No abstract

No abstract

This article presents the initial theoretical underpinnings for a fresh prospective study of desistance, focused on 20-year-old recidivists. It is argued that significant crimefree gaps appropriately form part of the subject matter of desistance. An interactive theoretical framework is presented, involving 'programmed potential', 'social context' (structures, culture, situations) and 'agency'. It is argued that agency, while rightly attracting increasing interest within criminology, needs to be used with greater precision.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Desistance studies have routinely focused on issues such as family links, employment prospects and moving away from criminal friends, but they have said less about the meso- and macro-level structural issues that might facilitate or impede the transition of ex-offenders to the status of more mainstream members of civil society.Yet, in view of the necessary interaction between agency and structure in producing processes of desistance, a consideration of social structures (and the implications of changes in structures) is clearly of some importance. This paper addresses these issues, with special reference to recent structural changes in the UK in the fields of employment, families and housing, and criminal policy. The paper concludes with a discussion of conceptual foundations for social policy responses.

Within the human life-span, the decade of the 20s (age 20—29) is known to manifest the fastest deceleration of offending. This article reports findings concerning the social and moral values of a sample of recidivist offenders at the start of this age-range. Most reported surprisingly conformist values, for example with regard to future aspirations (employment, housing, etc.) and to the importance of staying within legal boundaries. Nevertheless, longitudinal data showed that these conformist values often did not prevent some continued offending (though within the sample, taking steps towards desistance was associated with more conformist values). This dissonance between values and behaviour was not explained by neutralizations, but rather (1) by complex processes of maturation, in which intentions to ‘go straight’ co-exist with lapses into learned (habitual) criminal responses; and (2) by the spontaneous character of much offending, with for example invitations to offend by criminal friends being common. Thus, those seriously wishing to desist (to bring their behaviour into line with their social values) face an obstacle-strewn process of lifestyle change, though one often supported by partners and relatives. To assist lifestyle change, many would-be desisters adopt tactics of ‘diachronic self-control’, attempting to avoid future situations of criminal temptation. If the criminal justice system wishes to assist desistance among this age-group, it is vital that these complex processes are understood and supported.

No abstract

No abstract