While not a theory, the criminal career is made up of six fundamental dimensions that play an important role in explaining patterns of offending (Humphrey, 2018). One of these dimensions is the concept of desistance; briefly, desistance is to cease offending, permanently – the end point of a criminal’s career. Unfortunately, desistance is complex and offenders will face a number of obstacles in an effort to terminate their criminal career (Cid & Martin, 2017). This is problematic because these obstacles create barriers to successfully achieving desistance, which as a result, promotes re-offending. As such, it is necessary to look at sustainable solutions to overcoming these obstacles, to encourage desistance.
Kazemian (2007) suggests that future research must begin to ‘disentangle’ the roles of “cognitive predispositions and social bonds in the desistance process” (p. 21). The purpose of this paper is to build off this gap in research Kazemian (2007) has established while suggesting possible solutions to the obstacles offender’s face in the process of desistance. Specifically, these solutions will be offered in consideration of their impact on cognitive predispositions and social bonds of the offender.
This is an important response to setbacks presented in the process of desistance by ultimately offering a clearer picture of the necessary allocation of resources and support. These solutions will influence policy and practice – contributing to successful ways of interacting with future deisters and accounting for individual needs (King, 2012). Without understanding how these solutions relate to the concepts involved in the offender’s process of desistance (ie. cognitive predispositions and social bonds), it proves more difficult to implement them. This is an attempt to a) sociologically understand how the process of desistance is successful based on two, separate, concepts (an offender’s cognitive predispositions and social bonds) and b) offer how obstacles of desistance can be overcome.
In order to appropriately address the obstacles presented throughout the process of desistance and the possible solutions that follow based on cognitive predispositions and social bonds, I will include a discussion of Giordano’s (2002) “cognitive transformation theory” and Sampson and Laub’s (1993) “age graded theory of informal social control”. I will begin this discussion by mentioning the concept of desistance and the definitional conflicts throughout current research (Kurlychek et al., 2012). After arriving on a definition to utilize throughout the duration of the paper, an exploration into the theories previously mentioned will be conducted; the goal here is to link these theories to cognitive and social based solutions. Finally, common obstacles will be described and possible solution presented in reviewed research will be considered.
Thornberry (2005) defines desistance as a change from “active involvement in offending to a zero to near zero rate that persists across time” (p. 160). While this definition can be easily understood, it begs the question as to who is a desister? Is someone who committed a crime once in their adolescence classified as a desister? Perhaps, however, that argument is beyond the scope of this discussion, therefore, for the purpose of this paper those who fall into the category of future or current desisteres are, or were, career criminals. Thus, criminals who offend, or offended, throughout their life course – with greater frequency during their criminal career (National Research Council. 1986; Humphrey, 2018).
It is also important to consider whether desistance spontaneously happens or if it is a “gradual developmental process” (Thornberry, 2005, p. 159)? For the purpose of this paper, the latter is central. It is a sequence of offending, to non-offending, to managing a non-offending status (Kazemian, 2007). It is argued that desistance is a process and maintenance is necessary to maintain a state of desistance – beyond the act of ceasing (McNiell, 2006; Kurlycheck et al., 2012). For example, ongoing institutional and social support, personal motivation and agency, as well as opportunity.
Additionally, prior to stopping, a process exists. As described by an ex-offender, it took this individual roughly five years from deciding he wanted to make a change to successively achieving desistance and being able to maintain it (The Road from Crime, 2012). It is important to note that desistance is only guaranteed after the offender as passed away (Humphrey, 2018), however, research relies on official records and self-reporting to understand the patterns of desistance and theorize this specific dimension of the criminal career (Kazemian, 2007).
To reiterate, Kazemian (2007) has stressed that the roles of cognitive predispositions and social bonds must be distinguished in the desistance process. The focus will not be on the offender’s early life, rather their cognitive predisposition and social bonds near the end of their career – throughout the process of distance. For solutions to be sustainable, it is necessary to consider how these solutions relate to each concept prior to, during, and after desistance has occurred. Therefore, it is important to understand the theories behind there concepts prior to linking them to possible solutions in the obstacles faced during the process of desistance.
Cid and Marti (2017), discuss Giordano's (2002) “cognitive transformation theory”; this theory describes the mental shift an offender undergoes prior to entering a life of non-offending. Essentially it is an “openness to change” (p. 1442); once this cognitive change has occurred, the future desister will have greater success accepting support, accessing resources, and ultimately, establishing a desire to stop offending (Cid & Marti, 2017). This theory relates to cognitive predispositions – the tendencies one has to think, and thus act, in a certain way. When these predispositions are challenged, Giordano’s “cognitive transformation theory” (2002) suggests that an offender will undergo a mental transformation – accepting the process of change, which, in turn, is the acceptance of desistance.
This theory ties into King’s (2012) suggestion that an offender must be willing to envision a future of non-offending; this is one of the first steps and crucial to desistance, as argued by King (2012). An offender’s tendency to think a certain way is challenged and mental resistance is transformed into a willingness to stop offending. Perhaps a sudden event is enough for this mental shift to occur, while other times life course trajectories influence such as change; regardless, the “cognitive transformation theory” (2002) is an important element in the process of desistance.
Similarly, Sampson and Laub’s (1993) “age graded theory of informal social control” is influential to the process of desistance. Their theory suggests that when an offender forms new social bonds in their adult life, they establish relationships and lifestyles that deter them from committing crimes (Cid & Marti, 2017). This deterrence may occur subconscious or consciously, however, it is reasonable to assume that Giordano's (2002) “cognitive transformation theory” would argue it is a conscious decision to refrain from offending as these new bonds trigger a mental shift creating a willingness to change. Regardless, Sampson and Laub’s (1993) theory suggests that some new social bonds in adult life are “incompatible with an offending lifestyle” (Cid & Marti, 2017, p. 1434).
Sampson and Laub (1993) primarily focus on social bonds established in marriage and employment although having children and joining the military are other fundamental considerations. These examples are referred to as ‘life course transitions’ and create a life shift (Forrest & Hay, 2011). The key here is that these transitions typically occur in adult life as research suggest that crime rates typically decrease in adulthood (Walters, 2018). Other life course transitions do occur, however, it is necessary to note when in the life-course they occur, and their magnitude (ie. the likelihood of establishing bonds strong enough to discourage offending).
Kazemian’s (2007) suggestion for future research is to ‘disentangle’ social bonds from cognitive predispositions. To continue to do this, it is of importance to explain how social bonds translate into desistance. Let’s take marriage, for example. Forrest and Hay (2011) suggest that married individuals establish bonds with their partner in addition to networks with greater society via their partner. These networks redirect the offender’s time from their delinquent peers towards “new and potentially more conventional acquaintances” (Forrest and Hay, 2011, p. 490).
Employment is another example; when an offender gains employment, they are likely to establish bonds with co-workers, superiors, and subordinates (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Typically, work imposes routine on an individual, and their day becomes less available. For offenders, this may mean less opportunity or desire to committing criminal acts; additionally, is provides a sense of purpose whereby these individuals become a contributing member of a greater sociological network.
Forrest and Hay (2011) make an interesting argument that these life course transitions increase the self-control of criminals. This builds off of Sampson and Laub’s (1993) theory: life course transitions create social bond which deter offending; Forrest and Hay (2011) are suggesting, however, that the link between establishing social bonds and desistance is a result of increased self-control. Perhaps then it is beneficial to consider the example of employment again. The bonds established in this transition provides an opportunity to build self-control. Consider this: to keep a job you must show up for work; this means that attendance is mandatory if you would like to remain employed. This also means, however, that self-control becomes learned – you must learn to practice some level of self-control if you would like to have a job. Self-control in increased by an ultimatum, if you will.
This idea of self-control does conflict with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1983) “theory of self-control”; they suggest that an individual's self-control established in adolescence is maintained throughout their life course (Forrest & Hay, 2011). In keeping with social bonds however, it seems less likely that this is accurate. For instance, getting a job or getting married does rely on self-control or neither would be successful. Therefore, it could be argued that resistance is tied to social control via social bonds.
King (2012) describes a reality of desistance for many offenders; regardless if future desisters have undergone a mental shift and or established promising social bonds in their adult life, they become subject to barriers that with prevent a successful desistance process. Socially, these criminals are categorized as outcasts – as a result, undergoing a lifestyle change will be met with exclusion, stigmatization, and vulnerability. This creates a structural gap between “wanting to desist” and successfully desisteing – an us versus them social construction (King, 2012, p. 329).
For instance, employment becomes an obstacle for potential desisters (King, 2012). Again, Sampson and Laub (1993) stress the importance of employment as part of the desistance process. Having said this, individuals with a criminal record will find it difficult to secure employment due to background checks on application forms, insignificant experience, and or lack of formal education or training (John Howard Society, 2009). Employers may consider a criminal record as a ‘red flag’ as these individuals are ‘violent, dangerous, unreliable’ etc.; this is an image society has created – regardless if it is true for the individual offender.
Furthermore, drugs and alcohol create another barrier to successful desistance (King, 2012). For some offenders, their substance dependency creates desperation; as a result, committing crimes may be the quickest or easiest way in fulfilling their substance need(s). For other offenders, they may only commit crimes when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol (Humphrey, 2018). Additionally, drug and alcohol use may have negative effects on adult social bonds, such as, maintaining employment or healthy marriage relationships (Sampson and Laub, 1993). One way or another, before substance misuse is addressed, it is unlikely successful desistance can occur. While perhaps an offender has become open to change (Cid & Marti, 2017), it is unlikely to suggest they will be able to stop offending without acknowledging this barrier.
Another obstacle presented for many future desisters is reintegration – especially the roles parole officers play (The Road from Crime, 2012). When there is a lack of support for offenders, re-entering society after leaving the prison system increases the likelihood of re-offending. For instance, if a parole officer is indifferent to the offender’s success, they are one less person holding them accountable. Reintegration is associated with financial problems, limited work opportunity, and unstable housing, for example (Cid & Marti, 2017). Again, if the people (parole officers) who are hired to help these offenders successfully reintegrate fall short on their obligations, how likely is it that offenders will have success reintegrating and desisiting?
While only a few of the obstacles in the desistance process are presented in this paper – these were recurring subjects in various readings on desistance. These obstacles are considered setbacks; King (2012) stresses that setback will occur in the desistance process due to the “unequal distribution of power and resources in society” (p. 330). When these setbacks occur, it becomes the offender’s natural tendency to return to “habitual action” such as offending, drinking etc. (Kind, 2012, p. 324). Therefore, it is strongly useful to consider society’s power dynamic that King (2012) discusses, and offer solutions based on such structural constraints.
Research offers numerous solutions to the barriers experienced throughout the process of desistance. The solutions offered below, however, will stem from the barriers presented throughout the previous discussion on obstacles of desistance (ie. employment, substance use, and the role of parole officers in the process of reintegration).
In terms of employment, it may be beneficial to remove background checks from work applications; this is known to many as “banning the box” (Lucas, 2018). In order to decrease crime rates, as stressed by Sampson and Laub (1993) it is necessary to have offenders working as opposed to returning to “habitual action” (King, 2012, p. 324). Crime reduction is well-received by policy makers and society at large; therefore, giving individual’s a ‘fair chance’ at employment is recommended (Lucas, 2018). Economically, having individuals not working is taxing. In the United States during 2012, over 630,000 offenders completed their sentence in prison, however, close to seventy-five percent of these individual re-offended. Significantly, 89 percent of these individuals were unemployed at the time of their arrest for re-offending (Green, 2015). By “banning the box”, however, there is a greater likelihood of decreasing both this reoffending and unemployment statistic.
Even when applications continue to require criminal record checks, it remains important to de-stigmatize the nature of hiring an individual with a record (McNeill et al., 2012). One way to do this may be, but is by no means limited to, increasing workplace training and education throughout prison sentences (Bender, 2018). This way, when an offender is released from prison they are more prepared to be a contributing member of society compared to when they entered. This is one step towards changing the negative connotations associated with hiring offenders; perhaps, if they are gaining while serving their time, employers may perceive this a opportunity – having a skilled employee, for instance, is an asset to the employer. Overtime, this will change the ideas society holds of offenders’ abilities and usefulness in society.
Moving forward, it is also important to consider solutions in addressing an offender’s substance misuse in an effort to stop offending. McNeill et al. (2012) suggest that the offender’s support networks are necessary, especially in overcoming substance misuse; for instance, immediate families and non-delinquent peer groups. Often, intervention conducted by these networks is required; it is central, however, to ensure interventions consider both “rehabilitation and reintegration dimensions” (Kazeman, 2007, p. 22) Without one, the other is unlikely to be successful. This is when institutions must step up to provide adequate resources to support both rehabilitation and reintegration. Similar to employment, when offenders are in prison, their sentence serves as a opportunity to promote useful tools and resources in rehabilitation and future reintegration. While prisons do this to some extent, it must be prioritized (Shankar, 2018). This comes down to policy and economic resources; while the bill may look hefty at first, in the long run it’s financially beneficial to promote these resources – encouraging desistance will take future economic strain from re-offending off the criminal justice system.
Finally, it is necessary to look at the role of parole; reintegration will either create or disassemble a path of desistance. As such, it is important for parole officers to establish a meaningful relationship with the offenders they are working with (McNiell et al., 2012). Consider this: offenders were more inclined to stop offending if they had the opportunity to “talk things through with someone” (McNiell et al., 2012, p. 1). This relationship becomes paramount as a rapport has been established whereby the offender feels someone cares about their success and therefore, they do not want to disappoint them (The Road from Crime, 2012). Moreover, parole officers may have first-hand connections to housing, work, and resources that offenders may otherwise have limited access to. From this, it appears a disservice to not hold parole officers accountable; there must be heavier emphasis placed on their responsibility to discourage reoffending by building relationship – beyond making sure parole obligations are met.
These recommendations only scratch the surface in terms of possible solutions to overcoming obstacles presented in the process of desistance. Future research must continue to offer well supported and current solutions in an effort to promote desistance. As such, it is important to look at the distinction between the influence of personal context (ie. cognitive predispositions) and social structures (ie. social bonds) (McNeill et al., 2012). The work here has attempted to do just that: sociologically understand how the process of desistance based on two separate but coexisting concepts, while offering solutions for overcoming obstacles throughout the process of desistance.