Labeling Effects of First Juvenile Arrests: Secondary Deviance and Secondary Sanctioning

Abstract

A growing literature suggests that juvenile arrests perpetuate offending and increase the likelihood of future arrests. The effect on subsequent arrests is generally regarded as a product of the perpetuation of criminal offending. However, increased rearrest also may reflect differential law enforcement behavior. Using longitudinal data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) together with official arrest records, the current study estimates the effects of first arrests on both reoffending and rearrest. Propensity score methods were used to control differences between arrestees and nonarrestees and to minimize selection bias. Among 1,249 PHDCN youths, 58 individuals were first arrested during the study period; 43 of these arrestees were successfully matched to 126 control cases that were equivalent on a broad set of individual, family, peer, and neighborhood factors. We find that first arrests increased the likelihood of both subsequent offending and subsequent arrest, through separate processes. The effects on rearrest are substantially greater and are largely independent of the effects on reoffending, which suggests that labels trigger "secondary sanctioning" processes distinct from secondary deviance processes. Attempts to ameliorate deleterious labeling effects should include efforts to dampen their escalating punitive effects on societal responses.

Examining the Consequences of the “Prevalent Life Events” of Arrest and Incarceration among an Urban African-American Cohort

“…The most striking finding in this study is the clear association between arrest in young adulthood and all types of deviance for both men and women, especially on midlife official offense counts (with rate differentials that are 8- to 17-fold) indicating a strong secondary sanctioning effect (Liberman, Kirk, & Kim, 2014). Moreover, although we were not able to control for all known childhood and adolescent risk factors or all of the possible factors proposed to confound the relationship between sanctions and future deviance (see e.g., Bernburg et al, 2006; Wiley, Slocum, & Esbensen, 2013), these analyses used propensity score matching with 26 early life covariates in addition to controls for short-term behavior (at 32) and the potential blockage of concurrent social role opportunities (i.e., marriage, employment).…”

The Consequences of School Dropout among Serious Adolescent Offenders

“…Among multiple official decision-making points, they claim that testing of the hypothesis at an earlier stage (e.g., arrest) has many advantages because it is less subject to the cumulative influence of small labeling effects or biasing effect of self-selected samples (p. 369). In this sense, the school dropout status of ex-offenders in addition to their official criminal histories could function as one of the key intervening mechanisms of what Liberman et al (2014) conceptualized as a ''secondary sanctioning'' process, in which an initial arrest generates subsequent punitive societal responses. Similarly, Sampson and Laub (1997) claim that the stigma of criminal record sets a ''snowball'' process in motion that isolates the criminally labeled individuals from conventional society and mortgages their life chances by reduced academic and employment opportunities.…”

Arrested Development: Does the Grade Level at Which Juveniles Experience Arrest Matter?

“…7 Path models that allow for multiple mediation are preferred to single mediation models because each indirect effect is conditional on other indirect effects in the model 5 The issue of selection bias is a common concern when assessing the effects of justice system involvement (for discussion, see [68]). Robustness against selection bias was assessed by estimating the direct effects of arrest on the mediators and delinquency using propensity score matching techniques (e.g., [47], [77]). The patterns are consistent with the results presented here and results are available upon request.…”

“…Importantly, this study does not assess the effects of first experiences with the police, but given the average age of the youngest cohort in this study, it is relatively unlikely that these youth experienced police contact prior to the time point at which arrest was measured. 9 Still, future research should consider how age matters in terms of youth's first arrests, as these experiences may have the most detrimental impact (for more information on the effects of first arrest, see [47]). …”

“…In fact, a sizeable body of research indicates that both minor (e.g., being stopped and questioned by the police) and more serious (e.g., incarceration) forms of justice system contact are linked to consequences such as attenuation of prosocial bonds, involvement with deviant groups, and delinquent attitudes and behaviors [8,9,28,47,53,77,78]. Much less is known, however, about how the timing of justice system involvement during adolescence affects these outcomes.…”