Generalidades del diseño de un sistema de bombeo mecánico

There are at least three conceptual challenges associated with attempts to identify risk factor differences between chronic offenders and non-chronic offenders. These conceptual issues are related to (1) sample selection, (2) inclusion of appropriate risk factors, and (3) the search for risk factors that are also stable over time. Regarding sample selection, van Domburgh et al. (2009) explained that comparisons between chronic and desisting trajectories often failed to identify differences in risk factor profiles because of an insufficient base rate of offenders following this high-rate and persistent offending trajectory (also see Bushway, 2013). In other words, the base rates needed to perform the appropriate statistical analyses for comparing between trajectory groups (see Copas & Tarling, 1986; MacLennan, 1988) has been lacking in this prior work. In effect, the theoretical relevance of studies that found no differences between chronic and desisting trajectories, but relied on low-risk, population-based samples, is limited (see van der Geest et al., 2009). Sampling directly from populations of known offenders is needed to obtain adequate base rates (Blokland & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Blokland et al., 2005; Piquero; 2008; van der Geest et al., 2009; van Domburgh et al., 2009).

Regarding the second conceptual issue, most prior studies have not included the types of neuropsychological measures thought to differentiate offenders following chronic trajectories versus trajectories characterized by desistance. Instead, predictors of offending trajectories have included parental divorce, religious involvement, school performance and IQ, impulsivity, poor concentration, early onset of antisocial behavior, criminal record of parents/siblings, and parenting style (e.g., Blokland et al., 2005; Day et al., 2012; Fergusson et al., 2000; Landsheer & van Dijkum, 2005; Nagin et al., 2005; Odgers et al., 2008; van der Geest et al., 2009; van Domburgh et al., 2009; Ward et al., 2010). In other words, the types of variables included were those that were not deemed sufficient in early theorizing regarding the relationship between chronic offenders and offenders following a desistance trajectory. Overall, the research lacked incorporation of

risk factors thought to be unique to chronic offending and instead included risk factors typically used to distinguish offenders from non-offenders. Indeed, even certain neuropsychological deficits such as ADHD, conduct disorder (CD), and other behavioral or attention disorders cannot be reasonably expected to differentiate types of offending trajectories because such disorders are prevalent among adjudicated19 adolescent offenders (Forth, 1995) and are rather unhelpful in predicting future offending (e.g., Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004). This limitation can be rectified by including the types of psychopathological disorders that are predominant within chronic offenders but not low/moderate offenders (e.g., Odgers et al., 2008).

Regarding the third conceptual issue, many childhood or adolescent risk factors associated with offending in adolescence will have only a distal effect on offending in adulthood. As such, desistance is expected even if these risk factors are reported in the offender’s history. This is because the strength of the relationship between risk factor and offending tends to decrease over time; the risk factor does not follow the individual in lock- step (Chung et al., 2002; Losel & Bender, 2003). Traditional criminogenic risk factors over time become only distally related to offending. For example, poor parental attachment and other family adversities have less of an effect on adults because adults are not as reliant on their parents as children or adolescents (e.g., Chung et al., 2002). Thus, studies that attempt to identify characteristics of individuals that are specific to certain offending trajectories would benefit from the incorporation of risk factors that are measured in adolescence and remain relatively stable across time.

One such risk factor is psychopathy, which is known to be at least moderately stable over the life course (Lynam, Caspi, Moffitt, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2007; Vachon, Lynam, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2012) and is also the type of developmental risk factor hypothesized to distinguish chronic offenders from those that desist in early adulthood (Dyck, Campbell, Schmidt, & Wershler, 2013; Frick, 2009; Moffitt, 1993, 2006). Psychopathy is a personality disorder that is characterized by deficits in interpersonal, affective, and behavioral domains (Cleckley, 1976). Together, these deficits

19 _{The term ‘adjudicated’ is used to differentiate between the vast majority of adolescents who commit some}

criminal offense that may or may not be detected (Le Blanc & Frechette, 1989) and those adolescents whose offense was serious enough to warrant criminal justice involvement.

create a grandiose and manipulative interpersonal style that is uninhibited due to an orientation towards impulsive and risk-taking behaviors and an unempathic, uncaring, and uncommitted disposition (Lynam, 1996). The clustering of these symptoms, at least theoretically, would act as a barrier to desistance.

Initial studies in criminology, although not necessarily explicitly referring to psychopathy, indicated that this construct may be influencing early-onset antisocial behavior and persistent criminal behavior. Patterson and colleagues (1989, 1998), for example, asserted that early antisocial behavior was a developmental trait that was expressed in different forms at subsequent stages throughout the life course, including chronic offending by age 18. Similarly, Moffitt (1993) and Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1998) labeled individuals associated with this early onset pathway of serious antisocial behavior and subsequent long term offending as life-course persistent (LCP) offenders. LCP offenders were thought to represent a small group of chronic offenders, roughly less than ten percent of the population, that Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin (1972) identified as being responsible for the majority of all crime (also see, DeLisi, 2005; Jennings & Reingle, 2012; Vaughn et al., 2011). Moffitt and Caspi (2001) identified the combination of parenting, neurocognitive functioning, and very early child temperament and behavioral problems as key correlates of the LCP antisocial behavior subtype. Early examinations of data from the Gluecks’ classic Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency study also found a relationship between childhood temperament and adult offending outcomes (Sampson & Laub, 1994). As well, although not finding the same early childhood-based temperament risk factors, Aguilar, Stroufe, Egeland, and Carlson (2000) identified high stress single parent families, an early childhood avoidant attachment style, and childhood abuse, including neglect or other forms of inadequate parenting as correlate of this LCP sub-type.

Most explicitly, Vaughn and DeLisi (2008) asserted that the small number of chronic offenders and the small number of individuals with the strongest symptoms of psychopathic personality disturbance (PPD) was not coincidental. Rather, the two groups were actually comprised of the same individuals. Similarly, Lochman, Powell, Boxmeyer, Young, and Baden (2010) argued that the identification of high-risk subtypes among children and adolescents, historically, was a critical initial step in eventually relating child and adolescent manifestations of psychopathy to long-term criminal trajectories. Despite

the hypothesized importance of psychopathy, this initial phase of research lacked the inclusion of a validated youth psychopathy instrument that could be used to help explain association with a criminal trajectory extending into adulthood. Although this is clearly an important line of analysis, the application of the psychopathy construct to adolescents is somewhat contentious and is addressed below.

5.1.3.

Extending the Psychopathy Construct to Childhood and