Submitted by Edward Grierson on Thu, 12/06/2025 - 09:48
A special double issue of the criminology journal ‘Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health’ (CBMH) titled ‘Anti-social behaviour, mental health and crime across the lifespan’, was co-edited by University of Cambridge Professors Maria Ttofi and Adrian Grounds, along with Professor Keri Wong from University College London. It was dedicated to Professor David Farrington, a former staff member of the Institute of Criminology.
Farrington, who passed away on 5 November 2024, began as a research officer in 1969. He went on to become a University Lecturer in 1976, and then Professor of Psychological Criminology from 1992 until his retirement in 2012. He is best known for pioneering the concept of developmental criminology, arguing that a person’s risk of criminality changes over time and is affected by multiple factors.
The CBMH double-issue contained editorials by 4 researchers, both from the University of Cambridge and elsewhere. Their specific research ranges from mental health to youth violence to recidivism. But all have their basis in Farrington’s ideas of developmental criminology.
The first issue begins with an editorial from Professor Lawrence Sherman, Wolfson Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Criminology. He discussed the concept of the ‘Farrington Curve’, which he has used to measure the seriousness of offences between different individuals. The concept arose from Farrington’s study of over 400 men in London who committed crime, but at different frequencies and levels of severity.
Sherman used the Farrington Curve to plot over 100,000 people in London convicted for violence against women and girls. The result was a wide range in the severity and frequency between different perpetrators. This reflects Farrington’s argument that one approach cannot apply for all criminals, and the need to prioritise more serious offenders.
Weisburd’s editorial focused on randomised control trials. For Farrington, this method of surveying was crucial for reducing bias in criminological research, due to the selection of participants at random. Weisburd believes that the need to tackle bias and preconceptions is particularly important in criminology currently. In his experience, many younger researchers have expressed strong opinions on subjects such as policing, and a reluctance to research these subjects as a result. This can result in research that is unreliable and lacking in nuance.
In this scenario, Weisburd echoes Farrington’s support for randomised control trials, and other similar randomised survey methods, as the best remedy to entrenched biases. Doing so upholds Farrington’s most ardent belief: that researchers should follow what the evidence says, not what they want it to say.
The second volume follows on from this with editorials by Professor Louise Arseneault, Professor of Developmental Psychology at King’s College London. Arsenault discussed research into the impact of bullying over people’s lifetimes. Farrington had studied how bullying in childhood can affect mental and physical health into adulthood. Arsenault has expanded on this research, by studying the life prospects of children who bully others.
Drawing from both Farrington’s research and other longitudinal studies, she found a strong correlation with bullying behaviour in childhood and violent behaviour later in life. It likely has similar causes as antisocial behaviour, and both correlate with similar worse outcomes. Farrington consistently advocated for greater anti-bullying intervention in schools, as an integral part of wider safety agendas. In her editorial, Arsenault now argues for the same.
Finally, Professor Lila Kazemian of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice focused on developmental and life-course (DLC) research. This field applies the concepts of developmental criminology to crime prevention, to understand what interventions could be effective in different contexts.
Kazemian draws particular attention to DLC research that distinguishes the static measure of recidivism, and the much more changeable process of desistance. In particular, the likelihood of criminals becoming repeat offenders decreases as they age. Distinctions such as these have encouraged more flexible punishment strategies, which consider individual factors in criminals.
Alongside the editorials, the double-issue contains discussion of several longitudinal studies from around the world. These include studies conducted by the Institute of Criminology, such as Farrington’s own Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, and the Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study. Also discussed were the USA’s Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, Brazil’s Pelotas Birth Cohort Study, Germany’s Erlangen-Nuremberg Development and Prevention Study, Switzerland’s z-proso study, and Australia’s Longitudinal Survey on Australian Children.
The conclusion of the double issue pays tribute to David Farrington, with testimonies from friends, colleagues, and researchers whom he influenced. The Institute of Criminology believes that this double issue of CBMH is a perfect testament to David Farrington’s legacy, one which proves the extent of his influence in academia and its continuing relevance.