viewpoint
Crime and the family: like
ABSTRACT
The phenomenon of criminal
behaviour has interested
scholars from academic
disciplines building on centuries
of philosophical debate
developed from emerging
biological, psychological and
social sciences. Criminological
theories of causation are
embedded in conceptual
networks that link political
ideology classified by
philosophical underpinnings.
For example, the late 18th and
early 19th century utilitarianism
consensus classical theory
supported the notion of free
will, suggesting that individuals
were likely to commit crime if
the pay-off were greater than
the retribution. In contrast,
conflict marxist and radical
criminology regarded crime as
a function of poverty, reflecting
a power imbalance in society.
The late 19th century saw the
emergence of the positivist
school, which argued that
factors including genetics,
poverty, personality and the
family were important in
determining criminality. This
article concentrates on the
transmission of crime through
families by reviewing a
selection of the main studies
in the area.
32
The British Journal of Forensic Practice • VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 4 • DECEMBER 2004
grandfather, like father,
like son?
Nathan Gregory
GLOUCESTER ASSERTIVE COMMUNITY TREATMENT
TEAM, GLOUCESTERSHIRE PARTNERSHIP NHS TRUST
Introduction to the literature
Twin and adoption studies
Several studies have reviewed the literature to examine evidence for a
genetic constitution for the development of criminality. Blackburn
(1995), Hollin (1993) and Raine (1993) between them cite seven
biological studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins conducted
during the 1930s and 1940s, and highlight mean concordance rates
of 75% for monozygotic and 24% for dizygotic twins when examined
for criminal behaviour. Three later studies which avoided
concordance rate errors due to distinguishing twins on appearance,
and adopted fingerprinting and blood types to determine zygocity,
found reduced concordance rates of 48% and 20% respectively.
Further prospective longitudinal adoption studies report that
when both biological and adoptive parents are criminals, 24% of
adopted children display criminal behaviour, compared with 13%
whose biological/adoptive parents are non-criminal (Mednick et al,
1984). Further American and Swedish studies agree that there is some
genetic disposition to crime, indicating cross-cultural generalisability
of these findings (Cadoret et al, 1987; Sigvardsson et al, 1982).
Although genetic studies appear to provide persuasive evidence that
criminal behaviour runs in families, methodological weaknesses,
including small and rare samples, mean that results have to be treated
cautiously.
Family studies
Other authors have investigated families to explore the development
of criminality. Three American studies report intergenerational
transmission of crime. Glueck and Glueck (1950), in a cross-sectional
study, compared 500 relatively well-behaved public school boys with
500 institutionalised delinquents, and discovered that 66% of
delinquents had a criminal father, compared with 32% in the control
group. Similarly, Robins et al (1975) reported that 57% of delinquent
sons had a criminal father, while McCord (1977) in the Cambridge-
© Pavilion Publishing Brighton Ltd

Somerville study reported that 29% of sons with
convicted violent fathers were convicted for
violence, 40% with convicted thieving fathers were
convicted for theft and 50% with convicted
drunken fathers were convicted for drunkenness.
In the United Kingdom, both Ferguson (1952)
and Wilson (1987) have suggested that a convicted
family member was influential in the development
of offspring criminality, rather than structural
factors such as poor housing or poverty. The
Cambridge Study on Delinquent Development
(Farrington & West, 1990) reported that having a
convicted father was the best predictor of offspring
offending and antisocial behaviour. This
prospective longitudinal survey traced 411 males
reared in 397 working class families living in South
London in 1961/2 from the age of eight. The
results indicated that 64% of families contained at
least one convicted person, six per cent accounted
for 48% of all offences, and across both generations
56% of convicted mothers mated with convicted
fathers, 75% of these couples producing a
convicted child (Farrington et al, 1996).
However, although they produce interesting
information, family studies require careful
attention. Research findings are limited, in that a
correlation between two variables (family
criminality and offspring criminality) does not
prove a causal relationship; a third variable such as
environmental factors may be influential. This was
particularly the case in the Cambridge Study, which
was unable to disentangle the heredity or
environmental factors influencing family
criminality.
Theories of criminal behaviour within families
There are several competing theories that focus on
the management styles of criminal families,
influenced initially by the psychoanalytical concept
of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1944). A study of
44 delinquent juveniles matched to a control group
reported that 39% of delinquents were separated
from their mother before the age of five compared
to five per cent of the control group. Although
criticised for an unrepresentative sample and
unreliable assessment methodology, Bowlby
concluded that maternal deprivation through
rejection was linked to childhood antisocial
behaviour and later delinquency. Similarly,
The British Journal of Forensic Practice • VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 4 • DECEMBER 2004
© Pavilion Publishing Brighton Ltd
Crime and the family: like grandfather, like father, like son?
McCord (1983) argued that parental rejection was
the most powerful instigator of criminality, finding
that 56% of rejected boys were involved in serious
crime compared with 23% of loved children.
In contrast, social learning theory maintains
that behaviour is learnt through observation and
modelling of others, primarily within the family
(Bandura, 1977). For example, Patterson and
colleagues (1984), in an American study of 206
schoolboys, discovered that families teach children
delinquent behaviour through a coercive process
involving punishment, humiliation, aggression or
non-enforced threats. Deviant families were
characterised by enmeshed or lax management
styles, resulting in poor child supervision and
leading to high rates of child stealers and police
contact (Patterson et al, 1989).
The size of families appears to correlate with
delinquency. Hirschi (1969), in a control theory,
reasoned that larger families were harder to
discipline and likely to receive less parental
attention. For example, Ferguson (1952) reported
that 44% of delinquents had three or more
convicted family members, while the Cambridge
Study discovered that delinquents were likely to
come from families with four or more children
(Farrington et al, 1996). Further demographic
variables, including socioeconomic status, also
appear to be indicative of antisocial behaviour,
although the empirical findings are inconsistent.
Low family income was a relatively independent
predictor of later delinquency in the Cambridge
Study, suggesting a strain theory that lower class
males were unable to achieve middle class status,
leading to boredom, frustration and delinquency
(Farrington & West, 1990).
Child abuse and neglect
Other authors have examined extensively parental
child-rearing practices and the development of
delinquency. Haapsalo and Pokela (1998) reviewed
six major American longitudinal studies of children
and examined the relationship between offspring
criminality and exposure to negative child-rearing
practices. All six studies reported parental
punitiveness as crucial to the development of
offspring antisocial behaviour, while four
considered lack of parental love, and three laxness,
deviant parents and family disruption as important
33
Crime and the family: like grandfather, like father, like son?
factors. The research indicated that styles of
parenting including corporal punishment, power
assertion, rejection, physical abuse and neglect were
prime predictors of future criminal and antisocial
offspring behaviour. Other important factors were
poor parental supervision and parent-child
interaction, parental criminality and socioeconomic
difficulties.
Similarly, Widom (1989a) reviewed thoroughly
the relationship between child abuse, neglect and
delinquency, noting that tentative conclusions
could be drawn from the three prospective and
nine retrospective studies examined. For example,
prospective data on child abuse and neglect
revealed offspring delinquency rates of 10%–17%
compared with 8%–26% where research was
conducted retrospectively. Furthermore, serious
methodological weaknesses were noted in these
studies. For example, retrospective bias may lead
to inaccuracies, as respondents might forget their
behaviour, while conservative bias may under-
estimate the actual occurrence of abuse. Lack of
control groups and failure to consider statistical
base rates may confound reports of child abuse,
leading to difficulties in assessing the independent
effects of abuse and neglect. Nevertheless, child
abuse and neglect lead to an increased risk of later
violent crime and criminal behaviour, although not
all of those abused become criminals.
Cycle of violence
The ‘cycle of violence’ or ‘victim to offender’
hypothesis has also received attention. Widom
(1989b; 1989c) reported that 15% of child physical
abuse victims had been arrested for violent crimes
compared with 12% of neglected children and
eight per cent in a group that had not been
maltreated. Lewis et al (1985), in a small-scale
American prospective study of nine murderers,
reported that 78% had experienced severe parental
abuse, while in the United Kingdom, Falshaw and
Browne (1997) discovered that 53% of young
inmates at the Glenthorne secure unit had been
physically abused, 32% neglected, 28% severely
emotionally abused and 14% sexually abused, and
that 49% reported family violence.
In relation to familial domestic violence, a study
of street children in the United Kingdom revealed
that 78% of runaway adolescents had been
34
The British Journal of Forensic Practice • VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 4 • DECEMBER 2004
© Pavilion Publishing Brighton Ltd
physically or sexually abused and 75% had escaped
family violence, 50% resorting to crime for finance
(Browne & Falshaw, 1998). Studies considering the
impact on children of witnessing parental violence
indicate that 53% of violent offenders had observed
their parents engage in violence (Bach-y-Rita &
Veno, 1974), while Lewis et al (1985) reported
that 79% of more violent incarcerated boys had
witnessed domestic violence. However, although
these studies suggest an unequivocal progression
from victim to offender, it is important to
remember that the majority of abused children do
not become delinquent, and abuse alone does not
predict a career of adult crime (Falshaw et al, 1996).
Discussion
If authors generally agree that there is an
intergenerational transmission of crime
concentrated in a small minority of families, then
identification of effective interventions appears
crucial in preventing offspring delinquency.
Studies appear to suggest that over time antisocial
behaviour is a relatively stable characteristic, and
therefore identifiable childhood antecedents for
crime have the potential for modification.
However, Browne and Herbert (1997) report
that, although at primary level media publicity has
enabled greater awareness of the implications of
childhood abuse and neglect, the growth of child
telephone helplines appears to have limited efficacy.
Similarly, Blackburn (1995) reports mixed
conclusions on secondary level intervention
strategies for delinquent school children that are
based on attachment theory and parental skills
training. Authors further report that tertiary level
interventions have a poor effect on the
intergenerational cycle of offending, particularly
as implementation occurs when delinquents are
already firmly entrenched in their behaviour
patterns. For example, Lewis (1985), in a nine-year
follow-up of violent boys, stated that those
displaying the most violent offences had on average
nine institutional placements, while Falshaw and
Browne (1995) report that conduct-disordered
inmates had experienced five institutional and three
foster home placements.
Other researchers strongly advocate that to
break the ‘victim to offender’ cycle, prevention at

the level of family relationships is crucial, by
screening potential high-risk families (where
parental chemical dependence or mental illness,
for example, is present) by trained health visitors
and social workers. Subsequently, Browne and
Herbert (1997) argued that social skills and anger
management training coupled with positive child-
rearing strategies could be implemented to support
families. This type of intervention initiative,
including Head Start in American and its British
equivalent Sure Start, provide educational
stimulation targeted at high-risk families at
pre-school age. They are now beginning to report
evidence of improved social competence and
reduced aggression in children.
Conclusion
Although arguments about the theoretical
significance of the association between family
criminality and later offspring delinquency have
advanced, the strength of the association appears
modest. Factors including parental criminality,
child neglect, physical abuse and exposure to
domestic violence appear to be good indicators of
later offspring delinquency, but it is still unclear
whether this is through genetic or social–familial
variables. Studies consistently report that
individuals exposed to disruption or family discord
have avoided delinquency because of other
protective factors that reduced the criminal effects
of these families. The interaction between
protective factors and risk variables seems a more
important issue for future studies.
Finally, further research should be concentrated
on the provision and efficacy of early intervention
strategies targeted at high-risk families to enable
the prediction and prevention of future child
delinquency and the development of suitable
treatment programmes.
Address for correspondence
Nathan Gregory, Team Leader/Specialist
Practitioner, Gloucester Assertive Community
Treatment Team, Gloucestershire Partnership
NHS Trust, Burleigh House, Nettleton Road,
Gloucester GL1 1PZ.
The British Journal of Forensic Practice • VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 4 • DECEMBER 2004
© Pavilion Publishing Brighton Ltd
Crime and the family: like grandfather, like father, like son?
References
Bach-y-Rita G & Veno A (1974) Habitual violence: a
profile of 62 men. American Journal of Psychiatry 131
1,015–7.
Bandura A (1977) Social Learning Theory. New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.
Blackburn R (1995) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
Chichester: John Wiley.
Bowlby J (1944) Forty-four juvenile thieves.
International Journal of Psychology 25 1–57.
Browne K & Falshaw L (1998) Street children and crime
in the United Kingdom: a case of abuse and neglect.
Child Abuse Review 7 1–13.
Browne K, Falshaw L & Hamilton C (1995) The
characteristics of young persons resident at the
Glenthorne Centre during the first half of 1995. Youth
Treatment Service Journal 11 (2) 52–71.
Browne K & Herbet M (1997) Preventing Family
Violence. Chichester: Wiley.
Cadoret R, Troughton E & O’Gorman T (1987)
Genetic and environmental factors in alcohol abuse and
antisocial personality. Journal of Studies of Alcohol 48
1–8.
Falshaw L & Browne E (1997) Adverse childhood
experiences and violent acts of young people in secure
accommodation. Journal of Mental Health 6 (5) 443–55.
Falshaw L, Browne D & Hollin C (1996) Victim to
offender: a review. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 1 (4)
389–404.
Farrington D, Barnes G & Lambert S (1996) The
concentration of offending in families. Legal and
Criminological Psychology 1 47–63.
Farrington & West D (1990) The Cambridge Study in
Delinquent Development: a long-term follow up of 411
London males. In: H-J Kerner & G Kaiser (Eds)
Criminality; Personality, Behaviour and Life History.
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ferguson T (1952) The Young Delinquent in His Social
Setting. London: Oxford University Press.
35
Crime and the family: like grandfather, like father, like son?
Glueck S & Glueck ET (1950) Unravelling Juvenile
Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Haapasalo J & Pokela E (1998) Child rearing and child
abuse antecedents of criminality. Aggression and Violent
Behaviour 4 (1) 107–27.
Hirschi T (1969) Causes of Delinquency. California:
Sage.
Hollin CR (1993) Psychology and Crime: An Introduction
to Criminological Psychology. Routledge: London.
Lewis D, Moy E, Jackson L et al (1985) Bio-
psychological characteristics of children who later
murder. A prospective study. American Journal of
Psychiatry 142 1,161–7.
McCord J (1977) A comparative study of two
generations of Native Americans. In: RF Meier (Ed)
Theory in Criminology. California: Sage.
McCord J (1983) A forty-year perspective on effects of
child abuse and neglect. Child and Abuse and Neglect
7 265–70.
Mednick B, Gabrill W & Hutchings B (1984) Genetic
influences in criminal convictions. Evidence from an
adoption cohort. Science 244 981–4.
Patterson GR, DeBaryshe BD & Ramsey E (1989) A
developmental perspective on antisocial behaviour.
American Psychologist 44 (2) 329–35.
36
The British Journal of Forensic Practice • VOLUME 6 • ISSUE 4 • DECEMBER 2004
© Pavilion Publishing Brighton Ltd
Patterson G, Dishion T & Bank L (1984) Family
interaction: a process method of deviancy training.
Aggressive Behaviour 10 253–67.
Raine A (1993) The Psychopathology of Crime. Criminal
Behaviour is a Clinical Disorder. London: Academic Press.
Robins LN, West PA & Herjanic BL (1975) Arrests and
delinquency in two generations: a study of black urban
families and their children. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 16 125–40.
Sigvardsson S, Cloninger R, Bohman M & von
Knorring A (1982) Predisposition to petty criminality in
Swedish adoptees. III. Sex differences and validation of
the male typology. Archives of General Psychiatry 39
1,248–53.
Widom C (1989a) Child abuse, neglect, and violent
criminal behaviour. Criminology 27 251–71.
Widom C (1989b) Does violence beget violence? A
critical examination of the literature. Psychological
Bulletin 106 3–28.
Widom C (1989c) The cycle of violence. Science 244
160–6.
Wilson H (1987) Parental supervision re-examined.
British Journal of Criminology 27 275–301.