OFFENCE SPECIALISTS, SPECIALIZATION, AND THE CRIMINAL CAREER
David Hunt BGS, Simon Fraser University, 2002
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
In the School of Criminology
O David Hunt 2004
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
July 2004
All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL
Name: David Hunt
Degree: Master of Arts - Criminology
Title of Thesis: Offence Specialists, Specialization, and the Criminal Career
Examining Committee:
Chair: Dr. Paul Brantingham Professor
Dr. Bill Glackman Senior Supervisor Associate Professor
Dr. Ray Corrrado Supervisor Professor
Dr. Irwin Cohen External Examiner Professor Department of Criminology and Justice University College of the Fraser Valley
Date Approved: Partial Copyright Licence
The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.
Bennett Library Simon Fraser University Burnaby, BC, Canada ABSTRACT
This paper discusses the existence and prevalence of offence specialists among
499 male inmates at a medium security penitentiary in western Canada. The research used official prison documents.
Although the offence specialist is believed to be a universally rare entity, four obstacles were identified as exaggerating this rarity: 1) plea-bargaining; 2) the vagaries of charge selection; 3) multiple offences related to a single incident; and, 4) the failure to include phased changes in offence allegiance.
When these obstacles were not adjusted for, only 21 of the 499 offenders could be considered specialists. By comparison, a coding system designed to adjust for the first three obstacles found that 33 of the 499 offenders were offence specialists in the traditional sense. After the fourth obstacle was addressed by allowing for serialized changes in offence allegiance an additional 143 'non-traditional' specialists were identified. It is argued that this expanded definition remains meaningful because it involves a distinct pattern of offending, and a commitment to a patterned sequence of criminal activity that still contrasts with the criminal versatility of the offence generalist.
In keeping with the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), it was expected that the specialists would distinguish themselves from generalists on measures of self-control, including: 1) prison infractions; 2) offending behaviour; 3) onset age; and,
4) criminal versatility. The findings indicate that the specialists distinguished themselves on measures of criminal versatility, but none of the other measures consistently offered statistically significant results that were compatible with the general theory of crime.
iii Overall, there were 176 hmates that distinguished themselves as offence
leading to the conclusions that: 1) offence specialists exist, and in greater numbers than previously found; 2) the coding system performed as expected; 3) the four identified obstacles to the investigation of specialization do have an impact; 4) these offence specialists present a challenge to the general theory of crime; and 5) there is value in the continued study of offence specialists, and offence specialization. DEDICATION
To my family, Karen, Olivia, Madilyn, and Ethan. Theirs was the largest sacrifice. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support of the Correctional Service of Canada is gratefully acknowledged in this project, however, the reported findings and their interpretation do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Correctional Service of Canada. Within the Correctional
Service of Canada I would like thank Wardens Doug Black and Alex Lubimiv, and Unit
Managers John Romaine B.A., B.M. and Carol Ann Reynen B.A. for enabling me to pursue my education while still working full time. Particular thanks go to Parole Officers
Brad Wiens B.A., and Phil Smith B.A., who picked up the load in my absences.
Outside of the correctional service, I would like to thank Provincial Court Judge the Honourable Rick Miller LL.B., Regional Deputy Crown Counsel Terry Schultes B.A.,
LL.B.; and defence Attorney Kevin Sneesby B.A., LL.B., for their insightful comments, and for offering generously of their time. Special thanks to defence attorney Peter
Benning B.A., LL.B, B.L.C., for not only providing generously of his time and introducing me to the right people, but for taking an interest and providing insight into the topics under discussion in this report.
On a more personal note, I want to thank my parents Larry and Brigitte Hunt and in laws Fred and Mary Lawrence for their support and encouragement. Similarly, I was impressed with the unselfish contribution made by Diane Lawrence who on short notice travelled some distance and spent several hours helping out. In the same vein, although she didn't have as far to travel, my wife Karen's contribution and sacrifice was equally unselfish and is measured in years rather than hours. To her I am eternally grateful.
Lastly, it is imperative that I thank my supervisor, Professor B. Glackman Ph.D,
R. Psych. Without his interventions and accommodation of my work schedule I would never have completed my coursework, or the thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approval ...... ii ... Abstract ...... 111 Dedication ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi Table of Contents ...... vii List of Figures ...... x List of Tables ...... xi List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ...... xii Chapter One - INTRODUCTION...... 1 Background...... I Methodological Concerns ...... 6 Multiple Offences Related To A Single Criminal Event ...... 6 The Vagaries Of Charge Selection ...... 8 Plea Bargaining ...... 8 Phased Careers, And Phased Changes In Offence Allegiance ...... 1 Chapter Two - METHODOLOGY ...... 18 Research Design...... 18 Research Site and Sample ...... 18 Information Gathering ...... 21 Method of Investigation ...... : ...... 23 Offence Categories...... 24 Property Offending ...... 26 Robbery ...... 27 Auto Theft ...... 27 Fraud ...... 28 Violent Offences ...... 29 Sexual Offences...... -30 Prostitution ...... 30 Arson ...... 31 Narcotics Offences...... 31 Nuisance Offences...... 32 Coding System ...... 34 Convictions Occurring on the Same Date, and as Part of the Same Police Report ...... 40 Stays of Proceedings as Indicators of Plea Bargain Arrangements ...... 43 Lack of Evidence ...... 44 Diversion ...... -44 Plea Bargains...... 45 Distinct Career Phases ...... 47 The Traditional Specialist ...... 50 The Non-Traditional Offence Specialists ...... 54 The Completely Specialized Offender ...... 54 The Adult Specialized Offender ...... 54 Transitions In Offence Allegiance ...... 57 Inter-Rater Reliability ...... 59 The Nominal and Operational Definitions ...... 60 Method of Analysis ...... 60 Privacy and Ethics ...... 66 Chapter Three . FINDINGS ...... 68 Obstacles to the Investigation of Offence Specialization ...... 68 The Coding System ...... 69 Case Study #1...... 69 Case Study #2...... 70 Case Study #3...... -70 Case Study #4...... 71 Case Study #5 ...... 71 Case Study #6 ...... 72 Case Study #7...... 72 Case Study #8...... 73 Case Study #9...... 73 Case Study #10...... -73 Case Study #1 1...... 74 Case Study #12...... 74 Case Summary ...... 74 The Existence, Prevalence, and Nature of the Offence Specialist ...... 75 Traditional Specialists...... 76 Non-Traditional Specialists ...... 76 Complete Specialists ...... 76 Adult Specialists ...... 77 Specialists and Self Control ...... 78 Comparing the Original 21 Traditional Specialists, and Generalists ...... 82 Age ...... -83 Offending Behaviour ...... 83 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 86 Criminal Versatility ...... 86 Summary of Comparison...... 88 Comparing The 21 Original. and 12 Additional Offence Specialists ...... 88 Age ...... -88 Offending Behaviour ...... 90 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 90 Criminal Versatility ...... 91 Summary of Comparison...... 92 Comparing Traditional And Non-Traditional Specialists ...... 92 Age ...... -93 Offending Behaviour ...... 95 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 96 Criminal Versatility ...... 96 Summary of Comparison...... 97 Comparing Traditional And Complete Specialists ...... 98 Age ...... 99 Offending Behaviour ...... 100 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 101 Criminal Versatility ...... 101 Summary of Comparison...... I01
viii Comparing Complete And Adult Specialists ...... 102 Age ...... 103 Offending Behaviour ...... 104 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 104 Criminal Versatility ...... 104 Summary of Comparison...... 105 Comparing Adult Specialists And Offence Generalists ...... 106 Age ...... 106 Offending Behaviour ...... 106 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 108 Criminal Versatility ...... 108 Summary of Comparison...... 109 Comparing All Specialists And All Generalists ...... 110 Age ...... 110 Offending Behaviour ...... 111 Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour...... 112 Criminal Versatility ...... 113 Summary of Comparison...... 113 Summarizing the Findings ...... 114 Table Summaries ...... 115 Summary of Variables ...... 118 Chapter Four - DISCUSSION ...... 120 A Discussion Of The Findings ...... 120 The Possible Explanations ...... 121 The Identified Specialists Are Not Really Specialized...... 121 The Measures Of Self-control Are Not Good Measures Of Self-control ...... 127 The Identified Specialists Do Not Have Elevated Levels Of Self-control ...... 129 Preserving the General Theory of Crime ...... 129 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 130 The Benefits of Continuing to Study Offence Specialists ...... 133 Conclusion ...... 134 Appendix A - SFU Ethics Approval ...... 136 Appendix B - CSC Research Approval ...... 137 Appendix C - Composition Of Offence Categories ...... 138 Appendix D - Coding Manual ...... 153 Step 1 - ldentifyng The Youth Cut Off Date ...... 153 Step 2 - Identifying And Coding Convictions And Stays Of Proceedings ...... 154 Step 3 - Identifying Convictions Associated With Stays ...... 161 Step 4 - Recoding Stand Alone Convictions Not Associated With Stays ...... 162 Step 5 - Recoding Stand Alone Convictions Associated With Stays ...... 163 Step 6 - Recoding A String Of Convictions With No Stays Of Proceedings ...... 165 Step 7 - Recoding A String Associated With A Stay ...... 168 Step 8 - Identifying Career Phases ...... 175 Appendix E - Coding Matrix ...... 185 Appendix F - Nominal And Operational Definitions ...... 250 Reference List ...... 257 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Criminal Career of the Offence Specialist ...... 5 Figure 2: Career Phase Characteristics of the Offence Specialist ...... 50 Figure 3: Career Examples of the Traditional Offence Specialist ...... 52 Figure 4: Career Examples of the Complete Specialist ...... 53 Figure 5: Career Examples of the Adult Specialist ...... 55 Figure 6: Career Phase Transitions ...... 56 Figure 7:Coding the Finger Print Sheet ...... 156 Figure 8: Recoding the Stand Alone Conviction...... 162 Figure 9: Recoding the Stand Alone Conviction Associated with a Stay ...... 165 Figure 10: Recoding Convictions in a String Not Associated with Stays ...... 168 Figure 11 : Recoding the Finger Print Sheet ...... 170 Figure 12: Recoding the Finger Print Sheet ...... 176 Figure 13: Recoding the Finger Print Sheet ...... 177 Figure 14: Career Examples of the Traditional Offence Specialist ...... 179 Figure 15: Career Examples of the Complete Specialist ...... 180 Figure 16: Career Examples of the Adult Specialist ...... 181 Figure 17: Career Phase Transitions ...... 182 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 population profile Comparison...... 20 Table 2: Addressing the Obstacles to the Investigation of Offence Specialization...... 24 Table 3: Offence prevalence in the Canadian Population ...... 25 Table 4: Anticipated Offence Prevalence in the Canadian Population ...... 33 Table 5: Abbreviated Composition of the Ten Offence Categories ...... 36 Table 6: Finding Career Phases and Offence Specialists ...... 48 Table 7: The Prevalence of Offence Specialists...... 78 Table 8: The Hierarchy of Specialization. and Related Tables of Comparison ...... 79 Table 9: Comparison of the 21 Original Specialists and the Generalists On Measures of Specialization and Self Control ...... $4 Table 10: Comparison Between the 21 Original. and 12 Additional Traditional Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self-control ...... 89 Table 11: Comparison Between the Traditional and Non-Traditional Offence Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self .Control ...... 94 Table 12: Comparison Between Traditional and Complete Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self-control ...... 99 Table 13: Comparison of Complete and Adult Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self- Control...... 103 Table 14: Comparison of Complete and Adult Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self .Control. After the Onset of Specialization ...... 105 Table 15: Comparison of Adult Specialists and Generalists on Measures of Specialization and Self-control...... 107 Table 16: Comparison of Adult Specialists and Generalists on Measures of Specialization and Self.Control. After the Onset of Specialization ...... 109 Table 17: Comparison of Specialists and Generalists on Mean Measures of Specialization and Self .Control ...... 111 Table 18: Summarizing the Findings...... 116 Table 19: Offence Category Symbols ...... 155 Table 20: Coding Stand Alone Convictlons Associated With Stays ...... 163 Table 21 : Hierarchy of Key and Similar Offences. Stays and Convictions ...... 166 Table 22: ~~~~arizingthe Search for Distinct Career Phases...... 177 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Aka: Also Known As
Arso: Arson Offence Category
Auto: Auto Theft Offence Category
CSC: Correctional Service of Canada
Desist: Desistance from criminal activity
Gens: Generalists; consist of all non-specialized offenders.
Min: Minimum
Max: Maximum
N/A : Not applicable
Narc: Narcotic Offence Category
Non - Trad. Non -Traditionally defined offence specialists Specs:
NPB: National Parole Board
Nuis: Nuisance Offence Category
Pop: Entire research population
Prop: Property Offence Category
Prost: Prostitution Offence Category
Rob: Robbery Offence Category
Specs: Offence specialists as defined for the purposes of this research
Trad. Specs: Traditionally defined offence specialists.
Viol: Violence Offence Category CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION
This report will detail the investigation into the prevalence of offence specialists among 499 inmates at a western Canadian Penitentiary. In particular, this report will detail the coding mechanism employed to overcome four recurring obstacles to the investigation of offence specialization, including: 1) plea-bargaining; 2) the vagaries of charge selection; 3) multiple offences related to a single incident; and, 4) the failure to include phased changes in offence allegiance. It is believed that these obstacles have artificially exaggerated the rarity of the offence specialist, and thereby may also have artificially inflated the general applicability of theories of crime predicated on the absence of offence specialization, such as Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime
(1990). By uncovering offence specialists that were 'hidden' by the four enumerated obstacles, this report demonstrates that offence specialists exist, and that they exist in numbers sufficient to cause problems for the general theory of crime. Uncovering these hidden specialists also lends credibility to the utility of the coding mechanism, and the impact of the four enumerated obstacles.
The ensuing discussion is divided over four different chapters including: 1)
Introduction; 2) Methodology; 3) Findings; 4) Discussion; followed by a conclusion.
Background The classic offence specialist is an offender who has demonstrated a strong or even exclusive commitment to a single offence type over the duration of their criminal history (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, pp.91). This criminal history is often referred to as a criminal career, a concept that has its origins in the life history form of ethnographic research and the related belief in the existence of identifiable patterns of response to social circumstances (Kempf, 1986, p. 3). Initially, crime was literally conceived of as an occupation, and the career criminal was thought to be someone who demonstrated an enduring commitment to crime, and for whom crime constituted a primary economic endeavour. Among career criminals there were also several 'professions' based on one's level of skill, success, and degree of specialization or commitment to a specific offence type. Consequently, offence specialization became an important consideration in determining one's criminal profession, and professionalism even though studies as far back as William Healy and
August Bronner (1926) found little if any offence specialization. Still, the belief in the existence of the offence specialist persisted such that it formed an integral facet in the definition of the professional criminal (Sutherland, 1937; Gibbons, 1976; Reckless, 1961;
Shover, 1971; Holzman, 1979; Maurer, 1940; Letkemann, 1969; and Conklin, 1973).
Career criminals that did not demonstrate skill, success, or offence specialization were thought of as being semi, or even unprofessional (Gibbons, 1975), ordinary (Reckless,
1961) criminally versatile, or generalists. Among the criminals believed to exhibit these three criteria, there were believed to be professional thieves (Sutherland, 1937), burglars
(Shover, 1971; Holzman, 1979), and robbers (Holzman, 1979) among others (Maurer,
1940; Letkemann, 1969; Conklin, 1973).
Whatever benefits this literal perspective of crime-as-occupation offered, by 1961 the term 'career' was becoming more of a synonym for any type of social life course regardless of whether it constituted an occupation or livelihood (Goffman, 1961, p. 127).
In the mid-to-late 19607s,the definition of the professional criminal also came under increased scrutiny because so few examples were actually discovered (Letkeman, 1969;
Shover, 1971; Conklin, 1973; Schwaner, 2000:372). Vasoli and Terzola (1974), for instance, found fewer than 10 in a prison population of 1,800 inmates whereas Gould et al. (1966) found that in a study of 50 professional criminals most displayed criminal versatility that was more in keeping with a generalist than a specialist. This led to a
general re-conceptualization of the definition of the professional criminal, one that no
longer required an exclusive commitment to a single offence type (Gould et al., 1966,
pp.25-27, Winslow, 1970, p. 266; Walker, 1974, p.88; Staats, 1977, p.63 - 64). By the
time of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
of 1967, offence specialization was no longer included as part of the definition of the
professional criminal (1967, p. 96). Increasingly, offenders were viewed as generalists
and it was accepted that even those who engaged in crime as an occupation would
display criminal versatility across an array of different offences. This was confirmed in
several subsequent studies as well (Hirschi, 1969; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981;
Wolfgang et al., 1972; Petersilia, 1980; Rojek & Erickson, 1982; Klein, 1971, 1979, and
For example, using the 1945 Philadelphia Birth Cohort Study, Wolfgang et al.
(1972) followed the criminal careers of delinquent youths to the ninth offence and
rejected the existence of any significant degree of offence specialization (166-1 88). The
lack of specialization in the Philadelphia Birth Cohort Study was also confirmed in
Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments
(Klein, 1979), and Criminal Career Research: A Review of Recent Evidence (Petersilia,
1980). Other studies that found little or no support for offence specialization include
Peterson et al. 1962; Mclintock 1963; Christensen et al. 1965; Shannon 1968;
Buikhuisen and Jongman 1970; Hindelang 1971; Soothill and Pope 1973; Petersilia et
al. 1977; West and Farrington 1977; Heuser 1978; Farrington 1979; Blumstein and
Greene 1979; Bursik 1980; Kobrin et al. 1980; Peterson et al. 1980; Chaiken and
Chaiken 1982a and b; Peay 1982:211; Smith and Smith 1983; Hirschi 1986; and
2 Gottfredson 1992). While not an exhaustive list, these and other studies have helped make the generalist perspective the predominant view. This same view formed an
integral part of Gottfredson and Hirschi's A General Theory of Crime (1990).
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, virtually all offenders lack self-control
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, pp.13). They are unable to delay gratification, and
repeatedly choose the most expedient and efficient means of maximizing their self-
interest even if at the expense of larger gains in the longer term. This lack of self-control
is a universal trait underpinning crime and many analogous behaviours including
immoral, deviant, or sinful acts in general. Thus, the person without self-control is the
same person who is most likely to use drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes; or to get into car
accidents; or to skip school; to be unemployed; to be unmarried or to have a higher
incidence of marital problems; the most likely to resolve conflict in physical ways; and
the most likely to engage in criminal activity (p. xv, 9, 89-91). Of those engaging in
criminal activity, it is those with: 1) the earliest ages at onset of criminal behaviour; 2) the
most offences; 3) the greater frequency of offending; and 4) the greatest degree of
criminal versatility that will have the least amount of self-control. These claims about the
link between low self control and analogous behaviours have been confirmed again and
again in studies such as Grasmick et al., 1993; Keane, Maxim, and Teevan, 1993; Nagin
and Paternoster, 1993; Wood, Pfefferbaum, and Arneklwv, 1993; Arneklev et al., 1993;
Burton et al., 1994; Sorenson and Brownfiled, 1995; Piquero and Tibbetts, 1996; Evans
et al., 1997; and Burton et al., 1998. This same relationship is apparently true even in
places like prisons where it is possible to measure a reduced level of self-control by
studying the incidence of prison infractions (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p.129).
In terms of offence patterns, this opportunism and inability to delay gratification
means that there will be a high degree of criminal versatility and little if any commitment f i to a single type of offence. Consequently, offenders will generally not exhibit any appreciable degree of specialization in their criminal patterns. Someone convicted of robbery is just as likely to commit a theft, and a rapist is just as likely to commit an assault as another sexual offence (p. 22-23). Consequently, it should not be possible for any criminal to have a strong commitment to a particular offence type or pattern of
~ffendingbecause this would require an elevated level of self-control, and would
~ontradictthe main premise of the general theory of crime, namely, that crime is a manifestation of low self-control.
Although several studies have found or suggested elevated levels of specialization among certain offenders or offence types such as: white collar criminals
(Geis, 1995; Slapper & Tombs, 1999, Stander et at., 1989); burglars and robbers
(Holzman, 1979); sex offenders (Stander et al., 1989; Cassel & Bernstein, 2001); property crime (Peterson et al., 1962; Bursik, 1980; Petersilia, 1980, p.353; Peterson et al., 1981, p. 46; Rojek & Erickson, 1982, p. 15-16; Wallerstedt, 1984, p. 3); and personal crime (Peterson et at., 1962; Farrington, 1979; Petersilia, 1980, p. 353; Peterson et al.,
1981, p. 46); none of these studies attack Gottfredson and Hirschi's assertion that criminal versatility and the offence generalist form the bulk of all offence patterns and all criminals respectively.
The apparent overall rarity of the offence specialist may, however, be at least partly exaggerated by the four methodological concerns discussed in the next section of this report. It is noteworthy that Kempf and Terzola also identified some of the same obstacles including the problems associated with plea bargains (Terzola, 1972, p.16), and the problems associated with multiple charges related to a single criminal event
(Kempf, 1986. p.62, 65). If these obstacles do, indeed, exaggerate the rarity of the offence specialist, it would have implications for the general theory of crime. In fact,
GoMredson and Hirschi believe that an exclusive reliance on any one type of crime, or 5 even a strong inclination to pursue a specific criminal act or pattern of criminal acts, would be highly problematic for their general theory of crime (p. 23, 90).
In keeping with Gottfredson and Hirschi's rationale for why offence specialists cannot exist, it was believed that if any offence specialists were uncovered they would demonstrate elevated levels of self-control based on measures of self-control derived from the general theory of crime including: 1) later ages at onset of criminal behaviour;
2) fewer total offences; 3) a reduced frequency of offending; 4) fewer prison infractions; and 5) a low level of criminal versatility, i.e. specialization.
Methodological Concerns The overall rarity of the offence specialist is believed to be at least partially exaggerated by four recurring obstacles to the identification of offence specialists, including: 1) the treatment of multiple offences related to a single criminal event; 2) the vagaries of charge selection; 3) the prevalence'of plea bargaining; and, 4) the failure to allow for career-phase specific changes in offence specialization. Each of these obstacles will be discussed in turn.
Multiple Offences Related To A Single Criminal Event The first methodological concern involves the manner in which multiple offences related to a single criminal event are handled during any investigation of offence specialization. The use of an example is illustrative. Picture a scenario in which a sex offender arms himself with a gun before breaking into a residence for the purpose of assaulting the female occupant. Neighbours notify the police who arrive too late to stop the sexual assault but are just in time for a high-speed pursuit as the offender tries to escape. In this scenario there are at least five different Criminal Code of Canada offences for which the offender can be charged, including: 1) Possession of Restricted Weapon;
2) Trespassing at Night; 3) Break and Enter and Commit; 4) Dangerous Operation of a
Motor Vehicle; and, 5) Sexual Assault. If the offender were convicted of all five offences it would look like he was a versatile offender because there was no exclusivity in offence type. However, all five convictions relate to a single event and will likely all have the same police file number, court date, and sentencing date. Any sentences will likely also run concurrently. It is important that this context be considered during any investigation of offence specialization and that each of these five offences be coded as being related to a single sexual event so as to reflect their true nature and the offender's true commitment to a specific type of crime. Alternately, if the context of the criminal event were not considered, it would look live five different offences of which only one, or 20%, would be sexual in nature. This would suggest only a 20% commitment to a single criminal behaviour and would belie the offender's true level of commitment to sex offending, and the true prevalence of offence specialists in any prison population.
Recognizing this problem, Kempf (1986) coded all offences relating to a single event according to the most serious conviction rendered. While this was a step in the right direction, it also involved problems. For instance, defining an entire string of offences according to only the most serious offence could miss both the depth and variety of offending, and essentially 'buries' offences in order to attain specialization (Gottfredson
& Hirschi, 1990, p. 92). For example, an offender who rapes and then murders his victim all in the same evening might receive convictions for Sexual Assault or Aggravated
Sexual Assault, and Manslaughter or some type of Murder. Focussing only on the most serious offence, the murder, would essentially obscure the possible sexual nature of the offence and would belie the offender's true behaviour. Using only the most serious offence is too simple of an approach and is also problematic because it doesn't /' 7 specifically address plea-bargain arrangements. This is a concern because one of the prime objectives in any plea bargain arrangement is the reduction of the seriousness of the conviction in relation to the original charge. Failure to account for plea bargain arrangements means that the severity of the most serious conviction could be underestimated or misrepresented.
The Vagaries Of Charge Selection The second methodological concern involves the vagaries of charge selection.
TO illustrate how these can impact the investigation of offence specialization it is again useful to use an example. Consider a poker game where one participant accuses a second party of cheating, and the second party responds with a physical attack. In this scenario there are a number of charges that can be recommended by police and accepted by the Crown prosecutor including: 1) Causing Disturbance; 2) Common
Nuisance; 3) Assault, 4) Assault Causing Bodily Harm; 5) Aggravated Assault; 6)
Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm; and 7) Mischief. Given the range of offences that could arise from assaultive behaviour, it could be possible for the offender to repeat the exact same behaviour five, six, or seven different times and receive a different conviction each time depending upon the preferences of the police and Crown. Thus, the preferences of the police and the Crown can have as much of an impact on the nature of the final conviction as the offender's own behaviour. This creates a problem when it comes to measuring an offender's commitment to a single offence type, or criminal behaviour.
Plea Bargaining A third concern, and another way in which the range of prosecutorial possibilities impede the investigation of offence specialization, is the plea bargaining process. During any plea bargain arrangement it is likely that the prosecutor and the accused will attempt to negotiate a guilty plea, most commonly in exchange for: 1) a reduced sentence; 2) a
8 charge of reduced seriousness; 3) a reduction in the number of charges; or, 4) any combination of the three (Newman, 1956; Sudnow, 1965). In terms of interest in a reduced charge there are a number of possible advantages to the accused. The accused could experience a lesser degree of stigmatization while in prison or upon discharge from prison. For example, in the case of sexually motivated offences, a plea bargain for a non-sexual offence could mean that upon incarceration the offender will be able to remain in the general population instead of joining the protective custody population. It could also mean that they will have an easier time in an integrated population if they are not identified as a sex offender. To use a specific example, it is possible for someone charged with Sexual Assault to negotiate a plea for some form of non-sexual assault such as Aggravated Assault (Terzola, 1972, p.16). This is possible because both offences are violent in nature, both fall into Schedule I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, both charges fall within the "Offences Against The Person" section of the Criminal Code of Canada, and the sentencing limit on Aggravated Assault is fourteen years as compared to ten for Sexual Assault so the prosecutor will not have given anything away in that regard.
The benefits to the accused are even greater if they can plea bargain for a less serious non - Schedule I or II offence as this can establish parole eligibility at one sixth of their sentence in the case of first time federal offenders, or it can preclude their case from being automatically reviewed for detention beyond two thirds of their sentence.
Using a specific example, depending on the circumstances of the original offence it
~ouldnot be impossible for someone charged with Attempted Murder or some form of
Schedule I Assault to plead guilty to Extortion, which, while not a Schedule I offence still carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In this scenario, the first time federal
Offender could wind up with the exact same sentence but in the case of Extortion vs. Attempted Murder, would have their parole eligibility date set at one sixth of their sentence.
In each of these plea bargain cases the prosecutor would have been able to take solace in the fact that as a result of the plea bargain the cases were handled
without great expense to the public purse, and without a reduction in the sentencing limits. The problem as regards the investigation of offence specialization is that the preferences of the prosecutor have as much to do with the nature and seriousness of the final conviction as anything the offender does.
This is no small issue considering the very high incidence of plea bargain arrangements in both Canada and the United States. While there are no specific statistics on the number of plea bargain arrangements in British Columbia or Canada, it is generally suggested that plea bargains represent as much as 90% of all guilty pleas in
British Columbia, (Benning, 2003; Schultes, 2003), Canada (D'Arcy, 1995, p.12), and the
United States. In fact, in the United States the percentage of guilty pleas arranged by plea bargain is routinely over 90% and growing (U.S. Government, 1992, p. 34; 1994, p.
3; 1996, p. 28; 1998, p. 28). With so many convictions resulting from plea bargains, and with the intent of many plea bargains being a reduction in the number or seriousness of charges, it is clear how plea bargains can impede the investigation of offence specialization.
One way of addressing these concerns has been to use groupings or categories of related offences. Healy and Bronner (1926), for example, used offence categories as did Wolfgang et al. (1972); Bursik (1980); Klein (1984); Kempf (1986); Soothill et al.
(2000); and Svennson (2002). The problem, however, is that whether the offences are
grouped according to their general nature (Kempf, 1986), level of seriousness (Wolfgang
et al., 1W2), degree of personal or property harm (Bursik, 1980), or official statistical
10 reporting categories (Soothill et al., 2000) they are still susceptible to the vagaries of prosecutorial possibilities (Newman, 1956; Sudnow, 1965). For example, as a result of the full range of prosecutorial possibilities there is the potential for sexual offences to be negotiated into Aggravated Assault (Terzola, 1972, p. 16) or even into property offences such as Break Enter With Intent, Break Enter Commit, or Trespass at Night. It is also possible for a scheduled violent offence such as Attempted Murder and Assault to be turned into a conviction for a non-scheduled offence such as Extortion. Similarly, a
Schedule I Assault can result in a conviction for simple Mischief. While the use of offence categories assists the investigation of offence specialization, these categories must specifically encompass the range of prosecutorial possibilities if the real degree of offence specialization is to be known. Thus, there has been an attempt to incorporate the range of prosecutorial possibilities into the ten offence categories employed in the current research undertaking.
Phased Careers, And Phased Changes In Offence Allegiance A fourth methodological problem is a traditional definition of offence specialist that fails to incorporate the possibility of distinct career phases (Stott and Wilson, 1977, p. 72; Meisenhelder 1977; Cline 1980, p. 641 -42, 659; Blumstein et al. 1982; Langan &
Farrington 1983; Shover 1983; D'Unger et al. 1998; Maughan et al. 2000; Ferguson et al. 2000; Soothill et al. 2002). This omission appears somewhat unreasonable by comparison to research into other criminal careers, life histories, and occupational careers.
In law - abiding careers, for instance, it is not unusual for people to experience several different career transitions over the course of their employment history. For example, it is not unreasonable for a youth to undergo some employment experimenting before actually settling down to a more enduring career. Even after the more enduring career has been commenced it is not unusual to experience a mid-career change followed by retirement. These changes in employment patterns may be related to various life stages such as the transition from youth to young adult, some form of mid-life transition, maturation, or by changes in life circumstances, socio-economic status, or marital status. The point to be made is that these life changes are sometimes marked by changes in the pattern of employment, they are normal, and they don't give rise to accusations about being opportunistic, or lacking the ability to delay gratification.
Goffman, for instance, recognized that a career could involve several sequential stages (1963) and although there is still debate over whether the stages are sequential, what the stages might be, how many there might be, or what might cause them, there is still strong support for the existence of distinct phases of a life history, an occupational career, and a criminal career (Erikson, 1963; Brim & Wheeler, 1966; Robins, 1966;
Neugarten, 1968; Irwin, 1974; lnkeles & Smith, 1974; Levinson et al., 1974, 1978; Braly,
1976; Meisenhelder, 1977; Vaillant, 1977; Petersilia, 1980; Bittner & Messinger, 1980;
Polk, 1981; Bazemore, 1982; Tamir, 1982; Shover, 1983; Dannefer, 1984; Jolin, 1985;
Kanazawa, 2003). Consequently, it is argued that criminal careers should allow for these types of changes and distinct phases, and for the most part they do, except in the case of the traditionally defined offence specialist.
To illustrate, the career of the chronic offender, marked as it is by a high frequency of offending, still allows for variations in offending frequency as a means of establishing distinct phases of the criminal career such as retirement i.e. desistance from crime (Stott & Wilson, 1977, p.72; Cline, 1980, p. 641 ; Blumstein et al., 1982; Langan &
Farrington, 1983; and, Farrington, 1992 p.11). Similarly, changes in offence frequency have also been used to demarcate distinct life stages of the chronic offender such as the youth - adult transition (Glueck 1943; Polk, 1981, p. 31 1; Jolin, 1985, p. 7; or a mid-life transition into desistance from crime (Robins, 1966;
13) as long as the offender still falls into that group of 510% offenders responsible for about 50% of all crime perpetrated by the sample population (Wolfgang et al., 1972, p.88, 248, 253; Collins, 1977, p.16; Farrington, 1983; Blumstein et al., 1982, p.2-3; Blumstein, 1986, 1987, l988a, and 198813; Svensson, 2002). By comparison, the traditional career of the offence specialist, marked as it is by offence specialization, does not allow for the types of variations in specialization that might distinguish distinct phases of the criminal career or help identify the related antecedents. This appears to be an unnecessary and unreasonable definitional burden with the result that according to the traditional definition, the career of the offence specialist is characterized not so much by their commitment to a single offence type, but by an impunity or imperviousness to life stages or circumstances, and the absence of multiple career phases.
To similarly burden the chronic offender would be to require a consistent frequency of offending from the beginning to the end of the criminal career. For the serious offender it would be to engage in the exact same levels of seriousness over the course of the entire criminal career, and for an offender with a diminishing career path it would be to have consistently decreasing offence frequencies. Under these conditions it is likely that the careers of the chronic and serious offenders would, like the offence specialist, acquire what is believed to be an exaggerated rarity.
One possible solution would be to allow for offence specialists to have career phase specific changes in offence allegiance over the course of their criminal career.
The result would be consecutive phases or serials of specialization with the changes in offence allegiance distinguishing the various phases of the career. For instance, it was believed that there would be virtually no specialization in the youth phase of a career, marked as it is by experimentation and the absence of commitment (Bursik, 1980; ~~Blanc& Frechette, 1989; Rojek Erickson, 1982; Wolfgang et at., 1972). By comparison, in each phase of adulthood it was believed that the offence specialist should show a high degree of commitment to an offence category even if the offence
,ategory may be different in each adult phase of the career. In support, the studies of
~ursik,1980; Quay and Blumen, 1968; and Farrington, 1986, 1991:22 indicate that specialization may increase as criminal careers become more established. While this differs from the traditional definition of the offence specialist, it still involves a level of commitment and exclusivity that distinguishes the offence specialist from most other criminals.
Figure 1 illustrates what a traditional career for an offence specialist might look like, as compared to a career that allowed for phased changes in offence allegiance.
Under the traditional definition there is only a single career phase that endures for the entire career, and involves an exclusive commitment to a single offence type. This career sequence is remarkable because of the enduring commitment to a single offence type, and because this commitment remains constant despite possible influences related to life events such as the youth - adult transition, divorce, the death of one's parent or parents, the birth of a child, and the mid-life transition to name but a few possibilities.
The use of these particular life events is merely illustrative, and not intended to suggest that these are confirmed antecedents to changes in offence specialization.
By comparison to the traditional definition, the expanded definition of offence
allows for several career phases, each distinguished by changes in offence allegiance or the degree of offence specialization. For instance, in the youth phase it might be expected that there would be experimentation and a concomitant absence of specialization followed by the onset of specialization somewhere around the youth - adult divide. Thereafter, there would be a strong commitment to an offence type in each phase of the adult career, with each phase being distinguished by a change in offence allegiance.
In the example provided in Figure 1, from the onset of specialization there are three career phases consisting of three fraud offences, three theft offences, and three sexual assaults respectively. Although three like offences are the minimum requirement to constitute a career phase, the example also demonstrates that these three offences can occur consecutively as is the case with the fraud and theft offence serials, or concurrently as is the case with two of the three sexual offences. In this sense, there is no regard for the amount of time that elapses between the offences in a career phase, there could be minutes or years between each offence, as long as three like offences in each phase occurred consecutively and were uninterrupted by convictions of a different offence allegiance.
For those not comfortable with this concept of career phases, the expanded definition of offence specialist should still be meaningful in so far as it essentially describes a completely serialized offender. In the case of the traditionally defined offence specialist it is a serial offender with a single serial only. In contrast, the expanded definition of offence specialist involves a career that is completely serialized from adulthood onwards, with multiple consecutive serials. In this scenario the changes in offence allegiance demarcate changes in serials. Whether one prefers the career phase or serial perspective, the common denominator is that all the offenders so
identified have demonstrated a readily identifiable pattern of offending and a level of
commitment to an offence type that sets them apart from the majority of offenders. Using
this phased career model, a new coding system, and ten different offence categories to
adjust for the four identified obstacles to the investigation of offence specialization, the i
current investigation undertook to determine the existence, prevalence, and nature of the
offence specialist. i CHAPTER TWO - METHODOLOGY
This section of the report will address the research design, the research sample, the coding system, the specific offence categories to be employed, the related nominal and operational definitions, as well as some of the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen methodology.
Research Design The identification and examination of a specific criminal career such as that of the offence specialist necessarily involves a longitudinal process that encompasses the offender's entire youth and adult criminal history. It also requires a research sample that allows for generalizability to other populations. In the current undertaking the research sample involves 499 of the 504 male offenders at a medium security federal penitentiary located in British Columbia, Canada. Although the research intended to include all the residents of the institution, five of the offenders had file information that had not yet been translated from French to English. These offenders were excluded from the sample.
Research Site and Sample The penitentiary under study had a capacity of 51 1 inmates, and a staff complement of about 270 including all trades, managers, and front line staff. It also offered several distinct benefits. For instance, it had the largest offender population in
British Columbia, and the oldest offender population in the entire Correctional Service of
Canada (Uzoaba, 1998). This assured not only a sizeable sample, but a group of offenders furthest along in their criminal careers, which, benefits a longitudinal study in a situation where it cannot be known for certain that a criminal career is actually over. The sufficiency of the research sample was buoyed by similar sample sizes in other studies
(Healy & Bronner, 1926; Glueck & Glueck, 1930; 1945; 1950; Dunham & Knauer, 1954; ~haitlin& Dunham, 1966; Robins & O'Neal, 1958; McCord & McCord, 1959; and Tracy,
1978). The last benefit of the sample size was that it is manageable for a single researcher to analyze and report on.
Another advantage of the selected penitentiary was that it was a medium security facility, which, could ensure the generalizability of any findings considering that the majority of federal male offenders are housed at medium security (Government of
Canada, 1999). This was an important consideration for if Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) are correct about the inverse relationship between offence specialization and behaviours analogous to crime, including prison rule breaking behaviour (p. 129), then it may be that there will be a greater number of offence specialists at minimum security where there are greater expectations for good behaviour. In short, there may be security level specific fluctuations in the prevalence of offence specialists thereby further limiting the generalizability of any research findings.
By comparison to other sample populations, the prison population offered other benefits as well. For instance, all offender records were readily accessible electronically, and in a single location. Additionally, the mortality of research subjects was not a
problem and neither were disclosure or waiver forms as it was necessary to interview any offenders to get the desired information. The utility of using a prison population was
buoyed by studies that have also employed incarcerated populations (Chaiken &
Chaiken, l982a; and Petersilia et al., 1977; Stott & Wilson, 1977; Langan & Greenfeld,
1983; Peterson et al., 1980; Stander et al., 1989; and Gottfredson, 1992).
The final favourable attribute was the facility's integrated population, which,
includes sex offenders. The integrated nature of the population is believed to assist with
the generalizability of any research findings to the larger federal offender population. To
illustrate, 26.9% of the offender population at this penitentiary were sex offenders, which
19 favourably with 21.8% in the federal incarcerated population as a whole
(Motiuk & Vuong, 2002, p. 06). Similarly, 16% of the population at this facility had robbery as their index offence as compared to 13.9% with the Pacific Region as a whole
(Motiuk & Vuong, 2002, p.10). Overall, this institution presents as a fairly representative sample. This is further demonstrated in the following table showing comparisons between the population at the research site and the larger federal offender population.
Table 1: Population Profile Comparison I MEASURE I RESEARCH SITE FEDERAL PRISON 1 POPULATION -AGE AND MARITAL STATUS Age 20 - 34 168 (29.7%) 5,797 (46.8%) Single 365 (64%) 7,489 (60.4%) Common Law 130 (23%) 3,731 (30.1%) Married 70 (12.4%) 1,169 (9.4%) LENGTH OF SENTENCE Sentence of < 3 years 87 (15.4%) 1,016 (8.2%) (men only) Sentence of 3 - 6 years 165 (29.2%) 4,718 (38.1 %)(men only)
Sentence of 6 - 10 years , 72 (12.7%) 2,572 (20.8%) Sentence of > 10 years 76 (13.4%) 1,430 (11.5%)(men only) Life 166 (29.3%) 2,658 (21.4%)(men only) PREVALENCE OF OFFENCE TYPES Schedule I Offence 374 (66.0%) 1 7,361 (59.4%) (men only) (violent offence) Schedule II Offence 11 (I.9Y0) 1,093 (8.8%) (men only) (serious drug offence) Non-Schedule Offence 75 (13.2%) 1,683 (13.6%) (men cnly) ETHNIC COMPOSITION Asiatic 2 (0.4%) 122 (1.Ox) Black 5 (0.9%) 748 (6.0%) (men only) White 405 (71.6%) 8,839 (71.3%) (men only) Native Indian 86 (15.1%) 2,105 (17%) (men only) UnknownINot Stated 2 (0.4%) 60 (0.5%) (men only) *(Government of Canada, 1999)
On most of the measures the population at this institution were within close proximity of the larger federal population. The two primary exceptions pertain to the
Comparatively older population. Thus, there were fewer inmates between the ages of 20
- 34 at this institution, and there were more married offenders as well. The third exception might also have been age related and pertains to the lower number of drug in the population at the research institution. Overall, however, it is believed that the research sample offered sufficient size to properly identify the prevalence of offence specialists, and was sufficiently representative to allow for the generalizability of any research findings to the larger male medium security federal offender population.
/nformation Gathering All relevant data on the research subjects came from official Correctional Service of Canada documentation. In particular, it came from an analysis of two specific reports for each offender, the Finger Print Sheet and the Security Profile Report. The former provided the offender's complete record of criminal convictions including youth and adult offences, and while it didn't document all arrests or police contacts it did record charges for which stays of proceedings were issued. This is an important consideration in light of the previous discussion about the range of prosecutorial possibilities for it is believed that the presence of a stay of proceedings is indicative of a plea bargain arrangement having been struck (Benning, 2003; Schultes, 2003; Sneesby, 2003). It is also believed that the charge for which a stay of proceedings is registered may be the charge that was dispensed with as part of the plea agreement, and may also be most representative of the nature of the criminal behaviour that led to the subsequent conviction. This offers great benefit when trying to determine the real seriousness and true nature of any conviction. The Finger Print Sheet was sometimes useful in another way as well.
Frequently, although not always, the Finger Print Sheet listed the file number of any police reports related to any string of convictions occurring on the same day. Where a string of convictions occurred on the same day and as part of the same police report it was quite likely that they were all related to a single criminal event and they were coded accordingly. This is particularly true where the sentence dispensed was a concurrent as opposed to consecutive sentence, a piece of information that is typically also reported on the Finger Print Sheet.
The second report that was used is the Security Profile Report, a composite report that included 'tombstone' data such as the offender's age, birth date, race, date of incarceration, index offence, current sentence, as well as the number and type of the offender's institutional infractions. The information about the institutional infractions was of particular interest in light of Gottfredson and Hirschi's suggestion that prison infractions are an appropriate indicator of offenders that lack self-control (1990 p.129). In fact, for each offender there was a calculation of the number of prison infractions per month of incarceration on the current sentence which, in turn, served as a yardstick for comparison between offence specialists and generalists.
The advantage of using official data was that it was likely a more accurate reflection of each offender's criminal record than the offender's own testimony. Problems such as deception, failing memories, and exaggerated levels of offending are all overcome by the use of official data (Farrington, 1992, p. 09 -1 0). Another advantage of official data was that the dates of events were much more reliable than offender testimony (Farrington, 1992 p. 09 -1 0). The data was also much more available than offender testimony, and more manageable because it came in electronic form. In an hour it is possible to collect the criminal histories of hundreds of inmates as opposed to the hours it would take to collect even a single inmate history through interview or by survey. The fact that the offender's didn't have to be interviewed not only saved time but also precluded the need for consent forms. In fact, by using electronically generated information the research subjects were not even aware that they had been the subjects of study. The other advantage of using official data is that it was guaranteed to be available to correctional staff and administrators wanting to make release decisions or recommendations, conduct risk assessments, develop programs, or generate risk management strategies. This was a prime consideration for while it was recognized that the official record would likely only encompass a small fraction of each offender's total offending, it was the official data that would inform the judgment of decision makers, policy makers and correctional staff so it is upon this same information that conclusions should be drawn.
The belief in the utility and appropriateness of using official records and convictions instead of all arrests or police contacts was supported by the following studies which relied upon similar information (McCord & McCord, 1959; Healy &
Bronner, 1969; West, 1969, 1982; Stott & Wilson, 1977; McCord, 1978, 1981; Bursik,
1980; Farrington & West, 1981; Farrington, 1982; Langan & Greenfeld, 1983; Home
Office, 1985; and Soothill et al., 2002).
Method of Investigation Given the four identified obstacles to the investigation of offence specialization, including: 1) the treatment of multiple offences related to a single criminal event; 2) the vagaries of charge selection; 3); the prevalence of plea bargaining and, 4) the failure to allow for career-phase specific changes in offence specialization, it was necessary to develop a method of investigation to overcome these obstacles. In keeping with this intent, the current research undertaking employed: 1) a consistent and unique coding system that compensates for the effects of plea bargaining arrangements; 2) offence categories that encompass the full range of possible charge selection; 3) a consistent and unique coding system that properly addresses multiple offences related to a single event; and, 4) an expanded definition of offence specialist that allows for career phase specific changes in offence allegiance. Each of these four approaches will be discussed
in detail.
Table 2: Addressina the Obstacles to the lnvestiqatio~of Offence Specialization
OBSTACLE RESOLUTION
1 Plea Baraainina Coding System r2.-- 1 Vaaaries" of Charae" Selection Offence Categories 3. Offences Related to a Single Event Coding System 4. Definition Of Offence Specialist Not Allowing For Definition of Offence Phased Career Changes In Offence Allegiance. Specialist That Allows for Phased Changes in Offence Allegiance.
Offence Categories In light of the concerns about the range of prosecutorial possibilities, the current
research undertaking measured offence specialization according to the degree of
commitment to a particular offence category, as opposed to one specific offence. In total,
there were ten offence categories, which, were at least partly based upon those offences
that are most prevalent in the prison population or the society at large according to
Canada's Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (Government of Canada, 2002b). These
prevalences are depicted in Table 3.
Although this is useful information, there are a few concerns with merely adopting
the offence categories used by Canada's Uniform Crime Reporting Survey. Among
these, it must be recognized that some of the list is comprised of specific offences or
quite narrow offence categories such as: Theft Under $5,000, Breaking and Entering;
Sexual Assault; Theft Over $5,000; Possession of Stolen Goods; Robbery; Attempted
Murder; and Homicide; while others involve fairly broad categories of related offences
such as: Other Criminal Code Offences; Assaults; Other Criminal Code Traffic Offences; Table 3: Offence Prevalence In the Canadian Population I I OFFENCE CATEGORY I PREVALENCE PER 100,000
1 Other Criminal Code Offences 2,706.4 incidents
2 Theft Under $5000 2,142.6 incidents 1 3 1 Breaking and Entering 908.9 incidents 1 4 1 Assaults I 769.5 incidents 5 Motor Vehicle Theft 547.6 incidents
6 Non Criminal Code Drug Offences 295.7 incidents
7 Impaired Driving 291 incidents
1 8 1 Fraud I 284.2 incidents
Offences against federal statutes 123.1 incidents lglother than the Criminal Code I 10 I Other Criminal Code Traffic Offences / 115 incidents I 11 I Possession of Stolen Goods I 95.1 incidents 12 Robbery 88.2 incidents
13 Sexual Assault 78.6 incidents
14 Theft Over $5,000 68 incidents 1 15 1 Other Crimes of Violence I 44.4 incidents 1 16 1 Other Sexual Offences I 9.7 incidents 1 17 1 Attempted Murder I 2.3 incidents 18 Homicide 1.8 incidents
TOTAL 8,572.1 incidents
and Other Sexual Offences. While there is not necessarily anything wrong with these
particular categories the rationale behind them was not made explicit. Similarly, none of
the categories were designed with the full range of prosecutorial possibilities in mind. The ten chosen offence categories also reflect what are believed to be specific
skills, criminal occupations, career paths, compulsions, addictions, or unique offences in
the belief that these will offer some degree of invariability in the level of commitment or
pattern of offending. The assumption here is that these unique skills, career paths,
offences, compulsions, addictions and criminal occupations will demand a level of
exclusivity and commitment characteristic of an offence specialist.
The ten offence categories are also comprised of offences that are similar by
nature, motivation, or in their relation to the reasonable range of prosecutorial
possibilities. For instance, for a sexually motivated offence, it is unlikely that the Crown
would approve anything but those charges that have been listed below under the Sexual
Offending category. The same applies to each of the ten offence categories, as follows.
Property Offending
This offence category is dedicated to property offending and includes the Uniform
Crime Reporting Survey offences or offence categories of Theft Under $5000, Break and
Enter, Possession of Stolen Goods, Theft Over $5,000, as well as most of the offences
comprising the "Offences Against Rights of Property" category of the Criminal Code of E Canada. The rationale is that these are largely economically motivated crimes involving i property and are usually related to the acts of theft, burglary, or the distribution or
possession of stolen goods. They also form part of the range of prosecutorial
possibilities for similar criminal behaviour. For example, a burglar might not be caught in
the act but might be caught in possession of the stolen goods, or in possession of the
5 break in tools. Combined into a single category these offences comprise at least 3214.6
incidents per 100,000 people and constitute the largest single offence category
according to the Uniform Crime Survey (Government of Canada, 2000b), thereby
increasing the chances of detecting an offence specialist. It is also noted that a property
26 offence category has been employed in several other studies as well (Peterson et al.,
1962; Bursik, 1980; Petersilia, 1980:353; Peterson, et al., 1981; Rojek & Reickson,
1982, p.15-16; Wallerstedt, 1984, p. 3; Gotffredson, 1992; Soothill et al., 2002). In support of a separate Property Offence category, it is noted that an elevated degree of
specialization in property offending was found in studies by Britt (1996), and Soothill et
al. (2002), and property offences constituted a separate category for official crime
statistics in England as well (Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1998, p.
3; Soothill et al., 2000). Although there appears to be wide acceptance of the utility and
benefit of a category specific to property offending, the offences of Robbery, Auto Theft,
and Fraud will not be included. Instead, these form separate offence categories.
Robbery In the case of Robbery, it is one of the most prevalent offences in the general
society at 88.2 incidents per 100,000 (Government of Canada, 2002b) and also
constitutes a large portion of the federal offender population at 35.7% (Motiuk & Vuong,
2002, p. 6). In support of Robbery forming a distinct category it is noted that robbery and
burglary have been distinguished as distinct career paths in previous studies (Shover,
1971; Holzman, 1979; Wright, 1997; Schwaner, 2000). Robbery was used as a distinct
offence category by Svensson (2002), and it constitutes a category for official crime
statistics in England as well (Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1998,
p.3; Soothill et al., 2000). At least one study also found an elevated degree of
commitment to robbery (Schwaner, 2000, p.372).
Auto Theft
Although auto theft is clearly a property related offence it does conjure up images
of skills that while perhaps no more specialized than those needed by a burglar, are still
quite unique and specific to the offence in question. Defeating modern alarm systems and dismantling vehicles, for example, suggest a degree of specialization although it remains to be seen if these are truly elements of the typical auto theft or little more than fiction as popularized by such movies as Gone in 60 Seconds (1974, 2000). There is, however, at least a popular perception that auto theft is a unique offence and perhaps one worth mining in the search for offence specialists. At 547.6 incidents per 100,000 people auto theft also constitutes one of the top five most prevalent offences in Canada and is therefore worthy of attention on this basis as well. At least one previous study has found an elevated level of specialization in auto theft (Soothill et al., 2002) and auto theft was also employed as a distinct category in previous research studies (Soothill et al., 2002; Svensson, 2002). Lastly, auto theft also constitutes a separate category for the reporting of official statistics in England (Research Development and Statistics
Directorate, 1998, p. 3; Soothill, 2000).
Fraud This category consists of all manner of fraudulent undertakings and what are presumed to be white collar crimes such as embezzlement, stock fraud, tax fraud, insider trading and most of the offences contained in the "Fraudulent Transactions" and
"Offences Relating to Currency" sections of the Criminal Code of Canada. As an offence category in the Uniform Crime Survey, Fraud constitutes 284.2 incidents per 100,000 people and ranks eighth in prevalence in Canada (Government of Canada, 2002b).
Previous studies have suggested that white-collar crime is an area of elevated specialization (Blumstein et al., 1988~;Stander et al., 1989;Geis, 1995; Slapper &
Tombs, 1999), and previous studies have also included fraud as a separate offence category (Gottfredson, 1992; Soothill, 2002; Svensson, 2002). Fraud and forgery also constitute a separate category for the reporting of official crime statistics in England
(Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1998, p. 3; Soothill et al., 2000). Lastly, fraud and white-collar crime have at least the aura of being skilful undertakings, of requiring higher levels of sophistication and planning, and of having an exclusivity from street level crimes. This image has been perpetuated by the highly publicized events surrounding the demise of Enron, the accounting firm of Arthur Andersen, and the stock frauds perpetrated by WorldCom and BreX.
Violent Offences As defined by the Uniform Crime Suwey (Government of Canada, 2002b) violent offences account for 994.5 incidents per 100,000 people but this includes Robbery as well as Sexual Offences, which, in the current research undertaking form separate offence categories. Even with these offences removed, a category based on violent offences and the Uniform Crime Suwey categories of Homicide, Attempted Murder,
Assault, and Other Violent Offences would still account for 818 incidents per 100,000 people thereby establishing the category as one of the top five most prevalent among the Canadian population. In terms of the prevalence among the federal offender population it is noted that while homicide constitutes less than 1% of all crime it, alone, accounts for 23.1% of all federal offenders (Motiuk & Vuong, 2002, p. 2). Several other studies have also noted an elevated level of specialization among personal offences such as assault (Peterson et al., 1962; Farrington 1978, 1991; Petersilia, 1980, p. 353;
Peterson et al., l981:46; Blumstein et al., 1988c; Brennan et al., 1989; Britt, 1996; and
Piquero, 2002), and it is noted that violence against the person constitutes a category for official crime statistics in England as well (Research Development and Statistics
Directorate, 1998:3; Soothill et al., 2000). Among the offences contained in the Violent
Offences category are all those offences that are listed as Schedule I Offences in the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act excepting Robbery, all sexual offences, and all arson related offences as these all constitute their own offence categories in the current undertaking.
Sexual Offences All manner of sexual offences are incorporated into a single category including all those sexual offences listed in Schedule I of the Corrections and Conditions Release ~ct as well most of the offences contained in the "Sexual Offences" section of the Criminal
Code of Canada. The continuing belief in sex offending as a matter of compulsion or paraphelia suggests that sex offences may be a good area to search for specialized offenders. In support, it is noted that when combined into a single category the prevalence of sex offending amounts to 88.3 incidents per 100,000 and ranks just slightly above Robbery in terms of general prevalence (Government of Canada, 2002b).
Similarly, sex offending is quite common among federal offenders, accounting for 21.8% of the federal prison population (Motiuk & Vuong, 2002, p. 09). There have also been previous studies that suggest an elevated level of specialization among personal crimes including sexual offences (Farrington, 1978; Peterson et al., 1962; Petersilia, 1980, p.
353; Peterson et at., 1981, p. 46; Stander et al., 1989; Soothill et al., 2000, p. 62; and
Cassel & Bernstein, 2001). Sexual offences also constitute a category for official crime statistics in England as well (Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1998, p.
3; Soothill et al., 2000). It must, however, be noted that for the purposes of the current
research undertaking, offences relating to prostitution, operating a bawdy house, or being a pimp are not included in this category as they form their own distinct offence grouping.
Prostitution Although a sexually related offence it is believed that prostitution and all manner of related offences deserve to be in a separate category because they are distinguished from most other sexual offences by the economic motivations. In fact, the perception of prostitution as a lucrative career has been popularized through high profile cases such as those of Heidi Fleiss and Sidney Biddl Barrows, and movies such as American Gigolo
(198O), Night Shift (1982), Mayflower Madam (1987), and Hollywood Madam (1996) to name but a few. While the experience of most prostitutes is quite different from what was portrayed in the movies, the economic component of prostitution is still a significant consideration. As this research undertaking involves an all male population it is not likely that this offence category will result in any great pool of potential offence specialists but the related offences are believed to be sufficiently unique to warrant an individual offence category.
Arson As with prostitution, arson does not constitute a particularly large category and is not likely to apply to a large portion of the research sample. It is, however, one of the most popularized serial offences and there are suggestions that arson may be related to certain compulsions or paraphelias (A.P.A, 1994; Bourget, 1987; Geller, 1987; Hill et al.,
1982; Hurley, 1969; Kaufman et at., 1961; Soothill, 1973; Barnett et al., 1999; Ritchie,
1999). In this sense, there may be offenders with a strong fascination or commitment to this offence. Although they are likely not large in number, arsonists are another possible source of offence specialists.
Narcotics Offences The reasons for an offence category based on narcotics are many. First, non-
Criminal Code drug offences accounted for 295.7 incidents per 100,000 people and ranked sixth in prevalence among the Canadian population (Government of Canada,
2002b). Similarly, narcotics offences account for 22% of the federal prison population
(Motiuk
31 & Vuong, 2002, p.13). Bolstering the potential to find an elevated degree of specialization related to narcotics offences, drug use has frequently been portrayed as a compulsion, a psychological and physical addiction, and even a way of life which suggests that repeat involvement will be prevalent. Lastly, there is a definite economic component to the drug trade whether it is as a low level user selling drugs to support a habit, or the head of a cartel trying to amass a small fortune. This perception of drug dealing, trafficking, and importing as a livelihood continues to be popularized by movies such as Traffic, Paid in Full (2002), Sweet Nothing (1996), Blow (2001), and Traffick
(2000). At least three previous studies have also employed a separate category for narcotics offences (Gottfredson, 1992; Soothill et al., 2002; Svensson, 2002), and it is noted that narcotics offences also constitute a category for official crime statistics in
England as well (Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1998, p. 3; Soothill et al., 2000).
Nuisance Offences In keeping with the Uniform Crime Survey category of Other Criminal Code
Offences, and Kempf's (1986) "Other Offences" category, the current research undertaking will also employ a similar 'catch all' category. This offence category will consist of offences such as Fail to Appear, Fail to Comply, Breach of Undertaking,
Driving Offences, Mischief, Perjury, and all other offences not already incorporated into the existing offence categories. In general, this category will consist of offences that are not believed to hold much potential for specialization and may actually be more suggestive of opportunism and impulsivity. Thus, even if someone were found to have been exclusively committed to offences in the Nuisance Offence category, they would not actually be considered specialized in any distinct way. Again, that is because this is a 'catch-all' category, involving a group of offences that have little in common except that they didn't fit into any other category. There is no specific skill, compulsion, or paraphelia underlying these offences, so it is not like someone could actually 'specialize' in nuisance offences.
A similar nuisance offence category was also employed in a previous study by
Gottfredson (1992). Although the current Nuisance Offence category, Gottfredsons nuisance offence category, and the "Other Criminal Code Offences" category used by the Uniform Crime Survey do not contain the exact same set of criminal offences, they are closely related. The fact that these types of offences accounted for 2,706.4 incidents per 100,000 people (Government of Canada, 2002b) and ranked first in prevalence among the general population is likely in keeping with the belief that offence specialists are by far the minority by comparison to the criminally versatile offence generalists. It is noted that in Gottfredson's study, nuisance offences accounted for over half of all convictions for the entire sample of 6000 former or current offenders (1992, p. ii).
Ranking these ten offence categories according to their anticipated prevalence in the general population results in a hierarchy as identified in Table 4 on the next page.
Table 4: Anticipated Offence Prevalence in the Canadian Population I OFFENCE CATEGORY I PREVALENCE PER 100.000 1 I 1 I Nuisance Offences' I 3,235.5 incidents I 2 Property Offences 3214.6 incidents
3 Violent Offences 834.2 incidents
4 Auto Theft Offences 547.6 incidents
5 Narcotics Offences 295.7 incidents
6 Fraud Offences 284.2 incidents
7 Sex Offences 88.3 incidents
33 Table 4: Anticipated Offence Prevalence in the Canadian Population (continued).
I OFFENCE CATEGORY I PREVALENCE PER 100.000 1 8 1 Robbery I 88.2 incidents Unranked as a result of no specific Prostitution* Uniform Crime Survey statistics.
Unranked as a result of no Arson* specific Uniform Crime Survey statistics. I TOTAL I 8,572.1 incidents *The Nuisance Offence category generally equates with the Uniform Crime Survey category entitled "Other Criminal Code Offences." One exception is that in the current research undertaking the intent was for Arson and Prostitution to form their own individual offence categories whereas in the Uniform Crime Survey these offences were all lumped together in the "Other Criminal Code Offences" category. The overall effect is that for the purpose of estimating prevalence in the general population, the prevalence of the Nuisance offences may be slightly overrated whereas the prevalence of Arson and Prostitution related offences remains unrated.
Coding System As part of the coding system, the offences within each of the ten offence categories are also divided into sub-categories for Key Offences and Similar Offences as illustrated in Table 5. Key Offences are those that best exemplify a single offence category, such as with Theft Over $5,000.00 and Theft Under $5,000.00 in the Property
Offence category, Homicide in the case of the Violent Offence category, and Sexual
Assault in the case of the Sexual Offence category. By comparison, Similar Offences are also closely identified with a single offence category but their resident offence category can change depending upon the context in which the Similar Offence occurred. For instance, Assault is a Similar Offence normally found in the Violent Offence category so in the absence of any other context the offence of Assault is coded as a Violent Offence.
However, if the Assault occurs on the same date as a stay of proceedings for a Key
Offence from a different category, such as Sexual Assault, then the Assault will be coded as belonging to the Sexual Offence category as there was likely a plea-bargain arrangement that obscured the original nature of the final conviction. This is particularly true where the conviction for Assault, and the stay of proceedings for the Sexual Assault both involve the same police report. Similarly, if an Assault conviction occurred on the same date as a conviction for Sexual Assault then the Assault would be coded in the
Sexual Offence category because Assault is a Similar Offence, whereas Sexual Assault is a Key Offence. The underlying rationale is that where offences occur on the same date and as part of the same police report, they were likely related to the same criminal event. This is particularly true where the sentence dispensed was a concurrent as opposed to consecutive sentence.
To elaborate on this coding system, a Similar Offence will be coded according to the resident offence category when it occurs without context to any other offences, or when it occurs in context with a Key or Similar Offence from the same category. When found in context with a Key Offence from any other category but the Nuisance Offence category, the Similar Offence is coded according to the offence category of the Key
Offence. Context, in this case has two meanings including: 1) when any Similar Offence occurs on the same date and/or as part of the same police report as a stay of proceedings for a Key Offence from another category except the Nuisance category; and
2) when the Similar Offence occurs in a string of convictions along with a conviction for a
Key Offence from a different offence category except the Nuisance category, and where the convictions occurred on the same day and/or are the matter of the same police report. In both of these scenarios the Similar Offence will be coded according to the offence category of the Key Offence except where the Key Offence is a Nuisance
Offence. Similar Offences that are coded in an offence category other than their own are then referred to as Related Offences and it is this category that represents the full range of prosecutorial possibilities. A detailed list of the composition of each offence category and each of the three sub-categories is attached at the end of this report as Appendix C, but it may still be helpful to have an abbreviated example to consider. Table 5 refers.
Table 5: Abbreviated Composition of the Ten Offence Cateqories
CATEGORY KEY OFFENCES SIMILAR RELATED OFFENCES OFFENCES All Sex Assaults lndecent Phone All manner of B Rape Calls Similar Offences B Break Enter and lndecent Act when occurring Commit Sexual in context with a SEXUAL Assault key sexual OFFENCES B Break Enter with offence. lntent to Commit Sexual Assault
b Homicides All Assaults. All manner of including first and Hostage Taking Similar Offences second degree Kidnapping when occurring murder. Most weapons in context with a b Terrorist Acts offences. key violent VIOLENT Cruelty to animals. offence. OFFENCES Uttering Threats Unlawfully causing bodily harm or death.
B Robbery Extortion All manner of D Armed Robbery Stopping Mail With Similar Offences D Attempt Robbery lntent To Rob when occurring ROBBERY Being In Disguise in context with a key robbery offence.
Arson Arson Causing All manner of Arson Causing Property Damage Similar Offences Bodily Harm Possession Of when occurring ARSON Incendiary Material in context with a key arson offence.
Taking Motor Automobile Master All manner of Vehicle Or Vessel Keys Similar Offences Without Consent Records Of Sales occurring in AUTO THEFT Of Automobile context with a Master Keys key auto theft. Table 5: Abbreviated Composition of the Ten Offence Cateqories (continued)
CATEGORY KEY OFFENCES SIMILAR RELATED OFFENCES OFFENCES All manner of Corruption of All manner of offences with fraud Officials Similar Offences in the title. when occurring FRAUD Counterfeiting in context with a offences. key fraud Personation offence.
Keeping Bawdy Being Found In A All manner of House Bawdy House Similar Offences Living On Avails Of Householder when occurring PROSTITUTION Prostitution Permitting Sexual in context with a Activity key prostitution offence.
Cultivation Laundering All manner of Import and Export Proceeds Similar Offences Trafficking Theft Of Electricity when occurring NARCOTICS Double Doctoring in context with a key narcotics offence.
Theft Break And Enter All manner of Attempt Theft Possession Of Similar Offences Break Enter and Break In when occurring PROPERTY Commit Theft Instruments in context with a OFFENCES Break and Enter Possession Of key property with Intent to Stolen Property offence. Commit Theft
Mischief Offences Common Nuisance All Similar Driving Offences Obstruction Offences in the not causing death LoiteringNagrancy Nuisance or harm. Fail To Comply Offence Breach of category when occurring alone NUISANCE Recognizance or in context OFFENCES Possession of Weapon with a Key Offence from the nuisance offence category. In the form of an analogy, the coding system is perhaps best described as a card game with the Key Offences from every category except the Nuisance Offence category being the trump cards that determine the suit of most lesser cards found in the same context. In order of status, the hierarchy of offence categories and sub-categories looks like this:
1. Key Offences as stays of proceedings, from any offence category except
the Nuisance Offence category;
2. Key Offences as a conviction, from any category except the Nuisance
Offence category;
3. Similar Offences as stays of proceedings, from any offence category
except the Nuisance Offence category;
4. Similar Offences as convictions, from an offence category except the
Nuisance Offence category;
5. Key Offences from the Nuisance Offence category as a stay of
proceedings;
6. Key Offences from the Nuisance Offence category as a conviction;
7. Similar Offences from the Nuisance Offence category as a stay of
proceedings; and,
8. Similar Offences from the Nuisance Offence category as a conviction.
The benefit of this coding system is that it at least partly accounts for the full
range of prosecutorial possibilities. To illustrate by example, Break and Enter on its own
and without any other context is most likely a property offence related to theft but it can
38 also have a sexual motive, a violent motive, or an economic motive related to an auto theft, arson, or fraud. To represent the most likely motive behind a Break and Enter it has been included in the Property Offence category, yet in order to account for the full range of motivational and prosecutorial possibilities Break and Enter has been coded as a Similar Offence as opposed to a Key Offence. As a Similar Offence, Break and Enter can also be coded as a Sexual Offence, a Violent Offence, a Fraud, or even an Arson where it is found in context with a conviction or a stay of proceedings for a Key Offence from any of these other offence categories except the Nuisance category. Taking it a step further, it is evident that even if the Break and Enter was merely a plea bargain for a home invasion style Robbery it could still be coded as being in the Robbery Offence category as long as there was a stay of proceedings for any Key robbery offence.
In addition to accounting for the deflation in offence seriousness that can accompany the plea bargaining process, this coding system also accounts for the inflation of offence seriousness that Crown prosecutors are sometimes accused of. As a result of the prevalence of plea bargain arrangements some prosecutors may artificially inflate the seriousness of the initial charge that is recommended so as to provide better leverage during any plea negotiation. This is apparently most common in cases of marijuana grow operations and various forms of serious assault where the initial charge will be inflated to some type of trafficking and attempted murder charge, respectively
(Benning, 2003). Although most prosecutors would never admit to such charge inflation, it is true that the initial charge issued is usually the most serious that could possibly be supported by the evidence at hand. In either case, there is the potential for initial charges to be somewhat more inflated than what the final conviction might suggest.
Using these two specific examples, however, it is clear that the coding system adequately compensates for this type of charge inflation in the same manner that it compensates for the charge deflation that is one of the defendants' primary aims in the plea bargaining process. Whether the initial charge was for trafficking or simple possession, or for attempted murder or assault, both retain the essence of the criminal behaviour and are coded according to the Narcotics Offence category and the Violent
Offence categories respectively.
The entire coding system is, however, predicated upon two separate beliefs. The first is that convictions occurring as part of a string of offences with the same date, and the same police report, are all related to a single criminal event. This is especially true where the sentence dispensed ran concurrent as opposed to consecutive. The second belief is that a stay of proceedings is indicative of a plea bargain arrangement and that it holds some value in determining the actual nature and seriousness of the final conviction. Each of these beliefs will be discussed in turn.
Convictions Occurring on the Same Date, and as Part of the Same Police Report The first belief is that offences sharing the same date and police report file number on the Finger Print Sheet are all related to a single incident. This is particularly true where the sentence meted out was a concurrent as opposed to a consecutive sentence. The rationale for this is that if the offences were unrelated in time or geography, they would have been reported upon in more than one police report. Thus, whenever there are fewer than two police reports for any string of offences occurring on the same day, it is assumed that these offences are related. There are, however, several concerns with this type of coding system, all pertaining to the matter of historical offences.
Historical Offences Historical offences fall into two categories: 1) those that involve a large delay between the laying of a complaint and the conviction date; and 2) those that involve a delay between the criminal act and the laying of a complaint. With regards to the first category, there is always a delay between the laying of the complaint and the conviction date, this is simply a matter of how long it takes the bureaucracy to react to the situation.
Court delays, delays in the police investigation, and legal wrangling all take time with the result that a delay of about a year between arrest and conviction is not unusual. In terms of impacting the coding system, it means that calculations of offender age at first offence, or at the onset of specialization, will typically be off by up to a year.
Scenarios with a similar impact involve offenders who, upon arrest, conviction, or even after sentencing, waive in various old outstanding charges against them in hopes of having all of their sentences run concurrently instead of consecutively. This scenario, however, is not so much of a problem because each of the offences that are waived in will be the result of a different police report so it will be evident on the Finger Print Sheet that the offences are not related. This is an important consideration because if the old offence were to be recorded according to the conviction date, the offender's documented sequence of convictions would no longer be synchronized with the actual sequence of offending. Fortuitously, because most police report file numbers start with the year of offence it is then also possible to detect where an offence that was waived in is a very old offence. It might then also be possible to place the offence in the proper chronological order in the offender's criminal history. The scenarios involving delays between the criminal act and the laying of a complaint are a bit more problematic.
One such scenario would involve offences that an offender admits to, but for which there is no police report because the victims didn't report the offences to the police. Where this is the case, the police report documenting the most recent offence might be the same report that documents a historical offence but the coding system would not be able to detect this and would document both offences as being related.
41 This problem, however, is believed to be quite small as it only pertains to offences that:
1) were not previously documented in a police report; 2) the offender subsequently admits to; 3) are not passed the relevant statute of limitations; 4) there is sufficient evidence of the offence; 5) the police actually lay charges for the offence; and 6) the
Crown is actually willing to proceed with charges. Overall, this is likely a very rare occurrence particularly because it requires the offender to admit to an offence that hasn't yet even been detected. The final scenario involving a delay between criminal act and the laying of a complaint involves historical sex offences and is much more likely and more problematic.
In this scenario, the offender perpetrated a sexual crime, often an act of incest or paedophilia, but the victim didn't report the act for an extended period of time. This is not such a rare occurrence, and some high profile examples have included a judge in Prince
George convicted of historical sex offences; a Bishop in British Columbia; the Jericho Hill matter; Mount Cashel in Newfoundland; and various Catholic Native Residential School cases. In each case, the victims didn't come forward for years, either because of shame, their own sense of complicity, fear, or because they were still under coercive influence.
In these cases the delays been criminal act and the laying of a complaint can involve 10,
20, or even 30 years. As it pertains to the coding system, this means that in cases involving historical sex offences, the recorded age at first offence could be out by as much as 30 years.
In terms of identifying these cases they do appear to have some common traits as represented by the Finger Print Sheet. First, they will involve multiple sexual offences all reported in the same police report, and resulting in convictions on the same date.
Second, they will typically not be preceded or succeeded by any other criminal convictions on the Finger Print Sheet. They will also have a rather advanced age at onset of offending i.e. 124. As will be discussed in the report findings, there were 17 offenders who fell into this category. For each of these offenders, the measures of age at first offence, their frequency of offending over the duration of their criminal career, and their frequency of offence switching behaviour were all adjusted by 10 years to account for the likely delay between criminal act and the laying of a complaint.
In support of the need to make this adjustment, an informal survey of Institutional
Parole Officers at the research site produced 10 cases of historical sex offenders. Nine of these cases had all the indicators discussed, including multiple sex offences; a single police report; the same date of conviction; and no previous or subsequent offending. A single case had all the indicators, except there were examples of subsequent sexual offences as well. All these cases combined, resulted in a mean gap of 22.5 years
between the criminal act and the laying of the complaint. This is, however, unlikely to be
a representative sample. In fact, the reason the Parole Officers identified these particular
cases may have been because of the long delays involved. Consequently, to be
conservative, these types of cases were only adjusted to account for a 10-year gap
between criminal act and the laying of the complaint.
Stays of Proceedings as Indicators of Plea Bargain Arrangements The second belief is that a stay of proceedings is indicative of a plea bargain
arrangement and that it holds some value in determining the actual nature and
seriousness of the final conviction. In support of this concept it has been determined that
there are three common reasons for rendering a stay of proceedings. These include: 1)
a lack of supporting evidence to proceed with the original charge; 2) some form of
diversion; and, 3) the existence of a plea bargain arrangement (Benning, 2003; Miller,
2003; Schultes, 2003; Sneesby, 2003). Each of these scenarios and the implications for
the current research undertaking will be discussed in more detail.
43 Lack of Evidence
In a situation where Crown has approved a charge but subsequently discovers there is insufficient evidence for the charge, as may be the case when a witness refuses to testify or that crucial evidence is deemed inadmissible, or when procedural problems have arisen, then the original charge or charges will often be withdrawn or stayed by
Crown. In this situation the withdrawn charge or stay of proceedings will not coincide with a conviction because the case has been dropped or at least won't be continued until a later date. These types of scenarios would be indicated by the presence of a stay of proceedings on a Finger Print Sheet, but would not be accompanied by a related conviction, at least not on the same date (Benning, 2003; Miller, 2003; Schultes, 2003;
Sneesby, 2003). As it pertains to the current research undertaking these scenarios are not problematic for it is only stays of proceedings or withdrawn charges in the context of related convictions on the same date and/or as part of the same police report that will be considered.
Diversion
The popularity in Canada of Restorative Justice initiatives and alternate sentencing arrangements particularly for Aboriginal or Youth offenders means that many would-be offenders will be diverted into special programs and rehabilitative initiatives.
Where this occurs, it may result in a stay of proceedings for the original charge but it would not occur in conjunction with a related conviction, at least not on the same date as the stay of proceedings (Benning, 2003; Miller, 2003; Schultes, 2003; Sneesby, 2003).
As with the scenario where there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial, the occasion of a diversion might be indicated on the Finger Print Sheet by the presence of a stay of proceedings in the absence of a related conviction. Again, as with the scenario where there was insufficient evidence to proceed to trial this is not problematic as it is only those stays of proceedings found in association with a conviction will be considered.
Plea Bargains
Of the three possible scenarios that might result in a stay of proceedings, it is the occasion of a plea bargain that is most prevalent. In fact, of the interviews conducted for the current research undertaking it was estimated that over 90% of all guilty pleas come about as a result of plea bargains (Benning, 2003; Miller, 2003; Schultes, 2003;
Sneesby, 2003). As explained by defence attorney Peter Benning, any lawyer with a defendant who intends to plead guilty is virtually ethically bound to negotiate with the
Crown in order to get his client the best deal possible (Benning, 2003). It must, however, be noted that not all plea bargain arrangements will result in a stay of proceedings. For instance, a plea that was negotiated on the basis of a reduced sentence, an agreement not to read certain information into the official record, or a recommendation for penitentiary placement, does not necessarily involve a stay of proceedings for there was no dispute over the charge. In terms of the current research undertaking this is not problematic for these types of plea negotiations don't obfuscate the nature or seriousness of the original charge like they do when the plea comes as a result of a reduced charge. However, even when the plea comes as a result of a reduced charge it will not always result in a stay of proceedings. For instance, particularly in high profile or complex cases where the accused intends to plead guilty, the initial charge may be generated in consultation between the Crown and the defence attorney. Where the initial charge is the result of this type of consultation there is no dispute over the charge so there is no stay of proceedings (Benning, 2003). The overwhelming majority of plea bargains are, however, constructed after Crown has approved the original charge. The scenarios in which a plea bargain arrangement for a reduction in the seriousness of the charge occurs in the absence of a stay of proceedings are exceedingly rare (Benning,
2003, Miller, 2003). In fact, during the interview with the Honourable Rick Miller, the provincial Court judge claimed that in his twenty years of service both as a judge and a
Crown prosecutor he couldn't recall a single case. With respect to the current research undertaking this means that while stays of proceedings will only represent a small fraction of all plea bargain arrangements, the majority of all stays of proceedings that are found in association with a conviction will indicate a plea bargain arrangement involving a reduction in the seriousness or number of charges which is precisely the type of plea bargain arrangement that has impeded the investigation of offence specialization. In this light, the ratio of stays of proceedings to criminal events would suggest the absolute lowest prevalence of plea bargain arrangements undertaken.
With respect to the ability of stays of proceedings to reflect the true nature and seriousness of the final conviction, it is noted that in the United States stays of proceedings are considered sufficiently related to the conviction to warrant consideration during sentencing, and may even form the rationale for extending the range of sentencing options to include the more serious offences that were stayed (Yin, 1995, p.
420). Similarly, the Honourable Rick Miller reported that stays of proceedings are a: least indirectly considered during sentencing in Canada as well, but that the presence of a stay of proceedings for a more serious offence would not allow the judge to impose a sentence that was harsher than the guidelines for the conviction. In this sense, the stays of proceedings merely serve to inform the judge about the true seriousness and frequency of offending (Miller, 2003, Schultes, 2003). The value of stays of proceedings in revealing the true nature of the criminal behaviour that results in a conviction is also evident in National Parole Board deliberations where stays of proceedings are considered during any decision about conditional releases for federal offenders. The relevance of stays of proceedings in this forum is substantiated by section 101(b) of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, as well as by precedent in legal cases including Prasad v. Canada (National Parole Board) ([I9911, F.T.R (T.D); Mooring v
Canada (National Parole Board) ([I9961 1 S.C.R. 75); Giroux v. Canada (National Parole
Board) ([I9941, 89 F.T.R. 307 (T.D.); Martin v. Canada (National Parole Board) ([I 9951,
197 N.R. 20 (Que.C.A.) and Gelinas v. Canada (National Parole Board) ([I9961 A.Q. No.
1159). Overall, these considerations suggest that stays of proceedings are good indicators of the original nature and seriousness of a conviction, and represent the very lowest prevalence of plea bargain arrangements.
The coding scheme that can accommodate the full range of prosecutorial possibilities is necessarily elaborate, and requires a Coding Manual (Appendix D) to document all the intricacies. Although the details are left to the Coding Manual it is hoped that there has been sufficient discussion to demonstrate the versatility of the chosen offence categories, the manner in which the coding scheme compensates for the full range of prosecutorial possibilities, and the reasonableness of the belief in stays of proceedings as good indicators of the nature and seriousness of any conviction.
Distinct Career Phases As discussed earlier in this report, there is a substantial body of research suggesting the existence of distinct phases in a life history, employment history, or criminal career. People's lives consist of distinct, influential, yet common events such as marriage, the birth of children, death of parents, children moving away from home, the break up of a marriage or relationship, the transition from youth to adulthood, and the mid-life transition to name but a few (Levinson et al., 1974, p. 194 - 195). It is believed that these and similar events or milestones may be reflected by changes in an individual's life history, employment pattern, and criminal career, and that these might demarcate distinct phases in the career even if the advent, duration, or conclusion of
these phases are different from person to person. In the case of the criminal career, for
instance, significant changes in offending frequency have been used to suggest the
youth - adult transition as well as the mid-life transition into desistance from crime. Other
possible indicators of career phase changes could include changes in offence
seriousness, changes in offence sophistication, or changes in the average interval
between offences. For the purposes of the current research undertaking, the phased
career model that has been adopted and changes in offence specialization are utilized to
determine the possible career phases. For instance, a change from being unspecialized
to specialized in the case of the youth - adult transition, and a change in allegiance
between offence categories in the case of any mid-career transitions in adulthood.
Identifying career phases in this manner involves a six-step process that is
outlined in Table 6.
Table 6: Findinq Career Phases and Offence Specialists
1 The first step is to code each conviction on the offender's Finger Print Sheet using the ten offence categories, and as if the convictions existed without context. In this step, it is I I the criminal convictions that are coded. The second step is go over all the offences one more time, this time being mindful of context and considering other convictions and stays of proceedings occurring on the same date andlor as part of the same police report. In this step, it is the criminal events that are coded, so each event could consist of several convictions. Obviously, there will frequently be fewer events on each Finger Print Sheet than there are convictions. Scan the criminal history again, looking for periods of time in which there are least three criminal events from the same offence category, and in which these events constitute at least 75% of all events in the timeframe or range. Periods with less than three events cannot be considered a career phase because no pattern or real commitment to a single offence category can be determined. Three events is also considered reasonable when one considers that the length of sentences dispensed for repeated incidents of murder, robbery, or sexual assault may only allow a person to commit three of these types of offences during a lifetime. Identify each of these periods of time as a possible career phase. Within each of these potential career phases the most frequently represented offence cateaorv will be known as the dominant offence cateaorv. Table 6: Findinq Career Phases and Offence Specialists (continued)
In step four, start from the last conviction on the Finger Print Sheet and review back into history for as long as there is an uninterrupted sequence of potential career phases. At any point where there is a break, the search ends. If the search ends with the first conviction on the Finger Print Sheet, regardless of the offender's age at the time, then this constitutes the onset of specialization. If, however, the search ends before the first conviction on the Finger Print Sheet, this break can only be considered the onset of specialization if it occurred on or before the offender's 25th birthday. If the search ends after the offender's 25thbirthday then the offender is not specialized because he will have moved out of what can reasonably be considered a youth phase. For those offenders for whom there is an onset date, there should now be a continuous string of potential career phases stretching uninterrupted to the last event contained within these career phases which should be at or near the last date of conviction on the Finger Print Sheet. Starting at the potential onset date, count the number of the criminal events contained in all the potential career phases combined. Divide this number by the number of all events occurring between the onset of specialization and the last offence documented on the Finger Print Sheet. Multiply this number by 100 and if the result is 95% or greater then this is probably a specialized offender, and each of the phases up to the onset date are candidates for being career phases. The last test is to review each potential career phase to ensure that offences not belonging to the dominant offence category are located at the start or end of the potential career phase, and not intermittently scattered throughout the potential career phase. Ideally, a career phase would have an offence category density of 100% but when there is more than one career phase it is somewhat unrealistic to expect an offender to change abruptly, and without some type of transition. This is consistent with previous research suggesting that career phases will be linked by a transitional period (Levinson et al., 1974, p. 245). While it is anticipated that there will be some type of transitional period between career phases, this should not constitute more than 25% of the entire career phase. The transition should also occur at the beginning and end of each career phase as opposed to being a consistent mix of offences throughout the potential career phase.
For the purposes of discussion, a typical career phase of an offence specialist
has been presented graphically in Figure 2. This diagram shows how the youth and adult
offending ranges are distinguished by the onset of specialization, with the adult offending
range consisting of all the criminal events occurring between the onset of specialization
and the date of the last conviction on the Finger Print Sheet. It should be noted that
among offence specialists, the end of the youth phase, the beginning of the adult
offending range, and the onset of specialization also coincide with the date of the first
I conviction in the first distinct career phase where this occurs before the offender's 25 The youth phase is characterized by a general degree of criminal versatility in line with the type of experimentation thought to occur in youth. Thus, the transition from youth to adulthood is distinguished by the start of specialization whereas distinct phases in adulthood are identified by changes in offence category allegiance. In the example provided in Figure 2, the offence categories for Property Offending and Violent Offending have been used. It should, however, be noted that the demarcation between distinct phases in adulthood can involve a transitional period in which the offender may engage in a variety of different offences. These transition periods are not to account for more than 25% of any distinct career phase which is why the offence density for any career phase has been set at 75%. In order to be considered an offence specialist there is also
Fiqure 2: Career Phase Characteristics of the Offence Specialist
YOUTH OFFENDING RWGE ADULT OFFENDING RWGE
-- a requirement for the number of criminal events contained in all the career phases to constitute 95% of all events in the adult offending range. In other words, all the events contained in all of the career phases must constitute at least 95% of all of the offences occurring between the onset of specialization and the last documented offence on the
Finger Print Sheet.
The Traditional Specialist Figures 3 through 6 offer a few examples of what the careers of offence specialists should and should not look like. While not exhaustive, the examples provided are illustrative. For instance, in Figure 3 there are four examples of what the career of a traditional offence specialist can look like. In each case there is an arrowhead at the end of the career, for unless the offender is deceased it is not possible to know if their career is actually over. Each of the four examples of the traditional offence specialist shows the prerequisite single career phase, a commitment to a single offence type that resists social circumstances, and at least three offences in the career. Example #2 also includes a significant interval in offending between the ages of 18 and 25, but because it is the sequence of events and not the interval that is of interest there is no impact on the degree of specialization. Similarly, in example #3 it appears as if the career may have ended prior to the offender's 25'h birthday. Again, this is of no consequence, in fact, the career could have ended prior to the offender's 18'h birthday and it would not have had
any impact upon the degree of specialization. In example #4, the career didn't start until well after the offender's 18th birthday and the career also only consists of three offences.
Once again, as long as there are at least three consecutive offences then the career qualifies as being specialized regardless of the age of commencement.
The Non-Traditional Offence Specialists This category of offence specialist is distinct from the traditional specialists in so far as they would not have been discovered without the benefit of the new and expanded definition. Within the non-traditional specialist group are, however, two separate sub- categories of specialist including the completely specialized offender, and the adult specialized offender.
The Completely Specialized Offender Figure 4 shows four typical careers of the completely specialized offender. It involves: 1) phased careers; 2) specialization from the commencement of criminal activity; 3) at least three consecutive offences in each career phase; and 4) multiple consecutive career phases stretching from the onset of specialization until retirement.
The Adult Specialized Offender Unlike the traditional offence specialist where there is no limit on the age at onset of specialization, it was necessary to have a cut off age among the adult specialized offenders. The reason for this is because adult specialists are allowed to have a period of unspecialized offending prior to the onset of specialization such as is depicted in
Figure 5. It is, however, believed that this period of unspecialized offending should be limited to a youth phase where experimentation and an absence of self -control can be expected. In the absence of a cut off date it would be possible for someone to have a
decades long period of unspecialized offending only to have three like offences right at the end and still be considered a specialized offender. This doesn't meet the need for exclusivity so the age limit was set at 25, at which point any additional criminal versatility would likely be the result of entrenched or enduring impulsivity, lack of commitment, or lack of self control as opposed to youthful experimentation.
Figure 5 shows two possible careers for the adult specialized offender, and demonstrates the period of youthful unspecialized offending occurring prior to the offender's 25thbirthday. As with the traditional and the completely specialized offence specialists, the interval between offences and the actual retirement age is of no consequence to the adult specialized offender.
Transitions In Offence Allegiance Finally, Figure 6 demonstrates some of the acceptable transitions between career phases including the minimum required composition of each phase and the career as a whole. As mentioned earlier, previous research has suggested that career phases will be linked by a transitional period (Levinson et al., 1974, p. 245). During this transitional period it is anticipated that there might be a bit of experimentation until an allegiance is developed to another offence type. In the interests of exclusivity, however, this transitional experimentation cannot exceed 25% of any career phase. To illustrate, in a career phase of only three consecutive and like offences, the transition phase cannot consist of any more than a single offence. In example #I of Figure 6, it is evident that there is a conviction for auto theft that serves as the transition between the first career phase where the allegiance is toward sex offending, and the second career phase where the dominant offence is robbery. In this case, whether the transition offence counts as part of the first or second career phase is immaterial as the dominant offence type would still account for at least 75% of all offences within the career phase. It is, however, important that within any career phase all of the transitional offences occur at the end or beginning of the phase, as is consistent with a transitional period, instead of being scattered throughout the entire career phase.
In addition to each career phase requiring at least a 75% prevalence of the dominant offence type, it is also necessary that all the offences in all the career phases amount to at least 95% of all the offences in the adult offending range. For example, in example #3 of Figure 6 there are three career phases consisting of sexual offences, auto offences, and sexual offences respectively. The three career phases are followed by another two convictions for robbery but these don't constitute a career phase because there must be at least three consecutive like offences for a career phase. It is, however, possible that this offender is in the middle of a fourth career phase and if allowed to continue the offender would have engaged in a third robbery. This is especially worthy of consideration in cases where an offender has already demonstrated a strong level of commitment over several career phases. To account for this possibility a bit of leeway has been granted. Instead of requiring that all offences between the onset of specialization and the last offence on the Finger Print Sheet be part of a career phase, the requirement has been reduced to 95%. Thus, if an offender already has 18 offerices contained in various career phases then it is possible to have an additional two offences left over at the end of the career and still be considered specialized. Looking at example
#5 in Figure 6, it is evident that this offender has two offences that are not contained in a career phase, by comparison to 15 offences that are contained in a career phase. This falls short of the 95% requirement and precludes this from being an offence specialist.
In contrast, the offender in example #4 is an offence specialist because the two offences left over at the end of the career constitute less than 5% of the 18 dominant and transitional offences contained within career phases. Thus, 95% of all offences are contained within career phases and substantiate the designation of offence specialist.
Once the career phases have been identified in this manner, they could then at some future date be analyzed and described in further detail according to criteria such as: 1) age at onset; 2) age at conclusion of phase; 3) duration of each phase in months;
4) offence frequency; 5) most common transition to next phase; 6) whether or not there
is an escalation in the degree of specialization; 7) whether or not there is an escalation
or reduction in offence switching; and 8) whether or not there is an escalation or
reduction in the seriousness of offending. It would also be interesting to find out how
many career phases had dominant offence types that were foreshadowed by earlier
incidents of the same offence type. These matters are, however, outside the scope of the current undertaking.
Inter-Rater Reliability
The coding system employed during the current undertaking is fairly complex,
which raised concerns about inter-rater reliability. To address this concern, a detailed
coding manual was devised, and many possible combinations of offences were listed to
ensure a high degree of consistency. To actually test for the degree of consistency, two
people were each given the same fifty case studies to analyze, score, and classify. One
of these people was a married woman with no university education and no experience
with the criminal justice system. The other person was a married female parole officer
with 11 years experience, and three years of undergraduate university education in
criminology.
Each participant was provided the coding manual, and a half hour of instruction
on how to review each offender's criminal history and the Finger Print Sheet, how to code each offence on the Finger Print Sheet, and how to analyze the criminal history so as to categorize offenders as generalists, traditional offence specialists, adult offence specialists, or completely specialized offence specialists. Their performance was graded in three separate areas including: 1) coding the offences on the Finger Print Sheet; 2) analyzing the criminal history; and, 3) offender classification. In each category, their performance was graded as a percentage. In the first category, it was the percentage of total offences that were correctly coded. In the second category it was the percentage of cases in which the participant correctly identified the number of career phases, and in the third category it was the percentage of case studies correctly classified. Both participants in each category scored above 90%, an impressive result given the complexity of the coding system.
The Nominal and Operational Definitions At this point in the paper, the reader will have already been introduced to most of the nominal definitions including those for offence specialists, generalists, career phase, offence allegiance, etc. However, given the complexity of the research design it is necessary to provide specific and detailed nominal and operational definitions for all the terms already discussed. Each of the terms have been incorporated into a graph which has been attached as Appendix F.
Method of Analysis
Determining the existence and prevalence of the offence specialist involved a four-step process. The first step was to review all the criminal histories and find all of the offenders whose careers existed exclusively of three or more examples of a single offence type from the commencement of their criminal activity until the last entry on their
Finger Print Sheet. Although the ten offence categories were employed, the new coding mechanism was initially not used and neither was the expanded definition of the offence specialist. The result was the number of traditionally defined offence specialists in the prison population.
The next step was to implement the coding system but not the expanded definition of offence specialist, thereby uncovering any additional traditional offence specialists whose existence had been obscured by one or more of the first three identified obstacles to the investigation of offence specialization. This additional number of traditional offence specialists was the direct result of the coding mechanism and served to highlight the impact of the coding system, and the potential impact of the first three identified obstacles including: 1) the treatment of multiple offences related to a single criminal incident; 2) plea-bargains; and 3) the vagaries of charge selection. By offering case studies of how each of the additional traditional offence specialists were uncovered, it was possible to demonstrate that the coding mechanism was performing as advertised and that the additional offenders that were uncovered were truly traditional offence specialists. Further, the original 21 traditional specialists and the additional 12 traditional specialists were compared to each other on various measures with the expectation that there would be few if any statistically significant differences between the two groups of offenders, thus, substantiating the belief that all 33 offenders belonged to the same category of specialist.
In the third step, the expanded definition of offence specialist was implemented and a complete tally of all offence specialists established. This included the non- traditional specialists consisting of both adult and completely specialized offenders.
Lastly, each of the categories of specialist were compared to each other, and to the offence generalists on four areas believed to be indicative of self-control. These areas include: 1) age; 2) offending behaviour; 3) prison rule breaking behaviour; and 4) criminal versatility. Each will be discussed in more detail, but all four were either deduced from, or suggested by Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime (1990,
1995).
Onset Age
Onset age was derived from Gottfredson and Hirschi, and was offered as an indicator of self-control, with earlier ages of onset seen as being associated with low self-control (Piquero et al, 1999, p. 279). Several other studies have also noted that onset age and greater criminal versatility co-vary, (Tolan, 1987, p. 55; Tolan & Lorion,
1988; Farrington et at., 1990, p. 299-300; Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990, p. 396). This would be consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi's suggestion that criminal versatility is also an indicator of poor self-control. In terms of measuring and reporting on age, the current undertaking used measures of 1) mean current age; 2) mean age at first offence; and 3) mean age at onset of specialization.
Offending Behaviour
Gottfredson and Hirschi also suggested that higher frequencies of offending would also be indicative of low levels of self-control (Piquero et al, 1999, p.279). In support, it is noted that many others have suggested a relationship between early age of onset and the frequency of offending (Blumstein et al., 1986, p. 72-4; Farrington &
Hawkins, 1991; Loeber & LeBlanc 1990; Nagin & Farrington, 1992). For the purposes of comparison, the measures that were used were: 1) mean number of convictions over the entire criminal career; and, 2) mean frequency of convictions per month of the criminal career. It was thought important that there be a measure of the total number of convictions per offender, and a measure of the number of convictions per month of the criminal career.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour
In their book, A General Theory of Crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi suggested that a universal norm among offenders is low self-control, opportunism, and an inability to delay gratification. This impulsivity is evidenced by criminal versatility and analogous behaviours including prison infractions (1990, p. 129). Those with lower levels of self control will have the higher number of prison infractions, and those with higher levels of self control will have fewer prison infractions (1990, p. 91). Consequently, because offence specialists have demonstrated a higher level of self-control through their level of offence allegiance, it is believed that they will also distinguish themselves with lower rates of prison infractions. In terms of operationalizing this, prison infractions were measured as: 1) total infractions during the current sentence; and 2) frequency of prison infractions measured by the number of infractions per month of incarceration during the current sentence. To help put the results in perspective, the mean duration served during the current sentence was also reported.
Criminal Versatility
This measure stems from Gottfredson and Hirschi's suggestion for a criminal versatility index, a measure or count of different kinds of offending behaviours per person (1993, p.53-5; 1995, p.134,139). The underlying belief was that the greater the criminal versatility, the less self-control that was evident. As a simple yet effective
measure of criminal versatility, the current research undertaking looked at each offender's offence switching behaviour i.e. 1) the number of times an offender switched offence allegiance; 2) the frequency with which the offender changed offence allegiance, measured in switches per month; 3) the percentage of opportunities to switch offences that each offender capitalized upon; and 4) the number of opportunities the offender had to switch offence allegiance. In terms of measuring these, the number of offence switching opportunities is essentially the number of convictions an inmate has, minus one. The minus one is because you don't really have an opportunity to switch offences until you have the first one to switch from. As for the frequency of offence switching, this involves a calculation of the number of switches divided by the number of months of the criminal career. Similarly, calculating the percentage of switching opportunities that were capitalized upon involved dividing the number of offence switches by the number of offence switching opportunities, and then multiplied by 100.
# of times an offender switches offence allegiance x 100
(# of opportunities to switch allegiance i.e. # of offences perpetrated - 1)
The less switching behaviour, the more self-control that was demonstrated.
To demonstrate offence switching behaviour using Figure 6 as an example, one can see that in the first case the offender engaged in 5 switches of offence allegiance from sex offences to 1) auto theft; to 2) robbery; to 3) fraud; to 4) auto theft; to 5) sex offences. These five switches occurred over the course of 20 opportunities to switch offence allegiance (21 convictions - 1 = 20). Consequently, the offender is considered to have capitalized upon only 25% of all opportunities, resulting in the offender being considered to be 75% specialized over the course of 20 opportunities to switch
64 allegiance. Similarly, in the second example in Figure 6, the offender has engaged in four switches of offence allegiance, from sexual offences to 1) auto theft; to 2) robbery; to 3) fraud; to 4) sex offences. These four switches occurred over the course of 19 opportunities to switch offence allegiance (20 convictions - 1 = 19), suggesting that the offender only capitalized upon 21% of all opportunities. The offender is considered to be
79% specialized over the course of 19 opportunities to switch offence allegiance.
By comparison, example #4 of Figure 6 demonstrates five switches from fraud to
1) auto theft; to 2) sex offences; to 3) auto theft; to 4) robbery; to 5) fraud over the
course of 19 offences. This offender capitalized on 26% of all opportunities to switch
allegiance, and is considered to be 74% specialized over the course of 19 opportunities.
Lastly, example # 5 of Figure 6 demonstrates four switches from sex offending to 1)
robbery; to 2) auto theft; to 3) fraud; to 4) sex offending, over the course of 19
opportunities. The offender capitalized upon 21% of all opportunities, and is considered
to be 79% specialized over the course of 19 opportunities.
In support of the use of criminal versatility along with the other indicators of self-
control, it is noted that previous research suggests a link between early onset, larger
numbers of offences, and higher rates of offending (Farrington et al. 1990; Wolfgang,
Figlio, & Sellin 1972).
The intent behind using these measures was to see if it was possible to
distinguish specialists from each other, and from generalists. The measures of self-
control derived from Gottfredson and Hirschi hold the advantage is so far as they not
only offer measures for comparison but also help situate offence specialization within a
theoretical model thereby allowing for predictions and conclusions to be offered and
tested. For instance, if crime is the result of a lack of self-control then criminals will lack self-control. Similarly, if self-control is indicated by measures of early onset age, frequency of offending, number of prison infractions, and criminal versatility, it will be the offenders with the lowest levels of self-control that get the highest ratings on each of these four measures. By comparison, offenders with higher levels of self-control will have the lowest ratings on each of the four measures. Using this logic, it was expected that offence specialists as a group would distinguish themselves from generalists on each of the four measures of self-control. Additionally, it was thought using the same four measures of self-control, it would be possible to distinguish the traditional specialists from the complete specialists, the complete specialists from the adult specialists, and the adult specialists from the generalists. In short, it was believed that the measures of self- control would distinguish the various levels in the hierarchy of specialization. Were these
expectations to come true, it would create an interesting dilemma for if it were found that offence specialists had elevated levels of self-control, this would challenge the central
premise of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory about crime being a manifestation of the
lack of self-control. Even if the expectations didn't come true, there would be just as
great a dilemma trying to explain why these offence specialists exist, and don't
demonstrate elevated levels of self-control. The danger to the general theory of crime is
that there could be an alternate explanation for the criminal behaviour of the offence
specialists, thereby limiting the general applicability of the general theory of crime.
Privacy and Ethics As this research involved a review of reports containing confidential offender
information it was necessary to develop a process that guaranteed offender
confidentiality and the protection of privacy rights. To assist with this, a master list of all
offenders was generated based on the population list from the research site. Using this list, each offender was given a numerical designation in place of a name. All the documents associated with each offender were reviewed and all personal identifiers removed so that the only remaining identifier was the assigned numerical designator from the master list. As there was no offender involvement in the research undertaking, and very little chance that they will even know that they have been the subject of a research undertaking, there was no need to get signed consent or disclosure forms.
Letters of approval, however, were acquired from the Research Committee of the Pacific
Region for the Correctional Service of Canada, as well as from the Ethics Board at
Simon Fraser University. These letters of approval have been added as appendices at the end of this report. CHAPTER THREE - FINDINGS
This section of the report has been divided into four separate sections dealing with: 1) obstacles to the investigation of offence specialization; 2) the coding system; 3) the existence and prevalence of the specialist; and 4) specialists and self-control.
Obstacles to the Investigation of Offence Specialization Much has been made of the degree to which the investigation of offence specialization is hampered by four specific obstacles including: 1) the treatment of offences related to a single event; 2) the vagaries of charge selection; 3) plea bargain arrangements; and, 4) the failure to allow for career phase specific changes in offence allegiance. With the ability of these obstacles to obfuscate the true nature, number, and seriousness of criminal activities leading to convictions, it was important to get an indication of how prevalent the obstacles were.
In terms of identifying possible plea bargain arrangements, the only ones that are of interest to the investigation of offence specialization are those that involve possible changes to the number, nature, or seriousness of the final conviction. The key to identifying these particular stays of proceedings was identifying the coincidence of stays of proceedings with convictions on the Finger Print Sheet, particularly if they were both reported in the same police report. Of the 3,935 stays of proceedings among the 499 offenders, a total of 2,570 (65.31%) were of the kind that could obfuscate the nature, number, and seriousness of the related conviction, and could have impeded the investigation into the degree of offence specialization. Put another way, of the 11,001 convictions registered to the 499 offenders, 2,570 (23.40%) could have misrepresented the number, nature, or seriousness of the criminal behaviour underpinning the conviction. As evidence of the impact the obstacles can have on the investigation of offence specialization, it is noted that before the implementation of the coding system there were only 21 offenders who could be considered specialized according to the traditional definition. By comparison, once the coding system was implemented, another
12 (57.14%) were discovered. This would seem to suggest that of all 33 traditional specialists, 12 or 36.36% were affected by one or more of the four identified obstacles, as will be discussed in the next section of this report.
The point to be made is that any investigation into the degree of offence specialization that does not account for: 1) the range of prosecutorial possibilities; and,
2) the treatment of multiple offences related to a single event; is likely going to find fewer offence specialists and have a less than complete appreciation for the offender's actual offending behaviour as represented by official record.
The Coding System In support of the effectiveness of the coding system, it is noted that prior to implementing the coding system, there were only 21 traditional specialists identified. By comparison, after the implementation of the coding system another 12 traditional offence specialists were found. This clearly demonstrates that the coding system did have an impact. To demonstrate the full effect and need for the coding system, it was thought important to explain how each of the 12 additional offence specialists were uncovered.
Case Study #l.
In the first case, the offender had 19 convictions for various sexual offences and one conviction for Possession of a Weapon, which is a Similar Offence falling into the
Nuisance Offences category. Normally, this one conviction would have prevented the offender from being considered a traditional specialist. However, upon subsequent review it was found that the charge of Possession of a Weapon occurred on the same day as a conviction of Sexual Assault and both charges were documented in the same
report. The suspicion, here, is that the offender used a weapon during the commission of
his Sexual Assault so the two offences are related. As Possession of a Weapon is a
Similar Offence, whereas Sexual Assault is a Key Offence, the conviction for Possession of a Weapon was coded as a sexual offence and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist. Clearly, the coding system targeted the types of stays of
proceedings it was intended to.
Case Study #2. In the second case, the offender had 15 convictions. 13 of these convictions were for property offences and then there was one each for Possession of a Weapon,
and Assault, both of which are Similar Offences but in the Nuisance and Violent Offence categories, respectively. Normally, these two convictions would have prevented the
offender from being considered a traditional specialist. However, upon subsequent
review it was found that the charges of Possession of a Weapon and Assault occurred
on the same day as a conviction for Break and Enter With Intent to Commit Theft, and all
three offences were reported in the same police report. The suspicion, here, is that the
offender used a weapon and assaulted someone during the commission of the property
offence so the three offences are related to a single incident. As Possession of a
Weapon and Assault are Similar Offences, whereas Break Enter and Commit Theft is a
Key Offence, the convictions for Possession of a Weapon and Assault were coded as
property offences and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #3. In the third case, the offender had 17 convictions. 15 of these convictions were
for property offences and then there was one each for Mischief and Possession of a
Prohibited Weapon which are Similar Offences falling into the Nuisance Offence
70 category. Normally, these two convictions would have prevented the offender from being considered a traditional specialist. However, upon subsequent review it was found that the charges of Mischief and Possession of a Prohibited Weapon occurred on the same date as convictions for 2 x Theft Under $5,000.00,2 x Break Enter With Intent to Commit
Theft, and 3 x Break Enter and Commit Theft. All of these offences were also documented in the same police report so the suspicion is that the charges for Mischief and Possession of Prohibited Weapon are both related to a property offence. As the
Break Enter and Commit, and Break Enter with Intent convictions are Key offences and the others are only Similar offences, the convictions for Possession of a Weapon and
Mischief were coded as property offences and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #4. In the fourth case, the offender had 19 convictions. 18 of these convictions were for sexual offences, and then there was one conviction for Unlawfully Causing Bodily
Harm which is a Similar Offence falling into the Violent Offences category. This latter conviction, however, occurred on the same day as convictions for Sexual Intercourse with a Female Under the Age of 14, 4 x Buggery, and 10 x Sexual Assault. All of these convictions were also documented in the same report so the assumption is that the conviction for Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm is related to one of the sexual offences, so it was coded accordingly and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #5. In the fifth case, the offender had four convictions. Two of these convictions were for Sexual Assault, whereas the other two were for Assault Causing Bodily Harm and
Forcible Confinement, which, are both Similar Offences in the Violent Offences category.
However, upon review it was discovered that the latter two convictions occurred on the same date as each other, and on the same date as a stay of proceedings for Sexual
Assault with Threats to a Third Party. Although not something considered in the coding system, it was also noted that another stay of proceedings for 3 x Sexual Assault had occurred eleven days previously as well. The assumption is that the stay of proceedings indicates a plea bargain arrangement where at least part of the topic of negotiation was to de-sexualize the nature of the crime. It is believed that the perpetrator is a sex offender and that the convictions for Assault Causing Bodily Harm and Forcible
Confinement are related to a sexual offence. Consequently, they have been coded as sexual offences and the offender has been categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #6. In the sixth case, the offender had 11 convictions. Ten of these convictions were for sexual offences, and the last was for Uttering Threats, which, is a Similar Offence in the Violent Offences category. This conviction, however, occurred on the same date as several sexual offences and all were documented in a single police report. The belief is that the conviction for Uttering Threats is related to a sexual offence so it was coded as such, and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #7. In the seventh case, the offender had six convictions. Four of these convictions were for Assault, and two were for Possession of a Weapon which is a Similar Offence falling in the Nuisance Offences category. Both of the Possession of a Weapon convictions occurred on the same day as convictions for Assault. The belief is that both convictions for Possession of a Weapon were related to the Assaults so they were coded accordingly, and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist. Case Study #8. In the eighth case, the offender had 50 convictions for sexual offences and one conviction for Fail to Comply With Conditions of Undertaking which falls into the
Nuisance Offence category. This latter conviction occurred on the same date as a plethora of Key sexual offences and all of the offences were reported in a single police report. It is believed that the conviction for Fail to Comply With Conditions of Undertaking is related to one of the sexual assaults so it was coded accordingly, and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #9. In the ninth case, the offender had six convictions for sexual offences and one conviction for Unlawfully in a Dwelling House which is a Similar Offence in the Property
Offence category. This offence, however, occurred on the same day as the six sexual convictions, and on the same day as stays of proceedings for several other sexual offences. Consequently, the conviction for Unlawfully in a Dwelling House was coded as a sexual offence, and the offender was categorized as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #I 0. In the tenth case, the offender had 31 convictions. 27 of these were for sexual offences, and three were for Assault Causing Bodily Harm which is a Similar Offence in the Violent Offences category. These latter three offences, however, occurred on the same day as 10 sexual offences, and on the same day as stays of proceedings for
Possession of a Weapon, 2 x Buggery, and Assault Causing Bodily Harm. Given this context, the three Similar Offences of Assault Causing Bodily Harm were believed to be related to Key sexual offences and were coded accordingly. The offender was categorized as a traditional specialist. Case Study #I 1. In the eleventh case, the offender had seven convictions. Two of these were for
Sexual Assault, which is a Key Offence in the sexual offence category. The other offences included two convictions for Administer Noxious Substance, one for Forcible
Confinement, and one was for Uttering Threats which are all Similar Offences. These offences all occurred on the same day and were reported in the same police report as the two convictions for Sexual Assault. It was also noted that the offender was given
concurrent sentences on each conviction, again suggesting that they are all related.
Consequently, each of the seven convictions were coded as belonging to the Sexual
Offences category, and the offender was coded as a traditional specialist.
Case Study #12. In the twelfth case, the offender had eight convictions. These included: lndecent
Assault on Female; Anal Intercourse; 3 x Possession of a Weapon; Assault Causing
Bodily Harm, and 2 x Assault. All of the offences occurred on the same day and were all
reported in the same police report. Additionally, the offender was provided concurrent
sentences on each conviction, again suggesting that they were all related. As lndecent
Assault on Female and Anal Intercourse are both Key Offences as compared to the
others which were all Similar Offences, each of the eight convictions was coded as a
sexual offence and the offender was considered to be an offence specialist.
Case Summary The additional 12 cases that were uncovered represent a 36.36% increase in the
number of traditional specialists. These 33 traditional specialists amount to 6.61 % of all
offenders under study, or 7.08% of all offenders with three or more convictions (n=466).
This reflects the degree of impact that stays of proceedings, the vagaries of charge
selection, and the treatment of offences related to a single event can have. It also reflects the need for a coding system that adjusts for these three identified obstacles.
The 12 case studies clearly demonstrate that the coding mechanism performs as expected, and it also provides a brief glimpse at the prevalence of the first three
identified obstacles including: 1) the treatment of multiple offences related to a single
incident; 2) plea bargains; and 3) the vagaries of charge selection. This should provide some confidence in the coding system, but what still remains to be proven are the beliefs
upon which the coding system is predicated: 1) that a stay of proceedings and a conviction occurring on the same date and as part of the same police report is indicative of a plea bargain arrangement that had the potential to influence the number, nature, or
seriousness of the final conviction; 2) that convictions occurring in a string on the same
day, as part of the same police report, and particularly where a concurrent aggregate
sentence is meted out, are all related to a single criminal event; and 3) that Key offences
are more likely than Similar offences to represent the nature of an offender's offence.
These things, however, would require extensive file reviews, and perhaps even
interviews with the specific Crown and defence attorneys so as to determine the
existence and nature of any plea bargains, and the rationale for the original charges.
This would be incredibly time consuming, and in itself helps prove the utility of the coding
system. It is, however, a step that needs to be done if the effectiveness and accuracy of
the coding system is to be proven.
The Existence, Prevalence, and Nature of the Offence Specialist There were three distinct types of offence specialist utilized including: 1) the
traditionally defined offence specialists; and the non-traditional offence specialists
consisting of 2) the complete specialists; and 3) the adult specialists. Each will be
discussed in turn. Traditional Specialists Traditional specialists are those having at least three criminal convictions and having demonstrated an exclusive commitment to a single offence category over the course of their entire career. Some typical careers of the traditional specialist were depicted in Figure 3, earlier in this report. In the absence of the new coding system, only
21 of the 499 offenders under study were identified as offence specialists under the traditional definition. These will be referred to as the 21 original traditional specialists. By comparison, when the coding system was implemented an additional 12 offence specialists were uncovered, for a total of 33 traditional specialists or an increase of 57%.
Non-Traditional Specialists Whereas the new coding system helped identify 33 traditional specialists, the completely and adult specialized offenders could only be identified by also implementing the expanded definition of offence specialist. By comparison to the 33 offence specialists identified before the implementation of the expanded definition, there were 176 identified after the implementation of the expanded definition. This includes the 33 traditional specialists, and 143 non-traditional specialists. These non-traditional specialists broke down into two distinct categories including the complete specialists and the adult specialists.
Complete Specialists Like the traditional specialists, the 105 complete specialists are also specialized from the first conviction on their FPS sheet regardless of whether it is a youth or adult offence. The difference is that they were allowed to change offence allegiance throughout their career, in step with what can be considered career phases. Each of these career phases must have a minimum of three like offences and there must be consecutive phases stretching from the commencement of criminal activity, to its
76 conclusion. The typical career of the complete specialist was depicted in Figure 4 earlier in this report. Complete specialists accounted for 21.04% of all offenders under study
(n=499), 22.53% of all offenders with three or more convictions (n=466), and 59.66% of all offence specialists (n=176).
Adult Specialists These 38 offenders are similar to the complete specialists is so far as they also have two or more career phases consisting of three or more like offences. They differ, however, in that they are not specialized from the first conviction on the FPS. They were allowed to have a period of unspecialized offending as long as the onset of specialization occurred on or before the offender's 25thbirthday. The typical career of an adult specialist was depicted in Figure 5 earlier in this report. Adult specialists accounted for 7.62% of all offenders under study (n=499), 8.1 5% of all offenders with three or more convictions (n=466), and 21.59% of all offence specialists (n=176).
As a single group, the 176 offence specialists including 21 original traditional specialists, 12 additional traditional specialists, 105 complete specialists, and 38 adult specialists, constituted 35.27% of all offenders under study (n=499), and 37.77% of all offenders with three or more convictions (n=466). Table 7: The Prevalence of Offence S~ecialists AS%OFALL I AS % OF ALL OFFENDERS AS % OF ALL OFFENCE CATEGORIES OF OR OFFENDERS SPECIALISTS SPECIALIZATION MORE N (N=499) (N=l76) CONVICTIONS (N=466) TRADITIONAL 33 6.61 % 7.08% Original 2 1 4.21 % 4.51 % Additional 12 2.40% 2.58% NON TRADITIONAL 143 28.66% 30.69% Complete 105 21.04% 22.53 % -- - Adult I 38 1 7.62% 8.15%
ALL SPECIALISTS 176 35.27% 37.77%
These results suggest that contrary to conventional wisdom, the rarity of the
offence specialist is exaggerated. This is, however, not a particularly surprising result as
there have been no other studies that have attempted to address the obstacles of
charge selection, plea bargaining, and the treatment of multiple offences related to a
single incident. Similarly, no other research has used the expanded definition of offence
specialist, which, allows for phased transitions in offence allegiance. That being the
case, the only comparisons with other studies would be of the traditional offence
specialists discovered.
Specialists and Self Control According to several previously cited studies (Farrington et al., 1990; Wolfgang, I Figlio, & Sellin, 1972), there appears to be a nexus involving early onset age, criminal versatility, and offending frequency. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi these and
analogous behaviours such as prison rule breaking behaviour are all manifestations of
low self-control. This being the case, it was expected that using these four measures it
78 would be possible to distinguish traditional specialists from complete specialists, complete specialists from adult specialists, and adult specialists from generalists. In short, it was believed that in keeping with the general theory of crime, the measures of self-control would accurately reflect the hierarchy of specialization among the various offender groups. To test these assumptions, comparisons were performed among the various categories of specialist, and between specialists and generalists, in accordance with their hierarchy of specialization. The order of these comparisons and the respective table where the results are reported are detailed in Table 8.
Table 8: The Hierarchv of Specialization, and Related Tables of Comparison TABLE COMPARISON 9 21 Traditional Specialists vs Generalists 1 10 21 Traditional vs 12 Additional Specialists 11 Traditional vs Non-Traditional Specialists 12 Traditional vs Complete Specialists 13 Complete vs Adult Specialists 14 Complete vs Adult Specialists After The Onset Of Specialization 15 Adult Specialists vs Generalists 16 Adult Specialists vs Generalists After the Onset of Specialization 17 All Specialists vs All Generalists
The rationale behind this ranking was, in the first comparison, to establish a baseline that was uninfluenced by the coding mechanism. Neither the generalists nor the original 21 traditional specialists were identified using the coding mechanism, it was strictly done on the basis of degree of commitment to a single offence category. This amounts to the purest comparison, and the ideal situation in which to test the relevance of the various measures of self-control.
In the second comparison, depicted in Table 10, the intent was to establish
whether or not there were significant differences between the 21 original traditional specialists that were identified before the application of the coding system, and the 12
additional traditional specialists who were only identified with the benefit of the coding
system. The absence of significant differences would suggest that the two groups were
79 of the same genus, and would lend credence to the effectiveness of the coding
mechanism.
The third comparison, detailed in Table 11, involves a comparison of those
specialists that were identified according to the traditional definition, and those identified
as a result of the expanded definition. This comparison was intended to show any
differences between the two groups on measures of self-control. The absence of
significant differences might suggest a consistent level of self-control, indicating that it is
the pattern of offending that is the important consideration, and not solely an exclusive
commitment to a single offence category. This was, however, thought to be an unlikely
result, and the expectation was that there would be differences. The key was
determining whether these differences were consistent with the general theory of crime,
and the hierarchy of specialization detailed in Table 8. Thus, in comparison to the non-
traditional specialists, it was expected that the traditional specialists would have: 1) a
later age of onset; 2) fewer convictions; 3) a lower frequency of offending; 4) fewer
prison infractions; 5) a lower frequency of prison infractions; 6) fewer switches in offence
allegiance; 7) fewer opportunities to switch offence allegiance; 8) a reduced percentage
of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon; and 9) a lower frequency of offerice
switches. Given the hierarchy of specialization, it was expected that similar findings
would occur in the comparison of traditional specialists vs. completed specialists, which,
is detailed in Table 12.
In turn, in the comparison detailed in Table 13, it was expected that by
comparison to the adult specialists, the complete specialists would have: 1) a later age
of onset; 2) fewer convictions; 3) a lower frequency of offending; 4) fewer prison
I infractions; 5) a lower frequency of prison infractions; 6) fewer switches in offence I allegiance; 7) fewer opportunities to switch offence allegiance; 8) a reduced percentage
80 of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon; and 9) a lower frequency of offence switches.
In this last comparison, however, there was some concern that the differences between complete and adult specialists might be skewed as a result of the period of unspecialized offending that adult specialists are allowed to engage in prior to their 25th birthday. To control for this, the sixth comparison, which is detailed in Table 14, involved a comparison of complete and adult specialists from the onset of specialization only.
As adult specialists are the least specialized of the offence specialists, it was important to determine if there were significant differences between the adult specialists and the generalists. In the absence of significant differences, there would be a reduced level of support for proclaiming that the adult specialists were actually specialized. Out of concern for the impact of the period of unspecialized offending that adult specialists are allowed to engage in prior to the 25th birthday, the adult specialists and generalists were again compared but this time, only from the onset of specialization in the case of the adult specialists.
The final comparison, in Table 17, was intended to confirm the presence of distinct differences between offence specialists and generalists on several of the identified measures of self-control. It was also expected that a type of threshold test might be possible to help distinguish specialists from generalists, other than by graphic representations of their offending pattern.
Overall, it was anticipated that elevated levels of specialization would coincide with: 1) higher ages at onset; 2) lower numbers of convictions; 3) lower frequency of convictions; 3) fewer prison infractions; 4) a lesser frequency of prison infractions; 5) fewer switches in offence allegiance; 6) fewer opportunities to switch allegiance; 7) a smaller percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon; and 8) a lower frequency
81 of switches in offence allegiance. Where this was the case, it would likely be that the chosen measures of specialization were both good measures of specialization and self- control, and that specialists do, indeed demonstrate higher levels of self-control in keeping with the general theory of crime. In essence, specialization would be equated with self-control. In turn, this would then require some explanation as to how it could be that criminals with a high degree of self-control could exist when the primary premise of the general theory of crime is that crime is a manifestation of low self-control.
Comparing the Original 21 Traditional Specialists, and Generalists This comparison using the original 21 traditional specialists was an important one for several reasons. First, there is likely to be little debate about the degree of specialization among the original traditional specialists. They were identified solely based on their exclusive commitment to a single offence category, and they were not influenced by the implementation of the coding system. Virtually anyone involved in the study of offence specialization would look at these 21 offenders and pronounce them offence specialists. These are the offenders ideally suited to test the various measures of self-control, and that is precisely what they were used for. To be consistent with the general theory of crime, it was necessary for there to be a confluence of statistically significant differences between the traditional specialists and the generalists. In particular, it was anticipated that by comparison to the generalists, the 21 original offence specialists would have: 1) a later age of onset; 2) fewer convictions; 3) a lower frequency of offending; 4) fewer prison infractions; 5) a lower frequency of prison infractions; 6) fewer switches in offence allegiance; 7) fewer opportunities to switch offence allegiance; 8) a reduced percentage of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon; and 9) a lower frequency of offence switches. The results of the comparison between the original traditional specialists and the generalists is detailed in
Table 9.
Age
On the matter of age, at a mean 50 years of age, and a mean onset age of 41 years, the original traditional specialists were significantly older than the generalists at
39 years of age and 20 years of age respectively. This was anticipated given the
previously cited studies linking age and criminal versatility, as well as Gottfredson and
Hirschi's suggested indicators of self-control. As much as this was anticipated, there is
some cause for concern. Of the 21 original traditional specialists uncovered, there were
13 identified as possibly having historical sex offences.
The presence of these types of cases among the original 21 traditional
specialists is not a concern in so far as the degree of specialization is concerned, but it
does have a very real potential to skew the measures of age. Adjusting for the assumed
10 year gap between criminal act and the laying of a complaint resulted in a mean age at
first offence of 35 for the 21 original traditional specialists, and 20 for the generalists.
This adjustment did not eliminate the statistical significance of the difference between
the generalists and the 21 original traditional specialists on the measure of age at first
offence (t = 8.079, df = 342, p < .001). This suggests that the mean age at onset of
criminal behaviour may be a good indication of specialization and self-control.
OffendingBehaviour
Looking again at Table 9, it is evident that in the category of offending behaviour
there were statistically significant differences on measures of: 1) offending frequency; Table 9: Comparison of the 21 Oriqinal Specialists and the Generalists On Measures of Specialization and Self Control VARIABLE ( SPECIALIST I GENERALIST TEST (n=21) (n=323) - Mean Current 50 39 Age. - Mean Age at 4 1 20 First Offence - Mean Age at Onset of 4 1 N/A Specialization - Mean # of Convictions 5.38 21.07 Over the Entire 1 1 Career - Mean Frequency of Convictions 2.23 0.37 per Month of the Criminal Career. - Mean # of lnfractions 2.29 9.02 During Current Sentence - Mean Duration Served on 46.10 Current 1 Sentence - Mean Frequency of lnfractions per Month During the Current -
Switches in 0.000 8.02 Offence 1 1 Allegiance - Number of Offence 4.38 20.07 Switching 1 1 Opportunities I I % of Switching Opportunities 0.000 43.89 Capitalized 1 1 upon. Number of Switches Per 0.000 0.0930 Month of 1 1 Criminal Career I and 2) the mean number of convictions per individual. Again, this was consistent with the expected results given the previously cited studies, and Gottfredson and Hirschi's
84 suggested indicators, but even here the possibility of 13 offenders with historical sex offences caused concern.
Table 9 shows that specialists had far fewer convictions than did the generalists, as was anticipated. Even if there were no historical offence cases, the generalists clearly had a much longer duration over which to acquire convictions. In fact, the difference in career lengths at 168 months for the generalists versus 69 months for the traditional specialists was statistically significant (t = -3.970, df = 342, p<.001.). When the 13 historical sex offence cases are added to the mix, the result is a mean criminal career length of 168 for the generalists and 75 for the specialists, but the difference is still statistically significant (t = -3.742, df = 342, pe.001). That being the case, it would seem reasonable for the generalists to have a higher mean number of offences per person than the specialists, it could simply be a matter of more time and opportunity in which to acquire convictions, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with self-control or specialization. Where this is the case, it should be borne out in the measure of offending frequency per month of the criminal career.
In terms of the measure of frequency of offending, if the concern about the historical offences is valid, then the duration of the offending careers of the traditional specialists would be much longer, so their mean measure on frequency of offending would drop accordingly. Using the same hypothetical scenario as before, where a ten year gap between offence and conviction is assumed for each of the 13 sex cases, the statistical significance of the difference between the specialists and generalists disappears (t = 0.560, df = 342, n.s). Overall, there was good reason to be sceptical about the statistical significance of the differences between the original specialists and the generalists on measures such as mean number of convictions, and mean frequency of offending. This runs contrary to the general theory of crime.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour
The measure of mean number of prison infractions did produce a statistically significant result in keeping with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization. The measure of frequency of prison infractions, however, did not. These results were achieved despite no statistically significant differences between the durations served on the current sentence, which, would seem to suggest that specialist do actually acquire more convictions than generalists. There was, however, a significant difference between the current age of the two groups of offenders, which might also explain the significant difference between the numbers of prison infractions.
Criminal Versatility
As with the comparison between all specialists and the generalists, the measures of criminal versatility again produced statistically significant results in both the mean number of offence switches, and the percentage of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon. Additionally, the mean number of opportunities to switch also produced statistically significant results. As a true numerical representation of the pattern of offending demonstrated by the offence specialists, it is the measure of capitalization that holds the most interest in terms of distinguishing specialists from generalists, and in terms of serving as a threshold test for the identification of offence specialists.
In terms of the concerns about historical sex offences, the only impact this could have had, was on the measure of the frequency of switching behaviour. When the impact upon this measure was considered, it still did not produce a statistically significant result (t= -1.200, df = 342, n.s). This result suggested that there was no
86 significant differences between the frequency with which the original traditional specialists and the generalists switched offence allegiance. This presented with a concern that an offence specialist might only be someone who has not had sufficient opportunity to become unspecialized. In support of this concern, two observations suggest that the generalists may simply have had more opportunity to change offence allegiance. These observations include: 1) the criminal career of the generalists at 168 months was significantly longer than the criminal careers of the original traditional specialists (t= -3.970, df = 342, p c.001) even after the historical sex offences are adjusted for (t = -3.742, df = 342, p c .001); and 2) the generalists had a significantly larger number of opportunities to switch offence allegiance ( t= -3.786, df = 342, p <
.001). In summary, the original traditional specialists switch offence allegiance at the same frequency as the generalists, but the generalists have had significantly longer careers and a significantly greater number of opportunities to switch offence allegiance, so specialization might merely be a consideration of opportunity. Although these concerns are somewhat overcome by the statistical difference on the measure of capitalization, which clearly shows that the specialists capitalize on fewer opportunities than the generalists, these were still matters for observation over the course of the subsequent comparisons. In particular, what was expected in order to refute this concern was examples of specialists who, despite a greater or similar number of switching opportunities, had: 1) a similar or lower frequency of switching respectively; 2) a similar or lower number of actual switches, respectively; and 3) a lower rate of capitalization upon opportunities to switch offence allegiance. Such examples would suggest that specialization was not merely a matter of having had fewer opportunities to switch offence allegiance. Summary of Comparison
Summarizing the results of Table 9, even after the impact of the historical sex
offences was adjusted for, there were several measures that produced statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime. These included: 1) mean
number of convictions; 2) mean number of offence switches; 3) mean number of
opportunities to switch offence allegiance; and 4) means percentage of capitalization
upon opportunities to switch offence allegiance. These were the variables to watch in the
subsequent comparisons.
Comparing The 21 Original, and 12 Additional Offence Specialists
The intent behind comparing the 21 original and 12 additional traditional offence
specialists was to determine if both sets of offenders belonged to the same genus, such
as would lend credence to the coding system. Again, the same measures of self-control
were employed including: 1) age; 2) offending behaviour; 3) prison rule breaking
behaviour; and 4) criminal versatility. In keeping with the belief that the 21 original and
12 additional traditional specialists were one and the same, it was expected that there
would not be a confluence of statistically significant differences between the two groups.
The results of these comparisons are summarized in Table 10.
Age
There were no statistically significant differences between the two sets of
traditional specialists on the measures of age. The matter of historical sex offences was
less of a concern with the 12 additional traditional specialists as there were only four
cases involving the type of offences that were of concern. Still, a comparison involving
an adjustment for the 17 historical sex offence cases netted a mean age at first offence
of 35 for the 21 original traditional specialists, and 36 for the 12 additional traditional Table 10: Comparison Between the 21 Oriqinal, and 12 Additional Traditional Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self-control VARIABLE ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL TEST SPECIALIST SPECIALIST
Mean Current Age. Mean Age at First offence Mean Age at Onset oi Specialization Mean # of Convictions Over the Entire Career Mean Frequency of convictions - per Month of the Criminal Career. Mean # of Infractions During Current Sentence Mean Duration Served on Current Sentence Mean Frequency of lnfractions per Month During the Current Sentence Mean Number of Switches in Offence Allegiance Number of Offence Switching Opportunities % of Switching Opportunities Capitalized Upon. Number of Switches Per Month of Criminal Career specialists. These results were not statistically significant (t= .I50, df= 31, n.s.). This is precisely what was expected.
Offending Behaviour
Among the measures of offending behaviour, the 12 additional traditional specialists had a significantly higher mean number of convictions over the duration of their criminal career (t= 3.472, df = 31, p < .002). Although there has been concern about the influence of career duration upon the mean number of convictions, in this case the significant difference on the measure of mean number of convictions was achieved in the absence of a significant difference between the respective durations of the criminal career. For instance, the careers of the 12 additional traditional specialists was
63 months as compared to 69 months for the 21 original traditional specialists (t = - .I57, df = 31, n.s), and the absence of a statistical significance remained even after being adjusted for the historical sex offences (t = -.021, df = 31, n.s.). Consequently, it would appear as if there was a statistically significant difference between the 21 original and the 12 additional offence specialists on the measure of mean number of convictions.
This runs contrary to the anticipated results.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour On the measures of mean number of prison infractions, and mean frequency of prison infractions, there were no statistically significant results. However, it is noted that this absence of results were achieved despite the 12 additional traditional specialists having served a significantly longer portion of their current sentence (t= 1.797, df = 31, p< .05). While this was an unanticipated result, it really didn't have any bearing on the measures of self-control and specialization as it didn't result in any statistically significant differences on the measures of the mean number of prison infractions, or the mean frequency of prison infractions. This absence of differences was what was expected, given the belief that the two groups of specialists are actually of the same genus.
Criminal Versatility
On the measure of mean number of switching opportunities, there was an unanticipated statistically significant difference between the original and additional traditional specialists. This, of course, is a side effect of the 12 additional offence specialists having had a greater mean number of convictions, however, it is important to note for several reasons. First, despite the significantly greater number of opportunities to switch offence allegiance, the 12 additional offence specialists produced similar results on measures of: 1) the actual number of switches undertaken; 2) the frequency of switching behaviour; and 3) the percentage of opportunities capitalized upon. In short, despite having had significantly more opportunity to switch offence allegiance, the 12 additional traditional specialists did not engage in any greater number of switches than the 21 original traditional offence specialists; they did not offend with a greater frequency; and they didn't capitalize on any greater percentage of offence switching opportunities. These results address the concern expressed in the comparison of the 21 original traditional specialists vs. the generalists, with regard to specialization merely being the result of having had fewer opportunities to switch offence allegiance. Here is an example of specialists who despite greater opportunity, still maintained an exclusive commitment to a single offence type.
When the 17 historical sex offences were considered, the impact was non- existent largely because neither set of traditional specialist engaged in switching behaviour. Summary of Comparison
Although there were three areas of statistically significant differences between the 21 original and 12 additional offence specialists, these were of very little consequence. For instance, differences in the duration served on the current sentence had no bearing on the degree of self-control exhibited by either category of offender. It was a measure used merely to provide context for the results of: 1) mean number of prison infractions; and, 2) the mean frequency of prison infractions; in the same way that the discussion about the length of the criminal career provides context for the measures of 3) mean number of convictions; 4) mean frequency of convictions; 5) mean number of switches; 6) mean number of opportunities to switch; 7) and mean frequency of switching behaviour. Similarly, although there were statistically significant differences on the measures of mean number of convictions and mean number of switching opportunities, the one is derived from the other so to conclude that there were two significant differences would be akin to double reporting.
Overall, there was very little indication of substantial differences between the original 21 and the additional 12 traditional specialists. This absence of substantial difference lends credibility to the effectiveness of the coding system, suggesting that the additional 12 offenders were, indeed, traditional offence specialists. This result, along with the 12 cases studies offered earlier in this report, lend credence to the ability of the four identified obstacles to hinder the identification of offence specialists in the absence of the coding system.
Comparing Traditional And Non-Traditional Specialists
The intent behind comparing the 33 traditional and 143 non-traditional specialists was to determine the areas of distinction between them. In the hierarchy of specialization, the traditional specialists are more specialized than the non-traditional specialists so it was thought that it might be possible to determine gradients of self- control by comparing the different categories of offence specialists using measures of self-control. This was particularly useful in so far as the traditional and non-traditional specialists straddle a definitional divide. The former adhering to the traditional definition of offence specialization, whereas the latter conforms to the expanded definition. In keeping with the general theory of crime, it was anticipated that by comparison to the non-traditional specialists, the traditional specialists would have: 1) a later age of onset;
2) fewer convictions; 3) a lower frequency of offending; 4) fewer prison infractions; 5) a lower frequency of prison infractions; 6) fewer switches in offence allegiance; 7) fewer opportunities to switch offence allegiance; 8) a reduced percentage of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon; and 9) a lower frequency of offence switches. The results of these comparisons are summarized in Table 11.
Age
In keeping with the general theory of crime, it was anticipated that the traditional offence specialists would have a significantly higher onset age than the non-traditional specialists. This is precisely what was found (t= 12.453, df=174, pc.001). With regard to the concern about historical offences, this applied to 17 cases among all traditional specialists. Assuming a ten-year gap between offence and conviction for each of these
17 cases, the onset age for these 17 cases were adjusted accordingly, and a new comparison was performed. It resulted in a mean onset age of 19 for the non-traditional specialists, and 35 for the traditional specialists. The difference was still statistically significant (k10.055, df=174, pc.001) and was consistent with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization detailed in Table 8. )-Traditional Offence Self - Control TEST SPECIALISTS TRADITIONAL I SPECIALISTS (n=143) Mean Current 5 1 38 Aae. Mean Age at First 40 19 Offence Mean Age at I I Onset of 40 20 Specialization Mean # of Convictions Over 9.24 27.20 the Entire Career I Mean Frequencv I of convictibns per 2.60 0.43 Month of the I 1 Criminal Career. Mean # of Infractions During 4.91 8.23 Current Sentence Mean Duration Served on 60.09 66.78 Current Sentence Mean Frequency of lnfractions per 0.1 9 0.21 Month Durina the Current sentence Mean Number of Switches in 0.00 6.13 Offence 1 1 Alleaiance I I Number of Offence Switching 8.24 26.21 Opportunities % of Switching Opportunities 0.00 25.12 Capitalized Upon. Number of Switches Per 0.00 0.07 Month of Criminal Career
The comparison of the age at onset of specialization also produced a statistically significant result (k12.002, df=174, p<.001), but had no bearing on the general theory of crime. Offending Behaviour There were statistically significant differences discovered on both measures of offending behaviour including: 1) the mean number of convictions; and 2) the frequency of offending. As has already been mentioned, the concern with using the mean number of convictions is the impact that the duration of the criminal career may have. Offenders with longer criminal careers have more opportunity to acquire criminal convictions, and are not necessarily more inclined to offend than other criminals with shorter criminal careers. In light of this possibility, it was noted that the non-traditional specialists had criminal careers that, on average, were 184 months in duration which was significantly longer that the 67-month duration of the criminal careers of the traditional specialists (t=-
5.274, df=174, pc.001). Even after the impact of the 17 historical sex offences was considered, it resulted in a mean duration of the criminal career of 72 months for the traditional specialists and 184 for the non-traditional specialists, which, was still a significant difference (t=-5.060, df=174, pc001). Simply put, it may be that the non- traditional specialists have more convictions simply because they had a longer period of time, therefore more opportunity, in which to accumulate them. The absence of a statistically significant difference between offending frequencies would support this scenario.
In contrast, the measure of offence frequency initially produced a statistically significant difference (t= 5.125, df = 174, p c .001). This result needed to be reviewed, though, in light of the potential for any historical offences to affect the results necessitated another comparison of offending frequencies. Adjusting for the 17 historical sex offences by adding 10 years to the duration of the criminal career resulted in a mean frequency of offending of 0.43 for the non-traditional specialists as compared to 0.56 for the traditional specialists and was not statistically significant (t= 0.376, df, 174, n.s.). The absence of a statistically significant difference between offending frequencies, coupled with statistically significant differences on the duration of the criminal career, suggested that the statistically significant difference on the measure of mean number of convictions was likely the result of the duration of the criminal career as opposed to a measure of self-control. In short, the traditional and non-traditional specialists offend at the exact same rate but the non-traditional specialists have had longer criminal careers, consequently they have had more opportunity to acquire convictions, which is why they have a higher average number of criminal offences.
Not adjusting the frequency of offending to account for these possible historical offence cases actually creates its own problem. On the measure of offending frequency, there was a statistically significant difference between the traditional and non-traditional offenders, but the difference runs contrary to the general theory of crime. The greater degree of specialization demonstrated by the traditional offence specialists should be
associated with a lower offending frequency. By comparison, the results provided in
Table 11 actually show the traditional specialists with a significantly higher frequency of
offending, creating a bit of a dilemma. The statistical significance of this difference,
however, disappears once the 17 possible cases of historical offences are adjusted for.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour
As with each of the previous comparisons, the measure of prison rule breaking
behaviour provided no statistically significant results. This suggests that prison
infractions are not a good indicator of specialization.
Criminal Versatility
Measures of criminal versatility were the most consistent provider of statistically
significant results, and they did not disappoint on this occasion either. This was, however, not a surprise given the definitional distinctions between traditional offence specialists who cannot have any switching behaviour, and the non-traditional offence specialists who are allowed to engage in offence switching behaviour. It is, however, good to know that the chosen measures of criminal versatility did quantify this definitional difference, and the respective differences in offending patterns. The significance of the findings was not changed by consideration of the 17 historical sex offence cases.
Summary of Comparison
While it is acknowledged that the non-traditional specialists are less specialized than the traditional specialists in terms of the percentage of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon, they nonetheless have a pattern of offending that is quite distinct from the remainder of the prison population. In terms of their ability to adhere to this pattern of offending, there was a possibility that despite differing degrees of specialization, the non-traditional offence specialists would have no less self-control than the traditional specialists. Were this the case, it would be expected that there would be statistically significant differences on the measures of criminal versatility but not on any of the measures of self-control. By comparison, there was a statistically significant difference on the measure of age at onset of criminal activity so it is possible that there was also a difference in the levels of self-control exhibited by the two specialist groups.
This is not, however, a big concern because of the measures that produced statistically significant differences, these differences were all in keeping with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization detailed in Table 8. The greater concern was ensuring that there were statistically significant differences between the non-traditional specialists and the generalists, such as would allow one to distinguish between the two groups. This matter was addressed through the comparison of the adult specialists and the generalists, detailed in Tables 15 and 16.
A developing concern was why measures of: 1) mean number of convictions; 2) frequency of offending; 3) mean number of prison infractions; and, 4) mean frequency of prison infractions were not consistently producing conclusively significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime.
Comparing Traditional And Complete Specialists
In order of the hierarchy of specialization, the complete specialists follow the traditional specialists. The only definitional distinction between the two is that the complete specialist is allowed to have phased changes in offence allegiance. Aside from that, they are both specialized from their first conviction, until their last. The intent behind comparing these two groups was to determine if the differences in levels of specialization coincided with differences in the measures of self - control, as would be consistent with the general theory of crime. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 12. Table 12: Comparison Between Traditional and Complete Specialists on Measures of Specialization and self-~o%-ol VARIABLE 1 TRADITIONAL COMPLETE I SPECIALISTS SPECIALIST I (n=33) (n=105) 7 Mean Current Aae. I 50 37 Mean Age at First Offence I 40 Mean Age at Onset 40 of Specialization Mean # of Convictions Over 1 9.24 the Entire Career I Mean Frequency of ( Convictions per Month of the Criminal Career. Mean # of lnfractions During Current Sentence I Mean Duration Served on Current 60.09 Sentence Mean Frequency of lnfractions per 0.12 Month During the Current Sentence Mean Number of Switches in 0.00 Offence Allegiance Number of Offence Switching I 8.24 opportunities I % of Switching Opportunities
Number of Switches Per Month of Criminal Career
The comparison of age produced statistically significant results on measures of mean current age, mean age at first offence, and mean age at the onset of specialization, which, for traditional and complete specialists is the same as the age at first offence. Addressing the concern about the 17 traditional specialists with possible historical offences, the mean age at first offence was adjusted to account for a 10-year gap between criminal act and the laying of a complaint. The resulting comparison produced a mean onset age of 35 for the traditional specialists, and 19 for the non- traditional specialists, which, was still significant (t= 8.503, df= 136, p e .001), suggesting that the differences on the measures of age are truly significant. This result was in keeping with the general theory of crime, and the hierarchy of specialization detailed in
Table 8.
Offending Behaviour Here again, the results were statistically significant on both measures including:
1) mean number of convictions over the entire career (t= -4.425, df=136, p<.001); and 2) the mean frequency of offending per month of the criminal career (t= 4.207, df=136, p<.001). As with previous comparison on these two measures, there were problems to address. For instance, although the complete specialists had a significantly higher mean number of convictions, they acquired these over a period of 179 months as compared to
67 months for the traditional specialists. This difference in career length was statistically significant (t=-4.838, df = 136, p<.001), and remained so even after adjusting for the 17 historical sex offence cases (t=-4.637, df = 136, pe.001). This suggests that the differences in mean number of convictions might merely be a matter of the degree of opportunity to commit crime. Normally, this would be borne out in similar rates of offending frequency.
In contrast, the difference in offending frequency initially produced statistically significant results (t= 4.207, df=136, p<.001). This, however, involved two concerns.
First, the results contradicted the general theory of crime in so far as it was the more specialized offenders, the traditional specialists, that had the higher frequency of offending. Secondly, the measure of offending frequency also needed to be considered in light of the 17 historical sex offence cases.
Adjusting for a ten-year gap between offence and conviction, a new comparison between traditional and complete specialists on the measure of offending frequency eliminated any statistically significant differences (t=0.99, df = 136, n.s.). In short, it cannot be said with confidence that there are any statistically significant differences between traditional and complete specialists on the measures of mean number of convictions, or that offending frequency had anything to do with self-control. It could merely be a matter of greater opportunity inherent in a longer criminal career.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour As with most previous comparisons, the measures of prison rule breaking behaviour did not produce statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime.
Criminal Versatility All four measures of criminal versatility produced statistically significant including:
1) mean number of switches in offence allegiance; 2) mean number of offence switching opportunities; 3) the mean percentage of offence switching opportunities capitalized upon. Even after the adjustment for the 17 historical sex offence cases, the statistical significance of these differences remained. These results were all in keeping with the general theory of crime, and the hierarchy of specialization detailed in Table 8.
Summary of Comparison The results of the measures of criminal versatility have progressed lock step with the hierarchy of specialization detailed in Table 8, suggesting that the chosen measures are, indeed, good representations of the pattern of offending and degree of specialization demonstrated by the various offender groups. By comparison, the only measures of self - control that produced results consistent with the degree of specialization is the measure of onset age. Again, this creates some concern as to why the other measures of self-control including: 1) mean number of convictions; 2) frequency of convictions; 3) mean number of prison infractions; and 4) frequency of prison infractions; are not consistently and conclusively producing statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime.
Comparing Complete And Adult Specialists In the hierarchy of specialization, the adult specialists follow the complete specialists. Unlike the complete specialists, the adult specialists are allowed to have a period of unspecialized offending prior their 25thbirthday. The intent behind comparing the two groups was to determine if the measures of specialization coincided with measures of self-control, in keeping with the general theory of crime, and if the measures of specialization accurately reflected the hierarchy of specialization as detailed in Table 8. Where the measures of specialization accurately reflected the hierarchy of specialization, they are then likely good measures. Where these same measures also coincided with the appropriate measures of self-control, in keeping with the general theory of crime, then it is likely that specialization and self-control can be equated. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table 13. There was, however, another comparison performed, using the same variables but applying them, in the case of the adult specialists, only after the onset of specialization. This comparison eliminates the impact of the adult specialist's period of unspecialized offending. These results are summarized in Table 14. Table 13: Comparison of Complete and Adult Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self- Control VARIABLE COMPLETE ADULT TEST SPECIALISTS SPECIALISTS (n=105) (n=38) Mean Current 38 40 Age. Mean Age at First 19.12 Offence Mean Age at Onset of Specialization Mean # of Convictions Over the Entire Career Mean Frequency of Convictions per Month of the Criminal Career. Mean # of lnfractions During Current Sentence Mean Duration Served on Current Sentence Mean Frequency of lnfractions per Month During the Current Sentence Mean Number of Switches in Offence Allegiance Number of Offence Switching Opportunities % of Switching Opportunities Capitalized Upon. Number of Switches Per Month of Criminal Career
There were no statistically significant differences on any of the measures of age, and the 17 historical sex offence cases were not a factor. Offending Behaviour There were no statistically significant differences on any of the measures of offending behaviour, and there was no impact from the 17 historical sex offences to consider.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour In contrast to every previous comparison, the measure of mean number of prison infractions did produce a statistically significant result in keeping with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization. Given the lack of consistency on this measure, however, it is likely that it cannot be considered a good measure of self- control.
Criminal Versatility On the measures of criminal versatility, statistically significant results were achieved in: 1) the mean number of offence switches; and 2) the percentage of capitalization that produced statistically significant results. By comparison, when the both offender groups were compared only after the onset of specialization, as depicted in
Table 14, the statistically significant differences on each measure of criminal versatility disappeared. This suggests that in terms of specialization, the differences between adult and complete specialists was likely just a matter of the period of unspecialized offending that the adult specialists were allowed to engage in prior to their 25th birthday. Excepting the results provided on the mean number of prison infractions, it could also be that the complete and adult specialists demonstrated similar levels of self-control. This would Table 14: Comparison of Complete and Adult Specialists on Measures of Specialization and Self - Control, After the Onset of Specialization VARIABLE COMPLETE ADULT TEST SPECIALISTS SPECIALISTS
Mean # of Convictions Since Specialization Mean Frequency of convictions per Month Since Specialization. Mean Number of Switches in Offence Allegiance Since Specialization Number of Offence Switching Opportunities Since Specialization % of Switching- Opportunities Capitalized Upon Since Specialization Number of Switches Per Month of Criminal Career Since S~ecialization
support the decision to include adult specialists in the category of offence specialist. This would be particularly true given the statistically significant differences between the adult specialists and generalists, in ways that are in keeping with the general theory of crime.
Summary of Comparison Once again, it was the measures of criminal versatility that best represented the hierarchy of specialization. In particular, the measures of: 1) mean number of switches; and 2) percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon; have now consistently produced statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime. Excepting the measure of mean number of prison infractions, the measures of self-control did not reflect the degree of specialization but in this case, it may not be an indication that the chosen measures are poor measures of self-control. It could well be that the complete and adult specialists demonstrate similar levels of self-control, especially after the onset of specialization.
Comparing Adult Specialists And Offence Generalists In the hierarchy of specialization, the offence generalists follow the adult specialists, and they both sit on opposite sides of the dividing line between specialists and generalists. Thus, it is particularly important that there be a measure of statistical significance that distinguishes the adult specialists from the generalists. A summary of the findings is detailed in Table 15.
Age Once again, it was the measure of onset age that produced a statistically significant result but in this case, the result was not in keeping with the general theory of crime or the hierarchy of specialization. In this case it was the adult specialists who had the lower age at onset of offending.
Offending Behaviour Although there was also a statistically significant difference on the measure of mean number of convictions, it also contradicted the general theory of crime in so far as it was the more specialized offenders, the adult specialists, with the greater mean number of convictions. Although the adult specialists did have careers of 198 months in duration, as compared to 168 months for the generalists, the difference was not statistically significant (t= 1.564, df = 359, n.s.), although it was close at p < .0595.
Given the poor performance of the mean number of convictions to produce results that VARIABLE ADULT SPECIALIST (~38) Mean Current Age. 40 Mean Age at First Offence Mean Age at Onset of ~~echlization Mean # of Convictions Over the Entire Career Mean Frequency of Convictions per Month of the Criminal Career. Duration of Criminal Career in Months Mean # of lnfractions During Current Sentence Mean Duration Served on Current Sentence Mean Frequency of lnfractions per Month During the Current Sentence Mean Number of Switches in Offence Allegiance Number of Offence Switching Opportunities % of Switching Opportunities Capitalized Upon. Number of Switches Per Month of Criminal Career
were in keeping with the general theory of crime, and the hierarchy of specialization, it is believed that the statistically significant results on the comparison between adult specialists and generalists was likely because of the comparatively longer careers of the adult specialists combined with the period of unspecialized offending that they are allowed to engage in prior to their 25th birthday.
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour There was no statistically significant difference among the comparisons of prison rule breaking behaviour.
Criminal Versatility As had become the norm, it was again the measures of criminal versatility that provided statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization. In fact, the only measure of criminal versatility that didn't produce a statistically significant result was the measure of the mean number of switches in offence allegiance per month.
What is particularly interesting about these results is that they help refute the concern that specialization in merely the absence of opportunities to switch offence allegiance. For instance, the adult specialists had a significantly higher number of opportunities to switch offence allegiance yet capitalized upon significantly fewer switching opportunities, resulting in a similar number of switches in offence allegiance. In short, despite greater opportunity to switch offence allegiance, the adult specialists still distinguished themselves as being more specialized that the generalists.
When the adult specialist's period of unspecialized offending is removed from consideration, as is the case in Table 16, it is clear that the adult specialists engage in a lower mean number of switches, at a lower frequency of switching, while capitalizing upon a significantly lower percentage of opportunities to switch offence allegiance. Table 16: Comparison of Adult Specialists and Generalists on Measures of Specialization and Self-control. After the Onset of Specialization VARIABLE ADULT GENERALIST TEST SPECIALIST (n=323) (n=38) Mean Number of Switches in 5.32 7.95 (t=-2.317, df = 359, pc .02) Offence Allegiance Number of Offence cn Switching 20.30 19.90 (t=0.125, df = 359, n.s.) a Opportunities % of Switching -1 Opportunities 24.1 7 43.90 (t=-5.09, df = 359, p<.001) a Capitalized Upon. Number of Switches Per 0.62 0.09 (t=2.574, df= 359, p< .006) Month of Criminal 1 1 1
Summary of Comparison The adult specialists and generalists sit on opposite sides of the dividing line between specialized and unspecialized offenders, so it was particularly important that there be ways of distinguishing one from the other. As in each of the previous comparisons, it was the measures of criminal versatility that were of most useful, providing statistically significant results in three of the four measures. Each of these was also in consonance with the general theory of crime, and the hierarchy of specialization.
There was not, however, any consonance between the measures of specialization and the measures of self-control. While the age at onset shared an inverse relationship with the measure of capitalization in most previous comparisons, on this occasion the age at onset actually contradicted the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization. While this was disappointing, it was nonetheless possible to distinguish between adult specialists and generalists on measures of specialization and criminal versatility. Comparing All Specialists And All Generalists
This comparison was intended to determine if specialists did distinguish themselves from generalists on measures of specialization and self-control, and to see if there was consonance between the measures of specialization and self-control in keeping with the hierarchy of specialization and the general theory of crime. The results of the comparison are detailed in Table 17.
Age
As shown in Table 17, the mean age of the specialists was about 40 years of age, and their mean age at first offence was about 23 as compared to the generalists at a mean age of 39, and a mean age at first offence of about 20. In keeping with expectations, the specialists did acquire their first conviction at a significantly older age than the generalists and the significance of this difference remained even after adjusting for the 17 historical sex offence cases (t= -2.152, df = 497, pe.02).
Interestingly, despite adjusting the mean age at first offence by 10 years for each of the 17 offenders, none wound up with an age that would be logically inconsistent, such as 12 or under. There was one case at 14, one at 15, but all the rest were in their
20's or higher. Although the two cases in their teens are suspect, overall the mean age of first offence is likely more accurate as a result of the adjustment than if the 17 cases had not been adjusted for. Table 17: Comparison of Specialists and Generalist! Dn Mean Measures of Specialization and Self - Contr~ VARIABLE SPECIALIST TEST (n=176) Mean Current Age. Mean Age at First Offence Mean Age at Onset of Specialization Mean # of Convictions Over the Entire Career Mean Frequency of Convictions per Month of the Criminal Career. Mean # of lnfractions During Current Sentence Mean Duration Served on Current Sentence In Months Mean Frequency of lnfractions per Month During the Current Sentence Mean Number of Switches in Offence Allegiance Number of Offence Switchina- Opportunities % of Switching Opportunities Capitalized Upon. Number of Switches Per Month of Criminal Career
Offending Behaviour
As a group, all 499 offenders netted 11,001 convictions. Of these, 6,805 or
61.85% belonged to the generalists, resulting in a mean 21 convictions per generalist, and a mean frequency of 0.37 convictions per month of the criminal career. By
111 comparison, the specialists were responsible for 4,196 or 38.14% of all convictions, resulting in a mean 24 c~nvictionsper specialist, and an offending frequency of 0.84 offences per month.
In contrast to the general theory of crime, it was the specialists who accumulated a greater number of convictions over their criminal career, and had a higher frequency of offending, and they did it over the course of a criminal career that was 162 months in duration as opposed to 168 months for the generalists. None of these differences were, however, statistically significant as is consistent with the absence of a statistically significant difference on the measure of mean career duration, even after the 17 historical sex offence cases are adjusted for (t = .448, df = 497, n.s).
Prison Rule Breaking Behaviour The entire population (n=499) generated 4,251 prison infractions during the course of their current sentence. Of these, 1,339 infractions, or 31.50%, were perpetrated by offence specialists, resulting in a mean 7.60 infractions per offender, and a mean 0.20 infractions per month of incarceration during the current sentence. By comparison, generalists perpetrated 291 2 or 68.5% of all prison infractions, resulting in a
mean 8.96 infractions per offender at a mean frequency of 0.25 infractions per month of
incarceration during the current sentence. The differences were not, however, statistically significant as is consistent with the absence of a significant difference among the duration served on the current sentence (t= .759, df = 497, n.s). This would seem to
suggest that there are no differences between the prison rule breaking behaviours of specialists and generalists, contrary to what was suggested by the general theory of
crime. Criminal Versatility
Specialists were responsible for 877 switches in offence allegiance over the duration of their criminal careers, resulting in a mean of 4.3 switches per specialist, and a mean switching frequency of 0.05 switches per month of the criminal career. This switching behaviour was achieved based on 4,020 opportunities to switch offence allegiance, with the result that specialists only capitalized upon a mean 20% of all opportunities to switch offence allegiance. By comparison, generalists were responsible for 2,591 switches in offence allegiance over the duration of their criminal careers, resulting in a mean of 8 switches per generalist, and a mean switching frequency of 0.09 switches per month of the criminal career. This switching behaviour was based upon
6,484 opportunities to switch offence allegiance, with the result that generalists capitalized upon a mean 44% of all opportunities to switch their offence allegiance.
The differences between specialists and generalists were statistically significant on both the mean number of switches, and the percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon. On the matter of the number of switches per month of the criminal career, even after the impact of the 17 historical sex offence case were adjusted for, there was still no significant differences between the specialists and generalists (t=
1.042, df = 497, n.s), suggesting that this is likely not the best measure of specialization.
Summary of Comparison
The results on the measures of mean number of switches, and the percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon, are especially interesting results for they are statistically significant, they quantify the degree of specialization involved in the offending patterns of the 176 offence specialists, and they provided results that are
consistent with the hierarchy of specialization and the general theory of crime. Summarizing the Findings
The findings have been summarized in Table 18 but the table requires some explanation. In the first column on the left hand side is the number of the table where the various comparisons occurred. In the second column, is a description of the comparison that occurred. In this description, it is the offender category that ranks highest in the hierarchy of specialization that is listed first. Looking at the table, then, it is evident that the first row of the first column pertains to Table 9 and a comparison between 21 traditional specialists and the generalists.
Looking to the third column, it will be noted that every row is designated as an anticipated or actual result. In the rows designated as an anticipated result, there will be cells with arrows in them. For each of the variables, and for the most specialized offender in the comparison, these arrows show the expected result according to the hierarchy of specialization and the general theory of crime. For instance, in the comparison between the 21 original specialists and the traditionalists detailed in the first row, it was expected that the 21 original specialists would have a higher 7 age at onset as compared to the generalists. Similarly, under the variable for mean number of prison infractions, it was anticipated that the 21 original specialists would have fewer 4 infractions than the generalists. A sideways arrow t, indicates that there was no difference anticipated. Some of the cells will also have the letters "n.a.", showing that the comparison was not applicable, for instance, in the case of the comparison of the 21 original specialists and the generalists on the variable of age at onset of specialization.
As generalists don't specialize, they don't have an age at onset of specialization, so the comparison has no meaning. The cells that were left blank related to findings that did not produce results in keeping with the hierarchy of specialization and the general theory of crime. At a glance of the chart it is possible to get a visual impression of the extent to
114 which each comparison and each variable produced results in keeping with the hierarchy of specialization, and the general theory of crime. While this impression was useful, it was also quantified in the far right column, and the bottom row. For instance, in the far right hand column is a measure of the degree to which the expected results were met for each of the comparisons among specialists, and between specialists and generalists. In the bottom row is a measure of the degree to which each variable produced results in keeping with the hierarchy of specialization and the general theory of crime.
Table Summaries
Focusing on the actual results, the comparison between the 21 original traditional specialists and the generalists was supposed to have served as the baseline for the effectiveness of the different variables. This was because the specialists involved had been identified without the benefit of the coding system, or the expanded definition. They were specialists in the purest sense, having demonstrated a 100% commitment to a single offence category over the duration of their entire career. It was on a comparison of these specialists with the generalists that the various measures of specialization and self-control should have produced the best results. By comparison, only five of the nine variables conclusively produced results in keeping with the general theory of crime.
As there is little doubt that the identified specialists were, indeed, specialized, the fact that the results were not consistent with the general theory of crime raises suspicion about: 1) the ability of the measures of self-control to actually represent levels of self- control; and 2) whether specialists actually do have elevated levels of self-control. Traditional vs Traditional vs 21 Original 21 Original Complete Non-Traditional Traditional Traditional Specialists Specialists Specialists, vs, Specialists, vs, Generalists 12 Additional Traditional
Onset of Specialization
# of Convictions
Frequency of Convictions
# of Infractions + 1 + I
Switches Of Allegiance
Opportunities to Switch Allegiance
1' I Capitalization 4 A 4 -J a, UI
Specialists vs Adult Specialists Adult Specialists Complete vs < Generalists CD vs Generalists vs Generalists Adult Specialists zn After the Onset After the Onset of Specialization of Specialization nr5: x x R"5 R 2 e.2 D 2 E. n R n. S n -i= -0 e 7J e u C U " E E !2 E !$ h (D h a 0 a (1 $$ + --+ Clearly, the level of consonance between prediction and observation on each of the subsequent measures was also pretty mixed which does nothing to dispel the two enumerated suspicions. Despite the mixed results, there are still conclusions that can be drawn. For instance, on the comparison between the 21 original and 12 additional specialists, it was anticipated that there would be few significant differences between the two groups of offenders, being that they were believed to be of the same genus. Accordingly, only one of the variables produced a significant result. Similarly, on the comparison between the complete and adult specialists after the onset of specialization, it was anticipated that there would be few, if any, significant differences between the two groups of offender. The rationale was that after the onset of specialization, they essentially became the same offender, and would demonstrate similar levels of specialization, offending, and commitment. Accordingly, only one variable produced a statistically significant result. Summary of Variables Looking at the performance of individual variables, it was evident that certain variables performed better than others. Looking again at the baseline comparison between the 21 original traditional specialists, and the generalists, there were only four variables that provided results consistent with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization. Of these four measures, the age at onset was a measure of self-control, and the other three were measures of criminal versatility, including 1) mean number of switches; 2) mean number of opportunities to switch; and 3) the percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon. Looking at the bottom row of Table 17, it is clear that three of these four variables including 1) onset age; 2) mean number of switches; and 3) percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon; produced fairly consistent results, fulfilling expectations on six out of eight, eight out of nine, and nine out of nine times, respectively. These were the variables that most consistently provided results in keeping with the general theory of crime, and the hierarchy of specialization. These were also the only variables to produce statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime during the comparison of all specialists and all generalists. Table 17 refers. Overall, what became quite clear is that there was no nexus between the measures of self-control and the measures of specialization as would have been in keeping with the general theory of crime. This poor performance among the variables raises the same two suspicions as were enumerated earlier, including: 1) the ability of the measures of self-control to actually represent levels of self-control; and 2) whether specialists actually do have elevated levels of self-control. CHAPTER FOUR - DISCUSSION The following chapter has been divided into four sections including: 1) A Discussion of the Findings; 2) Suggestions for Future Research; and 3) the Benefits of Continuing Research Into the Offence Specialization. A Discussion Of The Findings According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, 1995), crime is the manifestation of low self-control. Criminals lack self-control, and therefore involve themselves in crimes of immediate gratification and opportunity. Their crimes are, therefore, not particularly patterned. They will do most anything that is easy, so there will be a great deal of criminal versatility on their criminal record. Those suffering from low self-control will exhibit other indicative behaviours as well. They will smoke, drink, get into accidents, and are more likely to have marital discord or violence. They also: 1) tend to start crime at an earlier age; 2) have more offences during their career; 3) offend at a higher frequency; and, 4) engage in analogous behaviours, such as prison rule breaking behaviour, at a more frequent rate than those with greater levels of self-control. By comparison to most criminals, offence specialists distinguish themselves by their strong commitment to a pattern of offending, and/or offence type, which demonstrates a level of self-control that contrasts with the impulsivity and opportunism of the generalist. Having distinguished themselves in this manner, it was presumed that the offence specialists would also distinguish themselves by having: 1) later onset ages; 2) fewer convictions over the duration of their career; 3) a reduced offending frequency; 4) fewer prison infractions; and a specialized as opposed to versatile criminal history. Had this occurred, it would then have been necessary to explain how, under the general theory of crime, it was possible to have these self-controlled criminals when crime was supposed to be the manifestation of low self-control. In the absence of these results it was, however, still necessary to explain why these specialists did not obtain results consistent with elevated levels of self-control. The danger to the general theory of crime is that the criminal activity of these specialists is a manifestation of something other than a lack of self-control, which opens the door to other explanations for crime, and limits the general applicability of the general theory of crime. Either way, the existence of these specialists causes problems for the general theory of crime and requires some explanation. The Possible Explanations There are at least six possible explanations for the discrepancy between prediction and observation, each with varying degrees of appeal. These include: 1) The identified specialists are not really specialized; 2) The identified measures of self-control are not good measures of self-control; 3) The identified specialists do not have elevated levels of self-control; 4) The identified specialists are not criminals, they are actually innocent; 5) Self-Control is relative; 6) The general theory is wrong, or at least not as generally applicable as was originally thought. Each of these will be discussed in turn. The Identified Specialists Are Not Really Specialized Specialized offenders are supposed to have elevated levels of self-control, which is supposed to be indicated by: 1) a higher onset age; 2) a greater number of convictions; 3) greater frequency of offending; 4) greater number of prison infractions; and 5) a greater frequency of prison infractions. If specialists do not demonstrate an elevated level of self-control in accordance with these measures, then it could be that the specialists aren't specialized at all. It could be that: 1) the chosen measures of specialization did not accurately measure specialization; 2) it could be there was an error in the coding system; or 3) it could be that there are definitional problems such that the net was cast too broadly over which offenders were identified as specialists; 4) it could be that the prevalence of sex offenders skewed the results; or, 5) it could be that specialists were merely those offenders who didn't have sufficient opportunity to change their offence allegiance. Each of these issues will be addressed, in turn. Inaccurate Measures Of Specialization Among all the measures utilized, Table 18 clearly shows that it was the measures of criminal versatility/specialization that produced the most consistent results. For instance, the measure of capitalization met anticipated results in nine out of nine opportunities, while the measure of mean number of switches met expectations in eight out of nine opportunities. Of all the measures, it was only the measure of capitalization that was always able to distinguish among specialists, and between specialists and generalists in statistically significant ways. In this sense, it is believed that capitalization provides an accurate numerical representation of the pattern of offending engaged in by the various categories of offender. This does not, however, mean that it is necessarily an accurate representation of the type of specialization that equates to elevated levels of self-control. There are, for instance, several other means of measuring specialization including: 1) a calculation of the number of offence categories present in the criminal history of each offender; 2) a ratio of sex to violent offences; 3) a ratio of robbery to theft offences; 4) the ratio of personal to property offences; etc. All that can be stated with conviction, is that: 1) the identified specialists do have a patterned sequence of offending that contrasts with the larger majority of the inmate population; and 2) the measure of capitalization accurately reflects this. Thus, it is possible that some of the identified specialists are not specialized in ways that equates to self-control. The operative word, here, is some. Even if the measures of capitalization were entirely wrong, this would not have impacted upon the 21 original traditional specialists who were identified without the benefit of the coding system, solely on their exclusive commitment to a single offence category over the course of their entire criminal career. Reviewing the results in Tables 9 and 18 one more time, it is apparent that even among the baseline comparison between the 21 original traditional specialists and the generalists, all but one of the measures of self-control failed to produce statistically significant results in keeping with the general theory of crime. There can be little argument that these 21 offenders were specialized, so the problem clearly didn't lie among the measures of specialization that were used. An Error In The Coding System Looking back at the case studies of the 12 additional traditional specialists provides actual examples of how the coding system worked to uncover these 'hidden' specialists. In each case, the coding system targeted those situations that were identified from the outset as being obstacles to the investigation of specialization i.e., cases where there were stays of proceedings occurring on the same date, and as part of the same police report as a conviction, or, cases where a Similar Offence occurred in a string of offences along with a Key Offence from another offence category other than the Nuisance offence category. This provides at least anecdotal evidence that the coding system did exactly what it was expected to do. Another supporting consideration is that there was only one statistically significant difference between the 21 original traditional specialists identified prior to the implementation of the coding system, and the 12 additional traditional specialists uncovered after the implementation of the coding system. The absence of significant differences suggests that both groups of traditional specialists are of the same genus, which is exactly what the coding system was supposed to uncover. Again, the coding system performed as expected. Despite the expected level of performance, what still remains to be seen is whether or not the beliefs underlying the coding system are valid. That is, do stays of proceedings that occur on the same date and as part of the same police report as a conviction actually say anything about the nature of the conviction? Are stays of proceedings actually good indicators of possible plea bargain arrangements? Do the various offence categories actually represent the range of prosecutorial possibilities? These matters were beyond the scope of the current investigation, but the fact that the coding system did uncover additional specialists using these beliefs suggests that the beliefs are worthy of subsequent investigation. This subsequent investigation would, however, need to be quite involved, requiring: 1) interviews with offenders, prosecutors, defence attorneys and judges in order to determine the existence and nature of any plea bargains; 2) interviews with offenders, prosecutors, defence attorneys and judges in order to determine the nature of any stay of proceedings; 3) interviews with police and offenders in order to determine the initial nature of the criminal behaviour as compared to the final conviction rendered; 4) review of police reports, and interviews with police and offenders to see if the convictions in any string of offences were actually related. Clearly, this would be a lot of work, but if it proves the coding system to be accurate, it would also prove the efficiency of using the coding system as compared to doing all the other investigating. Definitional Problems Straying beyond the traditional definition of offence specialist will likely be controversial, but it is argued that the expanded definition is still meaningful in so far as it still assures a level of commitment and a pattern of offending that contrasts with the criminal versatility of the offence generalist. However, that debate aside, the fact is that however one chooses to define an offence specialist, there were several examples found. Even according to the purest definition of the offence specialist, there were at least 21 examples found. Revisiting Tables 9 and 18, it is clear that even in the baseline comparison between the 21 original traditional specialists and the generalists, the measures of self-control generally did not perform as expected. This was not the result of a definitional problem. The Prevalence Of Sex Offenders The research site involved an integrated population, which, included sex offenders. This is not a characteristic that every medium security facility in Canada will have. Consequently, it was necessary to look at the prevalence of sex offenders among the general and specialist populations in order to determine whether similar results might be found at other prisons, and whether or not specialists and sex offenders are largely the same people. Of the 499 inmates under review, 224 (44.89%) had at least one sex offence, and 275 (55.1 1%) had no sex offences. By comparison, of the 176 offence specialists, 79 (44.89%) had at least one sex offence, and 97 (55.1 1%) had no sex offences. In short, there was exactly the same distribution of sex offenders among the general population as there was among the specialist population. Among the 323 generalists there were 145 (44.89%) offenders with at least one sex offence, and 178 (55.1 1%) without sex offences. Again, an exactly proportionate distribution of sex offenders. The one area involving a disproportionately high representation of sex offenders was among the 33 traditional specialists where 26 offenders (78.78%) had sex offences. However, even the disproportionate distribution of sex offenders among the traditional specialists should not be of concern because Gottfredson and Hirschi have not excluded sex offenders from their general theory of crime. In fact, they quite clearly suggest that sex offenders are just as likely to commit a violent offence as another sex offence (Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990; p. 21, 36). Unless it is conceded that the general theory of crime does not apply to sex offenders, or that sex offending is the manifestation of something other than the absence of self-control, then there really shouldn't be any problems even with a disproportionate representation of sex offenders among offence specialists. Were this, however, the case, there would be an issue with the generalizability of the findings of this study to offender populations that are not integrated, i.e. where there are no sex offenders. Insufficient Opportunity to Change Offence Allegiance This possibility was partially addressed in the "Findings" chapter of this report when examples of specialist categories were shown to have had longer criminal careers and more opportunities to switch offence allegiance while still capitalizing upon fewer opportunities to switch allegiance, and while still engaging in fewer actual switches of offence allegiance. This matter of opportunity, however, requires some discussion. Over the course of this investigation, opportunity was operationalized according the duration of the criminal career and the number of convictions an offender receives. Clearly, these are elements of opportunity. For instance, in the absence of convictions, an offender doesn't have the opportunity to change their offence allegiance. Similarly, in the absence of a criminal career, an offender doesn't have the opportunity to have an offence allegiance let alone change one. The assumption is that the longer the criminal career and the more convictions, the greater the opportunity to switch offence allegiance. While there is an element of truth to this, what was not accounted for was periods of incapacitation either as a result of incarceration, or mental or physical disability. Although the latter two conditions would require extensive file reviews or interviews, a calculation of incapacitation based upon incarceration is possible using the two prison documents utilized for the current research, including the Finger Print Sheet and the Security Profile Report. This might be an interesting point of inquiry during subsequent research but for now, the present investigation can offer no insight upon this matter. The insight that can be offered is that in the comparison between specialists and generalist undertaken in Table 17, there were no statistically significant differences on the measures of opportunity including: 1) the duration of the criminal career; and 2) the mean number of switching opportunities. The Measures Of Self-Control Are Not Good Measures Of Self-Control Assuming that the percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon was a good measure of specialization, it is evident from Table 18 that there was a degree of consonance between the measure of capitalization and the measure of onset age. That is, whenever onset age produced a result in keeping with the general theory of crime, there was also a result on the measure of capitalization that was also in keeping with the general theory of crime. This occurred on six out of eight opportunities, and was the best result of any of the suggested measures of self-control. In short, the measure of onset of specialization provided results that were in step with the level of specialization, whereas the other measures of self-control did not. If specialists do have elevated levels of self- control then the measure of onset age would likely be a good measure of self-control. ~f specialists do not have elevated levels of self-control, then the other suggested measures of self-control are likely still good measures of self-control. Although it is not known whether or not specialists have elevated levels of self-control, it is clear from the scenario just described that the age of onset and the other measures of self-control cannot all be good, or all be bad measures of self-control. In the scenario where specialists either do or do not have elevated levels of self-control, at least one of the suggested measures of self-control will be right. The whole scenario is, however, moot for either result is inconsistent with the general theory of crime. Whether the measures of self-control are good or bad measures is immaterial, because the specialists still exist. If they have elevated levels of self- control, the general theory will need to explain how it is that there can be criminals with elevated levels of self-control, when all crime is supposedly the manifestation of low self- control. On the other hand, if the specialists don't have elevated levels of self-control then the general theory of crime will need to explain how it is that there are specialized offenders that do not exhibit the predicted levels of self-control. The danger here, is that a failure to explain this leaves the door open for alternate explanations for the behaviour of the specialists, positivistic explanations, which limits the general applicability of the general theory of crime. Consequently, the possibility that all the suggested measures of self-control are bad measures of self-control does little to extricate the general theory of crime from this logical predicament. The Identified Specialists Do Not Have Elevated Levels Of Self-Control Showing that the identified specialists do not have elevated levels of self-control may well preserve the effectiveness of most of the suggested measures of self-control, but it doesn't eliminate the logical inconsistency presented by the presence of offence specialists. As was already mentioned, whether they have an elevated or reduced level of self-control, their very existence presents a problem for the general theory of crime. On the one hand the general theory would have to explain how it is that specialists with elevated levels of self-control exist when all crime is supposedly the manifestation of low self-control. On the other hand, the general theory would have to explain why specialists did not exhibit the predicted elevated levels of self-control. The failure to do so opens the door to positivistic explanations for the specialists' patterns of offending, and limits the general applicability of the general theory of crime. Preserving the General Theory of Crime There are, however, three possible explanations for the existence of the specialists that could preserve all or part of the general theory of crime, and that should benefit from additional investigation, including: 1) the identified specialists are not actually criminals, they are in fact innocent of the offences for which they were convicted; 2) self-control is relative, so although the specialists have demonstrated a degree of self-control that was greater than the generalists, they still demonstrate a degree of self-control that is below that of the average law abiding citizen; and 3) the identified specialists are still lacking in self-control, but their particular patterns of offending are not a matter of self-control, but rather some mental, psychological, or physiological compulsion. That is, the criminal act is still the result of a low level of self- control, but the specific pattern or sequence of offending has some other explanation. Interestingly, if specialization is not related to increased self-control and fewer prison infraction then it is unlikely that there will be security level specific differences in the prevalence of specialists in the prison population. Although the first explanation about innocence is a logical possibility, it stretches the bounds of good reason and far outpaces even the most liberal estimates of the rate of false imprisonment. The other two explanations, however, may be worthy of further exploration. Overall, it was clear that the very existence of the offence specialists causes problems for the general theory of crime. Suggestions for Future Research Flowing from the discussion about the findings, and the possible explanations for the findings, it is suggested that offence specialization would be a good focus for further research. In particular, using the same set of offenders it would be interesting to calculate the length of time they were incarcerated and had a reduced ability to commit offences, and then factor this into the true amount of opportunity they had to switch offence allegiance. This would address one of the deficiencies of the present research undertaking. Another avenue would be to take all 176 offence specialists and compare these to a random sample of law abiding citizens based on common measures of self-control. The research would be somewhat limited by what is available on the Finger Print and Security Profile Reports, but one possible measure would be the number of married vs divorced people. This flows from Gottfredson and Hirschi's suggestion that those lacking self-control will have a higher incidence of marital problems, so it would then be reasonable to assume that those with lower levels of self-control would more often also wind up divorced. Other measures might include the numbers of traffic violations. Another interesting avenue of investigation would be to interview identified specialists, and conduct thorough file reviews in order to refute or confirm the beliefs underlying the coding system used during the current research undertaking. Interviewing the specialists might also be interesting in terms of trying to narrow down the antecedents to their changes in offence allegiance. Exactly what was going on in their lives at around the time of their changes in offence allegiance. Similarly, this would be the same approach to use in order to confirm the indicators used to identify historical sex offences. Clearly, there would be some benefit in determining how prevalent the historical sex offence cases are, what the mean duration between offence and the laying of the complaint is, and whether there are better indicators to use when trying to identify these offenders. Again, using the same group of offenders, it would be interesting to use different measures of specialization to see if they produced a higher level of consonance with the suggested measures of self-control. To assist with the identification of offence specialists, and with the development of distinctions between specialists and generalists, it would likely be possible to develop some type of threshold test. This test would likely be based upon, or at least involve, the percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon as this was the most consistent variable found. Given the patterns of offending required of each category of specialist, it would not be possible for any specialist to engage in any more than 50% of all switching opportunities after the onset of specialization. Just as an example, a threshold consisting of 150% capitalization, and 2 or more opportunities to switch offence allegiance captures all 176 specialists, and only 198 generalists. With a bit more research it might be possible to clearly delineate the specialists from generalists on various measures. One benefit of the phased pattern of offence allegiance demonstrated by the specialists is that it is possible to examine the various phases for any particular order or characteristics either between preceding and succeeding phases for each offender, or between the same career phase for all offenders. There could be comparisons based on escalating or declining seriousness of offending; escalating or declining frequency of offending; escalating or declining offence density in each phase; escalating or declining durations of each phase; or the specific sequence of offence categories represented in each phase. It would also be interesting to see whether in the case of the adult specialists, their offence allegiances were foreshadowed by similar offences during their period of specialization. In the case of all the specialists, it would be interesting to see how many had repeat phases with the same offence allegiance, and how many had offence allegiances that were foreshadowed by similar offences prior to the age of 18, or 25. Should any definite patterns be identified, retrospectively, these would then provide some interesting material for the subsequent investigation of prognostic indicators of the same patterns of offending such as might inform parole officers, National Parole Board members, police, or judges. Finally, it would be important to determine whether the specialists planned their offences and offence patterns or "fell into them" by chance, opportunity, and the failure to demonstrate self-control. Should it be determined that these offenders were aware of their pattern, and deliberately undertook this pattern, it could have implications for the types of programming made available to them or the approaches used to assist them in becoming law abiding citizens. Specialists may well be the 'rational choice' offenders that so much of the Criminal Justice System is based upon. The Benefits of Continuing to Study Offence Specialists It will, of course, be of particular interest to find out whether or not specialists have elevated levels of self-control for this will have implications for concepts underlying institutional programming, and could also help establish whether there is a single, or multiple origins of crime. Subsequently, by comparing adult to complete specialists it might be possible to determine if self-control is something that is consistent throughout life, or if it might be possible to develop self-control. The continuing study of offence specialists will also refute or establish the beliefs underlying the coding system used during the current undertaking. Either result will bring a greater degree of insight into the information provided by the Finger Print Sheet, and the Security Profile Report. At a glance, correctional administrators and decision makers could be provided new insight into the offenders they are working with, or making decisions on. If the coding system is determined to be a reasonable representation of an offender's actual criminal history, then the two aforementioned documents will present administrators and decisions makers with a very accurate picture of an offender's criminal history in the fraction of time it would take to do lengthy file reviews, conduct surveys or do interviews. Researchers could benefit from the same expedience. Should the coding system be proven accurate, it might also have utility to Crown prosecutors wanting to manage the number, nature, or impact, of the plea-bargaining arrangements undertaken in their own jurisdiction. At very least, this research might inform Crown prosecutors about some of the pitfalls involved in plea bargain arrangements when it comes to investigating offence specialization, or trying to determine the original nature of a criminal behaviour based solely on the final conviction. Lastly, offence specialists are worthy of continuing study solely because of their prevalence among the offender population. At 35.27% they constitute a substantial segment of the offender population. Even the traditional specialists at 6.61% constitute a larger segment of the offender population than offenders with no adult history; offenders with prostitution offences; offenders with arson offences; Metis offenders; and the traditional specialists are more prevalent than all the black, ArabNVest Asian, South East Asian, East Indian, and Inuit offenders combined. Conclusion As with exploratory research in general, there were many more questions presented than were answered. Still, the research did lend itself to the following conclusions. First, it was established that offence specialists do exist, and in numbers not previously anticipated. Depending upon which definition is used, they range in prevalence from 6.61 - 35.27% of the prison population. At these levels it may no longer be appropriate to refer to specialists as 'rare'. Second, the various categories of specialist distinguished themselves from each other, and from the generalists, on the measure of percentage of switching opportunities capitalized upon. In each case, the results were consistent with the general theory of crime and the hierarchy of specialization. None of the other measures of specialization or self-control consistently or conclusively provided statistically significant results that were in keeping with the general theory of crime. Third, the coding system performed exactly as was expected, targeting convictions that occurred on the same date and as part of the same police report as a stay of proceedings, or, strings of offences involving Key and Similar offences from different offence categories. Fourth, the four identified obstacles had an impact in so far as it was only after adjusting for the first three obstacles that an additional 21 traditional specialists were uncovered, and it was only after adjusting for the fourth obstacle that the additional 143 non-traditional offence specialists were uncovered. The combined effectiveness of the coding system and the uncovering of the additional specialists serves as evidence of the impact of the four obstacles. Although these obstacles clearly played a role during the current research, it still needs to be determined if the beliefs underlying the coding system and the four obstacles are accurate representations of reality. This will only be achieved by rather involved research and the use of interviews and extensive file reviews. Fifth, whether they benefit from an elevated level of self-control or not, the very existence of the offence specialists presents problems for the general theory of crime, and requires some explanation. Lastly, there is value in the continued study of offence specialization, and offence specialists. Appendix A - SFU Ethics Approval Appendix B - CSC Research Approval Correctional Service Service correctionnel Canada Canada Pacific Region Region du Pacifique Ywr file Votre dsrence Our file Notre df&nce 04 December 2002. David Hunt 33544 - 7'h Avenue Mission, B. C. V2V 2E9 Dear Mr. Hunt, RE: -Exploratorvand Correlational Research into the Existence. Prevalence, and Profile of the "Career Criminal". This letter is to advise you that the Regional Research Committee (Pacific) has approved your research proposal. Yours truly, Zender Katz, PhD. A/ Chair, Regional Research Committee (Pacific) Phone: (604) 820-5883 Fax: (604) 820-5803 Appendix C - Composition Of Offence Categories -KEY SIMILAR I Exhibiting Disgusting Objects Sexual D Aggravated Sexual Assault Offences D Anal Intercourse Or lndecent Show I Indecent Telephone Calls D Attempt To Commit Rape I Offences In Connection With B Attempt Sex Assault Crime Comics B Bestiality In Presence Of Or 1 Person Convicted Of Sexual By Child Offence And Committing B Binding Over To Keep The Vagrancy Peace Where Fear Of Sexual Presenting Or Giving Immoral Violence Theatrical Performance B Compulsion To Commit Taking Part Or Appearing In Bestiality Immoral Theatrical Exposure Performance Importing, Distributing, Selling, Or Possession For Purpose Of Distribution Or Sale Child Pornography Incest Incest lndecent Acts lndecent Assault On Female lndecent Assault On Male lndecent Exhibition Invitation To Sexual Touching Mailing Obscene Matter Making, Printing, Publishing, Distributing, Circulating, Or Having In Possession Obscene Matter Making, Printing, Publishing, Or Possessing For Purposes Of Publication Child Pornography Nudity 0 Offences In Connection With Crime Comics Order Of Prohibition Regarding Children Possession Of Child Pornography Publishing Evidence Of Sexual Activity Rape Rape Removal Of Child From Selling, Exposing To Public View Or Having In Possession Obscene Matter Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Sexual Assault - Party To The Offence Sexual Assault Causing Bodily Harm Sexual Assault With A Weapon Sexual Assault With Threats To A Third Party Sexual Exploitation Sexual Interference Violent Attack On Premises, Abduction In Contravention Of Offences Accommodation, or Transport Custody Order of United Nations Or Abduction Of Person Under Associated Personnel. Fourteen Attack On Premises, Abduction Of Person Under Residence, or Transport of Sixteen Internationally Protected Abduction Where No Custody Person. Order Causing Bodily Harm To Her Assault During Execution Of Majesty The Queen Process Or Making A Distress Or Seizure Counseling Or Aiding Suicide Assault With lntent To Rescue Dangerous Driving Causing Anything Taken Under Lawful Bodily Harm Process Dangerous Driving Causing Assault With lntent To Resist Death Arrest Dangerous Operation Of A Assaulting A Public Officer Or Vessel Causing Bodily Harm A Peace Officer Dangerous Operation Of Attempt to Take Hostage Aircraft Causing Bodily Harm Accessory After The Fact To Dangerous Operation Of Murder Aircraft Causing Death Administering Poison Or Other Dangerous Operation Of Destructive Or Noxious Thing Vessel Causing Death Advocating Genocide Disturbing Religious Worship Aggravated Assault Duelling Alarming Her Majesty The Endangering Safety Of Airport Queen Or Aircraft Assault Endangering Safety Of Ship Assault Causing Bodily Harm Or Fixed Platform Assault With A Weapon High Treason Assault With Intent Assisting At Cock Fight Hijacking 139 KEY I lmpaired Driving Of Motor Attempt To Commit Murder Vehicle Causing Bodily Harm Binding Over To Keep The 1 Impaired Driving Of Motor Peace Vehicle Causing Death Careless Use Of Firearm 1 lmpaired Operation Of Aircraft Carrying Concealed Weapon Causing Bodily Harm Causing A Disturbance Causing Bodily Harm By 8 lmpaired Operation Of Aircraft Causing Death Criminal Negligence Causing Death By Criminal D lmpaired Operation Of Vessel NegFigence Causing Bodily Harm Causing Injury With Intent 8 lmpaired Operation Of Vessel Commission Of Offence For Causing Death Terrorist Group r Inciting To Mutiny Common Assault r Infanticide Concealing Dead Body Of 8 Killing Unborn Child In Act Of Child Birth lntimidation Of Parliament Or 8 Manslaughter Legislature Murder Offensive Weapons And 8 Piracy Explosive Substances On 8 Piratical Acts Aircraft 8 Prison Breach Possession Of Weapon At 8 Prize Fights Public Meeting Rioting Possession Of Explosive Seizing Control Of Ship Or Substance Without Lawful Fixed Platform Excuse Criminal Harassment Threats Causing Damage Or Cruelty To Animals lnjury On Ship Or Fixed Discharging A Firearm, Air Platform Gun, Or Air Pistol With Intent Towing Person After Dark By Disturbing The Occupants Of Vessel A Dwelling House Treason Facilitating Terrorist Activity Using Explosive (Causing Forcible Confinement Injury With Intent) Forcible Entry And Detainer Harassing Telephone Calls Hostage Taking Injuring Or Endangering Animals Other Than Cattle lnstructing To Carry Out Activity For Terrorist Group lnstructing To Carry Out Terrorist Activity lntimidation Of A Person lntimidation Of Employees Keeping Cockpit Kidnapping Omitting To Prevent Treason overcoming Resistance To Participation In Activity Of Terrorist Group Peace Officer Failing To Suppress Riot Pointing A Firearm Possession Elsewhere Than At Place Authorized Possession Of Weapon Or Imitation For Dangerous Purpose Public Incitement Of Hatred Resisting Or Obstructing A Peace Officer Resisting Or Obstructing A Public Officer Sabotage Seditious Offences Supplying Noxious Things For Purposes Of Miscarriage Threatening To Commit Offence Against Internationally Protected Person Torture Traps Likely To Cause Bodily Harm Unlawfully Causing Bodily Harm Uttering Threats Relating To Animals Uttering Threats Relating To Persons Uttering Threats Relating To Property ~ilkdPromotion Of Hatred Robbery Robbery Extortion Armed Robbery Stopping Mail With Intent To Attempt Robbery Rob Or Search Being In Disguise Arson Arson Arson With Disregard- For Human Life Arson Causing Bodily Harm Arson With Damage To Property Arson Of Own Property Arson For Fraudulent Purpose Arson Due To Negligence Possession Of Incendiary -KEY SIMILAR Material Setting Fire To Other Substance r Setting Fire By Negligence Auto Theft Taking Motor Vehicle Or Automobile Master Keys Vessel Without Consent Records Of Sales Of I--- Automobile Master Keys Fraud Advertising Counterfeit Acknowledging Instrument In Money Or Tokens Of Value False Name ~rok~rReducing Stock By Applying Or Removing Marks Selling For His Own Account Without Authority Conveying Instruments For Being A Corrupt Municipal Coining Or Metals Out Of Official Mint Being A Party To The Selling Credit Card Offences Of Defective Stores To The Criminal Interest Rates Government Breach Of Trust By Public Disposal Of Property To Officer Defraud Creditors Business Person Reporting Falsification Of Prospectus Loss, Destruction, Or Theft Fraud In Relation To Fares Clipping Or Uttering Clipped Fraud In Relation To Coins Minerals Corrupting Of A Municipal Fraud In Relation To Mines Official Frauds Affecting Public Corruption Of Judges, Market Price Members Of Parliament And Frauds On The Government Members Of Provincial Frauds On The Government Legislatures - Accepting - Contractor Subscribing To Bribes Election Fund Corruption Of Judges, Frauds On The Government Members Of Parliament And In Connection With Tenders Members Of Provincial Legislatures - Offering Fraudulent Concealment Of Bribes Title Documents Corruption Of Person Fraudulent Disposal Of Employed In The Goods On Which Money Administration Of Criminal Advanced Law - Accepting Bribes Fraudulent Manipulation Of Corruption Of Person Stock Exchange Employed In The Transactions Administration Of Criminal Fraudulent Receipts Under Law - Offering Bribes Bank Act Counterfeit Proclamation, Fraudulent Registration Of Order, Regulation Or Title Appointment Fraudulent Sale Of Real Corruptly Taking Reward For Property Recovery Of Goods Fraudulently Obtaining Counterfeiting Mark Transportation Counterfeiting Stamp Damaging Documents Fraudulently Uttering COG Gaming In Stocks Or utterinfiefaced Coin Merchandise Destroying Documents Of Making Advertisement In Title Likeness Of Bank Note Or Drawing Or Using Security Documents Without Authority Making Counterfeit Money False Certificate Or Declaration Making, Having, Or Dealing False Certified Copies In Instruments For False Statements In Writing Counterfeiting False Statements To Procure Obtaining Carriage By False Firearms Acquisition Billing Certificate Possession Of Counterfeit False Statements To Procure Money Passport Possession Of Filings Or Falsely Claiming Royal Clippings Warrant Prohibiting Or Printing Falsification Of Book, Paper, Likeness Of Bank Note Or Writing, Valuable Security Or Security Document Trader Or Businessman Falsification Of Employment Failing To Keep Accounts Record Trafficking Or Dealing In Falsification Of Statement Or Counterfeit Money Or Return Of Public Officer Tokens Of Value Forgery Using Mails To Defraud Forgery Of Exchequer Bill Uttering Or Exporting Paper, Revenue Paper And Counterfeit Money Bank Note Paper Forgery Of Passport Forgery Of Seal Of Public Body Or Authority Forging A Trade Mark Fraud Fraudulent Concealment Fraudulently Obtaining Food And Lodging Fraudulently Taking Cattle Or Defacing Brand Influencing Appointments Influencing Municipal Official Instrument, Writing Or Material Adapted And Intended To Be Used In Forgery Interfering With Boundary Lines Of Land lnterfering With Boundary Marks Placed By Land Surveyor SIMILAR --- Interfering With International, ~rovincis,County, Or Municipal Boundary Line Keeping A Place For Dealing In Off ices Misleading Receipt Negotiating Appointments Obtaining Anything By lnstrument Based On Forge Document Obtaining Execution Of Valuable Security By Fraud Offences In Relation To Wreck Passing Off Personation At An Examination Personation With Intent To Gain Property Or Advantage Or Cause Disadvantage Possession Of Forged Passport Possession Of lnstrument For Forging Trade Mark Purchasing Office Reconditions Goods Records Of Transaction In Firearms Records Of Transaction In Restricted Or Prohibited Weapons Secret Commissions Selling Defective Stores To The Government Selling Office Slugs And Tokens Tampering With Firearms Acquisition Certificate, Registration Certificate Or Permit Tampering With Serial Number On Firearm Theft By Person Holding Power Of Attorney Theft By Person Required To Account Unlawful Transactions In Public Stores I Using Bottle Or Siphon uttering Forged Document Uttering Forged Passport Prostitution Having Charge Or Being An Inmate Or Being Control Of Place Used Found In A Common Bawdy For Common Bawdy House House I Householder Permitting Keeping Common Bawdy Sexual Activity House I Parent Or Guardian Living On Avails Of Procuring Sexual Activity Prostitution Offence In Relation To Juvenile Prostitution Offence In Relation To Prostitution Procuring Offences Transporting Person To Bawdy House Narcotics Cultivation Of Opium Laundering Proceeds Of Poppy Or ~arihuana Crime Failure To Disclose Theft Of Electricity Or Gas Previous Prescriptions Importing And Exporting Laundering Proceeds Of Trafficking In Controlled Drugs Laundering Proceeds Of Trafficking In Restricted Drug Possession For Purpose Of Trafficking Possession Of Controllec Drug For Trafficking Possession Of Narcotic Possession Of Property Obtained By Trafficking In Controlled Drugs Possession Of Property Obtained By Trafficking In Restricted Drug Possession Of Restrictec Drug 0 ~os~essionOf Restrictec 145 Trafficking Trafficking In A Controlled Drug Trafficking- In Restricted Drug Property Theft Of Cattle Assisting Theft By Husband Offences Theft Over $5,000.00 Or Wife Theft Under $5,000.00 Being Unlawfully In Dwelling House Breaking And Entering And Committing Offence Breaking And Entering With Intent Breaking Out Bringing lnto Canada Property Obtained By Crime Dealing In Marked Lumbering Equipment Instrument Or Devise To Obtain Telecommunication Service Without Payment Obtaining Anything By False Pretenses That May Be The Object Of Theft Obtaining Credit By False Pretences Offences Relating To Lumber And Lumbering Equipment Possession Of Break In lnstruments Possession Of lnstruments For Breaking lnto Coin Operated Device Or Currency Exchange Device Possession Of Mail Items Obtained By Crime Possession Of Property Obtained By Crime Theft By Husband Or Wife Theft From Mail Theft Of Telecommunications Theft By Bailee Of Things Under Seizure Nuisance Fail to Appear Abandoning Child Offences Failure To Attend At Accessory After The Fact Court After Appearing Acquisition Of Firearm Before Court, Justice, Or Without Firearms Acquisition Judge. Certificate -KEY SIMILAR Failure To Attend At Acts Or Omissions Likely To Court When At Large On Cause Mischief Undertaking Or Advertising Means Of Recognizance Causing Abortion Or Failure To Appear Or To Miscarriage Comply With Advertising Means Of Appearance Notice Or Restoring Sexual Virility Or Promise To Appear Curing Venereal Disease Failure To Appear Or To Advertising Reward And Comply With Summons Immunity Allowing Premises To Be Used As Gaming House Or Betting House Altering, Removing Or Concealing Marine Signal Assisting Prisoner Of War To Escape Being At Large Without Lawful Excuse Betting, Pool-Making, And Book Making Bigamy Breach Of Duty Of Care With Explosive Substances Breach Of Probation Order Building Damage Buying Military Stores From Members Of Canadian Forces Or From Deserter Careless Use Of Firearm Carrying On Business In Restricted Weapons Or Ammunition Without Permit Cheating At Play Common Nuisance Compounding lndictable Offence Conspiracy To Commit An Indictable Offence Conspiracy To Prosecute Innocent Person Contravention Of Orders Prohibiting Unlawful Drilling Counseling Commission Of Offence Which Is Not Committed Dangerous Operation Of Aircraft Danaerous O~erationOf SIMILAR Motor Vehicle Dangerous Operation Of Vessel Delivery Of Firearm To Person Without Firearms Acquisition Certificate Delivery Of Restricted Weapon To Person Without Permit Disclosure Of lnformation From Private Communication Disclosure Of lnformation Received From Interception Of Radio Based Telephone Communication Disobeying A Statute Disobeying An Order Of Court Disturbing The Occupants Of A Dwelling House Employer Offence Escaping Lawful Custody Excavation Execution Of Process Extortion By Libel Fabricating Evidence Failing To Stop Aircraft At Scene Of Accident Failing To Stop Vehicle At Scene Of Accident Failure Or Refusal To Provide Sample (Aircraft) Failure Or Refusal To Provide Sample (Motor Vehicle) Failure Or Refusal To Provide Sample (Vessel) Failure To Comply With Condition Of Undertaking Or Recognizance Failure To Comply With Conditions Or Permit Failure To Deliver Up Revoked Certificates Or Permits Failure To Keep Watch On Person Towed By Vessel Failure To Stop Vessel At Scene Of Accident False Alarm Of Fire SIMILAR False Communication Endangering Safe Navigation False Messages False Statements Feigned Marriage Finding Firearm Found In Gaming House Or Betting House Giving Trading Stamps To Purchaser Of Goods Handling Or Storing Of Prohibited Weapon Handling, Shipping, Storage, And Transportation Of Firearms And Ammunition Handling, Storing, Displaying, Advertising, Or Selling By Mail Order Of Restricted Weapon Or Ammunition Impeding Attempt To Save Life Importation Of Restricted Weapon By Person Without Permit Importing Or Delivering Prohibited Weapon Or Part Of Prohibited Weapon lnterception Of Private Communication lnterception Of Radio Based Telephone Communication Interfering With Transportation Facilities Issuing Trading Stamps Keeping A Gaming House Or Betting House Loitering And Obstructing Losing Or Mislaying Restricted Weapon Lotteries And Games Of Chance Prohibited By Law Making Fast A Vessel Or Boat To A Marine Signal Mischief Causing Danger To Life Mischief In Relation To Duty Mischief In Relation To Other $5,000.00 Mischief In Relation To Testamentary Instrument Misconduct In The Execution Of Process Obstructing Justice Obstructing Officiating Clergyman Offences In Connection With Canadian Ships Offences Relating To Affidavits Omitting To Assist Public Officer Or Peace Officer Opening In Ice Operation Of Aircraft While Disqualified Operation Of Aircraft While lmpaired Or With More Than 80 Mg Of Alcohol In Blood Operation Of Motor Vehicle While Disqualified Operation Of Motor Vehicle While lmpaired Or With More Than 80 Mg Of Alcohol In Blood Operation Of Motor Vehicle While lmpaired Or With More Than 80 Mg Of Alcohol In Blood Order Of Prohibition Regarding Children Owning Or Having Custody Of Animal Or Bird While Prohibited Pari-Mutuel Betting Perjury Permitting Or Assisting Escape Person Convicted Of Sexual Offence And Committing Vagrancy Personating A Peace Officer Or A Public Officer Placing Bets On Behalf Of Others Polygamy Possession Elsewhere Than At Place Authorized Interception Possession Of Explosive Substance Without Lawful Excuse Possession Of Firearm, Ammunition, Explosive Substance Or Firearms Acquisition Certificate While Prohibited Possession Of Unregistered Restricted Weapon Pretending To Solemnize Marriage Preventing Or lmpeding The Saving Of A Vessel Preventing Or lmpeding The Saving Of Wreck Prohibited Weapon In Motor Vehicle Public Harbours Public Mischief Public Servant Refusing To Deliver Property Publishing Blasphemous Libel Publishing A Defamatory Libel Publishing A Defamatory Libel Known To Be False Publishing Report Of Admission Or Confession Tendered At Preliminary Inquiry Refusing To Employ Trade Union Members Rescue Or Permitting Escape Restricted Weapon In Motor Vehicle Solemnizing A Marriage Contrary To Law Spreading False News Stink Or Stench Bombs Storing, Displaying, Or Transporting Firearm Contrary To Regulation Supplying Noxious Things For Purposes Of Miscarriage Supporting Oneself By Gaming Or Crime And CATEGORY -KEY Sf MlLAR Committing Vagrancy Tampering With Serial Number On Firearm Telegram, Cablegram Or Radio Message In False Name Tied Sales Towing Person After Dark By Vessel Transfer Of Firearm To Person Under 18 Years Trespassing At Night Unauthorized Use Of Computer Unlawful Use Of Military Uniforms Or Certificates Unsafe Aircraft Unseaworthy Vessel Violation Or Non-Compliance With Race Track Regulation Witchcraft Witness Giving Contradictory Evidence Wrongful Delivery Of Firearms, Ammunition, Or Explosive Substances Wrongful Delivery Of Offensive Weapons, Ammunition, Or Explosive I I Substances Appendix D - Coding Manual The coding process is particularly complex and requires not only attention to detail, but a set of general rules for each step in the coding process as well as a guide on how to deal with most every eventuality. The following coding manual meets these criteria. The document that will be of most utility to the coder is the Finger Print Sheet. It is this sheet that lists all the offenders convictions, in chronological order, and provides information on the date of conviction, the related police report, as well as any acquittals, stays of proceedings or withdrawn offences. A sample of a Finger Print Sheet has been provided at Figure 7. It is upon the Finger Print Sheet that all the coding will be performed, in this sense, the Finger Print Sheet will also become the coder's worksheet. The other document that will be used by the coder is the Security Profile Report, although, it will only be used to determine each offender's date of birth, their commencement date on the current sentence, and the total number of institutional convictions since the commencement of the sentence. Step I - ldentifyng The Youth Cut Off Date Every offender's birth date is listed on the Security Profile Report near the top of the page. Adding eighteen years to this date will result in the youth cut off date, which, is the date prior to which almost all offences will be coded as adult convictions. This date is transposed onto the Finger Print Sheet in the top right hand corner. Then, scan the sequence of criminal convictions and place the youth cut off date in chronological order among the sequence of convictions. Draw a line across the page at this point and label it "Youth Cut Off Line". Most convictions after this date will be coded as adult convictions. There may, however, be some convictions occurring after the youth cut off line, but these will have the designation "Youth Court" in the margin of the Finger Print Sheet. Where this occurs, the youth cut off date or the youth cut off line are not advanced to encompass these offences although the offences will later still be counted as youth offences. Where the youth cut off date falls on the exact same date as a conviction, the youth cut off date doesn't change but the youth cut off line will be drawn across the page in chronological order after the conviction with the same date. The reason for this is that there is typically a delay between offence and conviction, so if a conviction date falls on the exact same day as the youth cut off date the related offence likely occurred when the perpetrator was under the age of 18. There may also be cases of convictions that occur before the youth cut off date but don't have the designation "Youth Court" in the right hand margin. This may simply be a clerical omission by the CPlC operator, or it might also indicate an offence perpetrated as a youth but proceeded with in adult court. Regardless, neither the youth cut off date nor the youth cut off line should be moved as a result, and the offence will still be counted as a youth offence. Step 2 - Identifying And Coding Convictions And Stays Of Proceedings On the far left hand side of the Finger Print Sheet, draw two parallel columns, of about a half an inch per column. Next, start at the beginning of the Finger Print Sheet, with the earliest conviction, and code every single offence according to its offence category as detailed in Appendix C. This will likely be the most tedious part of the coder's job, but will become less problematic as the coder becomes familiar with which offence category each type of offence belongs to. 154 The coder will note that near the end of the Finger Print Sheet is the line "*SUMMARY OF POLICE INFORMATION - NOT INTENDED FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES." The offences listed after this point did not normally result in convictions, and are often reflect stays of proceedings, acquittals, findings of not guilty, or other court dispositions. Although these distinctions will be important later during the coding process, for now these will be coded as if they were convictions. Using the symbols contained in Table 19, code every single offence on the Finger Print Sheet ensuring that Table 19: Offence Cateqorv Svm & OFFENCE CATEGORY RELATED SIGN Property Offences Violent Offences Sexual Offences Robbery Narcotics Offences Prostitution Fraud Auto Theft Nuisance Offences Arson there are as many symbols as there are offences. Pay particular attention to multiple convictions for there is often only one entry on the Finger Print Sheet followed by a notation such as "2 counts1'.Count all the convictions as they appear on the Finger Print Sheet regardless of stays of proceedings, numbers of police reports, or the surrounding convictions with the same conviction date. Place the appropriate symbol in the column just to the left of the convictions being coded. The following example shows what the Finger Print Sheet should look like at the conclusion of this stage of coding. Fiqure 7: Codinq the Finqer Print Sheet *CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS CONDITIONAL AND ABSOLUTE DISCHARGES *AND RELATED INFORMATION 0 1971-10-14 POSS OF A NARCOTIC SEC 3(1) NC $250 I-D 60 DAYS - 1 YR CHILLIWACK BC ACT PROBATION 1972-02-16 POSS OF A NARCOTIC NC ACT MONTHS VANCOUVER BC 0 1972-03-13 POSS OF NARCOTIC SEC 3 (1) NC 6 MOS DEF AND 18 MOS INDEF CHILLIWACK BC ACT 0 1973-09-24 TRESPASS AT NIGHT 15 DAYS CHILLIWACK BC CC (RCMP 73-1893) 1980-03-11 POSS OF NARCOTICS FOR THE MOS LEDUC ALTA PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING SEC 4(2) NC ACT 0 1981-09-25 POSS OF NARCOTIC SEC 3 (1) NC $100 I-D 10 DAYS EDMONTON ALTA ACT 0 1983-08-10 POSS OF A NARCOTIC $100 I-D 7 DAYS VANCOWER BC SEC 3(1) NC ACT (VPD 83-419) 1983-10-06 (1) PERSONATION WITH INTENT (1-2) 1 DAY & $250 I-D 7 DAYS VANCOWER BC SEC 361 CC ON EACH CHG (2) POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 312(1) (A) CC 1986-09-24 (1) CONSPIRE TO TRAFFIC IN (1) 3 0 YRS VANCOWER BC NARCOTICS (2) CONSPIRE TO IMPORT (2) 16 YRS CONC NARCOTICS APPEALED (KENT INST AGASSIZ) 1988-10-24 SENT VARIED ON APPEAL FOR CHG (2) TO 14 YRS 1997-05-23 POSS OF PROPERTY OBTAINED TIME SERVED (1 DAY) VANCOWER BC BY CRIME OVER $5000 SEC 355 (A) CC (RCMP RICHMOND 97-438) (1) PERSONATION WITH INTENT (1-2) 1 DAY & $250 I-D 7 DAYS VANCOWER BC SEC 361 CC ON EACH CHG (2) POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 312(1) (A) CC (VPD 97-499) 1997-06-23 (1) OBSTRUCT PEACE OFFICER (1-2) 0 30 DAYS ON EACH CHG CONC 0 NEW WESTMINSTER SEC 129 (A) CC BC (2 CHGS) (NEW WESTMINSTER PS 97-290) (2) POSS OF NARCOTIC SEC 3(1) NC ACT (2 CHGS) (NEW WESTMINSTER PS 97-355) *END OF CONVICTIONS AND DISCHARGES *SUMMARY OF POLICE INFORMATION - NOT INTENDED FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES 1971-11-24 CHILLIWACK BC POSS OF A RESTRICTED DRUG STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1972-03-09 CHILLIWACK BC POSS OF NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 0 1973-09-24 INDECENT EXPOSURE SEC 169(A) 15 DAYS STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CHILLIWACKBC CC (RCMP 73-1893) 1975-09-24 OCEAN FALLS BC THEFT UNDER $200 CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE - 12 MOS PROBATION 0 1976-07-30 VANCOUVER BC 0 FAIL TO REMAIN AT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT - FAIL TO APPEAR - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS A 1978-02-10 EDMONTON ALTA A THEFT OVER $200 - POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY OVER $200 0 FAIL TO APPEAR - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS v 1980-09-23 EDMONTON ALTA POSS OF NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - CONSPIRE TO TRAFFIC A NARCOTIC - 27 MOS - CONVICTION QUASHED ON APPEAL 1984-11-02 SURREY BC CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT & TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS (7 CHGS), POSS OF NARCOTICS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1985-07-26 VANCOUVER BC POSS OF A NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1997-06-06 VANCOWER BC PERSONATION WITH INTENT - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS VANCOWER (VPD 97-499) 160 1997-06-23 NEW WESTMINSTER ASSAULT (2 CHGS) (NEW WESTMINSTER PS 97-290) *END OF POLICE INFORMATION 2002041110384320020411103844 Step 3 - Identifying Convictions Associated With Stays The researcher must now review the Finger Print Sheet to find examples where any conviction shares the same date andlor police report number with a stay of proceedings. In the example provided, there are four instances where a conviction is associated with a stay of proceedings. The first instance occurred on 1973-09-24 and involved a conviction for Trespass at Night, plus a stay of proceedings for Indecent Exposure. The second instance occurred on 1997-06-06 and involved convictions for Personation with Intent, and Possession Stolen Property in association with a stay of proceedings for Personation with Intent. The third example occurred on 1997-06-23 and involved convictions for 2 x Obstruct Peace Officer and 2 x Possession Narcotic. Once all such occurrences have been identified, it is time to reconsider the coding of each conviction in light of whether: 1) it is a stand alone conviction; 2) whether it is associated with a stay of proceedings; 3) whether it occurs as part of a string of other convictions; and 3) the combination of Key and Similar offences according to the composition of Offence Categories document. This is a fairly complex process but the end result is that instead of convictions, the researcher will wind up with coded events. Step 4 - Recoding Stand Alone Convictions Not Associated With Stays In the case of a stand-alone conviction without any associated stay of proceedings, the conviction would retain the original coding and would constitute a single event. For instance, using the Finger Print Sheet provided, the conviction for Possession of Narcotic that occurred on 1971-1 0-1 4 was coded as a narcotics offence v.The conviction is not associated with any stay of proceedings, and doesn't exist as part of a string of convictions occurring on the same date. Consequently, the conviction is a stand alone conviction and retains its' original coding. It is important to note that it is only the conviction that gets considered for re-coding. Under no circumstances is any stay of proceedings ever re-coded. Fiqure 8: Recodinq the Stand Alone Conviction EVENTS CONVICTIONS *CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS CONDITIONAL AND ABSOLUTE DISCHARGES *AND RELATED INFORMATION 1971-10-14 POSS OF A NARCOTIC SEC 3(1) NC $250 I-D 60 DAYS - 1 YR CHILLIWACK BC ACT PROBATION This single conviction represents a single event. The situation can, however, become more complicated when the convictions: 1) occur in association with a stay of proceedings; or, 2) in a string of other offences; or, 3) in a string of offences associated with a stay of proceedings. Each of these will be discussed in turn. Step 5 - Recoding Stand Alone Convictions Associated With Stays In the case of a stand-alone conviction associated with a stay of proceedings it is necessary to determine whether the two offences are related to a single event. If the two offences have the same police report number and/or the same date then they are likely related to a single event. Where this is the case, it is then necessary to determine if the conviction and stay of proceedings are Key or Similar offences. To do this, the coder must refer to Appendix C, again, for it also details whether a conviction is a Key or Similar Offence. There are several possible combinations between the conviction and stay of proceedings being a Key or Similar offence in any of the ten offence categories. For instance, the conviction could be a Key Offence and the stay a Similar Offence, or vice versa. They could both be Similar Offences, or they could both be Key Offences. The following table details the coding actions required for each possible combination. Table 20: Codinq Stand Alone Convictions Associated With Stavs CONVICTION STAY CODING ACTION Key Offence (Non- Key Offence (Same offence Code as per stay Nuisance) category) Key Offence (Non Key Offence (Other offence Code as per stay Nuisance) category, but non-Nuisance) Key Offence (Non- Key Offence (Nuisance Code as per conviction Nuisance) Category) Key Offence (Non- Similar Offence (Same Code as per conviction Nuisance) offence category) Key Offence (Non Similar Offence (Other Code as per conviction Nuisance) offence category,- - but non - Nuisance) Key Offence (Non- Similar Offence (Nuisance Code as per conviction Nuisance) Offence Category) Key Offence (Nuisance Key Offence (Nuisance Code as per stay - Offence Category) offence category) Table 20: Stand Alone Convictions Associated with Stavs (continued) I Key Offence (Nuisance Key Offence (Other offence Code as per stay. offence category) category) Key Offence (Nuisance Similar Offence (Same Code as per stay Offence Category) offence category) Key Offence (Nuisance Similar Offence (Other Code as per stay offence category) offence category) Similar Offence (Non Key Offence (Same offence Code as per stay I Nuisance Offence category) Category) I Similar Offence (Non Key Offence (Other offence Code as per stay I Nuisance Offence category but non Nuisance Category) Offence Category) Similar Offence (Non Key Offence (Nuisance Code as per conviction I Nuisance offeke Offence) Category) Similar Offence (Non Similar Offence (Same Code as per stay Nuisance Offence offence category) Similar Offence (Non Similar Offence (Other Code as per stay Nuisance Offence offence category- - but non - Nuisance Similar Offence (Nuisance Code as per conviction Nuisance Offence Offence category) Category) I Similar Offence (Nuisance Key Offence (Same offence Code as per stay Offence Category) category) Similar Offence (Nuisance Key Offence (Other offence Code as per stay Offence Category) category) Similar Offence (Nuisance Similar Offence (Same Code as per stay Offence Category) offence category) Similar Offence (Nuisance Similar Offence (Other Code as per stay I Offence Category) offence category) To illustrate the process, the Finger Print Sheet that was provided has an example of a stand-alone conviction associated with a stay of proceedings. This occurs on 1973-09-24 and involved a conviction for Trespass at Night along with a stay of proceedings for Indecent Exposure. Both offences share the same date and the same police report so it is likely that they are related to the same event. The Trespass at Night conviction was coded as belonging to the Nuisance Offence category 0, and the composition of Offence Categories document at Appendix C indicates that it is a Similar 164 Offence. By comparison, the charge for Indecent Exposure is a Similar Offence in the Sexual Offences category 0. Looking at this combination of characteristics in the previous table, it is evident that where the conviction is a Similar or Key Offence in the Nuisance Offence category it must be coded according to the offence category of the stay of proceedings. Consequently, the conviction for Trespass at Night must be recoded as a single sexual conviction. As it is the only conviction occurring on that date, it will then also be recorded a sexual event as illustrated in Figure 9. Fiqure 9: Recodinq the Stand Alone Conviction Associated with a Stay EVENTS CONVICTIONS *CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS CONDITIONAL AND ABSOLUTE DISCHARGES *AND RELATED INFORMATION 1973-09-24 TRESPASS AT NIGHT 15 DAYS CHILLIWACK BC CC (RCMP 73-1893) Step 6 - Recoding A String Of Convictions With No Stays Of Proceedings If the conviction is not alone, but rather part of a string of offences occurring on the same day, then the researcher must determine how many police reports are associated with the string of offences. If there are no police reports listed, or if there is only one, then it can be assumed that all the convictions in the string are related to a single criminal event. This is particularly true where the sentence meted out was a concurrent sentence as opposed to a consecutive sentence. The researcher will then scan all the offences in the string to see if any of them are Key Offences for it is the Key Offences that will usually determine the coding for the rest of the convictions in the string unless the Key Offence falls into the Nuisance Offence category. Where there is only one Key Offence in other than the Nuisance Offence Category, it will determine the offence category of each of the other convictions in the string. Where there are more than one Key Offence in other than the Nuisance Offence category, they will co-exist. If there are any Similar Offences in the string with the same offence category as any of the Key Offences, the Similar Offences will retain their resident offence category. All other Similar Offences, and all Nuisance Offences will then be divided evenly among the offence categories of the Key Offences. If there is one left over after these 'leftovers' are divided, the extra will go to the most dominant offence category among the Key Offences. If there is a tie for the most dominant offence category, then the extra 'leftover' will be given to whichever of the tied offence categories appears first in anticipated prevalence according to Table 4. Similarly, if after being divided up, there is one too few 'leftovers', the offence category that gets short changed is the one that is least dominant among the Key Offences. In the case of a tie, it will be the offence category that appears last in Table 4 that gets short - changed. This coding is perhaps best understood as hierarchy or a card game where Key Offences in all categories but the Nuisance Offence category are the trump cards. Table 21 details this hierarchy. Table 21: Hierarchv of Kev and Similar Offences, Stavs and Convictions 1 Key Offence (non-nuisance) as a stay 2 Key Offence (non-nuisance) as a conviction 3 Similar Offence (non-nuisance) as a stay 4 Similar Offence (non-nuisance) as a conviction 5 Key Offence (nuisance) as a stay 6 Key Offence (nuisance) as a conviction 7 Similar Offence (nuisance) as a stay 8 Similar Offence (nuisance) as a conviction In the Finger Print Sheet provided, there is a single example of an offence string with Key Offences. This involves the convictions for 2 x Conspire to Traffic in Narcotics which occurred on 1986-09-24. Both of these offences belong to the Narcotics Offence category and were coded accordingly v.As they are also both Key Offences in the Narcotics Offence category they each constitute a single event, and they retain their original coding as is the case with Key Offences in all categories except the Nuisance Offence category. If there are no Key Offences other than those in the Nuisance Offence category, then each conviction in the string is coded according to the offence category in which it is a Similar Offence with the exception of the Nuisance Offences which get divided up evenly among the offence categories of the Similar Offences. Using the Finger Print Sheet provided, there is a single example of an offence string that doesn't have Key Offences and that is not associated with stays of proceedings. This occurred on 1983- 10-06 and involved convictions for Personation with Intent and Possession of Stolen Property. In this example, the conviction of Personation with Intent is a Similar Offence falling into the Fraud Offence category L--V , and the conviction for Possession of Stolen Property is a Similar Offence falling into the Property Offences category A. In the absence of a Key Offence in anything other than the Nuisance Offence category, these are coded according to their own offence category and as separate events as demonstrated in Figure 10. Fiqure 10: Recodina Convictions in a Strinq Not Associated with Stavs EVENTS CONVICTION VANCOUVER BC SEC 361 CC ON EACH CHG (2) POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 312 (1)(A) CC If in a string of offences there is but a single Key Offence belonging to any offence category other than the Nuisance Offence category, then every conviction in the string is coded according to the offence category of the Key Offence and together they all constitute a single event. If a string has nothing but Key Offences then these will be coded according to the offence category of each Key Offence, excepting the Nuisance Offence category, and will result in as many events as there are Key Offences that don't fall into the Nuisance Offence category. The Nuisance Category Offences are then divided up equally among the offence categories of the other Key Offences. Step 7 - Recoding A String Associated With A Stay At this point, the sheer volume of possible combinations between the characteristics of conviction, and the associated stay of proceedings is beyond mere discussion. Consequently, a Coding Matrix has been attached as Appendix E, and provides direction on coding most any situation. The Coding Matrix has five columns. The first four involve a description of the situation the coder is trying to code, whereas the fifth column provides the coding solution for the chosen situation. Rather than explaining the process in greater detail, the Coding Matrix is the most expedient way of undertaking what is a particularly complex process. Most of the possible combinations of offence categories, Key and Similar Offences, stays of proceedings, convictions, offence strings and single criminal events have been incorporated into a Coding Matrix that has been attached to this report. To look up any scenario or combination of these components, start in the left hand column of the Coding Matrix and locate whether your scenario involves a lone conviction, or a conviction that occurs as part of a string. Then, move to the second column on the same row and move down the column until you find whether you are dealing with a single police report or more than one. Repeat this process for each of the columns until you have identified the number of police reports, the number and type of Key Offences, and the number and type of stays of proceedings you are dealing with. Once this has been determined there will be a recommended coding action. The rationale behind the Coding Matrix derives from the hierarchy presented in Table 21, and the beliefs that: 1) stays of proceedings are generally as good or better an indicator of the true nature of the final conviction than the conviction itself; and 2) by comparison to Similar Offences, Key Offence convictions are less prone to the vagaries of charge selection, and plea-bargaining. After completely recoding all the convictions into the appropriate type and number of events, the Finger Print Sheet will look like Figure 11. Fiqure 11: Recodinq the Finqer Print Sheet EVENTS CONVICTION *CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS CONDITIONAL AND ABSOLUTE DISCHARGES *AND RELATED INFORMATION 1971-10-14 POSS OF A NARCOTIC SEC 3(1) 0 0 NC $250 I-D 60 DAYS - 1 YR CHILLIWACK BC ACT PROBATION 1972-02-16 POSS OF A NARCOTIC NC ACT 0 6 MONTHS VANCOUVER BC 1972-03-13 POSS OF NARCOTIC SEC 3 (1) NC 0 0 6 MOS DEF AND 18 MOS INDEF CHILLIWACK BC ACT TRESPASS AT NIGHT 15 DAYS CHILLIWACK BC CC (RCMP 73-1893) 1980-03-11 POSS OF NARCOTICS FOR THE 0 0 2 MOS LEDUC ALTA PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING SEC 4(2) NC ACT 0 0 1981-09-25 POSS OF NARCOTIC SEC 3 (1) NC $100 I-D 10 DAYS EDMONTON ALTA ACT 1983-08-10 POSS OF A NARCOTIC $100 I-D 7 DAYS 1983-10-06 (1) PERSONATION WITH INTENT (1-2) 1 DAY & $250 I-D 7 DAYS VANCOWER BC SEC 361 CC ON EACH CHG (2) POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 312(1) (A) CC 1986-09-24 (1) CONSPIRE TO TRAFFIC IN (1) 3 YRS VANCOWER BC NARCOTICS (2) CONSPIRE TO IMPORT (2) 16 YRS CONC NARCOTICS (2) - APPEALED (KENT INST AGASSIZ) 1988-10-24 A SENT VARIED ON APPEAL FOR CHG (2) TO 14 YRS 1997-05-23 POSS OF PROPERTY OBTAINED TIME SERVED (1 DAY) VANCOWER BC BY CRIME OVER $5000 SEC 355 (A) CC (RCMP RICHMOND 1997-06-06 (1) PERSONATION WITH INTENT (1-2) 1 DAY & $250 I-D 7 DAYS VANCOWER BC SEC 361 CC ON EACH CHG (2) POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY SEC 312(1) (A) CC (VPD 97-499) 1997-06-23 (1) OBSTRUCT PEACE OFFICER (1-2) 30 DAYS ON EACH CHG CONC NEW WESTMINSTER SEC 129 (A) CC (2 CHGS) (NEW WESTMINSTER PS (2) POSS OF NARCOTIC SEC 3(1) NC ACT (2 CHGS) (NEW WESTMINSTER PS 97-355) *END OF CONVICTIONS AND DISCHARGES *SUMMARY OF POLICE INFORMATION - NOT INTENDED v FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES 1971-11-24 CHILLIWACK BC POSS OF A RESTRICTED DRUG STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1972-03-09 CHILLIWACK BC 172 POSS OF NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1973-09-24 INDECENT EXPOSURE SEC 169(A) 15 DAYS STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CHILLIWACK BC CC (RCMP 73-1893) 1975-09-24 OCEAN FALLS BC THEFT UNDER $200 CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE - 12 MOS PROBATION 1976-07-30 VANCOWER BC FAIL TO REMAIN AT THE SCENE OF AN ACCIDENT - FAIL TO APPEAR - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1978-02-10 EDMONTON ALTA THEFT OVER $200 - POSS OF STOLEN PROPERTY OVER $200 FAIL TO APPEAR - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1980-09-23 EDMONTON ALTA POSS OF NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - e CONSPIRE To TRAFFIC A NARCOTIC - 27 MOS - CONVICTION QUASHED ON APPEAL 1984-11-02 SURREY BC CONSPIRACY TO IMPORT & TRAFFIC IN NARCOTICS (7 CHGS) , POSS OF NARCOTICS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1985-07-26 VANCOWER BC POSS OF A NARCOTIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAFFICKING - ._ STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 1997-06-06 VANCOWER BC PERSONATION WITH INTENT - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS VANCOWER (VPD 97 - 4 99 ) 1997-06-23 NEW WESTMINSTER ASSAULT ( 2 CHGS ) (NEW WESTMINSTER PS 97-290) *END OF POLICE INFORMATION 2002041110384320020411103844 Step 8 - Identifying Career Phases Once all events have been coded, it is then time to determine the number of career phases that an offender has. The coder will need to start at the last conviction on the Finger Print Sheet, just before the line that reads "*END OF CONVICTIONS AND DISCHARGES - *SUMMARY OF POLICE INFORMATION - NOT INTENDED FOR SENTENCING PURPOSES." Starting from this point and moving toward the front of the Finger Print Sheet, the coder will look for instances where there are three or more convictions in a row from the same offence category. A career phase must consist of at least three convictions, but the coder must be mindful not to start or end a career phase partway through a string of offences all with the same date of conviction. It is, however, acceptable for a string of like convictions to constitute a career phase, it is just that no string can be divided in order to make a career phase. The coder should circle the instances where there are three or more like criminal convictions in a row, without dividing any string of convictions with the same conviction date. There are three possibilities that flow from this exercise: 1) if there is but a single circle extending the length of the Finger Print Sheet from the first to last conviction, then all of these convictions will belong to a single offence category, and the offender will be a traditional offence specialist. 2) if there are concentric circles extending uninterrupted from the first to last conviction, then there will be as many career phases as there are circles, and the offender will be a complete specialist. 3) if there are concentric circles extending uninterrupted from the last conviction until a conviction occurring prior to the offender's 25thbirthday, then this offender will be an adult specialist with as many career phases as there are circles; and 4) if the circles are non-existent or don't stretch uninterrupted from the last conviction until at least the offender's 25thbirthday, then the offender is likely a generalist and not a specialist. This will, however, require a second look. Looking now at the offenders that weren't initially identified as being specialists, re-review their Finger Print Sheet to see if it is possible to link any of the circles together For instance, using the Finger Print Sheet depicted in Table 11, it is clear that at the beginning of the career and stretching from 197111011 4 to 1983108110 there are three convictions for Narcotics Offences followed by a conviction for a Sex Offence, and then three more convictions for Narcotics Offences. Each set of three Narcotics Offences should have been circled as possible career phases, not unlike the depiction in Figure 12. Fiqure 12: Recodinq the Finqer Print Sheet NARC NARC SEX During the first review of the Finger Print Sheet for career phases, the scenario depicted in Figure 12 would not have resulted in the identification of a specialist because it appears as if the single Sex Offence has precluded the requirement for concentric circles extending from the last conviction on the Finger Print Sheet until at least the offender's 25thbirthday. However, the minimum requirement for a career phase is not just three like convictions, but a 75% offence density. That means, that in any career phase with four offences, only three have to be like offences. As in the scenario depicted in Table 12, the fourth 'unlike' conviction could be the transition offence that connects one career phase to the other and extends the concentric circles the necessary distance, as depicted in Figure 13, where there are now two career phases consisting of Narcotics Offences. Fiaure 13: Recodina the Finqer Print Sheet 75% OFFENCE DENSTTY 75% OFFENCE DENSITY These transitions are fine as long as they occur at the beginning or end of the career phase, and so long as the 'unlike' offences in any career phase do not exceed 25% of all the offences in the phase. Overall, the identification of career phases requires six different steps as outlined in Table 22. Table 22: Summarizinq the Search for Distinct Career Phases DESCRIPTION The first step is to code each conviction on the offender's Finger Print Sheet using- the ten offence categories, and without concern for strings of offences, stays of proceedings, or Key and Similar Offences. Here, it is the criminal convictions that are coded. The second step is go over all the offences one more time, this time being mindful of the impact of stays of proceedings, Key Offences, Similar Offences, and conviction strings. In particular, it is necessary to identify instances where stays of proceedings and convictions or conviction strings occur on the same date andlor as part of the same police report In this step. Recode the convictions in light of these considerations, and then translate these into events. Obviously, there will frequently be fewer events on each Finger Print Sheet than there are convictions. Scan the criminal history again, identifying periods of time in which there are least three criminal events from the same offence category, and in which these events constitute at least 75% of all events in the timeframe or range. Periods with less than three events cannot be considered a career phase because no pattern or real commitment to a single offence category can be determined. Three events is also considered reasonable when one considers that the length of sentences dispensed for repeated incidents of murder, robbery, or sexual assault may only allow a person to commit three of these types of offences during a lifetime. Identify each of these periods of time as a possible career phase. Within each of these potential career phases the most frequently represented offence category will be known as the dominant offence category. Table 22: Summarizinq the Search for Distinct Career Phases (continued) In step four, start from the last conviction on the Finger Print Sheet and review back into history for as long as there is an uninterrupted sequence of potential career phases. At any point where there is a break, check to see if with the use of transition phases it might be possible to extend a career phase to bridge the gaps between career phases. As long as there are concentric career phases extending from the last conviction until at least the offender's 25thbirthday, the offender will be considered specialized. Figures 14 through 16 provide graphic representations of career phases for each of the traditional, complete, and adult specialists as well as some examples of acceptable and unacceptable career phase transitions. In Figure 14, each of the three examples shows how traditional specialists have only one career phase (one circle) that stretches the duration of the criminal career. By comparison, Figure 15 demonstrates several concentric circles spanning the duration of the criminal career. This is also acceptable, and identifies the complete specialist. The adult specialist also has multiple concentric circles but instead of stretching the duration of the criminal career, it only stretches from the last conviction to somewhere prior to the offender's 25thbirthday. Figure 16 refers. Finally, Figure 17 demonstrates a few examples of acceptable and unacceptable career transitions. These career transitions can assist in linking concentric circles from the end of the career, until some point before the 25thbirthday. To illustrate, in a career Fiqure 15: Career Examples of the Complete Specialist Start of C~imkalCareer Youth - Atlulthoarl Transition DivorceiDeatll of Parent Mid-Life Transition Retirement Age 18 I Age 25 I I I I I I I Example #1- The Completely specialized Offeirder nnnn- -Inn-n Sex I Sex I Fraud I ~rill~dI~raud I Fraud I .ksm I AnonIArson hsm I~llpft x ~hea uuuuu3 uuuuuu I Example $2 - The Co~npletelySpecialized Offender nnh nn-mnnn Fraud IFraud I~raudI Fraud Sex Sen 8er I Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I CUUI IUUUUUUU Eraml~le#3 - The Completely Specialized Offender Exalnple M - The Completely Specialized Offender Fiaure 16: Career Examples of the Adult Specialist Start of Ciimhal Career Youth - Adzdthood Trzutsition DivorcedI4eat.h of Parent &Ed-Life Transition Reti Age 18 i Age 25 I I I I I I Exmnple $1 - The Mzdt Specialized Qffender 1-innnn nn-innn TlwR I Sex I Fraud ~rnudI~raud I Fraud I Arson =ArsonIArson IArson IT11aft r ~hea uuuuu 3uuuuuu Example $2 - The Adult Specialized Offender nnmnnnn Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I Sex I uu uuuuuuu I Example #3 - The Adult Specialized Offender nmnnm Arson I &ran IArson hron I~heft@ r Theg Cuuuuu phase of only three consecutive and like offences, the transition phase cannot consist of any more than a single offence. In example #I of Figure 17, it is evident that there is a conviction for auto theft that serves as the transition between the first career phase where the allegiance is toward sex offending, and the second career phase where the dominant offence is robbery. In this case, whether the transition offence counts as part of the first or second career phase is immaterial as the dominant offence type would still account for at least 75% of all offences within the career phase. It is, however, important that within any career phase all of the transitional offences occur at the end or beginning of the phase, as is consistent with a transitional period, instead of being scattered throughout the entire career phase. In addition to each career phase requiring at least a 75% prevalence of the dominant offence type, it is also necessary that all the offences in all the career phases amount to at least 95% of all the offences in the adult offending range. For example, in example #3 of Figure 17 there are three career phases consisting of sexual offences, auto offences, and sexual offences respectively. The three career phases are followed by another two convictions for robbery but these don't constitute a career phase because there must be at least three consecutive like offences for a career phase. It is, however, possible that this offender is in the middle of a fourth career phase and if allowed to continue the offender would have engaged in a third robbery. This is especially worthy of consideration in cases where an offender has already demonstrated a strong level of commitment over several career phases. To account for this possibility a bit of leeway has been granted. Instead of requiring that all offences between the onset of specialization and the last offence on the Finger Print Sheet be part of a career phase, the requirement has been reduced to 95%. Thus, if an offender already has 18 offences contained in various career phases then it is possible to have an additional two offences left over at the end of the career and still be considered specialized. Looking at example #5 in Figure 17, it is evident that this offender has two offences that are not contained in a career phase, by comparison to 15 offences that are contained in a career phase. This falls short of the 95% requirement and precludes this from being an offence specialist. In contrast, the offender in example #4 is an offence specialist because the two offences left over at the end of the career constitute less than 5% of the 18 dominant and transitional offences contained within career phases. Thus, 95% of all offences are contained within career phases and substantiate the designation of offence specialist. Appendix E - Coding Matrix KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Key Offence (non- I Multi~leKev Code the conviction according to nuisance) offences, of the the offence category of the stays same offence category (non- nuisance) Key Offence (non- All Key Offences Code the conviction according to nuisance) of the same the offence category of the offence category-. conviction. (nuisance) Key Offence (non- All Key Offences, Code the conviction according to nuisance) some nuisance, the dominant offence category of some non- the Key Offences among the stays (non-nuisance) KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES Code the conviction according to iuisance) only, all belong to its' own resident offence category the same offence category (non- nuisance) Code the conviction according to of the same the dominant offence category of offence category the Key Offences (non-nuisance), (non-nuisance) among the stays Key Offence (nuisance) All Key Offences Code the conviction according to of the same the dominant offence category offence category among the Key Offences among (nuisance) the stays Key Offence (nuisance) All Key Offences, Code the conviction according to some nuisance, the dominant offence category some non- among the Key Offences (non- nuisance). amona the stays, KEYISIMILAR 3 0 STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES Key Offence (nuisance) category (non- stays Key Offence (nuisance) I Key Offence (nuisance) KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES Code the conviction according to nuisance) of the same the dominant offence category in offence category the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays Code the conviction according to nuisance) of the same its' own resident offence category offence category I (nuisance) Similar Offence (non- I All Key Offences, Code the conviction according to nuisance) some nuisance, the dominant offence category in some non- the Key Offences (non-nuisance) amona the stavs Similar Offence (non- I Similar Offences Code the conviction according to nuisance) only, all belong to the most dominant offence category the same offence of the Similar Offences (non- category (non- nuisance) among the stays nuisance) Similar Offence (non- Similar Offences Code the conviction according to nuisance) only, all belong to its' own resident offence category the same offence 1 88 KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES category (nuisance) Similar Offence (non- Similar Offences Code the conviction according to nuisance) only, some belong the most dominant offence category to the Nuisance of the Similar Offences (non- Offence category, nuisance) among the stays some do not All Key Offences Code the conviction according to (nuisance) of the same the most dominant offence category offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) (non-nuisance) among the stays Similar Offence All Key Offences Code the conviction according to (nuisance) of the same the offence category of the stays offence category- - (nuisance) Similar Offence All Key Offences, Code the conviction according to (nuisance) some nuisance, the most dominant offence category some non- in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION (nuisance) only, all belong to the most dominant offence category the same offence (non-nuisance) in the Similar category (non- Offences among the stays nuisance) Similar Offence Similar Offences Code the conviction according to (nuisance) only, all belong to the most dominant offence category the same offence in the Similar Offences among the category stays (nuisance) - Similar Offence Similar Offences Code the conviction according to (nuisance) only, some belong the most dominant offence category to the Nuisance (non-nuisance) in the Similar Offence category, Offences among the stays some do not ;ode the convictions according to he same offence >f the same he most dominant offence category (string) :ategory (non- lffence category n the Key Offences (non-nuisance) iuisance non-nuisance imong the stays -I -I dl;ode the convictions according to he same offence I of the same I their own resident offence category 190 KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION category (non- offence category nuisance) (nuisance) All Key Offences, all in All Key Offences, Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence some nuisance, the most dominant offence category (string) category (non- some non- in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays All Key Offences, all in Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence only, all belong to their own resident offence category category (non- the same offence [string) nuisance) category (non- nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Similar Offences Code the convictions according to the same offence only, all belong to their own resident offence category category (non- the same offence nuisance) category (nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Similar Offences Code the convictions according to the same offence only, some belong their own resident offence category category (non- to the Nuisance nuisance) Offence category, Code tha convictions acc~rdingto : U)z P l- KEYISIMILAR 0 OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION z> 0 0 Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence of the same the dominant offence category in (string) category (nuisance) offence category the Key Offences (non-nuisance) (non-nuisance) among the stays All Key Offences, all in All Key Offences Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence of the same the dominant offence category in (string) category (nuisance) offence category the Key Offences among the stays (nuisance) All Key Offences, all in All Key Offences, Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence some nuisance, the dominant offence category in (string) category (nuisance) some non- the Key Offences (non-nuisance) nuisance among the stays KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES All Key Offences, all in Similar Offences Code the convictions according to the same offence only, all belong to the dominant offence category in 51 category (nuisance) the same offence the Similar Offences (non-nuisance) (string) category (non- among the stays nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Similar Offences Code the convictions according to the same offence only, all belong to their own resident offence category category (nuisance) the same offence (string) category (nuisance) the same offence only, some belong the dominant offence category in category (nuisance) to the Nuisance the Similar Offences (non-nuisance) (string) Offence category, among the stays KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION All Key Offences, some Similar Offence Code all the Key Offences among in the Nuisance Offence (non-nuisance) the convictions (non-nuisance) category, and some not. according to their resident offence category. Any Similar Offences in the same offence category as the Key Offences retain their resident offence category. Nuisance Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number of Key Offences (non nuisance) All Key Offences, some Similar Offence Code all the Key Offences among in the Nuisance Offence (nuisance) the convictions (non-nuisance) - category, and some not. according to their resident offence category. Any Similar Offences in the same offence category as the Key Offences retain their resident offence category. Nuisance Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number cnz G F KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES 5z 0 0 All Key Offences, some Key and Similar Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence offences, all Key the dominant offence category of category, and some not. Offences are the Key Offences (non-nuisance) same offence among the stays. >1 category (non (string) nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, some Key and Similar Code all the Key Offences among in the Nuisance Offence ~fiences,all Key the convictions (non-nuisance) category, and some not. Offences are according to their resident offence same offence category. Any Similar Offences in category the same offence category as the (nuisance) Key Offences retain their resident >1 regardless of the offence category. Nuisance (string) offence categories Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same of the Similar offence category are split evenly Offences between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number of Key Offences (non nuisance) All Key Offences, some Key and Similar Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence Offences, some the dominant offence category of >1 category, and some not. belong to the the Key Offences (non-nuisance) (string) Nuisance Offence among the stays. Category, some V) Z 2 F KEYiSIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Key and Similar No Stays Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key the most dominant offence category Offences belong to the in the Key Offences among the > 1 same offence category convictions (string) (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar offences Key and Similar Key Offence (non- Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key nuisance) the offence category of the stay Offences belong to the >1 same offence category (string) (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (nuisance) the most dominant offence category Offences belong to the in the Key Offences among the > 1 same offence category convictions (string) (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Kev and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to 196 KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES Offences, all Key (non-nuisance) the most dominant offence category Offences belong to the in the Key Offences among the same offence category convictions (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (nuisance) the most dominant offence category Offences belong to the in the Key Offences among the same offence category convictions (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence cateaorv of the Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key Offences, all Key the dominant offence category in Offences belong to the Offences are the Key Offences (non-nuisance) same offence category same offence among the stays (non-nuisance) category (non (string) regardless of the nuisance) offence category of the regardless of the Similar Offences offence categories of the Similar L 197 U) Z 0 F KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Offences Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key offences, all Key the most dominant offence cat ego^ Offences belong to the Offences are in the Key Offences among the same offence category same offence convictions >1 (non-nuisance) category (string: regardless of the (nuisance) offence category of the regardless of the Similar Offences offence categories of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key Offences, some the dominant offence category in Offences belong to the belong to the the Key Offences (non-nuisance) same offence category Nuisance Offence among the stays (non-nuisance) Category, some regardless of the don't offence category of the the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key Offence (non- Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key nuisance) the offence category of the stay Offences belong to the same offence category (nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (nuisance) the dominant offence category Offences belong to the (non-nuisance) in the Similar same offence category Offences among the convictions (nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (non-nuisance) the offence category of the stay Offences belong to the same offence category (nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (nuisance) the dominant offence category Offences belong to the (non-nuisance) in the Similar same offence category Offences among the convictions (nuisance) regardless oi the offence category of KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key Offences, all Key the dominant offence category Offences belong to the Offences are (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences same offence category same offence among the stays (nuisance) regardless of category (non the offence category of nuisance) the Similar Offences regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key Offences, all Key the dominant offence category Offences belong to the Offences are (non-nuisance) in the Similar same offence category same offence Offences among the convictions (nuisance) regardless of category the offence category of (nuisance) the Similar Offences regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key offences, some the dominant offence category Offences belong to the belong to the (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences same offence category Nuisance Offence among the stays (nuisance) regardless of Category, some the offence category of don't the Similar Offences zV) 2 + KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION z 0 0 Offences, some Key the convictions (non-nuisance) Offences belong to according to their resident offence Nuisance Offence category. Any Similar Offences in category, some do not, the same offence category as the regardless of the Key Offences retain their resident >1 offence category of the offence category. Nuisance (string) Similar Offences Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number of Key Offences (non nuisance) Key and Similar Key Offence (non- Code the convictions according to Offences, some Key nuisance) the offence category of the stay Offences belong to >1 Nuisance Offence (string) category, some do not, regardless of the offence cateaorv of the Similar offences Key and Similar Key Offence Code all the Key Offences among Offences, some Key (nuisance) the convictions (non-nuisance) Offences belong to according to their resident offence Nuisance Offence category. Any Similar Offences in category, some do not, the same offence category as the regardless of the Key Offences retain their resident >1 offence category of the offence category. Nuisance (string) Similar Offences Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number - - zV) G F KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION zg 0 0 Key and Similar 411 Key Offences Code the convictions according to Offences, some Key sf the same the dominant offence category Offences belong to sffence category (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences >1 Nuisance Offence :non-nuisance) among the stays (string) category, some do not, reqardless of the offence cateqorv of the Similar offences Kev and Similar All Key Offences Code all the Key Offences among offences, some Key of the same the convictions (non-nuisance) Offences belong to offence category according to their resident offence Nuisance Offence (nuisance) category. Any Similar Offences in category, some do not, the same offence category as the regardless of the Key Offences retain their resident >1 offence category of the offence category. Nuisance (string) Similar Offences Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number of Key Offences (non nuisance) Key and Similar All Key Offences, Code the convictions according to Offences, some Key some nuisance, the dominant offence category Offences belong to some non- (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences >1 Nuisance Offence nuisance among the stays (string) category, some do not, regardless of the offence category of the KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES I Key and similar Similar Offences Code all the Key Offences among Offences, some Key only, all belong to the convictions (non-nuisance) Offences belong to the same offence according to their resident offence Nuisance Offence category (non- category. Any Similar Offences in category, some do not, nuisance) the same offence category as the regardless of the Key Offences retain their resident >1 offence category of the offence category. Nuisance (string) Similar Offences Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be equal to the number of Key Offences (non nuisance) Key and Similar Similar Offences Code all the Key Offences among Offences, some Key only, all belong to the convictions (non-nuisance) >1 Offences belong to the same offence according to their resident offence (string) Nuisance Offence category category. Any Similar Offences in category, some do not, (nuisance) the same offence category as the Key Offences retain their resident 203 KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION regardless of the offence category. Nuisance offence category of the Offences, or Similar Offences Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be eaual to the number of Key Offencesm(nonnuisance) Key and Similar Similar Offences Code all the Kev Offences among Offences, some Key only, some belong the convictions inon-nuisance) - Offences belong to to the Nuisance according to their resident offence Nuisance Offence Offence category, category. Any Similar Offences in category, some do not, some do not the same offence category as the regardless of the Key Offences retain their resident >1 offence category of the offence category. Nuisance (string) Similar Offences Offences, or Similar Offences without a Key Offence in the same offence category are split evenly between the offence categories of the Key Offences. The number of events will be eaual to the number Code the convictions according to >1 all belonging to the of the same the dominant offence category (string) same offence category offence category (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) (non-nuisance) among the stays >1 Similar Offences only, All Key Offences Code the convictions according to all belonging to the their own resident offence (string) of the same same offence category offence category categories 204 KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES (non-nuisance) [nuisance) I Similar Offences only, All Key Offences, I Code the convictions according to >1 all belonging to the some nuisance, the dominant offence category- (string) same offence category some non- (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences nuisance among the stays all belonging to the only, all belong to the dominant offence category >1 same offence category the same offence (non-nuisance) in the Similar (string) (non-nuisance) category (non- Offences among the stays nuisance) Similar Offences only, Similar Offences all belonging to the only, all belong to their resident offence category >1 same offence category the same offence (string) (non-nuisance) category (nuisance) Similar Offences only, Similar Offences all belonging to the only, some belong the dominant offence category >1 same offence category to the Nuisance (non-nuisance) in the Similar (string) (non-nuisance) Offence category, Offences among the stays some do not Similar Offences only, No Stays Code the convictions according do ' all belonging to the their resident offence category . U) Z s u "4c I- $ STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Similar Offences only, All Key Offences Code the convictions according to >1 11 all belonging to the of the same the dominant offence category (string) same offence category offence category (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences (nuisance) (non-nuisance) among the stays Similar Offences only, All Key Offences Code the convictions according to >1 all belonging to the the dominant offence category in 11 of the same (string) same offence category offence category the Key Offences among the stays (nuisance) (nuisance)- ~- All Key Offences, Code the convictions according to >1 all belonging to the some nuisance, the dominant offence category (string) same offence category some non- (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences among the stays Similar Offences only, Similar Offences Code the convictions according to all belonging to the only, all belong to the dominant offence category same offence category thesame offence (non-nuisance) in the Similar (nuisance) category (non- Offences among the stays nuisance) Similar Offences only, Similar Offences Code the convictions according to all belonging to the only, all belong to the dominant offence category in same offence category the same offence the Similar Offences among the (nuisance) category stays (nuisance) >1 (string) >1 (string) category, some not. (non-nuisance) I among the stays Similar Offences only, All Key Offences I Code the Similar Offences (non KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION (string) some belonging to the of the same nuisance) among convictions Nuisance Offence offence category according to their resident offence category, some not. (nuisance) category. Nuisance offences are then divided evenly among the offence categories of the Similar Offences (non-nuisance). Similar Offences only, All Key Offences, Code the convictions according to >1 some belonging to the some nuisance, the dominant offence category (string) Nuisance Offence some non- (non-nuisance) in the Key Offences amona the stavs Similar Offences only, Code the convictions according to some belonging to the only, all belong to dominant offence category (non- >1 Nuisance Offence the same offence nuisance) in the Similar Offences (string) category, some not. category (non- among the stays nuisance) Similar Offences only, Similar Offences Code the Similar Offences (non some belonging to the only, all belong to nuisance) among convictions >1 Nuisance Offence the same offence according to their resident offence (string) category, some not. category category. Nuisance offences are (nuisance) then divided evenly among the offence categories of the Similar Offences (non-nuisance). V) Z 0 l- KEYISIMILAR 0 STAYS CODING ACTION > OFFENCES Z 0 0 Similar Offences only, Similar Offences Code the convictions according to some belonging to the only, some belong dominant offence category (non- >1 Nuisance Offence to the Nuisance nuisance) in the Similar Offences (string) category, some not. Offence category, among the stays some do not All Key Offences, all in No Stays Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence their resident offence category. (string) category (non- Each Key Offence will constitute a nuisance) single- event. All Key Offences, all in Key Offence (non- If the Key Offences among the the same offence nuisance) convictions mirror the offence category (non- category of the stay of proceedings, nuisance) then code each conviction according to its' resident offence category. If the offence category of >1 the Key Offences among the (string) convictions do not mirror the offence category of the stay of proceedings, then code one of the convictions according to the offence category of the stay, and the rest according to their resident offence category. All Key Offences, all in Key Offence Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category. (string) category (non- Each Key Offence will constitute a nuisance) single event. All Kev Offences, all in Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence (non-nuisance) their resident offence category. (string) category (non- Each Key Offence will constitute a nuisance) single event. All Key Offences, all in Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category. (string) category (non- Each Key Offence will constitute a nuisance) sinale event. U)z P + KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION z$ 0 0 All Key Offences, all in If the Key Offences among the the same offence Offences, all Key convictions mirror the offence category (non- Offences are category of the stay of proceedings, nuisance) same offence then code each conviction category (non according to its' resident offence nuisance) category. If the offence category of >1 regardless of the the Key Offences among the (string) offence categories convictions do not mirror the of the Similar offence category of the stay of proceedings, then code one of the Offences convictions according to the offence category of the stay, and the rest according to their resident offence cateaorv. All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar Code the convictions according to the same offence Offences, all Key their resident offence category category (non- Offences are nuisance) same offence >1 category (string) (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar If the Key Offences among the the same offence Offences, some convictions mirror the offence category (non- belong to the category of the stay of proceedings, >1 nuisance) Nuisance Offence then code each conviction (string) Category, some according to its' resident offence don't category. If the offence category of the Key Offences among the convictions do not mirror the KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION proceedings, then code one of the convictions according to the offence category of the stay, and the rest according to their resident offence >1 the same offence their resident offence category: (string) category (nuisance) Each Key Offence among the convictions results in a criminal event All Key Offences, all in Key Offence (non- Code one of the convictions >1 the same offence nuisance) according to offence category of the (string) :ategory (nuisance) stay. Each Key Offence among the convictions results in a criminal event 411 Key Offences, all in Key Offence Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category. (string) :ategory (nuisance) Each Key Offence among the convictions results in a criminal event 411 Key Offences, all in Similar Offence Code one of the convictions >1 :he same offence (non-nuisance) according to offence category of the (string) :ategory (nuisance) stay. Each Key Offence among the convictions results in a criminal event 411 Key Offences, all in Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 :he same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category. [string) :ategory (nuisance) Each Key Offence among the convictions results in a criminal event V) Z 0 I- KEYISIMILAR STAYS $ OFFENCES CODING ACTION Z 0 0 All ~eyaffences,all in Key and Similar Code one of the convictions the same offence Offences, all Key according to the dominant offence category (nuisance) Offences are category in the Key Offences same offence among the stays. Each Key Offence > 1 category (non among the convictions results in a (string) nuisance) criminal event regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar Code the convictions according to the same offence Offences, all Key their resident offence category. category (nuisance) Offences are Each Key Offence among the same offence convictions results in a criminal >1 category event (string) (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar code one of the convictions the same offence Offences, some according to the dominant offence >1 category (nuisance) belong to the category in the Key Offences (string) Nuisance Offence among the stays. Each Key Offence Category, some among the convictions results in a don't criminal event cnz 0 I- KEYISIMILAR 2 OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 >1 in the Nuisance Offence their resident offence category" (string) category, and some not. All Key Offences, some Key Offence (non- Code one of the convictions for a in the Nuisance Offence nuisance) Key Offence according to the >1 category, and some not. offence category of the Key Offence (string) among the stays. Each Key Offence among the convictions results in a criminal event All Key Offences, some Key Offence >1 Code the convictions according to 22 in the Nuisance Offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) category, and some not. All Key Offences, some Similar Offence >1 Code the convictions according to 22 in the Nuisance Offence (non-nuisance) their resident offence category (string) I category, and some not. I All Key Offences, some Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 I I I 22 in the Nuisance Offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) I I I U) Z 2 t- KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION $z 0 0 All Key Offences, some Code one of the convictions for a in the Nuisance Offence offences, all Key Key Offence (non-nuisance) category, and some not. Offences are according to the dominant offence same offence category (non-nuisance) of the Key >1 category (non Offence among the stays. All the (string) nuisance) remaining Key Offences among the regardless of the convictions are coded according to offence categories their resident offence category. of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, some Kev and Similar Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence ~fiences,all Key their resident offence category category, and some not. Offences are same offence >1 category (string) (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, some Key and Similar If the offence category (non- in the Nuisance Offence offences, some nuisance) of any of the Key category, and some not. belong to the Offences among the convictions Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key don't Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the V) Z E! I- KEYISIMILAR P OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Key and Similar No Stays Code the convictions accordina to Offences, all Key their resident offence category Offences belong to the >1 same offence category (string) (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- Offences, all Key nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to the Offences among the convictions same offence category mirrors the offence category (non- (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the Offences among the stays, then offence category of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction > 1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar Key Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (nuisance) their resident offence category Offences belong to the >1 same offence category (string) (non-nuisance) regardless of the ~ffencecateaorv of the Similar 0ffe;ces >1 Key and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to (string) Dffences, all Key (non-nuisance) their resident offence category KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION Offences belong to the same offence category (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key (nuisance) their resident offence category Offences belong to the >1 same offence category (string) (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the U)z 0 I- KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION z$ 0 0 Kev and Similar Kev and Similar If the offence category (non- offences, all Key ~fiences,all Key nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to the Offences are Offences among the convictions same offence category same offence mirrors the offence category (non- (non-nuisance) category (non nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the nuisance) Offences among the stays, then offence category of the regardless of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences offence categories to their resident offence category. of the Similar Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to Offences (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key Offences, all Key their resident offence category Offences belong to the Offences are same offence category same offence >1 (non-nuisance) category (string) regardless of the (nuisance) offence category of the regardless of the Similar Offences offence categories of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key and Similar If the offence category (non- Offences, all Key Offences, some nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to the belong to the Offences among the convictions >1 same offence category Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- (string) (non-nuisance) Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the don't Offences among the stays, then offence category of the code all the convictions according cn ? KEYISIMILAR 10z STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES I Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the I Kev and Similar offences, all Key their resident offence category Offences belong to the >1 same offence category (string) (nuisance) regardless 01 the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Offences, all Key >1 Offences among the convictions (string; Offences belong to the same offence category mirrors the offence category (non- KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES :nuisance) regardless of Offences among the stays, then .he offence category of code all the convictions according he Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar Key Offence Code the convictions according to Dffences, all Key (nuisance) their resident offence category 3ffences belong to the same offence category (nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Similar Offence If the offence category (non- Offences, all Key (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to the Offences among the convictions same offence category mirrors the offence category (non- (nuisance) regardless of nuisance) of any of the Similar the offence category of Offences among the stays, then the Similar Offences code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwse convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Similar Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. >1 " Offences, all Key ~fiences,all Key nuisance) of any o'i the '~e~ (string) Offences belong to the Offences are Offences among the convictions same offence category same offence mirrors the offence category (non- KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES [nuisance) regardless of :ategory (non luisance) of any of the Key :he offence category of iuisance) 3ffences among the stays, then the Similar Offences ,egardless of the :ode all the convictions according ~ffencecategories o their resident offence category. ~f the Similar 3therwise convert one conviction 3ff ences or a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to he offence category of the jominant offence category in the Key and Similar No Stays Code the convictions according to Offences, some Key their resident offence category Offences belong to Nuisance Offence category, some do not, regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- Offences, some Key nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to Offences among the convictions Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence categorj (non- category, some do not, nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the Offences among the stays, then offence category of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar Key Offence Code the convictions according to > 1 Offences, some Key (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) Offences belong to Nuisance Offence KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Key and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to offences, some Key (non-nuisance) their resident offence category Offences belong to >1 Nuisance Offence (string) category, some do not, regardless of the offence cateuorv of the I Similar offences I Kev and Similar Similar Offence Code the convictions according to offences, some Key (nuisance) their resident offence category Offences belong to >1 Nuisance Offence (string) category, some do not, regardless of the offence category of the V) Z 0 I- KEY/SIMILAR STAYS : OFFENCES CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Key and Similar If the offence category (non- Offences, some Key offences, all Key nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to Offences are Offences among the convictions Nuisance Offence same offence mirrors the offence category (non- category, some do not, category (non nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the nuisance) Offences among the stays, then offence category of the regardless of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences offence categories to their resident offence category. of the Similar Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to Offences (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie. it will be chosen from the least p;evalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar Key and Similar Code the convictions according to Offences, some Key Offences, all Key their resident offence category Offences belong to Offences are Nuisance Offence same offence >1 category, some do not, category (string) regardless of the (nuisance) offence category of the regardless of the Similar Offences offence categories of the Similar Offences >1 Kev and Similar Key and Similar If the offence category (non- cn Z 0 I- KEYISIMILAR 0 STAYS CODING ACTION > OFFENCES Z 0 0 (string) Offences, some Key Offences, some nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to belong to the Offences among the convictions Nuisance Offence Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- category, some do not, Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the don't Offences among the stays, then offence category of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the Similar Offences onlv, No Stays Code the convictions according to I all belonging to the their resident offence category same offence category (non-nuisance) Similar Offences only, Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- all belonging to the nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Similar I - KEYISIMILAR CODING ACTION OFFENCES STAYS same offence categor cffences among the convictions (non-nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Similar Offence (non- nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. similar offences only, Key Offence Code the convictions according to all belonging to the (nuisance) their resident offence category same offence category (non-nuisance) Similar Offences only, Similar Offence If the offence category (non- all belonging to the (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Similar same offence category Offences among the convictions (non-nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Similar Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Similar Offence (non- nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Similar Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Similar Offences only, Similar Offence Code the convictions according to all belonging to the (nuisance) their resident offence category same offence category cn z cn @ ak KEYISIMILAR 2 onI0 OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION z> q 0 0 KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Similar Offences only, Key and Similar Code the convictions according to all belonging to the Offences, all Key their resident offence category same offence category Offences are (non-nuisance) same offence category (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences Similar Offences only, Key and Similar If the offence category (non- all belonging to the Offences, some nuisance) of any of the Similar same offence category belong to the Offences among the convictions (non-nuisance) Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key don't Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Similar Offence (non- nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the V)z 0 V) t- ;k KEYISIMILAR i 0 STAYS $ OFFENCES CODING ACTION Z ? h 0 K 0 -- Similar Offences only, No Stays Code the convictions according to >I all belonging to the their resident offence category 22 (string) same offence category (nuisance) Similar Offences only, Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- all belonging to the nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Similar same offence category Offences among the convictions (nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key >1 Offences among the stays, then (string) code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Similar Offence (non- nuisance) to the offence category of KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Similar Offences only, Key Offence Code the convictions according to >1 all belonging to the (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) same offence category (nuisance) Similar Offences onlv,.. Similar Offence If the offence category (non- all belonging to the (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Similar same offence category Offences among the convictions (nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Similar Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Similar Offence (non- (string) nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Similar Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Similar Offences only, Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 all belonging to the (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) same offence category KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Key and Similar If the offence category (non- all belonging to the Offences, all Key nuisance) of any of the Similar same offence category Offences are Offences among the convictions (nuisance) same offence mirrors the offence category (non- category (non nuisance) of any of the Key nuisance) Offences among the stays, then regardless of the code all the convictions according offence categories to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction 'I of the Similar 22 for a Similar Offence (non- (string) Offences nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the KEY/SIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION least prevalent offence in Table 4. Similar Offences only, Key and Similar Code the convictions according to all belonging to the Offences, all Key their resident offence category same offence category Offences are (nuisance) same offence >1 category (string) (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences Similar Offences only, Key and Similar If the offence category (non- all belonging to the Offences, some nuisance) of any of the Similar same offence category belong to the Offences among the convictions (nuisance) Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key don't Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Similar Offence (non- (string) nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie. it will be chosen from the zV) 2 I- KEYISIMILAR STAYS $ OFFENCES CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Code the convictions according to >1 some belonging to the their resident offence category (string) Nuisance Offence category, some not. Similar Offences only, Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- some belonging to the nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Similar Nuisance Offence Offences among the convictions mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Similar Offence (non- (string) nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. U) Z 0 I- KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Similar Offences only, Key Offence Code the convictions according to >I some belonging to the (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) Nuisance Offence category, some not. Similar Offences only, Similar Offence If the offence category (non- some belonging to the (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Similar Nuisance Offence Offences among the convictions category, some not. mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Similar Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Similar Offence (non- (string) nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Similar Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Similar Offences only, Similar Offence Code the convictions according to some belonging to the (nuisance) their resident offence category Nuisance Offence cateaorv. some not. V)z s F KEYISIMILAR STAYS $ OFFENCES CODING ACTION Z 0 0 0 If the offence category (non- some belonging to the offences, all Key nuisance) of any of the Similar Nuisance Offence Offences are Offences among the convictions category, some not. same offence mirrors the offence category (non- category (non nuisance) of any of the Key nuisance) Offences among the stays, then regardless of the code all the convictions according offence categories to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction of the Similar >1 for a Similar Offence (non- Offences (string) nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie. it will be chosen from the least offence in Table 4. -- Similar Offences only, Key and Similar Code the convictions according to some belonging to the Offences, all Key their resident offence category Nuisance Offence Offences are >1 category, some not. same offence (string) category (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories 235 KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION of the Similar Offences Similar Offences only, Key and Similar If the offence category (non- some belonging to the Offences, some nuisance) of any of the Similar Nuisance Offence belong to the Offences among the convictions category, some not. Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key don't Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Similar Offence (non- (string) nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Similar Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the -- - U) Z 2 F KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION gz 0 0 All Key Offences, all in No Stays Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence their resident offence category (string) category (non- nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- the same offence nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key category (non- Offences among the convictions nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. All Key Offences, all in Key Offence Code the convictions according to >I the same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) category (non- nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Similar offence Code the convictions according to >1 the same offence (non-nuisance) their resident offence category (string) category (non- nuisance) All Key Offences, all in similar Offence Code the convictions according to 237 I(string) " 22 the same offence Offences, all Key nuisance) of any of the~e~ (string) 1 category (non- Offences are Offences among the convictions 238 KEYISIMILAR STAYS CODING ACTION OFFENCES nuisance) same offence mirrors the offence category (non- sategory (non nuisance) of any of the Key nuisance) Offences among the stays, then regardless of the code all the convictions according offence categories to their resident offence category. of the Similar Otherwise convert one conviction Offences for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least offence in Table 4. All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar Code the convictions according to the same offence Offences, all Key their resident offence category category (non- Offences are nuisance) same offence category (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar Offences All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar If the offence category (non- the same offence offences, some nuisance) of any of the Key category (non- belong to the Offences among the convictions nuisance) Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key don't Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the V) sZ I- $ STAYS CODING ACTION Z 0 0 >1 No Stays Code the convictions according to the same offence their resident offence category (string) category (nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- the same offence nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key category (nuisance) Offences among the convictions mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. All Key Offences, all in Key Offence Code the convictions according to >1 22 the same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) category (nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 22 the same offence (non-nuisance) their resident offence category (string) 1 I category (nuisance) All Key Offences, all in Similar Offence Code the convictions according to >1 I 22 the same offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) 1 U)Z 2 2 F 0 [r KEYJSIMILAR 5 0 g OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION Z 8 2 0 0 All Key Offences, all in the same offence Offences, all Key nuisance) of any of the'~e~ category (nuisance) Offences are Offences among the convictions same offence mirrors the offence category (non- >1 category (non nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then (string) nuisance) regardless of the code all the convictions according offence categories to their resident offence category. of the Similar Otherwise convert one conviction Offences for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance).- among the stays. The convi&on chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. All Key Offences, all in Key and Similar Code the convictions accordinn to the same offence Offences, all Key their resident offence category- category (nuisance) Offences are same offence category (nuisance) regardless of the offence categories of the Similar I Offences - All Key Offences, all in I Key and Similar If the offence category (non- the same offence offences, some nuisance) of any of the Key category (nuisance) belong to the Offences among the convictions Nuisance Offence mirrors the offence category (non- Category, some nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the U) sZ I- KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION ZE 0 0 All Key Offences, some >1 No Stays in the Nuisance Offence their resident offence category" (string) category, and some not. All Key Offences, some Key Offence (non- If the offence category (non- in the Nuisance Offence nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key category, and some not. Offences among the convictions mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. All Key Offences, some >1 Key Offence Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) category, and some not. All Key Offences, some >1 Similar Offence Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence their resident offence category (string) (non-nuisance) category, and some not. All Key Offences, some >1 Similar Offence Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence (nuisance) their resident offence category (string) category, and some not. All Key Offences, some All Key Offences If the offence category (non- in the ~uisanceOffence of the same nuisance) of any of the Key category, and some not. offence category Offences among the convictions (non-nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key >1 Offences among the stays, then (string) code ail the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the KEYISIMILAR STAYS OFFENCES CODING ACTION Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. All Key Offences, some All Key Offences Code the convictions according to >I in the Nuisance Offence of the same their resident offence category (string) category, and some not. offence category (nuisance) All Key Offences, some All Key Offences, If the offence category (non- in the Nuisance Offence some nuisance, nuisance) of any of the Key category, and some not. some non- Offences among the convictions nuisance mirrors the offence category (non- nuisance) of any of the Key Offences among the stays, then code all the convictions according to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction >1 for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to (string) the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the U) Z E! U) I- 5 k KEYISIMILAR 3 0 STAYS $ OFFENCES CODING ACTION Z 0 0 Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence only, all belong to their resident offence category >1 22 category, and some not. the same offence (string) category (non- nuisance) Similar Offences Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence only, all belong to their resident offence category >1 the same offence (string) category (nuisance) All Key Offences, some Similar Offences Code the convictions according to in the Nuisance Offence only, some belong their resident offence category >1 category, and some not. to the Nuisance (string) Offence category, code the convictions accordJk ta " their resident offence category CODING ACTION KEYISIMILAR OFFENCES STAYS CODING ACTION If the offence category (non- offences, all Key of thesame nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to the offence category Offences among the convictions same offence category (non-nuisance) mirrors the offence category (non- (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the Offences among the stays, then offence category of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction chosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence category in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case of a tie, it will be chosen from the least prevalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar All Key Offences Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key of the same their resident offence category Offences belong to the offence category same offence category (nuisance) (non-nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar offences Kev and Similar All Key Offences, If the offence category (non- offences, all Key some nuisance, nuisance) of any of the Key Offences belong to the some non- Offences among the convictions same offence category nuisance mirrors the offence category (non- (non-nuisance) nuisance) of any of the Key regardless of the Offences among the stays, then offence category of the code all the convictions according Similar Offences to their resident offence category. Otherwise convert one conviction for a Key Offence (non-nuisance) to the offence category of the dominant offence category in the Key Offences (non-nuisance) among the stays. The conviction shosen for conversion, will come from the least prevalent offence :ategory in the Key Offences among the convictions. In the case 3f a tie, it will be chosen from the east prevalent offence in Table 4. Key and Similar Key and Similar If the offence category (non- CODING ACTION I >1 1 12 1 Key and Similar I Similar Offences Code the convictions accordina to 248 V) Z 2 V) t- ;IZ KEYISIMILAR i0 STAYS CODING ACTION : OFFENCES Z I 0 0 (string) Offences, all Key only, all belong to their resident offence category Offences belong to the the same offence same offence category category (non- (non-nuisance) nuisance) regardless of the I offence cateaorv of the Similar offences Key and Similar Similar Offences Code the convictions according to Offences, all Key only, all belong to their resident offence category Offences belong to the the same offence >1 same offence category category (string) (non-nuisance) (nuisance) regardless of the offence category of the Similar Offences Appendix F - Nominal And Operational Definitions TERM OPERA"TONAL DEFINITION -. Criminal 4 criminal career is analogous to a The career commences with the first Career ximinal history. It encompasses the :onviction documented on the mtire period between the first and %ger Print Sheet but doesn't ast offences documented on the lecessary end with the last. This is 'inger Print Sheet. Iecause the research sample nvolves offenders still incarcerated n prison so it is not known if the Iffender will continue with crime Jpon return to the community. Youth 4 youth is defined as someone who 4lthough the Young Offender's Act IS twelve years or older, but younger Nas recently superceded it was still than age eighteen. n effect when this research ~ndertakingwas started so all the jefinitions relating to youth and puth offences are based upon the Young Offender's Act. Youth, then, s a young person whose offence Jvas perpetrated prior to their ighteenth birthday but on or after their 12'" birthday. Youth Cut Off The date of the offender's 18th The youth cut off is the offender's birthday, and the date after which 18'~birth date, and there is a line most offences will be considered drawn across the Finger Print Sheet adult offences. at this date. Most offences occurring after this line will be considered adult offences. Youth Offence A youth offence is any offence for On the Fin~erPrint Sheet, most which a youth was found guilty. For offences that were proceeded with the purposes of this research by way of Youth Court have the undertaking, this also includes any designation "Youth Court" in the offences for which a youth was found margin of the document. This guilty in adult court. designation will not appear in the case of Youths raised to adult court so it is important that the offender's eighteenth birthday be incorporated into the dividing line between adult and youth offences instead of just the designations on the Finger Print Sheet. A related problem is that due to the administrative delays a youth offence may not actually be prosecuted until after the offender's eighteenth birthday. Thus, there will be convictions that occur after the age of majority but still have the Youth Court designation in the margin. These must also be counted among the youth offences. This contrasts with the youth offending range, where adult offences may be included. The reason is that the term puth offence is based about a 2riminal Code definition, whereas :he youth offending range is based m maturation, and the onset of ;pecialization. Offence Offence means an offence created This definition is based on the by an Act of Parliament or by any Sriminal Code of Canada as well as regulation, rule, order, by-law or the Young Offenders Act. ordinance made there under other than an ordinance of the Yukon Territory, or the Northwest Territories, or by the Legislature for Nunavut. Career Phase For the offence specialist, a career A career phase is any phase of a phase is determined by a distinct ximinal career where there is at change in the level of specialization. least a 75% commitment to a single In the case of the distinction between offence category and where there youth and adult it is based upon a are at least three category related change from non-specialization to criminal events in the phase. specialization. By comparison, Although youth is also referred to as changes between adult career a career phase, in terms of phases are based upon distinct operational definitions it is actually changes in allegiance to offence more like the absence of a career categories. phase in so far as it is based on a lack of specialization or commitment to an offence category. Youth For an offence specialist, the youth Whereas the distinction between Offending offending range includes all those youth and adulthood occurs at age Range offences occurring prior to the on set eighteen, the youth offending range of specialization, as long as the on is not so limited and can transit the set of specialization occurs on or legally imposed boundary. The belief before the offender's 25th birthday. is that the levels of responsibility and This includes the full range of maturity that are expected of an convictions occurring between the adult do not automatically occur at first documented youth offence on age eighteen. For some, it occurs the Fingerprint Sheet, and the earlier and for others much later. In coincidence of the start of the adult the case of the offence specialist, offending range, the first adult career the youth offending range is the phase, and the onset of duration of time from the first specialization. documented youth offence on the Fin~erPrint Sheet up until the onset of ~pecialization. . Offence The number of times that an offender Offence allegiance is determined by Switching changes their offence allegiance. counting the number of times an offender switches his offence allegiance. The resulting number is then reported as a percentage of all offence switching opportunities, which is essentially all of an offender's convictions minus one. The minus one is because one cannot actually switch offence allegiance, unless one has already been demonstrated. In addition to being reported as a percentage of all switching opportunities, the number of switches will be reported along with the actual number of switching opportunities. The reason for this is that using percentages only, an offender who has switched allegiance once in four opportunities appears to be just as committed as an offender who has maintained their allegiance over 75 out of 100 offences. Thus, by itself a percentage doesn't seem to reflect the true degree of commitment, so the number of switching opportunities was also Tecorded. Onset Of In the offence specialist, the onset of Among offence specialists, the onset Specialization specialization coincides with the end of specialization is based on the of the youth offending range and with conviction date for the first offence in the coincidence of the start of the the adult offending range. It is first adult career phase, and the adult predicated on the first conviction offending range. contained in the first career phase. Adult For the offence s~ecialist,the adult The adult offending range includes Offending offending range dommenies with the all criminal events from the onset of Range termination of the youth offending specialization until the last range. It comprises all the documented offence on the Finger subsequent events occurring Print Sheet. Whereas the legal between the onset of specialization distinction between youth and right up until the last documented adulthood occurs at age eighteen, offence on the Finger Print Sheet. the adult offending range is not so limited and can transit the legally imposed boundary. The belief is that the levels of responsibility and maturity that are expected of an adult do not automatically occur at age eighteen. For some, it occurs earlier~andfor others much later. Thus, the adult offending range may start prior to the age of 18, coincident with the start of a career phase. The age of 25, however, will be the latest possible date for the onset of specialization and the adult offending range. Transition Where an offender goes through a A transition phase can consist of any Phase change in career phase, it is believed number or type of offences as long that there may be a transition period as these do not account for more where the offender may experiment than 25% of the dominant offences with other offences before in any career phase. The transition developing an enduring allegiance to phase will also normally be located specific offence category during his at the beginning andlor end of the next career phase. This period of career phase. The transition phase experimentation is the transition is believed to commence on the day phase and can occur at the after the conviction for the last beginning or end of a career phase. offence in the previous career It can consist of any number or phase, and ends with the first manner o'f offences as long as the conviction in a series of number of convictions in the uninterrupted yet related events in transition phase doesn't constitute the next career phase. The mixed more than 25% of all the offences in transition is distinct because it the dominant offence category of the consists of offences that fall same career phase. All transitional exclusively into the dominant offence phases are considered experimental, category in the career phases but there are two identified sub- preceding and following the categories as well including the transition phase. By comparison, the mixed, and failed transition phases. failed transition phase can consist of any manner of offences and is distinct because the dominant offence category preceding and following the transition phase are the same. Single A single criminal event is one that While it is necessary for there to be Criminal Event resulted in at least one criminal at least one conviction in order to conviction and was reported on in a identify a single criminal event, it is single Report to Crown. An event also possible for the single criminal must consist of at least one event to spawn several different conviction, but can consist of many convictions. Each of these will be more as well as one or more stays of related to the other is so far as they proceedings or acquittals. stem from the same incident. Determining whether these charges and convictions are, indeed, related in this manner is based upon three considerations. The first is that all the charges and convictions stem from a single police report. The second criterion is that all the charges resulted in convictions occurring on the same date. Lastly, in order to be considered related to a single criminal event, there be only a single Key Offence among the potentially related charges. If there is more than one Key Offence then they will be considered to be unrelated. Context Context refers to information Context is based upon the surrounding a conviction that might association between any conviction, help identify its true nature, and the and any other convictions or stays of most appropriate offence category. proceedings occurring on the same date and/or as part of the same police report. Key offences in association with other Key Offences are coded as if without context. Similar Offences that are found in context of a single Key Offence either as part of a single criminal event or as a stay of proceedings, will be coded as per the offence category of the Key Offence. Offence A convicted criminal who has The adult specialized offence Specialist demonstrated a strong commitment specialist is a non-traditional offence to an offence category in each phase specialist is so far as there are more of his aduit offending criminal career. than one career phase. The adult (Adult specialized offender is distinguished 253 Specialized) by a period of unspecialized offender in the period before the offender's 25'h birthday. Offence 4 convicted criminal who has The completely specialized offence Specialist Aemonstrated a strong commitment specialist is a non-traditional offence :o an offence category in each phase specialist is so far as there are more 3f his adult offending criminal career. than one career phase. The (Completely completely specialized offender is Specialized) distinguished by the coincidence of the on set of specialization and the date of their first conviction as documented on the Finger Print Sheet as long as that date occurs on or before their 25'h birthday. Offence A convicted criminal who has There are four criteria specific to the Specialist demonstrated a strong commitment offence specialist: 1) he must to an offence category in each phase demonstrate 75% offence density in of his adult offending criminal career. each of the distinct career phases (Non- subsequent to the onset of Traditional specialization; 2) the onset of specialization must occur on or before the offender's 25th birthday; 3) from the onset of specialization and until the end of the career, the number of offences contained in each career phase must constitute at least 95% of all the offences occurring between the onset of specialization and the last date of conviction on the Finger Print Sheet. Offence A convicted criminal who has A convicted criminal who has Specialist demonstrated an exclusive demonstrated an exclusive commitment to a single offence commitment to a single offence category, and who has at least three (Traditional) category over the entire course of their criminal career. convictions in this offence category, over the entire course of their criminal career -offence A convicted criminal who has not A convicted criminal who does not Generalist demonstrated a strong commitment meet the definition of the offence to an offence category in each phase specialist. of his adult offending range. The offence generalist displays an elevatedlevel of criminai versatility. Off ending The degree of commitment, The duration of time between the Density measured as a percentage, to an first and last convictions relating to offence category during any distinct any potential career phase is known career phase. as the Career Phase Range. Within this duration of time, the number of offences relating to the dominant offence category when divided by the overall number of offences in the same ranae. x 100, results in the OffendingDensity.. Stay Of A stay of proceedings refers to a On the last pages of the Finger Print Proceedings charge that has been officially Sheet there is a list of all the stays of sanctioned but has subsequently ~roceedinasas well as the dates also been withdrawn. This does not they were stayed. These correspond amount to a finding of not guilty, and to the dates of specific convictions in is often indicative of some type of the body of the Finger Print Sheet plea agreement. and links final conviction with a related charge which, in the case of plea bargain arrangements, may provide context to the final conviction and its coding according to the ten offence categories. Withdrawn charges are treated the same as stays of proceedings but must be distinguished from dismissed charges, acquittals, or finding of not guilty. Offence A grouping of offences that are The offence categories are based Category related in nature, motive, or by their upon the most prevalent offence potential to form part of a plea types among the Canadian bargain agreement. Any offence population at large, as well as category involves three sub-classes among the federal inmate of offence including Key Offence, population. They are also loosely Similar Offences, and Related related to similar groupings of Offences. convictions in the Criminal Code of Canada. Key Offences Key Offences are those that Kev Offences are those offences exemplify their particular offence that exemplify an offence category. category. They are the offences that are least in danger of being associated with any other category. Similar Similar Offences are those offences Similar Offences are those that in Offence that represent a specific offence the absence of any other context category but that hold the potential to best represent a single offence be associated with any other offence category. Context is the deciding category depending on the context of factor. the offence. Related The sub-class of Related Offences Where a Similar Offence from one Offences includes the entire sub-class of offence category is found in context Similar Offences when these with a Key Offence from another offences occur in the context of a offence category except the Key Offence other than their offence Nuisance category, the Similar category of origin. The sub-category Offence becomes one of the Related of Related Offences encompasses Offences for the other offence all manner of offences that could category. conceivably be related either in context of a single criminal event, or in the range of possible prosecutorial possibilities. Any offence perpetrated on or after 4ny offence for which a conviction the offender's eighteenth birthday. Nas registered on or after the ~ffender'seighteenth birthday and joes not have the designation 'Youth Offence" located in the margin of the Finger Print Sheet. Not all adult offences will be part of the adult offending range. Convictions tried in adult court but perpetrated by a youth will still be considered youth offences. Any violation of section 40 of the The Offender Security Profile sheet Corrections and Conditional Release will be the source of this information. Act (CCRA) for which the offender The frequency of rule breaking has been charged as well as security behaviour will be measured in incidents which are documented on numbers of incidents per numbers of the Security Profile Report but for months of federal sentence and will which no charge was issued. be based on the greater of all recorded security incidents, or all disciplinary charges. REFERENCE LIST American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition). Washington, DC. Arneklev, B., Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., & Bursik, R. (1993). Self Control Theory and Imprudent Behaviour. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9:225-47. Barnett, W., Richter, P., & Renneberg, B. (1999). Repeated Arson: Data From Criminal Records. Forensic Science International, Volume 101, lssue 1, 12 April 1999, 49- 54. Bazemore, S.G. (1982). Growing Out of Delinquency: The Adolescent Labeling Experience and Reform. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International. Benning, P. (2003). Interview with criminal defence lawyer Peter Benning, June 12, 2003, Abbotsford British Columbia. Becker, H. (1968). Race and Career Problems of the Chicago Public School Teacher. New York: Arno Press (1980 edition). Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E., & Strauss, A.L. (1961). Boys In White. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blumstein, A., & Greene M.A. (1979). Analysis of Crime - Type Switching In Recidivism. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University. Blumstein, A., Cohen J., & Hsieh P. (1982). The Duration of Adult Criminal Careers, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. (Final Report to the National Institute of Justice). Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C. (1986). Criminal Careers and Career Criminals. Washington , D.C.: National Academy Press Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1987). Characterizing Criminal Careers. Science, Vol 237, lssue 481 8,985-991. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D.P. (1988a). Criminal Career Research: Its Value for Criminology. Criminology, 26, 1-36. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D.P. (1988b). Longitudinal and Criminal Career Research: Further Clarifications. Criminology, 26 57-74. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Das, S., & Moitra, S. (1988~)Specialization and Seriousness During Adult Criminal Careers. Journal of Quantitative Criminology27, 303 - 345. Bourget, D., & Bradford, J. (1987). Fire Fetishism, Diagnostic And Clinical implications: A Review Of Two Cases. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 32, 459-462. Braley, M. (1976). False Starts. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. Brennan, P., Mednick, S., & Richard, J. (1989). Specialization in Violence: Evidence of a i Criminal Subgroup. Criminology 27, 437 - 453. Britt, C.L. (1996). The Measurement of Specialization and Escalation in the Criminal Career: An Alternative Modeling Strategy. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 12,193 - 222. Brownfield, D., & Sorenson, A. (1993). Self Control and Juvenile Delinquency: Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Assessment of Selected Elements of a General Theory of Crime. Deviant Behaviour 14,243-64. Buikhuisen, W, & Jongman, R.W. (1970). A Legalistic Classification of Juvenile Delinquents. British Journal of Criminology, 10, 109-123. Bursik, R. (1980). The Dynamics of Specialization in Juvenile Offences. Social Forces, 58(3), 851-864. Burton, V., Jr., Cullen, F., Evans, D., & Dunaway, G. (1994). Reconsidering Strain Theory: Operationalization, Rival Theories, and Adult Criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 213-40. Burton, V., Cullen, F., Evans, D., Alarid, L., & Dunaway, G. (1998). Gender, Self Control, and Crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10,213-40. Cassel, E., & Bernstein, D. (2001). Criminal Behavior. Allyn & Bacon. Chaiken, J. & Chaiken, M. (1982a). Varieties of Criminal Behaviour. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Chaiken, J. & Chaiken, M., with Peterson, J. (198213). Varieties of Criminal Behaviour: Summary and Policy Implications. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Chaitlin, M. & Dunham, H. (1966). The Juvenile Court in its Relationship to Adult Criminality: A Replicated Study. Social Forces, 45, 114 -1 23. Christensen, K.O., Elers-Nielsen, M., LeMaire, L., & Sturup, G. (1965). Recidivism Among Sexual Offenders. In K.O. Christensen (Ed), Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, Voll , London: Tavistock. Cline, H. (1980). Criminal Behaviour Over the Life Span. In 0. Brim, & J. Kagan. (Eds.), Constancy and Change in Human Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Collins, J. (1977). Offender Careers and Restraint: Probabilities and Policy Implication. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. (Final Draft Report). Conklin J.E. (1973) Robbery and the Criminal Justice System. New York: J.B., Lippincott. D'Arcy, J., & Driedger, S.D. (1995). Ending the Secrecy. Maclean's, Vol. 108 Issue 28, 12 - 13. Dannefer, D. (1984). Adult Development and Social Theory: A Paradigmatic Reappraisal American Sociological Review, Vol 49, February, 100 - 116 D'Unger, A.V., Land, K.C., -McCall, P.L., & Nagin, D.S. (1998). How Many Latent Classes of DelinquentlCriminal Careers? Results From Mixed Poisson Regression Analyses. American Journal of Sociology, Vol 103, NO 6, 1593 - 1630. Dunham, H. & Knauer, M. (1954). The Juvenile Court in Its Relationship to Adult Criminality. Social Forces, 32, 290-296. Evans, D., Cullen, F., Burton, V., Dunaway, G., & Benson, M. (1997). The Social Consequences of Self Control: Testing the General Theory of Crime. Criminology, 35, 475-504. Farrington, D.P (1979). Longitudinal Research on Crime and Delinquency. Crime and Justice, Vol 1, Morris, N., & Tonry, M., (eds). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Farrington, D.P. and West, D. (1981). The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In S. Mednick, & A. Baert, (Eds.), Prospective Longitudinal Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Farrington, D.P. (1983). Offending From 10 to 25 Years of Age. In K.T. Van Dusen, & S. A. Mednick, (Eds.), Prospective Studies of Crime and Delinquency. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff, 17-37. Farrington, D.P., Loeber, R., Elliott, D.S., Hawkins, J.D., Kandel, D.B., Klein, M.W., McCord, J., Rowe, D.C., & Tremblay, R.E. (1990). Advancing Knowledge About the Onset of Delinquency and Crime. In B. Kahey, & A. Kazdin, (Eds.), Advances in Clinical and Child Psychology, Vo1.13, 283-342. New York: Plenum. Farrington, D.P. & J.D. Hawkins. (1991). Predicting Participation, Early Onset, and Later Persistence in Officially Recorded Offending. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 1, 1-33. Farrington, D.P. (1991). Childhood Aggression and Adult Violence: Early Precursors and Later Life Outcomes. In D.J. Pepler, & K.H. Pepler, (Eds.), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum: 5-39. Farrington, D.P. (1992). Criminal Career Research: Lessons for Crime Prevention. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Ferguson, D.M, Horwood, L.J., Nagin, D.S. (2000). Offending Trajectories in a New Zealand Birth Cohort. Criminology, 38, 525 - 551. Forsyth, C.J., & Marckee, T.A. (1 993). Thrills And Skills: A Sociological Analysis Of Poaching. Deviant Behaviour 14, (2), 157- 172. Geis, G. (1974). Avocational Crime. In Glaser, D. (Ed.), Handbook of Criminology. U.S.A.: Rand McNally. Gelinas versus Canada (National Parole Board) [I9961 A.Q. No. 1159, Supreme Court of Quebec. Judgement 15 March 1996,4 pages. Geller, J. L. (1987). Firesetting In The Adult Psychiatric Population. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 38, 501-506. Gibbons, D.C. (1975). Offender Typologies - Two Decades Later. British Journal of Criminology Vol 2, No 15, April, 140 - 156. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1930). 500 Criminal Careers. New York: Knopf. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1943). Criminal Careers in Retrospect. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1945). The After Conduct of Discharged Offenders. London: MacMillan and Co. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1950). Unravelling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: The Commonwealth Fund. Giroux versus Canada (National Parole Board) [I9941 F.C.J No. 1750 Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division. Judgement 24 November 1994, 10 pages. Goffman E. (1961). Asylums. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Gottfredson, S. D. (1992). Incapacitation Strategies and the Criminal Career. California Department of Justice Division of Law Enforcement Office of Management, Evaluation and Training, Law Enforcement Information Center. Gould, L.C. et al. (1966). Crime as a Profession. Washington, D.C.: G.P.O. Government of Canada. (2000a). Crimes bv Offences, Provinces. and Territories. Statistics Canada. Retrieved June 08, 2003 from htt~://www.statcan.ca/enalish/Padb/leaai04a.htm Government of Canada (2000b). Uniform Crime Survey 2002. Statistics Canada. Retrieved June 08,2003 from htt~://www.statcan.ca/enqlish/sdds/3302.htm Government of Canada (1999). Public Awareness. Correctional Service of Canada. Retrieved June 19, 2003 from htt~:llwww.csc-scc.ac.ca/textlDubed/nre~ardlhs4e.shtml Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Burski, R., & Arneklev, 6. (1993). Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5-29. Greenberg, .F. (1983). Age and Crime. In S. Kadish, (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice. New York: McMillan. Gunderson, J. G. (1974). Management Of Manic States: The Problem Of Firesetting. Psychiatry, 37, 1 37- 146. Habenstein, R.W. (1955). The History of American Funeral Directing. Milwaukee: Bulfin Printers. Healy, W. & Bronner, A. (1926). Delinquents and Criminals: Their Making and Unmaking. New York: McMillan: reprinted Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation, 1969. Heuser J.P. (1979). Are Status Offenders Really Different? Oregon Law Enforcement Council. Hindelang, M. (1971). Age, Sex, and the Versatility of Delinquent Involvement. Social Problems, 18, 522-535. Hindelang, M., Travis, H., & Weiss, J. (1981). Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hirschi, T. (1986). On the Compatibility of Rational Choice and Social Control Theories of Crime. In D. Cornish, & R.V. Clarke, (Eds.), The Reasoning Criminal. NY: Springer-Verlag. Hirschi, T. & Gottfredson, M.R. (1993). Commentary: Testing the General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 47-54. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M.R. (1995). Control Theory and the Life-Course Perspective. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 4, 13 1-42. Home Off ice Statistical Off ice. (1985). Criminal Careers of Those Born in 1953, 1958, and 1963. London: H.M.S.O. (Statistical Bulletin ISSN 0143 6384). Hill, R. W., Langevin, R., Paitich D., Handy, L., Russon, A., & Wilkinson, L. (1982). Is Arson An Aggressive Act Or A Property Offence? A Controlled Study Of Psychiatric Referrals. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 27, 648-654. Holzman, H. R. (1979) The Persistent Offender and the Concept of Professional Criminality: The Case of Robbery and Burglary. Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the University of Maryland. Hurley, W ., & Monahan, T. M. (1969). Arson: The Criminal And The Crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 9, 4-21. Irwin, J. (1974). The Felon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice. Jolin, A. I.. (1985). Growing Old and Going Straight: Examining the Role of Age in Criminal Career Transition. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. Kanazawa, S. (2003). Why Productivity Fades With Age: The Crime-Genius Connection. Journal of Research in Personality. Retrieved June 25, 2003 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science? ob=ArticleURL& udi=B6WMO-47S6KSS- 7& user=lO& coverDate=02%2F26%2F2003& alid=97753003& rdoc=l& fmt=f ull& oriq=search& qd=l& cdi=6920& sort=d& docanchor=&view=c& acct=C00 0050221& version=l & urlVersion=O& userid=l O&md5=4a9fec6914cb61402211 cfefOf418f 13 Kaufman, I., Heims, L. W., & Reiser, D. E. (1961). A Re-Evaluation Of The Psychodynamics Of Firesetting. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31, 123- 136. Keane, C., Maxim, P., & Teevan, J. (1993). Drinking and Driving, Self Control, and Gender: Testing a General Theory of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 3-46. Kempf, K.L. (1986). Constancy and Change in the Criminal Career. University of Pennsylvania, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor MI. Klein, M.W. (1971). Street Gangs and Street Workers. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall. Klein, M.W. (1979). Deinstitutionalization and Diversion of Juvenile Offenders: A Litany of Impediments. In N. Morris, & M. Tonry, (Eds.), Crime and Justice, Vol 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Klein, M.W. (1984). Offence Specialization and Versatility Among Juveniles. British Journal of Criminology, 24,185-94. Kobrin, S., Hellum, F.R., & Peterson, J. (1980). Offence Patterns of Status Offenders. In M. Shichor, & D.H.Kelly, (Eds.), Critical Issues in Juvenile Delinquency. Lexington, Lexington Books. Langan, P. & Greenfeld, L. (1983). Career Patterns in Crime. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics (Special Report NCJ-88672). LeBlanc, M. & Frechette, M. (1989). Male Criminal Activity from Childhood through Youth: Multilevel and Developmental Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lemert, E. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Letkeman, P. (1969) Crime as Work. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Loeber, R. & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a ~~~elopmentalCriminology. In M. Tonr~,& N. Morris, (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Val. 12, 375-473. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Macht, L. B., & Mack, J. E. (1968). The Firesetter Syndrome. Psvchiatw, 31, 277-288. Martin versus Canada (National Parole Board) [I9951 A.Q. No. 329 Court of Appeal of Quebec. Judgement 5 April 1995,4 pages. Maughan, B., Pickles, A., Rowe, R., Costello, E.J., & Angold, A. (2000). Developmental Trajectories of Aggressive and Non-Aggressive Conduct Problems. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 199-221. Maurer, D. (1999). The Big Con. Anchor Books (reprinted from the 1940 Bobs-Merrill Co. edition) Meisenhelder, T. (1 977). An Exploratory Study of Exiting From Criminal Careers. Criminology, Vol 15(3), 31 9-334. McClintock, F. (1963). Crimes of Violence. London: MacMillan. McCord J. & McCord, W. (1959). A Follow Up Report on the Cambridge-Somer Youth Study. The Annals of the American Academy, 322, 89-96. McCord, J., (1978). A Thirty Year Follow Up of Treatment Effectiveness. American Psychologist, 33, 284-289. McCord, J. (1981 ). A Longitudinal Perspective on Patterns of Crime. Criminology, 19(2) 21 1-218. Miller, R. (2003) Interview dated June 18,2003. The Honourable R. Miller is a current serving Provincial Court judge and formerly served as a Crown prosecutor as well. He is a staunch opponent of all forms of plea bargain arrangements. Mooring versus Canada (National Parole Board) [I9961 1 S.C.R. 75 Supreme Court of Canada. Judgement 31 May 1995. Motiuk, L., & Vuong, 9. (2002). Homicide, Sex, Robbery, and Drug Offenders in Federal Corrections: An End of 2001 Review. Research Branch Correctional Services of Canada. Nagin, D. & Farrington, D.P. (1992). The Onset and Persistance of Offending. Criminology, 30, 501-23. Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring Individual Differencesand Rational Choice Theories of Crime. Law and Society, 27, 467-96. Newman, G. (1974). Pleading Guilty for Considerations: A Study of Bargain Justice. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 46, 780. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (1999) National Estimates of Petitioned Status Offence Cases. Depart of Justice, Washington D.C., U.S.A. Retrieved July 05, 2003 from htt~://oiid~.ncirs.orq/Dubs/ics96/pet.html Patermoster, R. & Brame, R. (1997). Multiple Routes to Delinquency? A Test of Developmental and General Theories of Crime. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 35 (I), 49-84. Peay, J. (1982). Dangerousness -Ascription or Description? In Feldman, P. (Ed.), Developments in the Study of Criminal Behaviour: Violence, Vol2. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Petersilia, J., Greenwood, P., & Lavin, M. (1977). Criminal Careers and Habitual Felons. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Petersilia, J. (1980). Criminal Career Research: A Review of Recent Evidence. N. Morris, & M. Tonry, (Eds.), Crime and Justice vol2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peterson, M., Braiker, H., & Polich, S. (1981). Who Commits Crime: A Sutvey of Prison Inmates. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlatger, Gunn, and Hain. Peterson, R.A., Pitman, D.J., & O'Neal, P. (1962). Stabilities of Deviance: A Study of Assaultive and Non-Assaultive Offenders. Journal of Criminal Law and Police Science. 53, 44-48. Piquero, A.R. (2000). Frequency, Specialization, and Violence in Offending Careers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 37 No. 4, November 2000. 392 - 41 8. Piquero, A. R., & Buka, S.L. (2002). Linking Juvenile And Adult Patterns Of Criminal Activity In The Providence Cohort Of The National Collaborative Perinatal Project. Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 30, Issue 4, July - August, 259-272. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Low Self Control and Situational Factors in Offender's Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational Offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481 -510. Polk, K. (1981). Becoming Adult: An Analysis of Maturational Development From Age 16 to 30 of a Cohort of Young Men. The Final Report of the Marion County Youth Study, Eugene: University of Oregon Press. Prasad versus Canada (National Parole Board) [I9911 F.C.J No. 1165, Federal Court of Canada - Trial Division. Judgement 27 November 1991, 8 pages. Pratt, T.C. & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis. Criminology: An lnterdisciplinary Journal, 38 (3), 931-964. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact - An Assessment. Washington, D.C.: G. P.O. Reckless, W.C. (1961). The Crime Problem. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Research Development and Statistics Directorate (1998) Offenders Index Codebook. London: Home Office. Retrieved June 18, 2003 from http://www. homeoff ice.qov. uWrdslpdfs/oicodes.~df Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1991). Firesetters Admitted To A Maximum Security Psychiatric Institution. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 461-475. Ritchie EC, & Huff, T.G. (1999). Psychiatric Aspects of Arsonists. Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol 44, lssue 4, 733-740. Robins, L. & O'Neal, P. (1958). Mortality, Mobility, and Crime: Problem Children Thirty Years Later. American Sociological Review, 23, 162-171. Rojek, D. & Erickson, M. (1982). Delinquent Careers. Criminology, 20(1), 5-28. Rowe, A.R., & Tittle, C.L. (1977). Life Cycle Changes and Criminal Propensity. Sociological Quarterly, Vol 18(2), 223-236 Sam pson, R & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Shannon, L. (1968). Scaling Juvenile Delinquency and Crime. Qualitative Studies in Criminology. Wellford, C., ( ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Schwaner, S. L. (2000). Stick 'Em Up, Buddy": Robbery, Lifestyle, And Specialization Within A Cohort Of Parolees. Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol28, lssue 5. September - October, 371-384. Shover, N. (1971) Burglary as Occupation. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms Shover, N. (1983). The Later Stages of Ordinary Property Offender Careers. Social Problems, Vol 32(2), 208-218. Schultes, T. (2003). Interview June 19, 2003 with the current Regional Deputy Crown Counsel for the Surrey Crown Counsel office. Mr. Schultes pioneered the practice of discovery courts, which, are often referred to as plea bargain courts. Mr. Schultes is a proponent of plea bargain arrangements. Slapper, G. & S. Tombs (1999). Corporate Crime. London: Longman. Smith, D. R. & Smith, W .R. (1983). Patterns of Delinquent Careers: An Assessment of Three Perspectives. New Brunswick NJ: Rutgers University. Sneesby, K. (2003). Interview dated June 17, 2003, with former Assistant District Attorney for Lake Charles, Texas, former legal aid lawyer in Winnipeg Manitoba, Canada, and a current criminal defence attorney. Mr. Sneesby has experience as both a prosecutor and defence attorney in both Canada and the United States. Soothill, Keith; Francis, B., Sanderson, B., & Ackerley, E. (2000). Sex Offenders: Specialists, Generalists - or Both? British Journal of Criminology,- Vol 40, 56-67. Soothill, K.L. & Pope, P.J. (1973). Arson: A Twenty-Year Cohort Study. Medical Science and Law, 16, 62-69 Soothill, K., Francis, B., & Fligelstone, R. (2002). Patterns Of Offending Behaviour: A New Approach. Home Office Research Study 171 Sorenson, A., & Brownfield, D. (1995). Adolescent Drug Use and a General Theory of Crime: An Analysis of a Theoretical Integration. Canadian Journal of Criminology, Jan,19-31. Staats, G. R. (1977). Changing Conceptualizations of Professional Criminals: Implications for Criminological Theory. Criminology, 15, 49. Stander, J., Farrington, D.P., Hill, G., & Altham, P.M.E. (1989). Markov Chain Analysis and Specialization in Criminal Careers. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 368- 385. Stekel, W. (1924). Pyromania. Peculiarities of Behaviour, Vol. 11, 124-181. New York: Boni and Liveright. Stott, D. & Wilson, D. (1977). The Adult Criminal as Juvenile. British Journal of Criminology, 17 (1), 47-57. Sudnow, D. (1965). Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office. Social Problems, 12, 255. Sutherland, E.H. (1937). The Professional Thief. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sutherland, E.H. (1940). White - Collar Criminality. American Sociological Review, 5 (lo), 2-10. Svensson, R. (2002). Strategic Offences in the Criminal Career Context. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 395-411. Tamir, L. M. (1982). Men in Their Forties. New York: Springer Publications, 1982. Terzola, D. A. (1976). The Contemporary Professional Thief: A New Look at Sutherland's Classic Model. Tolan, P.H. (1987). Implications of Age of Onset for Delinquency Risk. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 47-65. Tolan, P.H. & Lorian, R.P. (1988). Multivariate Approaches to the Identificationof Delinquency Proneness in Adolescent Males. American Journal of Community PSYC~O~O~Y,16, 547-6 1. Topp, D.O. (1973). Fire As A Symbol And As A Weapon Of Death. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 13, 79-86. Tracey, P. (1978). An Analysis of the Incidence and Seriousness of Self-Reported Delinquency and Crime. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. U.S. Government (1992). Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Government (1994). Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Government (1996). Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Government (1998). Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Uzoaba , J.H.E (1998). Managing Older Offenders: Where Do We Stand? Research Branch Correctional Services of Canada. Retrieved June 19, 2003 from htt~://~~~.~~~-~~~.~~.ca/text~rsrch/re~orts/r70/r70ee.shtmI Vasoli, R.H. & Terzola, D.A. (1974). Sutherland's Professional Thief. Criminology, 12, 131. Walker, A. (1974). Sociology and Professional Crime. in A. Blumberg (Ed.), Current Perspectives on Criminal Behavior, (pp. 87-1 13). New York: Alfred E. Knopf. Wallerstedt, J. (1984). Returning to Prison. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics (Special Report). West, D. (1969). Present Conduct and Future Delinquency. London: Heinemann. West, D.J, & Farrington, D. (1977). The Delinquent Way of Life. London: Heinemann. West, D. (1969). Delinquency: Its Roots, Careers and Prospects. London: Heinemann. W inslow, R. (1970). Society in Transition: A Social Approach to Deviancy. New York: Free Press. Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wood, P,, Pfefferbaum, B., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Risk Taking and Self Control: Social Psychological Correlates of Delinquency. Journal of Crime and Justice, 16, 11 1 - 30. Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Armed Robbers in Action. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Yin, T. (1995). Not a Rotten Carrot: Using Charges Dismissed Pursuant to a Plea Agreement in Sentencing Under the Federal Guidelines. California Law Review, VOI 83 (I), 419 - 469.