The role of historically-embedded structures in processes of criminal reform
| Author | Stephen Farrall,David Cox,Barry Godfrey |
| Date | 01 February 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1362480608100174 |
| Published date | 01 February 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Theoretical Criminology
© 2009 SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi and Singapore
www.sagepublications.com
Vol. 13(1): 79–104; 1362–4806
DOI: 10.1177/1362480608100174
The role of historically-embedded
structures in processes of criminal reform
A structural criminology of desistance
S T E P H E N FA R R A L L , B A R R Y G O D F R E Y A N D D AV I D C O X
Sheffield University, Keele University and Keele University, UK
Abstract
The body of literature on why people stop offending has advanced
tremendously in the past decade. Previously, when the topic was
mentioned (if at all), it was an aside to the main focus of study. This
situation has now changed dramatically; there are now a number of
studies which have treated desistance either as a major part of the
investigation or as a core or chief focal point, and debates about
how best to understand the processes of desistance and to foster
these are now in full swing. This essay will attempt to move the
debate on yet further. Most studies of desistance have been
undertaken using data derived from or about subjects who lived all
or most of their lives in the latter half of the 20th century. The study
of desistance is therefore largely the study of desistance in the
contemporary age. This temporal bias is due, in part, to the growth
of social scientific research in North America and Europe after the
1950s. In this essay we contend that studying previous societal
forms and processes can tell us something about how those
processes associated with desistance operate, and that studying
society over the long durée can tell us something about how and
why present-day social formations produce the outcomes they do
with regards to desistance from crime.
Key Words
crime history • criminal reform • desistance • social structures
79
80
Theoretical Criminology 13(1)
Preamble
The body of literature on why people stop offending has advanced tremen-
dously in the past decade. Prior to the late 1990s, the topic was mentioned
as an aside or was to be found tucked away in little cited articles. This sit-
uation has now changed dramatically; there are now a number of studies
which have treated desistance either as a major part of the investigation
(e.g. Sampson and Laub, 1993) or as a chief focal point (e.g. Bottoms et al.,
2004; Farrall, 2002; Maruna, 2001). This essay will attempt to move
debates on to a consideration, not of ‘internal’ processes (cf. Vaughan,
2007), but to macro-sociological factors.
Most studies of desistance have relied upon data relating to people who
lived all or most of their lives in the latter half of the 20th century. Some
exceptions to this do exist, of course. Reitzes’ (1955) study reported on data
collected in the early 1950s, and Mays’ (1952) study was conducted at
around the same time. Sampson and Laub’s contributions (1993; Laub and
Sampson, 2003) are based on data which was initially collected in the very
late 1930s (Sampson and Laub, 1993: 26). This temporal bias is due, in part,
to the growth of social scientific research in North America and Europe after
the 1950s. Numerous longitudinal studies (not just of crime, of course) were
commenced in the 1960s and 1970s, but there were few studies prior to this.
This might not matter much if we accept that the ways in which societies
change—and the impact that these changes have on individual offenders—
have been adequately explored in the studies of desistance that have been
published so far. However, if we fail to accept this as being true then there is
a possibility that we are developing a body of knowledge which is systemati-
cally biased towards the present. This ‘presentism’ ought to be avoided for it
may lead us along theoretical and policy lines which are based on inaccurate
assessments of the processes we seek to understand and manipulate.
In this essay we contend that studying previous societal forms can tell
us something about how processes associated with desistance operate(d),
and that studying society over the long durée can tell us something about
how and why present-day social formations produce the outcomes they do
with regards to desistance from crime.
Key factors and processes associated with desistance
Most researchers think of desistance as meaning that an individual has given
up offending permanently, rather than just ceasing to offend for a short
while before continuing to commit further offences. As Maruna and Farrall
(2004: 171) remind us, although it is true that most adult offenders exhibit
many of the telltale signs of being delinquent children, the majority of juve-
nile delinquents do not go on to become adult offenders. For most individu-
als, participation in ‘street crimes’ (such as burglary, robbery and drug sales)
generally begins in the early teenage years, peaks in late adolescence or
Farrall et al.—Historically-embedded structures in processes of criminal reform
81
young adulthood, and dissipates before the person reaches 30 years of age
(Barclay, 1990; Blumstein and Cohen, 1987; Holden, 1986; Weitekamp et
al., 2000). Maruna and Farrall (2004: 174–5) argue that criminologists
therefore ought not to be interested in short-term crime-free lulls (which they
refer to as ‘primary desistance’), but ought rather to preoccupy themselves
with charting ‘secondary desistance’—a process by which individuals often
assume a role of non-offender or ‘reformed person’. In many cases, but not
all of course, this sort of change is associated with a reorganisation on the
part of the desister of ‘who’ they are and the sort of person they now wish
to be (or become (Farrall, 2005; Vaughan, 2007)). Drawing on the insights
of earlier work on criminal careers, the corpus of studies into the termina-
tion of the criminal career has pointed to a number of correlates of desis-
tance. We review these below.
Marriage and family-formation
One of the most frequently reported findings is that offenders desist at
around the same time that they start to form significant life partnerships.
Neal Shover, as long ago as 1983, wrote that ‘The establishment of a mutu-
ally satisfying relationship with a woman was a common pattern [and] ...
an important factor in the transformation of their career line (1983: 213).
Cusson and Pinsonneault (1986) and Mischkowitz (1994) supported the
line adopted by West (1982: 101–4) who argued that it was not marriage
per se, but rather the quality of the relationship which was key to desis-
tance. John Laub and his colleagues (Laub et al., 1998) found that as mar-
riages became stronger over time, so offending careers began to be
curtailed. A number of studies have suggested that the experience of becom-
ing a parent is also associated with desistance from offending (see e.g.
Caddle, 1991: 37; Hughes, 1997, 1998: 146; Irwin, 1970: 203; Jamieson
et al., 1999: 130; Leibrich, 1993: 59; Parker 1976: 41; Sampson and Laub,
1993: 218; Trasler, 1979: 315; Uggen and Kruttschnitt, 1998: 355).
There have, however, been some negative results. Rand (1987: 137–43)
tested the marriage–desistance and parenthood–desistance relationship and
found no support for this in her data. 1988. Knight et al. (1977: 359) found
no significant differences (in terms of the number of subsequent convictions)
between the married and unmarried groups from the Cambridge Study in
Delinquent Development. There is also, of course, the issue of domestic vio-
lence, which clearly calls into question the observed association between part-
nership and desistance. At least some of these negative findings, however,
need to be rethought following the findings of Uggen (2000) and Ouimet and
Le Blanc (1996), who suggest that the impact of various life events upon an
individual’s offending is age-graded. Ouimet and Le Blanc (1996: 92) suggest
that it is only from around the mid-20s that cohabitation with a woman was
associated with desistance for the males in their sample. However, many of
the earlier studies which failed to find a relationship between marriage and
desistance were drawn from samples of younger men.1
82
Theoretical Criminology 13(1)
Employment
Meisenhelder (1977) noted that the acquisition of a good job provided the
men in his sample with important social and economic resources, whilst
Shover (1983: 214) reported how a job generated ‘a pattern of routine
activities … which conflicted with and left little time for the daily activities
associated with crime’. Sampson and Laub (1993, Laub and Sampson,
2003) came to similar conclusions, writing that desisters in their sample
were characterised as having ‘good work habits and were frequently
described as “hard workers”’ (Sampson and Laub, 1993: 220). Farrington
et al. (1986: 351) reported that ‘proportionally more crimes were commit-
ted by … youths during periods of unemployment than during periods of
employment’, a finding supported by the later work of Horney et al., 1995.
However, Graham and Bowling (1995: 56) found that for young males
employment was not related to desistance, as did Rand (1987) when she
investigated the impact of vocational training on criminal careers.2
Other factors
Various other factors have been identified which appear to be related to
desistance. Amongst members of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development cohort, Osborn (1980) found that leaving the town where
they had grown up was associated with reductions in subsequent offend-
ing. Similar findings using alternative data sets have been made by
Sampson and Laub (1993: 217) and Jamieson et al. (1999: 133). The break
up of the peer group has been another factor. Knight...
To continue reading
Request your trial