Is there such a thing as a “chronic” offender – one whose frequent involvement in criminal activity is marked by serious offenses? The starting point for this question must be Wolfgang et al.'s (1972) finding that 6 percent of the 1945 Philadelphia Birth Cohort was responsible for over 50 percent of the criminal acts to age 17. Perhaps no finding in criminology is better known by students and scholars alike (Laub, 2004), while at the same time being hailed by policy makers and practitioners as central to crime reduction efforts (see Schumacher and Kurz, 1999). If only it were so easy to identify such individuals ahead of time (Blumstein et al., 1985; Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990).

The concept of chronicity was first established by Wolfgang and colleagues and applied to offenders committing five or more offenses prior to age 18. The concept – and its operationalization – however, is ambiguous because of its arbitrary designation and truncation problems. We believe that chronicity is better discussed with regard to the various relevant constituent dimensions that can vary with age, like frequency and seriousness. The basic theme is that the number of offenses committed (and the opportunity for a larger number goes up with age) and the rate of offending may vary with age.

In this chapter, we examine how chronicity is related to seriousness of offending with age. We attempt to unpack the meaning of chronicity by linking frequency, seriousness, and duration of offending.