Shadd Maruna

A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions †

The notion of ‘cognitive distortion’ has become enshrined in the offender treatment literature over the last 20 years, yet the concept still suffers from a lack of definitional clarity. In particular, the umbrella term is often used to refer to offence-supportive attitudes, cognitive processing during an offence sequence, as well as post-hoc neutralisations or excuses for offending. Of these very different processes, the last one might be the most popular and problematic. Treatment programmes for offenders often aim to eliminate excuse-making as a primary aim, and decision-makers place great weight on the degree to which an offender “takes responsibility” for his or her offending. Yet, the relationship between these after-the-fact explanations and future crime is not at all clear. Indeed, the designation of post hoc excuses as criminogenic may itself be an example of fallacious thinking. After all, outside of the criminal context, post hoc excuse-making is widely viewed as normal, healthy, and socially rewarded behaviour. We argue that the open exploration of contextual risk factors leading to offending can help in the identification of criminogenic factors as well as strengthen the therapeutic experience. Rather than insist that offenders take “responsibility” for the past, we suggest that efforts should focus on helping them take responsibility for the future, shifting the therapeutic focus from post hoc excuses to offence-supportive attitudes and underlying cognitive schemas that are empirically linked to re-offending.

Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass

The study of desistance from crime has come of age in recent years, and there are now several, competing theories to account for the ability of long-term offenders to abstain from criminal behavior. Most prominently, recent explanations have borrowed elements from informal social control theory, differential association theory and cognitive psychology. In the following, we argue that labeling theory may be a neglected factor in understanding the desistance process. Drawing on interview data collected as part of a study of an offender reintegration program, we illustrate how the idea of the “looking-glass self-concept” and others is a useful metaphor in understanding the process of rehabilitation or recovery in treatment programs.

Amputation or Reconstruction? Notes on the Concept of “Knifing Off” and Desistance From Crime

Several scholars have suggested that life changes—such as desistance from crime—may be shaped by social structures through a process of “knifing off.” Individuals are thought to change their lives by severing themselves from harmful environments, undesirable companions, or even the past itself. Despite the frequent use of this terminology in criminology and other fields, the concept of knifing off remains underdeveloped. Few studies have considered diverse contexts and conditions in which knifing off may or may not occur. The authors raise the following questions: What is knifing off? What gets knifed off, and who does the knifing? Is knifing off necessary and/or sufficient for behavioral change? They conclude that the concept is useful for understanding desistance and self-change but also encourage further refinement and clarification. Recommendations are proposed for developing the concept of knifing off for theories of desistance, particularly recognizing the significance of life scripts for constructing a noncriminal future.

Reentry as a rite of passage

Mary Douglas argues that, ‘There are some things we cannot experience without ritual.’ Ex-prisoner reintegration may be one of them. The punishment process involves an inordinate amount of ritual behavior, from the drama of the courtroom to the elaborate de-individuation processes involved in institutionalization. Durkheim argues that these rituals serve a distinct purpose for society: engendering social solidarity and shaping penal sensibilities. Like the commission of a crime, the reintegration of the former outcast back into society represents a challenge to the moral order, a delicate transition fraught with danger and possibility. However, unlike punishment, reintegration is not a process characterized by well-orchestrated and familiar rituals. This lack might explain the failings of prisoner reentry in contemporary society. This article reviews the sociological and anthropological literature on rituals, explaining what they are and what they do, focusing in particular on the role of status degradation ceremonies in criminal justice work. Drawing on this literature, the core elements that would be needed to develop rituals of reintegration powerful enough to counteract these degradation effects are discussed, and the potential impact of such hypothetical rituals is explored.

Desistance From Crime and Explanatory Style A New Direction in the Psychology of Reform

Research on offender verbalizations traditionally focuses on the degree to which offenders accept responsibility (or blame) for their mistakes. This small study expands this cognitive perspective in criminology by incorporating basic findings from the psychological literature on attributions. Additionally, offender attributions or neutralizations are framed within a life course perspective. It was found that active offenders and desisting ex-offenders differ in terms of explanatory style. Compared to desisting ex-offenders, active offenders tend to interpret negative events in their lives as being the product of internal, stable, and global forces. On the other hand, active offenders were more likely to believe that the good events in their lives were the product of external, unstable and specific causes. These other dimensions of offender cognitions may be useful in understanding the psychological aspects of desistance from crime.

Desistance and Explanatory Style: A New Direction in the Psychology of Reform

Research on offender verbalizations traditionally focuses on the degree to which offenders accept responsibility (or blame) for their mistakes. This small study expands this cognitive perspective in criminology by incorporating basic findings from the psychological literature on attributions. Additionally, offender attributions or neutralizations are framed within a life course perspective. It was found that active offenders and desisting ex-offenders differ in terms of explanatory style. Compared to desisting ex-offenders, active offenders tend to interpret negative events in their lives as being the product of internal, stable, and global forces. On the other hand, active offenders were more likely to believe that the good events in their lives were the product of external, unstable and specific causes. These other dimensions of offender cognitions may be useful in understanding the psychological aspects of desistance from crime.

The kindness of prisoners Strengths-based resettlement in theory and in action

This article explores the notion of so-called ‘strengths-based’ offender reintegration for prisoners returning to the community. First, we briefly explore the normative and empirical theory underlying this approach. Next, we present evidence from a case study the authors have undertaken on a particularly interesting example of strengths-based resettlement in action. It illustrates the tensions that occur when risk-based policies collide with strengthsbased opportunities. The lessons learned in this case study are then used to develop further the theoretical understanding behind a strengths-based resettlement approach.

An Exploration of Protective Factors Supporting Desistance From Sexual Offending

This article considers factors that support or assist desistance from sexual offending in those who have previously offended. Current risk assessment tools for sexual offending focus almost exclusively on assessing factors that raise the risk for offending. The aim of this study was to review the available literature on protective factors supporting desistance from sexual offending. This article discusses the potential value of incorporating protective factors into the assessment process, and examines the literature on this topic to propose a list of eight potential protective domains for sexual offending. The inclusion of notions of desistance and strengths may provide additional guidance to the assessment and treatment of those who sexually offend. Further research investigations are recommended to consolidate the preliminary conclusions from this study regarding the nature and influence of protective factors in enabling individuals to desist from further offending.

The Liverpool Desistance Study and probation practice: opening the dialogue

The notion of ‘desistance’ (or ‘going straight’) is becoming a more prominent one in criminological discourse, and the Liverpool Desistance Study(LDS) aimed to provide a deeper understanding of this process from the perspective of the individuals taking this life path. However, the LDS was not intended to address how the research might be applied in practice. This article therefore briefly outlines the research and discusses some of the policy implications, in order to open a debate with practitioners and others about the way that the research might be relevant to everyday practice with people who offend. The papers that follow this article were written in response to the challenge of applying the findings of the LDS in probation practice.

The Desistance Paradigm in Correctional Practice: From Programmes to Lives

Interventions for reducing reoffending are frequently criticised for not being based upon a foundation of empirical evidence (see Latessa et al. 2002). As a response, over the past three decades, there has been a sustained international movement, sometimes known as the ‘what works’ movement, to promote ‘evidence-based’ best practices in criminal justice. In some ways, the present moment may be the pinnacle of this ‘what works’ movement internationally. For instance, at a recent National Institute of Justice Annual Conference, US President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder warmed many academic hearts in the room when he said: