OBJECTIVES: This study sought to establish, in Colombia, the importance of factors alleged to be causes or correlates of adult criminality according to the published literature from other countries. METHODS: A comparison was made of arrested male offenders from ages 18 to 30 (n = 223) and similar community controls (n = 222) selected from five cities in Colombia as to their family background, exposure to abuse, family stressors, perceived care and history of childhood disruptive behaviour problems. RESULTS: Compared with neighbourhood controls from similar social classes, offenders were significantly more likely to report having had parents with less education, a mother under the age of 18 or over the age of 35 at time of birth, family members involved in crime, experiencing extreme economic deprivation, parental absence, family conflict, severe punishments, physical abuse, and maternal unavailability, rejection and lack of supervision. Prevalence of childhood disruptive behaviour problems was similar among offenders and controls. These findings appear to be independent of economic status, family size or type, birth order, or primary caregiver. Although the independent contribution of most of these factors is small, once all others have been controlled for, their cumulative effect is strong. CONCLUSIONS: The findings obtained in this Latin American setting do not support the generalized view that adult antisocial behaviour is necessarily preceded by a history of childhood behaviour problems. However, they do add evidence for the importance of family factors in the risk for adult criminality.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to establish, in Colombia, the importance of factors alleged to be causes or correlates of adult criminality according to the published literature from other countries. METHODS: A comparison was made of arrested male offenders from ages 18 to 30 (n = 223) and similar community controls (n = 222) selected from five cities in Colombia as to their family background, exposure to abuse, family stressors, perceived care and history of childhood disruptive behaviour problems. RESULTS: Compared with neighbourhood controls from similar social classes, offenders were significantly more likely to report having had parents with less education, a mother under the age of 18 or over the age of 35 at time of birth, family members involved in crime, experiencing extreme economic deprivation, parental absence, family conflict, severe punishments, physical abuse, and maternal unavailability, rejection and lack of supervision. Prevalence of childhood disruptive behaviour problems was similar among offenders and controls. These findings appear to be independent of economic status, family size or type, birth order, or primary caregiver. Although the independent contribution of most of these factors is small, once all others have been controlled for, their cumulative effect is strong. CONCLUSIONS: The findings obtained in this Latin American setting do not support the generalized view that adult antisocial behaviour is necessarily preceded by a history of childhood behaviour problems. However, they do add evidence for the importance of family factors in the risk for adult criminality.