A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL

Critical Appraisal of van Schellen, M, Apel, R & Nieuwbeerta, P 2012, ‘Because You’re Mine, I Walk the Line’’? Marriage, Spousal Criminality, and Criminal Offending Over the Life Course’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

Introduction

            The link between marriage and numerous adult outcomes is widely accepted; however, the association remains controversial (Bersani & Doherty 2013; Torkild & Skardhamar 2013; Zoutewelle-Terovan et al. 2013). Marriage is usually perceived to be a significant transitional event that has the capability of reducing criminal activity as well encourages desistance from misdemeanor. Reduction in deviant behavior is often associated with the social bond that is formed and strengthened because of marriage (Bersani & van Schellen 2014). Spouses have a tendency of monitoring each other’s behavior and tend to discourage each other from taking part in any activities that may cause danger to their marital relationship through committing crime.  In this regard, van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) undertook an empirical study to evaluate the relationship between crime and crime using a high-risk same of Dutch women and men. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) sought to determine whether the onset of marriage impacts differently on one’s criminal career. Data was collected from the Criminal Career and Life Course Study, which was a random sample of 4615 people who were convicted of a criminal offense during 1977 (van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta 2012). The lifetime criminal histories for participants ranged from age 12 to 2003. In order to quantify the relationship between conviction frequency, spousal criminality and marriage while controlling for prior incarceration, prior conviction, parenthood and age, fixed-effects models were estimated. The results reported that marriage lessens the conviction frequency among men only if they are married to non-convicted spouse. On the contrary, marrying a convicted spouse has no impact on criminal behavior, that is, it neither promotes nor encourages criminal behavior. Among women, the results show that marriage lessens criminal behavior irrespective of the spouse’s criminal history. The findings from the study also suggest marriage significantly benefits men in more stable marital relationships and having more extensive criminal records; nevertheless, unstable marriages to spouses who are not convicted lessens the frequency of conviction.  Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) concluded that, whereas marriage is a significant transition event, it does essentially translate to the ending of a criminal career; factors such as offender characteristics (criminal history and gender), spouse characteristics (criminal history), and marriage characteristics (duration) impact on the desistance from deviance. The study has been instrumental in providing a framework for other studies; it has been cited in numerous studies by Craig, Diamond & Piquero (2014), Bersani & Doherty (2013), and Bersani & van Schellen (2014).

Regarding the definition of the research problem, van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) clearly defined the research problem to be addressed, which was to model the relationship existing between criminal conviction and marriage and determine how criminal history of one’s spouse at the time of marriage impacts on this relationship. The core issues and research variables are also identified in the study. The independent variables in the study include marriage and the gender of the offender, which are summarized as spousal criminality and marriage. The dependent variable is the frequency of conviction. Despite identifying the core research issues, van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) did not outline the significance of the study such as the potential areas or policy that the findings can be applied to address a societal issue. With regard to the adequacy of literature review, van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) provided adequate literature review, which comprised of past studies and theoretical contributions on the research topic including empirical studies relating to the impact of marriage on criminal behavior. The literature review effectively discusses the current research on the problem and helps to situate authors’ research in existing literature. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) acknowledges that whereas there is extensive empirical research on the impacts of marriage on criminal behavior, little attention has been directed towards the effect of spouses’ criminal careers. This is somewhat surprising owing to the fact that associations with delinquents are one of the most crucial predictors of deviance. As a result, there is the need to gain knowledge regarding the criminal career development at the individual level, especially with regard to spouses’ criminal behavior. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) study was motivated by the fact that there are no empirical studies that focus on the impacts of partners’ criminal records and the need for longitudinal information about criminal behavior development. In addition, van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) outline the limitations of earlier studies in order to place their research in context and justify their research. Research objectives were clearly stated in the journal article, which included contributing to the existing literature, investigating life-long criminal careers of many offenders as well as their marriage partners, and investigating the criminal careers of female and male offenders. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) also stated the hypotheses used in the study; however, they were not clearly listed. The hypotheses are described in a paragraph, which makes it difficult for a reader to identify the specific hypotheses being tested by the researchers. The authors only described their expectations and did not list specific hypotheses for evaluation. In addition, the descriptions of their expectations are listed as assumptions and do not outline specific provisions of their hypotheses. A suggested improvement is for the authors to list their alternate and null hypotheses to be tested in the study. For instance, hypothesis 1 could have been stated as “marriage to a non-criminal spouse reduces the frequency of criminal conviction”.

Regarding the methodology used, van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) clearly identified the research methodology as well as the limitations associated to the study design. The authors clearly stated their data source, which was the CCLS. Limitations associated with this study design are also acknowledged, which include non random selection of marriage and partner. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) points out that, married and non-married individuals exhibit different characteristics, and that people who marry spouses who are convicted are likely to be different from people who marry non-convicted spouses. This posed a selection problem, which the authors acknowledge that, it can obscure the interpretations of causal associations between criminality and marriage. Nevertheless, the authors outlined how they attempted to address the limitation. The authors also provided adequate description of the participants including the procedures for sampling as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) used a sample of 4615 offenders who were convicted of criminal offenses in Netherlands during 1977 (424 women and 4191 men). Despite the fact that data collection instruments are sufficiently described, the authors did not address the issues of reliability and the validity of their data source. Regarding the methods for measuring results, the authors selected the most appropriate data analysis method (fixed effects models) and provided sufficient description of their analytic strategy including its potential limitations and how they overcome these limitations. In addition, the fixed effects models is an effective tool to eliminate potential biases that may be attributed to a variation source in criminality that is likely to be constant over time such as genetic differences. The authors also described their empirical model including the dependent variable (number of convictions per subject).

With respect to the results, the authors’ findings are clearly presented and sufficiently address the outlined research objectives. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) had the primary objective of investigating the degree to which the impacts of first marriage have on spouses’ criminal history. The findings are presented with respect to the aforementioned research hypotheses. The authors modeled the relationship between conviction frequency, spousal criminality and marriage, determined the moderating impact of criminal history and the moderating impact of marital stability on spouse’s criminal behavior. In addition, the tables are integrated within the results section and are helpful in highlighting the key findings of the study.

With regard to discussion, the results presented in the journal article validate the recommendations and conclusions of the authors. Van Schellen, Apel & Nieuwbeerta (2012) use their findings to draw conclusions and make recommendations. The results showed that marriage lessens the conviction frequency among men only if they are married to non-convicted spouse. Conversely, marrying a convicted spouse has no impact on criminal behavior, that is, it neither promotes nor encourages criminal behavior. Among women, the results show that marriage lessens criminal behavior irrespective of the spouse’s criminal history. The findings from the study also suggest marriage significantly benefits men in more stable marital relationships and having more extensive criminal records; nevertheless, unstable marriages to spouses who are not convicted lessens the frequency of conviction. Using the results, the authors conclude that whereas marriage is a significant transition event, it does essentially translate to the ending of a criminal career; factors such as offender characteristics (criminal history and gender), spouse characteristics (criminal history), and marriage characteristics (duration) impact on the desistance from deviance. In addition, the discussion draws upon prior research findings and reports consistent results with prior studies (Sampson, Laub & Christopher 2006). The authors also provided directions for further research, which involve the need to undertake studies in diverse contexts in order to assess the generalizability of their findings.  The authors also recommend future studies to emphasize on the effect of the type of relationship on criminal offending. However, there are potential loopholes in the authors’ discussion in the sense that they did not emphasize on the theoretical or practical significance of the study.

In conclusion, the study was able to meet its stated objectives. It is apparent that quality of the research project matched the report outlined in the journal article. The study design was worthwhile, and the results are significant and original. In addition, the authors offer a fresh insight in the field. The journal article is well structured with the sections being of appropriate length. Moreover, the presentation is reasonable, objective and unbiased.

References

Bersani, B & Doherty, E 2013, ‘When ties that bind unwind:Examining the enduring and situational processes of change behind the marriage effect’, Criminology.

Bersani, B & van Schellen, M 2014, ‘The Effectiveness of Marriage as an “Intervention” in the Life Course: Evidence from the Netherlands’, Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders, pp. 101-119.

Craig, J, Diamond, B & Piquero, A 2014, ‘Marriage as an Intervention in the Lives of Criminal Offenders’, Effective Interventions in the Lives of Criminal Offenders, pp. 19-37.

Sampson, R, Laub, J & Christopher, W 2006, ‘Does Marriage Reduce Crime? A Counterfactual Approach to Within-Individual Causal Effects’, Criminology , pp. 465-508.

Torkild, HL & Skardhamar, T 2013, ‘Changes in Criminal Offending around the Time of Marriage’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol 50, no. 4, pp. 608-615.

van Schellen, M, Apel, R & Nieuwbeerta, P 2012, ‘Because You’re Mine, I Walk the Line’’? Marriage, Spousal Criminality, and Criminal Offending Over the Life Course’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology.

Zoutewelle-Terovan, M, van der Geest, V, Bijleveld, C & Liefbroer, A 2013, ‘Associations in criminal behaviour for married males and females at high risk of offending’, European Journal of Criminology.