Fabricación de Vigas Laterales, Centrales y Cacho

To what extent is the intergenerational cohort characterised by distinctive patterns of

offending?

The analysis pertaining to this part of Research Question 1 is two-fold; aimed at exploring crime patterns specific to cohort affiliation. The discussion presented below sheds light on the nature of offending within families by exploring several related measures including the number of convictions, conviction rates (prevalence), repeat offending (recidivism) and co-offending involving relatives. In summary, the rationale here is to explore whether having a family member partaking to crime posits a transmission risk in continuity of offending. Also, this sets the groundwork for a more in-depth investigation of the intergenerational cohort which follows in Section 6.4.

6.3.1 Crimes as per conviction tickets

The first part of this section covers all convictions committed by the intergenerational cohort and non-family component. However, comparative analysis is carried out also as against the general prison population so as to cover of all offences that have resulted into convictions over the sixty year period. This exercise will quantify the number of crimes per capita distinguishing between crime families and the non-family component so as to establish the rate of convictions for each cohort. This section also focuses on recidivism to analyse even further whether

offending is concentrated in a small number of families. Recidivism is measured in terms of re-convictions that were awarded by a prison term; an individual who has more than one conviction ticket is defined as a recidivist in this study. The second part of this section examines the possibility of co-offending activity distinguishing between two cohorts, the intergenerational cohort and the non-family component. Co-offenders114 _{were identified}

through conviction tickets issued for the same crime, on the same day and by the same court delivering the sentence.

6.3.1.1 Crimes and recidivism by cohort analysis.

The findings presented here provide the reader with an overview of the convictions of the intergenerational cohort and non-family component.

Inmates belonging to the intergenerational cohort served 36.5% of all convictions between 1950 and 2010, whilst 63.5% of all convictions were served by inmates belonging to the non- family component. A deeper look at the offences committed by intergenerational and non- family component shows that per capita an individual in the non-family group commits 1.97 crimes as compared to an average of 2.5 of crimes per capita for the individual in the intergenerational cohort. This is evidence of the fact that a relatively small number of individuals in 622 families representing the intergenerational cohort are responsible for the larger share of prison sentences during the sixty year period. The number of convictions symbolising the awaiting trial (AT) or those with undefined data is higher for the intergenerational group and this is rooted in the fact that those on the awaiting trial list are more likely to belong to the intergenerational cohort.

Figure 6.2 presents recidivism trends by comparing the three cohorts. Recidivism is explored through the examination of re-convictions at CCF between 1950115 _{and 2010. It is noted that}

one conviction ticket classifies one as “First time” whilst a minimum of two conviction tickets classifies one as “Recidivist”. The intergenerational cohort registers the highest frequency of recidivism with 72.2%, whereas the non-family component registers a 63.2% whilst the whole parameter being the general prison population is noted by 66.2%. Such a scenario sets the       

114 _{Reiss (1988) definition of co-offending is adopted here where co-offending is an act “committed with the} simultaneous presence of at least two offenders”.

115 _{Ledgers date back to the 1800s which implies that any inmate at CCF during the 1950s and who had been} imprisoned prior to the 1950s had been categorised as a recidivist in the Formosa database.

context in which a more detailed review of recidivism times is necessary aiming at providing more in-depth information about prospective recidivism patterns of the three cohorts.

Figure 6.2: Recidivism by Cohort

The categories used to examine recidivism times reflect clusters of conviction tickets served at CCF between 1950 and 2010. This categorisation followed calculations taking into account that the number of conviction tickets served by an individual offender. “Once” represents (i.e. one case of recidivism) two convictions tickets, “two times” (i.e. two cases of recidivism) is served by three convictions whilst “three times” (i.e. three cases of recidivism) represents four convictions. Findings show that “Once” which is more pronounced for the non-family component (Figure 6.3). Interestingly, the frequencies for “4-10 times” and “10+ times” shown in Figure 6.3 indicate that extent of recidivism for the intergenerational cohort when compared to the non-family component. Chi squared test between family status and the number of reconvictions yielded Χ2 _{(8, N = 1577) = 38.40, p < .001 showing a significant relationship}

between the type of cohort membership and the number of times offenders re-enter (re- convictions) prison.

Findings here point towards a tendency that the individual belonging to the intergenerational cohort is more likely to experience a revolving door situation. Such a situation is linked to and

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

Intergenerational Non‐Family PopGen

Recidivism

First time Recidivist

predisposed by the higher number of crimes per capita committed by the individual in the intergenerational cohort rendering one more crime prolific. This could be explained in view of potential labelling of crime families which process could in turn increase the possibility of being caught by the police. Also, this could be accommodated by aspects in the Maltese islands related to community life and geographical proximity, as “ill-credited families” are well known within their community.

Figure 6.3: Recidivism times by cohort

6.3.2 Co-offending

This section focuses on analysing the co-offending patterns amongst CCF inmates. A total of 1,811 incarceration tickets involved co-offending. Also, 1,444 inmates were involved in co- offending activity (Table 6.5). In comparison to all the convictions, the results show that 16.6% (1,811 of 10,888) of all incarceration tickets are crimes committed by at least two offenders as co-offenders. A closer look at the figures in Table 6.5 shows that in the majority of the cases individuals are involved in one case of co-offending (1,208 occurrences).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Once 2‐3 times 4‐10 times 10+ times

Percentage

Recidivism Times

Intergenerational Non‐Family PopGen

Table 6.5: Co-offending Occurrences for the General Prison Population Count of Co-Offending – GenPop

No of Co-Offences Offenders Occurrences

1 1,208 1,208 2 157 314 3 56 168 4 11 44 5 6 30 6 1 6 7 2 14 8 1 8 9 1 9 10 1 10 Total 1,444 1,811

Further analysis of the number of co-offending partners shows that the largest cases of co- offending criminal activity pertain to the 2-partner category. This could point towards a situation where co-offenders prefer to commit offences with trusted others possibly restricted family members and undoubtedly in smaller group, as larger groups tend to render an offence easier to solve due to the higher number of participants where one may be more ready to ‘confess’ to the authorities or fall out with the partners. Focusing the study on the intergenerational cohort, 38%116 _{(Figure 6.4) of these are crimes committed by at least two}

members belonging to the same crime family, whereas 62%117 _{represent co-offending activity}

committed by un-related partners belonging to the non-family component. It is noted that the co-offending patterns of the intergenerational cohort are discussed in greater depth in Chapter 7. This aims to study the potential influence of co-offending in intergenerational offending in Malta.

116 _{This is equivalent to 697 incarceration tickets.} 117 _{This is equivalent to 1,114 incarceration tickets.}

Figure 6.4: Co-offending by cohort

6.3.3 Summary

Following the identification of an intergenerational cohort and a non-family component which together represent the general prison population, the analysis carried out focused on the review of the number of crimes measured by convictions committed by individuals between 1950 and 2010, distinguishing between those who belong to a crime family and those inmates who have no familial ties with other inmates at CCF during the study period. Crime continuity is here also studied through the examination of recidivism rates across the three cohorts. Co-offending patterns of the Maltese inmates were analysed here through the rigorous examination of all convictions committed by the whole population of CCF inmates distinguishing between the non-family component and the intergenerational cohort.

In summary, an individual belonging to a crime family commits more crimes per capita when compared to the number of crimes for the inmate belonging to the non-family cohort (calculated by number of convictions). This finding could be explained in terms of research that claims that crimes (Bijleveld & Farrington, 2009; Dugdale, 1887; Farrington & Welsh, 2007; Farrington et al., 1996, 1998; Hjalmarrson & Lindquist, 2009; McCord 1991, 1999; Rowe & Farrington, 1997; Van de Rakt et al., 2008, 2009, 2010) and convictions (Farrington, et al., 1996, 2009; Rowe & Farrington, 1997) run and concentrate in families. The individual belonging to a crime family is more likely to be a recidivist based on findings related to recidivism frequency and recidivism times, increasing the possibility that the prison population

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Intergenerational Non Family

Co‐Offenders ‐ percentages

hosts a concentration of inmates related to one another through familial links. Also, a concentration of related inmates at CCF could serve as catalyst to continuity in offending. The identification of the intergenerational cohort satisfies the main tenet of Research Question 1. The crime rates and recidivism frequency for the intergenerational cohort classify the individual belonging to this cohort as being more crime prolific which analysis satisfies partially one of the targets of this research question. The findings presented here yield information that allows for a comparative analysis in terms of crime prevalence but since the design adopted here focuses on convictions at CCF and a control group from the general population is not taken such limitations do not allow the researcher to establish the extent of concentration of offending vis-a-vis the realm of crime at a national level inclusive of crimes which were not awarded by a prison term.

The presence of individuals belonging to the intergenerational cohort was noted across all decades. Such findings point towards a scenario in which the accumulation of data and the increased possibility of identifying familial links became more likely from one decade to the next. This said, there are studies that claim a robust intergenerational transmission (e.g. Johnston, 2006) whilst others claim a modest transmission (e.g. Thornberry et al., 2003). Findings here show that in Malta, one in every three inmates registered at CCF has a restricted or extended relationship with another inmate which figures confirm that the phenomenon of intergenerational continuity exists. In other words, the analysis carried out here satisfies the objectives of the first research question. However, this calls for a closer look of the similarities and differences between the intergenerational cohort and non-family component aiming at detecting potential patterns linked with continuity of offending across generations.

Sixty two percent of co-offending activity is committed by inmates belonging to the non-family cohort whereas the rest of crimes committed by co-offenders (38%) involve restricted and/or extended family members as partners in crime. Additionally, a number of studies (Farrington et al., 1996, 2009; Reiss & Farrington, 1991; Rowe & Farrington, 1997) claim that co-offending between a parent and a child is rare. This said, however a more in-depth analysis by crime type and identification of the restricted and extended relationship between co-offenders belonging to the same crime family (Refer to Chapter 7) is key to understanding the role of the family in crime since the analysis carried out above does not yield additional information about concentration of offending in families.