Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T04:33:56.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Girls and Boys in Delinquent Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2025

Jerzy Sarnecki
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article constitutes an attempt to explain at least some of the dramatic differences in levels of criminal involvement between girls and boys. The analysis proceeds from a study of co-offending conducted among all youths suspected of criminal offences in Stockholm between 1991 and 1995 and their co-offenders. The study population comprises a total of 22,091 individuals (Sarnecki 2001). The article presents a number of new analyses based on this material, whose objective is to chart differences in the choices of co-offender made by young males and females suspected of criminal offences. The article also examines the character of co-offending networks containing males and females respectively.

The findings indicate that whilst boys tend to choose their co-offenders from among other boys of the same age, the girls, particularly as they become older, tend more often to choose boys who are both older and more criminally experienced than themselves. In general the girls were found to be less deeply embedded in the delinquent networks than their male counterparts. This was true even for girls presenting similar levels of delinquent involvment to the boys in question. If embeddedness in delinquent networks increases the risk for involvement in crime, then the weaker network ties presented by girls may be one of the factors explaining their lower levels of delinquency.

Résumé

Résumé

L’auteur propose dans cet article d’expliquer au moins partiellement les différences marquantes entre les niveaux d’implication des filles et des garçons dans la délinquance. L’analyse procède d’une étude sur la délinquance à plusieurs menée auprès de tous les jeunes suspectés d’infractions à Stockholm de 1991 à 1995 et de leurs complices. La population d’étude comprend un total de 22.091 individus (Sarnecki, 2001). L’article présente un certain nombre d’analyses nouvelles basée sur ce matériau, dont l’objectif est de dresser le tableau des différences dans les choix de partenaire de délinquance fait par les jeunes garçons et filles suspectés. L’article porte également sur les caractéristiques des réseaux de délinquance comprenant des garçons ou des filles.

Les résultats indiquent que cependant que les garçons ont tendance à choisir leurs partenaires de délinquance parmi les garçons de leur âge, les filles, surtout lorsqu’elles deviennent plus âgées, ont tendance à choisir des garçons qui soient à la fois plus âgés et plus expérimentés dans la délinquance qu’elles-mêmes. En général, les filles se sont avérées moins installées dans les réseaux délinquants que leurs partenaires masculins, même lorsqu’elles présentaient les mêmes niveaux d’implication dans la délinquance qu’eux. Si l’enracinement dans des réseaux de délinquance augmente le risque d’engagement dans le crime, le moindre enracinement des filles peut être l’un des facteurs expliquant leurs moindres niveaux de délinquance.

Resumen

Resumen

El autor propone en este artículo explicar, por lo menos parcialmente, las diferencias notables existentes entre los niveles de implicación en la delincuencia de las muchachas y de los muchachos. El análisis procede de un estudio sobre la delincuencia de grupo realizado en Estocolmo en torno a todos los jóvenes sospechados de infracciones y sus cómplices, de 1991 a 1995. La población estudiada comprende un total de 22.091 individuos (Sarnecki, 2001). El artículo presenta un cierto número de análisis nuevos basados en este material cuyo objetivo es presentar el cuadro de las diferencias en las elecciones de compañero en el delito hechas por los jóvenes sospechados, según se trate de chicos o de chicas. El artículo trata también de las características de las redes de delincuencia que incluyen a muchachos o muchachas.

Los resultados indican, sin embargo, que los chicos tienden a escoger a sus compañeros de delincuencia entre los muchachos de su edad, mientras que las chicas, sobre todo cuando aumentan en edad, tienden a escoger a chicos de más edad y a la vez más experimentados en la delincuencia que ellas mismas. En general, las muchachas se revelaron menos instaladas en las redes delictivas que sus compañeros masculinos, incluso cuando presentaban los mismos niveles de implicación en la delincuencia que ellos. Si el arraigo en redes de delincuencia aumenta el riesgo de compromiso con el crimen, el menor arraigo de las chicas puede ser uno de los factores que explican sus menores niveles de delincuencia.

Keywords

Juvenile delinquencygenderco-offendingnetworksdélinquance juvénilegenreco-délinquanceréseaux

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 42 , Issue 1-2 , 2004 , pp. 29 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 International Society for Criminology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

(*)

Department of Criminology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Address : Department of Criminology, Stockholm University. SE 106 91 Stockholm.

Tel + 46 8 16 21 02 or +46 70 37 27 839 Email Jerzy.Sarnecki@crim.su.se

References

Akers, R.L. (1998). Social Learning and Social Structure. A General Theory of Crime and Deviance, Northeastern University Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Allen, J. (1989). «Men, crime and criminology: recasting the questions». International Journal of the Sociology of Law 17 (1). 19–39.Google Scholar
Archer, J. (2000). «Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review». Psychological Bulletin 126: 651–680.Google ScholarPubMed
Box, S. (1983). Power, Crime and Mystification, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Breckinridge, S.P., and Abbot, E. (1917). The Delinquent Child and the Home, Russell Sage, New York.Google Scholar
Cain, M. (1989). Growing up Good: Policing the Behavior of Girls in Europe, Sage, London.Google Scholar
Cloward, R.A, and Ohlin, L.E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity, Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.Google Scholar
Cohen, A.K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.Google Scholar
Cohen, L.E., and Felson, M. (1979). «Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach». American Sociological Review 44: 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R.W. (1999). Maskuliniteter. Daidalos, Göteborg.Google Scholar
Dunér, A., and Haglund, B. (1974). Tonårspojkar och brott, Utbildningsforskning. SÖ rapport 8, Skolöverstyrelsen, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., and Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, California.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. and Sanders, C.R. (1995). Cultural Criminology, Northeastern University Press, Boston.Google Scholar
Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Haynie, D.L. (2002): «Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency». Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 18: 99–134.Google Scholar
Henry, D.B., Tolan, P.H., and Gorman-Smith, D. (2002). Peer Influences on Property Crime Violence, and Drug Use: Congruence and Developmental Timing. University of Illinois at Chicago: paper submitted to 54th Annual Meeting of The American Society of Criminology.Google Scholar
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hood, R. and Sparks, R. (1970), Key Issues in Criminology, Word University Library. London.Google Scholar
Johnson, R.E. (1979). Juvenile delinquency and its origins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Krohn, M.D. and Massey, J.L. (1980). «Social control and delinquent behaviour: An examination of the elements of the social bond». The Sociological Quarterly 21. 529–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, D. (1980). «The etiology of female crime: A review of the literature», In Datesman, S.K., and Scarpatti, F.R. (eds.). Women, Crime and Justice, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Klein, M.W. and Crawford, L.Y. (1967). «Groups, gangs and cohesiveness». Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4: 142165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M.W. (1971). Street gangs and Street Workers, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Klein, M.W., Kerner, H-J, Maxon, Ch.L. and Weitekamp, E.G.M. (Eds.) (2001). The Eurogangs Paradox: Street Gangs and Youth Groups in the U.S. and Europé, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Klein, M.W. (1995). The American Street Gang. Its Nature, Prevalence, and Control, Oxford, University Press Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Blanc, M. and Çaplan, A. (1993). «Theoretical formalization, a necessity: The example of hirschi’s bonding theory». In Adler, F. and Läufer, W. (eds.) New Directions in Criminological Theory, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and Drift, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Miller, W.B. (1958). «Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency». Journal of Social Issues 14: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messerschmidt, J.W. (1997). Crime as structured action: gender, race, class and crime in the making, SAGE, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Rutter, Μ., and Silva, P.A. (2001). Sex Differences in Antisocial Behaviour, Cambridge, University Press Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, T. (2002). Tre aspekter på nätverksanalys: supportervåld, etnicitet och genus, Department of Criminology, Stockholm University, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Reiss, A.J. Jr. (1986). «Co-offending and criminal careers». In Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., and Visher, C. (eds.) Criminal Careers and «Career Criminals», National Academy Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Reiss, A.J. Jr. (1988) «Co-offending and Criminal Careers». In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.) Crime and Justice: An Annual review of Research. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.Google Scholar
Reiss, A.J. Jr. and Farrington, D.P. (1991). «Advancing knowledge about co-offending: Results from a prospective longitudinal survey of London males». Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82: 360395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ring, J. (1999). Hem och skola, kamrater och brott, Department of Criminology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Sarnecki, J. (1983). Brottsliga ungdomsgäng, The National Council for Crime Prevention (BRÅ), Stockholm.Google Scholar
Sarnecki, J. (1986). Delinquent Networks, The National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Sarnecki, J. (1990). Social anpassning och samhällssyn, The National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Sarnecki, J. (2001). Delinquent Networks: Youth Co-offending in Stockholm.: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarnecki, J. (2002). Brottsliga ungdomsnätverk i Köpenhamn 1999-2001. Preliminary, revised version, Department of Criminology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Short, J.F. Jr. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1965). Group Process and Gang Delinquency, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. (1931), Male Juvenile Delinquency as Group Behaviour. Report on the Causes of Crime. N° 13. National Commission on Law Observance and the Administration of Justice. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Shaw, C.R. and McKay, H.D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Sutherland, E.H. (1939). Principals of Criminology. 3rd edition, Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Sutherland, E.H., Cressey, D.R., and Luckenbill, D.F. (1992). Principles of Criminology 11th edition.Google Scholar
General Hall Dix Hills, N.Y. Sveri, K. (1960). Kriminalitet og alder. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Thornberry, T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Farnworth, M. and Jang, S.J. (1991). «Testing interactional theory: An examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school, and delinquency». Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82: 3–33.Google Scholar
Thrasher, F. (1927). The Gang, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Tremblay, P. (1993). «Searching for suitable co-offenders». Routine activity and rational choice. In Clarke, R.V. and Felson, M. (eds.) Advances in Criminological Theory. Vol. 5. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick.Google Scholar
Ward, M. (1998). Barn & Brott av vår tid? Själv deklarerad Ungdomsbrottslighet 1991-1996, Department of Criminology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Warr, M. (1996). «Organization and instigation in delinquent groups». Criminology, 34: 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warr, Μ. (2002). Companions in Crime. The Social aspects of Criminal Conduct. Camdridge, University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar