of males. European Journal of Criminology 6, 496–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Schellen, M, Apel, R, Nieuwbeerta, P (2012). ‘Because you're mine, i walk the line’? marriage, spousal criminality, and criminal offending over the life course. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28, 701–723.Google Scholar
Warr, M (1998). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology 36, 183–216.Google Scholar
Zoutewelle-Terovan, MV, van der Geest, V, Bijleveld, C, Liefbroer, AC (2014). Associations in criminal behaviour for married males and females at high risk of offending. European Journal of Criminology 11, 340–360.Google Scholar