Turning points and returning points: Understanding the role of family ties in the process of desistance
| Date | 01 November 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370812453102 |
| Published date | 01 November 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
2012
Article
European Journal of Criminology
9(6) 603 –620
Turning points and returning
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
points: Understanding the role
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370812453102
euc.sagepub.com
of family ties in the process of
desistance
José Cid and Joel Martí
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
The objective of this article is to identify the interpersonal factors that explain narratives of
desistance among offenders who have been sentenced to prison. Through narrative interviews,
we have studied a purposeful age-graded sample of men convicted of acquisitive crimes. Although
the results confirm the leading research of Laub and Sampson (2003) about the importance of
social bonds as a change catalyst, they also suggest that changes in narratives may depend not only
on participation in new social institutions but also on the new meaning that institutions present
during the criminal career of offenders, such as family relationships, may acquire in adulthood.
Keywords
Family, narratives of desistance, returning points, turning points
Introduction
Research on desistance seems to underline two aspects in the process of changing from
a criminal career to a conventional life: a cognitive transformation, which is seen as a
type of identity change (Giordano et al., 2002; Laub and Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 2001),
and turning points, which are interpersonal relationships that favour a change of life
(Laub and Sampson, 2003; Sampson and Laub, 1993). Although it seems debatable
whether subjective changes come first (Giordano et al., 2002; Lebel et al., 2008) or turning
points precede agency (Laub and Sampson, 2003), it may be assumed that both aspects
are needed for a successful desistance process (Sampson and Laub, 2008). In the present
research we assume, as a starting point, that desistance narratives are a necessary step in
Corresponding author:
José Cid, Department of Political Science and Public Law, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra
Cerdanyola del Valles, Barcelona, 08193, Spain.
Email: josep.cid@uab.es
604
European Journal of Criminology 9(6)
the process of giving up offending behaviour and this enquiry is focused on the social
interactions that may favour those narratives.
When researching social interactions that may favour desistance narratives we are inter-
ested both in the institutions that may promote change (family, marriage or partnership,
parenthood, work, prison) and in the mechanisms that may explain the relationship between
these kinds of interpersonal relations and the desistance narratives. The research covers peo-
ple who live in a social context that is not common in the principal research (prisoners origi-
nally from Spain, the Maghreb or Latin America), and some institutions, such as family,
appear to have a relevance that is rarely mentioned in other desistance studies (but see
Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Calverley, 2011). In exploring the mechanisms that link the
interpersonal relationships with the narratives, we used a theoretical framework that inte-
grates social control, strain and learning theories, trying to uncover which of those theories
may be more relevant to explain the process of formation of desistance narratives.
Theoretical framework
The starting point of the research is the work of Maruna (2001), who proposes that the
transition from a life of offending behaviour to a conventional life requires a cognitive
transformation. This cognitive transformation has two relevant dimensions. On the one
hand, the person needs to change identity and be able to construct a pro-social self that
contradicts their past lifestyle. On the other hand, the person needs to demonstrate self-
efficacy – the perceived ability to overcome the circumstances that explained past
offending behaviour and to carry out the requirements of conventional life (Bandura,
1977). Maruna’s findings seem very much in agreement with labelling theory: any pro-
cess of desistance should be based on a self de-labelling process. Self-efficacy seems
necessary in order to confront the obstacles foreseen by labelling theory in order to
change the labels (Lemert, 1967). On the basis of Maruna’s work, we define a ‘narrative
of desistance’ as one in which a person breaks with past offender identity (identity dimen-
sion) and becomes able to fulfil conventional plans (self-efficacy dimension).
The second foundation of the research concerns three main criminological theories that may
explain why offenders build a narrative of desistance. First, we take into account control theory
(Hirschi, 1969) and, in particular, the work of Laub and Sampson (Laub and Sampson, 2003;
Sampson and Laub, 1993), exploring whether the fact that the person has experienced some
adult roles (such as marriage, job or the military) has reinforced social bonds and brought about
a contradiction with offending. For Laub and Sampson, these new events in the life course may
imply that the person starts moving from an offending to a conventional lifestyle and that is why
they should be called ‘turning points’. Second, we consider strain theory (or social support
theory), which states that narratives of desistance may be dependent on the support the person
receives from social networks (Cullen and Wright, 1997; Wright et al., 2001). Finally, we focus
on learning theory, analysing the acquisition of new social skills in the course of the correctional
intervention (Andrews and Bonta, 2003; McGuire, 2002; McGuire and Priestley, 1995) and the
giving-up of relationships that favour offending lifestyles (Warr, 1998).
The third foundation of the research is the findings of a number of researchers that
underline the fact that desistance may be affected both by trajectory and by age. With
respect to trajectory, the theory of cumulative disadvantage (Sampson and Laub, 1997)
Cid and Martí
605
shows that the trajectory of persistent offenders tends to be more problematic than that of
desisters in many areas (Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Burnett, 1992; Farrall, 2002; Laub
and Sampson, 2003; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Shover, 1985; Zamble and Quinsey,
1997). On the other hand, the theories that link age and desistance (Gottfredson and
Hirschi, 1990; Moffitt, 1993; Shover, 1985, 1996) point to ageing as one of the significant
factors explaining desistance (Burnett, 1992; Glaser, 1964; Uggen, 2000; Zamble and
Quinsey, 1997). On this basis, we produced an age-graded sample of offenders to compare
persons of similar trajectory.
Method
Population and sample
The population studied in this research has reflected the most common features of
people incarcerated in Catalonia. It consisted of men sentenced for ordinary acquisi-
tive crimes (violent and non-violent property offences and drug-dealing offences) in
closed-regime or open-regime institutions or on parole. They were serving the final
months of their sentence: a time when re-entry into society is likely to be central in
the person’s thinking.
The aim of the sampling procedure was to obtain two sub-samples, one with desist-
ance narratives and the other with persistence narratives; each had similar age and
social background distributions in order to compare them. We wanted to identify the
role of social bonds, social supports and learning in the formation of narratives of
desistance.
The sample was obtained in two stages. In the first stage, all the offenders in the prov-
ince of Barcelona whose sentences were ending between April and May 2010 were asked
by the penitentiary administration to participate in the research. The second stage targeted
offenders to be released between June and October 2010. In this second stage, consent to
participate was selectively sought from specific profiles of interest (see below). Taking into
consideration the two stages, the consent rate reached 60.9 percent.1
In the first stage of the fieldwork, 47 qualitative interviews were conducted, targeting
a diversity of ages and types of release. From a pre-analysis of these interviews, a typol-
ogy with four profiles of offenders was constructed using two criteria: onset of offending
and age at release. The first three profiles had an early onset of offending in common, but
they diverged in relation to the age at release (up to 26, 27–35 and over 35). The fourth
profile differed from the others in that it dealt with the late onset of offending behaviour
(after adolescence).2
In the second stage, 20 additional interviews were conducted, focusing on profiles and
narratives that were less present in the first stage, in order to obtain a sufficient variety of
narratives (desistance and persistence) within each of the four profiles.
After the fieldwork was completed, the typology was more restrictively defined
by adding new characteristics that we found to be most common in each profile. We
added the following variables to those that formed the initial typology: nationality,
social origin, education, work record, drug abuse record and length of criminal career
(see Table 1). The objective of this procedure was to obtain homogeneous profiles in
606
European Journal of Criminology 9(6)
order to compare narratives of desistance and persistence constructed by persons of
similar age and background and thus identify the role of interpersonal factors (learn-
ing, social support, social bonding) in the formation of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial