Moffitt's Dual-Taxonomy
2066 WordsApr 19, 20159 Pages
“When official crime rates are plotted against age, the rates for both prevalence and incidence of offending appear highest during adolescence.” Moffitt (1994)
Understanding the relationship between antisocial behaviour and development is observable through two distinct categories identified by Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy. This theory recognized that during our early development, it would be possible to classify antisocial behaviour as something that would either persist over our lifetime or occur sporadically during our adolescence and then desist. In this analysis, the differences and limitations of the two types within Moffitt’s theory will be discussed and the relation between antisocial behaviour and development will be…show more content… The antisocial behaviour displayed in LCP persons is adversely affected by other factors that occur within their social environment. Fundamental social or life changes in their development that contributed or worsened their antisocial behaviour were identified by as snares. Events such as teenage parenthood, drug and alcohol addiction, dropping out of education, inconsistent work histories and time spent in incarceration (Moffitt, 1993) can have a great effect on an individual on the life-course-persistent pattern. Piquero and Brezina (2001) found that whilst some adolescents (adolescent-limited type) are able to desist from antisocial behaviour, the LCP types find it difficult when faced with said snares and they amplify or worsen their antisocial behaviour.
Those within the LCP category are often given labels throughout their lives and this, along with snares, can be significant in understanding why they find it difficult to desist from antisocial behaviour during their development. Labeling an LCP as ‘naughty’ or ‘disruptive’ can have adverse effects when you consider that they are likely to be at odds with everyone they come into constant contact with regularly – whether it is at home first, or school later on (Quay, 1966: cited in Moffitt, 1993). The stigmatization and exclusionary aspect of labeling an individual in a school setting can internalise feelings of unfairness and the stigmatization that comes with a