Joel C. Snell

Recidivism: In Search of a More Comprehensive Definition

As simple as that sounds, there may be a great deal more to the situation than what the statistics suggest. The authors first searched the literature in terms of what others had said in reference to this issue. The major discovery was that little was stated other than the acceptance of the recidivist definition. Numerous studies have looked at recidivism and institutional and demographic indicators of those who have the potential to break the law and return to the correctional system. (Wenk, Frank 1973: 30-37; Unkovic, Ducsay 1969: 340-344; Laulicht 1963: 163-174; Landis, Mercer, Wolf 1964: 35-40; Arnold 1965: 212-220; Shihadeh, Nedd 1973: 229-238; Dunfiam 1954: 77-91; Reckless and Sindwani 1974: 369-375; Miller and Dinitz 1973: 417-426.) Some have reviewed types of treatment and recidivism (Pittman and Gray 1974: 37-54; Shireman, Mann, Larsen, Young 1972: 38-59). Others have researched the area of social and psychological characteristics of those who recidivate (Bapp and Blazer 1970: 67-81; Witter 1968: 79-83). Yet, only a few studies (Moberg, Erickson 1973: 50-57; Logan 1972: 378-387; Hood 1968, Richardson 1961) asked the leading question about recidivism. Is partial success possible? If an individual is first incarcerated for a major crime and then returns again for violation of parole, is that the same kind of recidivism as an individual who