Moffitt's Dual-Taxonomy
“When official crime rates are plotted against age, the rates for both prevalence and incidence of offending appear highest during adolescence.” Moffitt (1994)
Understanding the relationship between antisocial behaviour and development is observable through two distinct categories identified by Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy. This theory recognized that during our early development, it would be possible to classify antisocial behaviour as something that would either persist over our lifetime or occur sporadically during our adolescence and then desist. In this analysis, the differences and limitations of the two types within Moffitt’s theory will be discussed and the relation between antisocial behaviour and development will be identified.
According to Moffitt’s (1993) theory, our early development was important in understanding antisocial behaviour. She found that the origins of life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour come from an interaction between neuropsychological deficits and the impact that a criminogenic environment has. Piquero and Brezina (2001), stated that the persistent antisocial behaviour associated with this group is down to subtle neuropsychological deficits that interrupt development of language, memory and self-control - these deficits make the individual vulnerable when faced with criminogenic influences within their social environment.
Cognitive deficits such as inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity are commonly associated with individuals within the LCP category. Such deficits have been attributed to disruptions in neural development, which could include maternal drug abuse, poor prenatal nutrition and pre or postnatal exposure to toxic agents (Moffitt, 1993) - it is possible to link these problems in development to antisocial behaviour. However, Donnellan et al., (2000) believed that those within the adolescent-limited group do not have the same cognitive deficits that prevent the LCP individuals from desisting in
Understanding the relationship between antisocial behaviour and development is observable through two distinct categories identified by Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy. This theory recognized that during our early development, it would be possible to classify antisocial behaviour as something that would either persist over our lifetime or occur sporadically during our adolescence and then desist. In this analysis, the differences and limitations of the two types within Moffitt’s theory will be discussed and the relation between antisocial behaviour and development will be identified.
According to Moffitt’s (1993) theory, our early development was important in understanding antisocial behaviour. She found that the origins of life-course-persistent antisocial behaviour come from an interaction between neuropsychological deficits and the impact that a criminogenic environment has. Piquero and Brezina (2001), stated that the persistent antisocial behaviour associated with this group is down to subtle neuropsychological deficits that interrupt development of language, memory and self-control - these deficits make the individual vulnerable when faced with criminogenic influences within their social environment.
Cognitive deficits such as inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity are commonly associated with individuals within the LCP category. Such deficits have been attributed to disruptions in neural development, which could include maternal drug abuse, poor prenatal nutrition and pre or postnatal exposure to toxic agents (Moffitt, 1993) - it is possible to link these problems in development to antisocial behaviour. However, Donnellan et al., (2000) believed that those within the adolescent-limited group do not have the same cognitive deficits that prevent the LCP individuals from desisting in