Research Summary: This research explores the issue of old prior records and their ability to predict future offending. In particular, we are interested in the question of whether, after a given period of time, the risk of recidivism for a person who has been arrested in the distant past is ever indistinguishable from that of a population of persons with no prior arrests. Two well‐documented empirical facts guide our investigation: (1) Individuals who have offended in the past are relatively more likely to offend in the future, and (2) the risk of recidivism declines as the time since the last criminal act increases. We find that immediately after an arrest, the knowledge of this prior record does significantly differentiate this population from a population of nonoffenders. However, these differences weaken dramatically and quickly over time so that the risk of new offenses among those who last offended six or seven years ago begins to approximate (but not match) the risk of new offenses among persons with no criminal record. Policy Implications: Individuals with official records of past offending behavior encounter a barrier when they try to obtain employment, even if a person's most recent offense occurred in the distant past. There are many reasons for such obstacles, but they are at least partially premised on the concern that individuals with arrest records—even from the distant past—are more likely to offend in the future than persons with no criminal history. Our analysis questions the logic of such practices and suggests that after a given period of remaining crime free, it may be prudent to wash away the brand of “offender” and open up more legitimate opportunities to this population.

This study uses criminal court data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) to investigate the sentencing of juvenile offenders processed in adult criminal court by comparing their sentencing outcomes to those of young adult offenders in similar situations. Because the expanded juvenile exclusion and transfer policies of the 1990s have led to an increase in the number of juveniles convicted in adult courts, we argue that it is critical to better understand the judicial decision making processes involved. We introduce competitive hypotheses on the relative leniency or severity of sentencing outcomes for transferred juveniles and interpret our results with the focal concerns theoretical perspective on sentencing. Our findings indicate that juvenile offenders in adult court are sentenced more severely than their young adult counterparts. Moreover, findings suggest that juvenile status interacts with and conditions the effects of other important sentencing factors including offense type, offense severity and prior criminal record. We discuss these results as they relate to immediate outcomes for transferred juveniles, criminal court processes in general and the broader social implications for juvenile justice policy concerning the transfer of juveniles to criminal court.

Research on inequality in punishment has a long and storied history, yet the overwhelming focus has been on episodic disparity in isolated stages of criminal case processing (e.g., arrest, prosecution, or sentencing). Although theories of cumulative disadvantage exist in criminology, they are seldom adapted to account for treatment in the criminal justice system. We provide an overview of the concept of cumulative disadvantage in the life course and review evidence on the development of cumulative disadvantages across stages of the criminal justice system. In doing so, we appraise the empirical research on policing, prosecution, and the courts and consider how these largely separate bodies of scholarship are inherently connected. We conclude with a call for future research that focuses more explicitly on the ways that life-course disadvantages shape contact with the criminal justice system and how these processes work to perpetuate patterns of disadvantage within the system and in subsequent life outcomes.

No abstract

It is well accepted that criminal records impose collateral consequences on offenders. Such records affect access to public housing, student financial aid, welfare benefits, and voting rights. An axiom of these policies is that individuals with criminal records-even old criminal records-exhibit significantly higher risk of future criminal conduct than do individuals without criminal records. In this article, the authors use police contact data from the 1942 Racine birth cohort study to determine whether individuals whose last criminal record occurred many years ago exhibit a higher risk of acquiring future criminal records than do individuals with no criminal record at all. Findings suggest that there is little to no distinguishable difference between these groups.