{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026343519494204427, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004214963119072708, 'mean_word_length': 5.209150326797386, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A commentary on Zimring and Laqueur (2015): juveniles and co-offending and why the conventional wisdom is often wrong*

Abstract In a previous study, we found that solo-offending was the primary form of offending among all ages including juveniles. We also observed that the relationship between age and crime, notwithstanding whether it was co-offending or solo-offending, was invariant across sex, race, and offense type. Based on these results, we concluded that group offending was merely incidental in circumstance and thus of little etiological significance. Zimring and Laqueur take exception to our study. Their reanalysis of our data disaggregated by offense type showed that co-offending was the dominant form of offending among juveniles for most serious crimes. However, as we discuss in this commentary, there are a number of problems with Zimring and Laqueur’s offense-specific analysis that invalidates their findings and conclusions.