Desistance from Sexual Offending: Do the Mainstream Theories Apply?

The literature on desistance from crime has become well established in recent years with strong bodies of evidence supporting the role of factors such as employment, relationships and identity change in this process. However, the relevance of this literature to individuals convicted of sexual crimes is not known as such individuals are almost always excluded from this research. This article presents the results from one of the first empirical studies on desistance from sexual offending based on 32 in-depth life story interviews with adult males previously convicted of child sex offences. In this analysis we explore the significance of work, the role of relationships and changes in imagined selves in the self-identities of individuals successfully desisting from sexual offending. The findings provide support for all three factors in helping to sustain desistance from sex offending, but also suggest clear differences between desistance from sex offending and other types of crime in these regards. </jats:p

Sex Offending and Situational Motivation: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis of Desistance from Sexual Offending

Sex offending is typically understood from a pathology perspective with the origin of the behavior thought to be within the offending individual. Such a perspective may not be beneficial for those seeking to desist from sexual offending and reintegrate into mainstream society. A thematic analysis of 32 self-narratives of men convicted of sexual offences against children suggests that such individuals typically explain their pasts utilizing a script consistent with routine activity theory, emphasizing the role of circumstantial changes in both the onset of and desistance from sexual offending. It is argued that the self-framing of serious offending in this way might be understood as a form of “shame management,” a protective cognition that enables desistance by shielding individuals from internalizing stigma for past violence. </jats:p

The Liverpool Desistance Study and probation practice: Opening the dialogue

The notion of 'desistance' (or 'going straight') is becoming a moreprominent one in criminological discourse, and the Liverpool Desistance Study(LDS) aimed to provide a deeper understanding of this process from the perspectiveof the individuals taking this life path. However, the LDS was not intended toaddress how the research might be applied in practice. This article therefore brieflyoutlines the research and discusses some of the policy implications, in order toopen a debate with practitioners and others about the way that the research mightbe relevant to everyday practice with people who offend. The papers that followthis article were written in response to the challenge of applying the findings of theLDS in probation practice

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. </jats:p

Evaluation of the User Voice Prison and Community Councils : Final Report

User Voice commissioned Monica Barry and Beth Weaver of the University of Strathclyde – in association with Mark Liddle, ARCS Ltd, Bethany Schmidt, University of Cambridge, and with input from Shadd Maruna, Rosie Meek, and Judy Renshaw - to assess the implementation, operation and short-term outcomes of the Council model of prisoner/service user participation/integration. These Prison and Community Councils were located in six prisons and three CRC areas across England, namely HM Prisons Durham and Northumberland and the Northumbria CRC; HM Prisons Oakwood and Birmingham and the Staffordshire and West Midlands CRC; and HM Prisons Wormwood Scrubs and Pentonville and the London CRC. These sites were at different stages of implementing Councils; some Prison Councils had only been operating for months whereas others had been operating for four or more years, and the Community Councils had been operating for between a year and five years. These differences in stages of implementation - influenced as they were by the effects of systemic, organisational and operational changes heralded by the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda - necessarily affected the progression of the Council model and at the time of writing, the ‘Through-The-Gate’ approach to offer continuity between Prison and Community council membership had not been fully implemented

Reexamining evidence-based practice in community corrections: beyond 'a confined view' of what works

This article aims to reexamine the development and scope of evidence-based practice (EBP) in community corrections by exploring three sets of issues. Firstly, we examine the relationships between the contested purposes of community supervision and their relationships to questions of evidence. Secondly, we explore the range of forms of evidence that might inform the pursuit of one purpose of supervision—the rehabilitation of offenders—making the case for a fuller engagement with “desistance” research in supporting this process. Thirdly, we examine who can and should be involved in conversations about EBP, arguing that both ex/offenders’ and practitioners’ voices need to be respected and heard in this debate

Are categorical deniers different? Understanding demographic, personality, and psychological differences between denying and admitting sex offenders

The purpose of this study was to establish whether there were demographic, personality, or psychological differences between a sample of 40 incarcerated sex offenders in categorical denial and 37 sex offenders admitting responsibility in an Australian minimum-security unit. Categorical deniers had lower IQs, were older, and were more likely to be child molesters. Criminogenically, there were no differences between categorical deniers and those who admitted their offences in relation to Static-99 risk scores. Psychologically, offenders denying their offences were significantly more shame-prone, and likely to use externalization as a method of impression-management. They were also more compulsive than those admitting their offences, but less antisocial and sadistic, when compared on personality indices. The study is limited by the small sample size however implications for further research and the treatment of categorical deniers are discussed

I wanted to feel the way they did: Mimesis as a situational dynamic of peer mentoring by ex-offenders

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Deviant Behavior on 10/10/2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01639625.2016.1237829Despite growing enthusiasm for peer mentoring as a criminal justice intervention, very little is known about what actually happens within these relationships. Drawing on an ethnographic study of peer mentoring in the North of England this article will foreground the concept of inspiration” in these settings. It will argue that Rene Girard’s theory of mimesis offers a framework with which to analyze role modeling in mentoring relationships and that a Girardian reading also offers interesting insights into the unresolved problem of the origins of personal change