Harris 2014 JIV desistance narratives, n=21

http://jiv.sagepub.com/Violence

Journal of Interpersonal

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/12/0886260513511532The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0886260513511532

published online 14 January 2014J Interpers ViolenceDanielle Arlanda Harris

NarrativesDesistance From Sexual Offending: Findings From 21 Life History

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

can be found at:Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAdditional services and information for

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 14, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at SEIR on January 21, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from at SEIR on January 21, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jiv.sagepub.com/


http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/12/0886260513511532

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/12/0886260513511532



http://www.apsac.org

http://www.apsac.org

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/12/0886260513511532.full.pdf

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/12/0886260513511532.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Journal of Interpersonal Violence1 –25

© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260513511532

jiv.sagepub.com

Article

Desistance From Sexual Offending: Findings From 21 Life History Narratives

Danielle Arlanda Harris, PhD1

AbstractThe present study explored the process of desistance from sexual offending in a sample of 21 men convicted of sexual offenses and released from custody. Each participant was interviewed using the Life History Interview Protocol and transcripts were analyzed using NVivo software. The postrelease experiences of each participant were examined and particular attention was paid to the variables previously identified in three established theories of desistance: natural desistance, cognitive transformation, and achievement of informal social controls. Qualitative narrative analysis was conducted to explore the presence of themes of desistance that have previously been identified in nonsexual offenders as well as emergent themes unique to this particular sample. Results underscored the relevance of natural desistance for a small group and the importance of cognitive transformation within the context of treatment for a majority of participants. Emergent themes were mostly related to the negative impact of recent policies on participants’ ability to find accommodation, employment, and relationships.

Keywordssexual assault, criminology, recidivism, sexual assault

1San Jose State University, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:Danielle Arlanda Harris, San Jose State University, One Washington Square, San Jose, CA 95192-0050, USA. Email: [email protected]

511532 JIVXXX10.1177/0886260513511532Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceHarrisresearch-article2014

at SEIR on January 21, 2014jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from

mailto:[email protected]



2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence XX(X)

Almost everyone who is incarcerated is one day released back into the com-munity (Petersilia, 2004). This is just as true for sexual offenders (Gies et al., 2012) as it is for their nonsexual counterparts, but their experiences of release and reentry tend to be monitored considerably more closely. Given the unde-niable gravity and significant social costs of child sexual abuse, it is essential that we are as well informed as possible about what helps and what hinders the successful community reentry of the perpetrators of these offenses. It is also necessary to identify not just the factors that reduce recidivism, but the factors that maximize desistance from offending and prevent sexual victimization.

Sexual offending research is now a well-established area of study, but the dynamic nature of a sexual offender’s criminal career over the lifespan is not understood fully. Although we now better understand the onset, causes, and maintenance of sexual offending, the dynamic nature of a sex offender’s criminal career has only recently attracted research attention, and we know comparatively little about the mechanisms of desistance from sexual offend-ing. What we do know is that desistance is not a new phenomenon. Criminologists have observed its existence for centuries (Laws & Ward, 2011; Sampson & Laub, 2003): most individuals with criminal histories eventually stop offending (Farrall & Calverley, 2006; Göbbels, Ward, & Willis, 2012; Laws & Ward, 2011; Maruna, 2001). Decades of research on sexual offending consistently show that risk declines with age and recidi-vism is lowered when treatment and social support is available (Scoones, Willis, & Grace, 2012). Without labeling it so, the empirical reality of low sexual recidivism is essentially evidence of desistance. What is new is the recent reframing of sexual offending within the language of desistance (Farmer, Beech, & Ward, 2012; Göbbels et al., 2012; Laws & Ward, 2011; Willis, Levenson, & Ward, 2010). The central aim of the present study was to contribute to this small but growing body of literature and examine the nature and extent of desistance from sexual offending in a sample of men convicted of sexual offenses against children and recently released from custody.

Desistance Defined

Desistance has been described in a number of ways, but generally refers to a slowing down or stopping of offending behavior (Farrall, 2010; Kazemian, 2007). Operationalizations have included a gradual slowing down of criminal behavior, a marked decrease in the frequency, intensity, and seriousness of criminal behavior, the absence of official charges or convictions, and the self-report of the complete termination of criminal behavior (Kazemian, 2007;




Harris 3

Laws & Ward, 2011; Willis et al., 2010). The present study adopts Laws and Ward’s (2011) definition that desistance is a dynamic process that includes stopping and refraining from a behavior.

Defining its temporal parameters remains one of the most contentious issues in the study of desistance, with researchers varying widely on how much time free from criminal activity constitutes desistance. For instance, it has been argued that 12 months of “crime-free” street time is sufficient (Graham & Bowling, 1995 in Healy, 2010), and also that a follow-up of 2 years is necessary to capture reconvictions (Cann, Falshaw, & Friendship, 2004, in Healy, 2010). It is also generally agreed that due to their apparently different criminal careers (Hanson, 2002) sex offenders require a longer period of time in which to exhibit desistance. Recommendations have ranged from 3 to 6 years (Farrall, Hough, Maruna, & Sparks, 2011) as an appropriate period of time for sex offenders to demonstrate that they have stopped offend-ing. Many of the participants in the present study were above 50 years of age at the time of their interview and had been out of custody for up to 15 years. Evidently, one cannot be truly certain of desistance until death (Maruna, 2001) but the characteristics of the present sample provided an ample win-dow of time in which to detect self-reported abstinence from offending.

Previous Desistance Research

Sex offenders have been all but ignored by previous, well-known studies of desistance (Farrall et al., 2011). Such inquiries either did not distinguish between sexual and nonsexual offenders (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 2003), or even more curiously, explicitly excluded sexual offenders from their studies without explanation (e.g., see Healy, 2010). A potential reason for this neglect may be the enduring but largely inaccurate assumption that sex offenders rarely, if ever, desist. The popular hypothesis of inevitable recidivism (Willis et al., 2010) proposes that sexu-ally aggressive behavior (especially in men) is a product of sexual deviance or psychological abnormality that develops early in life (perhaps following abuse) and persists into adulthood, ending only when the offender’s libido drops, and he ages out of sexual offending. This perspective fails to disam-biguate libido from deviance; it fails to consider the influence of utterly non-sexual situational factors on offending, and; it fails to acknowledge an individual’s natural capacity for recovery and change.

The tenacious assumption of recidivism has permeated many current crime control policies that exclusively target known sex offenders (Ewing, 2011; D. A. Harris, Smallbone, Dennison, & Knight, 2009; Simon, 1997; Willis et al., 2010). Various pieces of memorial legislation passed





haphazardly in honor of specific victims of horrific crimes now restrict profoundly the lives of an already disenfranchised population of offenders. These policies include community registration and notification, residence restrictions, sexually violent predator legislation, and lifetime electronic GPS monitoring (Jeglic, Calkins Mercado, & Levenson, 2012; Willis et al., 2010). None of these initiatives accommodate, encourage, or even acknowledge the possibility of desistance. Furthermore, as mounting research now illustrates the damaging legal, practical, social, and psycho-logical consequences of these laws, it is patently clear that they exacerbate risk factors and increase recidivism.

The recently expanding list of publications on sexual offending and desis-tance is so far largely theoretical and has almost exclusively been housed within a Good Lives Model (Ward & Marshall, 2004) framework. Most nota-bly, Laws and Ward’s (2011) impressive “call to arms” created necessary momentum by motivating our field to acknowledge the possibility of desis-tance from sexual offending and establishing a research agenda to examine the phenomenon empirically. Willis et al. (2010) reviewed community atti-tudes and professional approaches to sex offender reentry within the context of desistance. Göbbels et al. (2012) then made an ambitious attempt to advance our theoretical understanding of desistance with the presentation of their Integrative Theory of Desistance from Sex Offending. And most recently, Farmer et al. (2012) reported on their qualitative analysis of 10 par-ticipants in an outpatient treatment program (including 5 allegedly desisting child molesters and 5 potentially active offenders).

Theories of Desistance

A range of theories of desistance have been developed largely under the umbrella of developmental and life course criminology (Kazemian, 2007). This body of knowledge adopts a sociological perspective and focuses on general, nonsexual desistance. These ideas can be sorted into three main per-spectives (Healy, 2010): natural desistance or maturation, cognitive transfor-mation or personal agency, and the achievement of informal social control (Farrall, Bottoms, & Shapland, 2010; Farrall et al., 2011; Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Although empirical research supports these claims for nonsexual and nonviolent offenders (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 1993), the extent to which these perspectives apply to men convicted of sexual violence remains unknown. Each theory is described briefly below and their possible relevance to sexual aggression is discussed. (For a more detailed review of these theories, interested readers are referred to D. A. Harris, in press.)




Harris 5

Natural Desistance

Natural desistance is generally conceived of as a decline in or abstinence from offending that transpires independently of the actions or influence of institutions of formal or informal social control (Göbbels et al., 2012; Laws & Ward, 2011). Crime is a youthful behavior (Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985), and this theory emphasizes the biological process of maturation and aging (Massoglia & Uggen, 2007; Shover & Thompson, 1992). Hirschi and Gottfredson (1983) advocated this perspective in their age-crime curve, which is characterized by an early onset (for a majority of offenders), a peak at around age 18, and a rapid decline in the early twenties (Maruna, 2001; Moffitt, 1993). This process has been observed across an extremely broad array of samples, as well as in multiple countries and in various historical periods (Laws & Ward, 2011). In fact, age is so robust a variable that Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) have argued that it resists explanation and that not even the correlates of age (such as work or relationships) explain crime as well as age. Recent evidence from sex offenders suggests that they show dif-ferent crime trajectories and manifest different temporal offense patterns (Francis, Harris, Wallace, Knight, & Soothill, 2013; Lussier, Tzoumakis, Cale, & Amirault, 2010).

The effect of age on recidivism is important for criminal prediction in general (Guy, 2008; Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008; Singh & Fazel, 2010) and sexual recidivism in particular (Barbaree & Blanchard, 2008; Thornton, 2006). Although it is clearly established that there is an over-all lowering of recidivism at older ages, the interpretation of this effect remains somewhat problematic for sexual offenders (Barbaree & Blanchard, 2008). Multiple explanations have been proposed including maturation effects, changing life circumstances, declining testosterone (Barbaree & Blanchard, 2008), a reduction of Life Course Persistent offenders (Moffitt, 1993) in older samples (G. T. Harris & Rice, 2007), and differential effects of aging in and out of prison (Knight & Thornton, 2007). With an average age of 52, the participants in the present study were sufficiently mature enough to allow for an examination of the effects of age on recidivism.

Cognitive Transformation

The second model of desistance describes the power of personal agency and cognitive transformation in one’s life, implying a conscious decision and ability to change (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002). The trigger for change can come from an epiphany about the negative consequences associ-ated with a life of crime (Healy, 2010), an awareness of the damage or trauma





one has caused, or a desire to never return to prison. It can also be an incre-mental process where an alternative to offending simply becomes an option and change becomes a possibility (Farrall & Calverley, 2006; Göbbels et al., 2012). Whether gradual or instantaneous, this process of identity transforma-tion involves “knifing off”—a rational decision to separate one’s criminal past from their law-abiding future (Giordano et al., 2002; Maruna & Roy, 2007). The process often includes the reconstruction of the past into a posi-tive, redemptive narrative (Healy, 2010), most notably described through stir-ring tales of moving away from crime and overcoming obstacles to community reintegration (Giordano et al., 2002). When people successfully stop offend-ing, “they are not merely ‘no longer offending’, but in some instances have gone through quite lengthy periods of rebuilding, remodeling or remaking their own social identities” (Farrall & Calverley, 2006, p. 85). Maruna (2001) further articulated that “ex offenders desisting from crime need to account for and understand their criminal pasts (why they did what they did), and they also need to understand why they are now not like that anymore” (in M. K. Harris, 2009, p. 157).

Informal Social Control

The obtainment of informal social controls, most often in the form of a stable marriage and a good career, is an especially well-regarded criminological theory that accounts for continuity and change in offending over time. Most notably espoused by Sampson and Laub (1993) in their Age Graded Theory of Informal Social Control, the development of particular stakes in confor-mity and community investment is favored as a mechanism of desistance over the impact of negative reinforcement, retribution, and deterrence. The valuable social ties to adult institutions that are created by the advent of employment and relationships also appear in the psychological literature on healthy self-esteem where the pursuit of mastery and intimacy are highlighted (McAdams, 1993). Meaningful employment provides the opportunity for mastery and a strong and stable relationship satisfies one’s basic human need for connection and intimacy. Although discussions about agents of informal social control are often limited to employment and marriage, the additional elements of educational success, military service, hobbies, and active parent-hood have also been included.

At the time of writing, only two studies had examined empirically the impact of employment on sex offender recidivism. Brown, Spencer, and Deakin (2007) conducted interviews with sex offenders, probation officers, and potential employers and found that sexual recidivists were more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts who did not reoffend. Kruttschnitt,




Harris 7

Uggen, and Shelton (2000) used a sample of 556 sex offenders placed on probation in Minnesota and concluded that those with stable employment at the time of sentencing were 37% less likely to reoffend. They also found that the combined influence of a stable work history and active involvement in sex offender specific treatment worked well to rehabilitate sex offenders and reduce recidivism. Although not a specific focus of the present study, the impact of recent legislation that severely restricts employment opportunities for men on the sex offender registry did surface as an emergent theme and should be examined in future work.

Given the expressed similarities between sexual and nonsexual offenders, the value of employment for sex offenders in particular, should not need to be defended. Clearly, “the desire to ‘do something’ and especially ‘something constructive’” transcends societies and cultures (Farrall & Calverley, 2006, p. 180). Indeed, as Scoones et al. (2012) recently articulated, their need for an income, their desire to be productive, and the advantage of regular interaction with law-abiding peers is just as meaningful and necessary for sexual offend-ers as it is for men convicted of nonsexual offenses, as it is, in fact, for any-one. Similarly, the desire for intimacy, or one’s drive to “belong to or to have a family are so widespread that we must assume that this represents some basic instinct to which human beings are ‘hardwired’” (Farrall & Calverley, 2006, p. 180). In its capacity as an instrument of informal social control, mar-riage (or a marital-type relationship) not only encourages a close connection between people but it disrupts connections and friendships with delinquent peers (Healy, 2010) and eventually “breaks up the routine of ordinary crimi-nal associations and activities” (Laws & Ward, 2011, p. 54).

The Present Study

Given the acknowledged gap in the literature on desistance from sexual offending specifically, the present study was largely exploratory. The assumed similarities between sexual and nonsexual offenders were considered, but evidently not tested (because the sample included sexual offenders exclu-sively). The overall research question guiding the study was as follows:

Research Question 1: To what extent do the theories of desistance from nonsexual offending explain desistance from sexual offending?

It should be noted that consistent with the great majority of extant theory and practice in the field of sexual abuse research, this study focuses exclu-sively on adult men and should not be seen as readily generalizable to female samples or able to explain desistance from offending in women.





Method

Participants

This study was conducted in cooperation with the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center (CPC). The CPC employs clinicians and criminal jus-tice professionals who provide specialized sex offender management and treatment programs across the United States (www.cpcamerica.com). CPC therapists in the Boston, Massachusetts, area announced the study in their group therapy sessions and the first names and contact phone numbers of interested participants were forwarded to the author. This yielded an initial total of 48 potential subjects. Each participant was contacted via telephone for a preinterview to determine their eligibility to participate. Participants were excluded from the study if they had never served a custodial sentence, were below 30 years of age, provided an incorrect phone number (and thus could not be contacted), or changed their mind about wishing to participate. Limited time and resources precluded everyone from participating. To ensure the best possible chance of capturing desistance rather than simply a plateau period between active offenses, fairly selective inclusion criteria were used that prioritized older men with the longest time since release.

The final sample included 21 men (76% White) with an average age of 52.6 years (range = 31-78 years). Their most recent custodial sentence length was approximately 11 years (range = 1.5-30 years) for a serious sexual offense, and all participants had been living in the community for a mean of 4 years (range = 6 months-15 years). All participants denied offending sexually since their most recent release, could read at a fourth-grade level, and were able to commute to a location in central Boston. The men agreed to participate on the promise of anonymity, so it was not possible to access their official records to verify their offending histories. Although it was also not possible to assess their risk of reoffending using extant actuarial tools, according to their outpa-tient therapists, the men in the sample constituted a fairly low risk of reoffend-ing on release. It should be noted that although this limits the conclusions of the present pilot study, the larger project of which this is a part will be collect-ing official data to verify the self-reported accounts of future interviewees. Participants are identified throughout by a case number to protect their identi-ties. Table 1 provides basic descriptive statistics for each participant including age, race, offense type, sentence length, and time since release from custody.

Procedure

The semistructured individual, face-to-face interview lasted approximately 90 minutes and followed McAdams’ (1993) Life History Interview Protocol


www.cpcamerica.com



9

Tab

le 1

. D

emog

raph

ics,

Offe

nse

Typ

es, a

nd S

ente

nce

Leng

ths

of 2

1 In

terv

iew

Par

ticip

ants

.

3A

geR

ace

Offe

nse

Typ

e (N

umbe

r of

Vic

tims)

Mon

ths

in

Cus

tody

Mon

ths

Sinc

e R

elea

seEv

er

Mar

ried

Had

C

hild

ren

Any

C

olle

geEv

er

Empl

oyed

Ever

M

ilita

ry

166

Whi

tePo

rnog

raph

y18

48X

XX

264

Whi

teC

M (

1); I

nces

t (s

tepd

augh

ter)

(1)

240

6X

XX

XX

347

Whi

teIn

cest

(ni

eces

) (2

)10

813

XX

X

451

Whi

teSo

licita

tion

(4)

4818

XX

X

559

Whi

teIn

cest

(st

epda

ught

er)

(1)

204

12X

XX

X6

58W

hite

CM

(2)

489

XX

XX

7

48H

ispa

nic

Rap

e (1

)24

5X

X

848

Blac

kIn

cest

(st

epda

ught

er)

(1)

9060

9

64W

hite

Porn

ogra

phy

369

XX

X

1044

Blac

kIn

cest

(au

nts;

nie

ce; d

augh

ter)

(4)

108

24X

X

1147

Blac

kC

M (

2)84

24X

XX

X

1254

Whi

teIn

cest

(st

epda

ught

er; s

teps

on)

(2)

4818

0X

XX

1332

Blac

kIn

cest

(si

ster

s) (

2)54

12

1435

Whi

teIn

cest

(st

epda

ught

er)

(1)

1212

XX

XX

1579

Whi

teIn

cest

(st

epda

ught

er; g

rand

daug

hter

; nie

ce)

(3)

210

4X

XX

X16

61W

hite

CM

(1)

368

XX

XX

1753

Whi

teC

M (

1); I

nces

t (a

dopt

ed d

augh

ter)

(1)

192

17X

XX

X

1851

Whi

teC

M (

36)

108

72X

X

1947

Whi

teC

M (

4)33

626

XX

X

2065

Whi

teIn

cest

(st

epda

ught

er; s

teps

on)

(2)

360

11X

XX

2144

Whi

teC

M (

1)10

816

X

Not

e. C

M =

ext

ra-fa

mili

al c

hild

mol

esta

tion

of k

now

n vi

ctim

.





(see also Maruna, 2001) which was adapted for use with sex offenders by Laws and Ward (2011). Interviews were conducted individually in a private office at a church in downtown Boston (where CPC group meetings were held). All participants were assured confidentiality and consented to having their interviews digitally recorded. Participants were informed that their involvement in the study would have no bearing on their probation or parole status and would not impact their progress in outpatient treatment. Participation was voluntary and participants received a US$25 gift card for a local grocery store or pharmacy for their cooperation. The study received the approval of the San Jose State University (SJSU) Institutional Review Board and was conducted in accordance with its recommendations and guidelines regarding the protection of human subjects.

Analytical Strategy

The interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using qualitative nar-rative analysis (Atkinson, 1998; Elliott, 2005; Franzosi, 2010). Consistent with previous approaches (Atkinson, 1998; Presser, 2008), the interviews were transcribed verbatim to preserve the participant’s speech (e.g., where appropriate, “gonna” was used instead of “going to”). Significant pauses and relevant nonverbal actions (e.g., pounding on desk for emphasis, wiping away tears) were noted in the transcripts. Unless they were excessive, verbal ticks or speech fillers (such as “um,” “like,” or “y’know”) were retained. Dialect and accent were noted when central to the content of the discussion. Each transcript was then checked back against the original audio recording for accuracy by the author.

Similar to the method described by Farmer et al. (2012), data analyses focused on exploring the postrelease experiences of the participants as well as emphasizing the descriptions that participants provided about their experi-ences and the ways in which they understood the meaning of their own behavior (see also Martinez, 2009). Interview transcripts were coded by three independent raters (trained graduate students) using the NVivo software pro-gram (Version 10). Coders categorized participants’ speech into various themes of desistance (articulated in the theories described above). Emergent themes of success in and obstacles to reentering the community and living offense-free lives were also considered. These emergent themes will be dis-cussed in more detail below.

Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2006) characterization of inductive thematic analysis, the emergent themes shared few similarities with the actual questions contained in the interview protocol. Letting the themes emerge without contamination of potentially leading prompts by the interviewer was




Harris 11

the preferred approach. Themes were identified when multiple accounts con-tained the same or similar experience or feeling. To ensure accuracy, themes were only recorded if they were identified by at least two independent raters and discovered in at least two unique transcripts. Consistent with Becker’s (1998) comments on qualitative analysis, positive and negative themes of desistance were coded. Positive themes refer to occasions when positive evi-dence of the presence of the theories anticipated were identified. Negative themes instead refer to cases where there is evidence of the opposite condi-tion of the expected theme. The absence of a theme (i.e., if a participant simply does not mention a theme or its opposite) is not included.

Results

Preliminary coding revealed two distinct groups of desisters—those who had desisted naturally, and spoke of aging out (n = 3) and those who could be placed on a continuum of cognitive transformation (n = 18) who emphasized the powerful impact of treatment in their recovery. No participants explained their desistance as a product of the achievement of informal social controls. In fact, many men reported a strong desire to find a job (n = 11) or a partner (n = 13), but without exception, also detailed the tremendous obstacles that they have faced in the pursuit of employment and relationships since their release. The emergent theme of obstacles to desistance is discussed further below.

Table 2 presents a count of the number of men who mentioned each theme in their interview. This table contains the positive and negative themes of desistance. The results of the narrative analysis are discussed below, arranged into the three theories of desistance: natural desistance; cognitive transforma-tion; and informal social controls.

Evidence of Natural Desistance

One of the assumptions that originally guided the exploration of natural desistance was that sexual offenders and nonsexual offenders share more similarities than differences. Researchers continue to detect the same or simi-lar age-crime effects in sexual offenders that have been identified in general criminological samples (Laws & Ward, 2011), but only three individuals (14%) in the present study offered age as the reason they no longer offended. Deliberately limiting the sample to a relatively mature group of participants could be seen as “stacking the deck” in the direction of “aging out.” Indeed, many men commented on their advanced age, but they did so within the con-text of being too old to be in a relationship (n = 3) or too old to work (n = 4).




12

Tab

le 2

. Fr

eque

ncy

of T

hem

es o

f Des

ista

nce

by T

ype

of D

esis

ter.

Nat

ural

Des

ista

nce

(n =

3)

Cog

nitiv

e T

rans

form

atio

n (n

= 1

8)

Nat

ural

des

ista

nce

I’m

too

old

to

com

mit

crim

e3

0

I’m t

oo o

ld t

o go

to

pris

on3

0C

ogni

tive

tran

sfor

mat

ion—

posi

tive

them

es

Rec

ogni

tion—

Ack

now

ledg

e ha

rm c

ause

d; d

esir

e fo

r “n

o m

ore

vict

ims”

17

U

nder

stan

ding

—N

eede

d to

und

erst

and

sexu

al o

ffend

ing

deep

ly0

8

Tre

atm

ent—

I kno

w h

ow t

o liv

e an

offe

nse-

free

live

014

R

edem

ptio

n—I h

ave

a ne

w id

entit

y, I

have

hop

e fo

r th

e fu

ture

04

G

ener

ativ

ity—

Now

men

tors

oth

ers,

is a

pro

fess

iona

l ex

07

Cog

nitiv

e tr

ansf

orm

atio

n—N

egat

ive

them

es

Res

entm

ent—

I did

n’t

need

tre

atm

ent;

I’m n

ot a

sex

offe

nder

21

R

esig

natio

n—Pe

rman

ent

stig

ma;

I ca

n ne

ver

chan

ge3

2

Pess

imis

m—

Neg

ativ

e id

entit

y; n

o ho

pe fo

r th

e fu

ture

33

Info

rmal

soc

ial c

ontr

ols—

Posi

tive

them

es

Cur

rent

ly d

atin

g or

in a

rel

atio

nshi

p2

2

Has

reu

nite

d w

ith n

ow a

dult

child

ren

02

H

as r

euni

ted

with

old

frie

nds

or h

as m

ade

new

frie

nds

14

Is

cur

rent

ly e

mpl

oyed

par

t-tim

e0

3In

form

al s

ocia

l con

trol

s—N

egat

ive

them

es

Look

ing

for

wor

k, b

ut e

xper

ienc

ing

diffi

culty

29

U

nem

ploy

ed (

retir

ed o

r on

dis

abili

ty)

19

Lo

nely

—H

opes

to

find

a ne

w p

artn

er, b

ut is

pes

sim

istic

011

W

ishe

s to

reu

nite

with

chi

ldre

n bu

t ha

s no

t be

en s

ucce

ssfu

l2

7

Wis

hes

to r

euni

te w

ith fr

iend

s bu

t ha

s no

t be

en s

ucce

ssfu

l2

5




Harris 13

Perhaps ironically, the three men identified as “natural desisters” were among the youngest in the sample (aged 44-48).

The men who talked explicitly about aging out of crime did so in very typically criminological ways. They were “cafeteria style” offenders (Klein, 1984) who onsetted early, engaged in persistent and varied offending (includ-ing drugs, property, and violent crime), were incarcerated multiple times, and spent much of their adolescence and early adulthood in institutions. None of these men had graduated high school or ever held a job for very long. They reported multiple short-term relationships and all had fathered children for whom they were never active parents. They did not identify as sex offenders (as many of the other men did), they resented having been made to attend treatment (which they thought unnecessary), and conceptualized their sexual offense (each had only one) as just another line on their rap-sheet. Below is an excerpt from each man’s interview:

I’m not like I used to be. I don’t get violent. I don’t drink and do drugs today. (Subject 10)It’s just not in me no more. I’m too old . . . I got tired of fighting, y’know? (Subject 8)I’m tired of living that kind of lifestyle. I’m getting older. I’m a grandfather. I want to have a different lifestyle, at least for the rest of the years that I have left in my life. (Subject 7)

Evidence of Cognitive Transformation

The achievement of cognitive transformation was detected to varying degrees in 18 participants (86%) but was almost always viewed as a product of exten-sive sex offender specific treatment. All of these individuals were relatively open about their offending and many had engaged in treatment for a consider-able number of years, often continuing to participate beyond that which was prescribed by probation. A continuum of cognitive transformation was identi-fied that began with recognition of the harm they had caused, and was fol-lowed, in some, by a desire to understand, deeply, the nature of their offense. Next, the powerful impact of treatment was illustrated, often in the context of preparing the individual to live an offense-free life. Next, in a few cases (who had been free for the longest time), a new identity was forming where redemp-tion had been found or seemed within reach. The final stage was marked by generativity, or a desire to help others, where some men were voluntarily mentoring other sex offenders. These results are contained in Table 2 and each of these stages is described in more detail below.





Acknowledging the harm caused by their offense emerged as an important theme in the narratives of the men. When asked to identity a general turning point in their lives, many participants spoke of the (extremely difficult) moment that they accepted what they had done and took responsibility for their offense.

It’s hard to talk about, y’know? I mean, I know I hurted [sic] somebody, disrupted a family and stuff. (Subject 8)I was still in this state of extreme denial and then my life changed because I began to realize through all the therapy that I did, that I created a lot of victims, not just four children. I created a lot of victims, y’know? I began to realize that I had affected their lives permanently. (Subject 4)

An unexpected emergent theme was that of a desire for an almost aca-demic level of understanding of sexual deviance and the offense cycle. Many participants described their need to research thoroughly their condition which ultimately led to what they described as an understanding of their past offenses and a way of moving on. They said,

I had to get to the bottom of why I did what I did. I had to understand this because I couldn’t live with myself like this. So I had to examine each and every time that this took place. I had to do it. (Subject 12)I feel really good at understanding psychology, understanding human behavior, understanding sexual offending behavior. (Subject 18)

The utility of treatment was a common theme and it almost always emerged in an educational context. Participants who spoke of having bene-fited from treatment felt that they had learned a new way to live:

I did not gain just knowledge, nor understanding, I gained wisdom. I did not know empathy before, or, at least, I did not know how to tap into it, to my feelings, and to walk in your shoes to see what you would go through. (Subject 11)I know that part of it has to be therapy. That’s why I guess they say knowledge is power. See, I wasn’t armed with all the information before, so I wasn’t reasoning as well as I am now. (Subject 11)The bottom line is this: Some sex offenders can’t stop because they can’t learn how to manage it. They don’t want to. They don’t know how to. They are incapable of it. They don’t believe they can. The rest of us, we know better. We’re not going to do it again. (Subject 18)

An offense-free life was conceptualized as a learned outcome over which these men had some control. Those who reported redemption and optimism for the future were also the ones who expressed confidence in their ability to “stay safe” or not reoffend:




Harris 15

I have no intention of reoffending. I don’t want to ever reoffend . . . through living my life a certain way, I can reduce the likelihood. I can manage my life in a way that reduces that likelihood to virtually nil, and that’s what I do. (Subject 18)The only thing that’s going to stop me [from reoffending] is me. I have to have good reasons to reoffend, and I have to have even better reasons not to reoffend. (Subject 20)I live a life that’s a testament to how to turn things around, how to reclaim, and how to redeem, y’know? How you can take life back and live in a positive way. That’s where I want to be. (Subject 18)

Another element of Maruna’s (2001) conceptualization of desistance with which our results resonate is the notion of the “professional ex” or “desis-tance missionary.” Seven participants (all in the “cognitive transformation” desistance group) currently volunteer as mentors to men released more recently from custody. Their recollections of helping others illustrate the gen-erativity model well.

Since I can’t get in the field myself, I might as well just utilize the resources that I know of to help them [recent parolees] get on their feet . . . find out how to get their ID, their birth certificate, show them where it is, or show them where to go. (Subject 13)I volunteer as a mentor for sex offenders . . . I try to share my experience to help them with what they are going through. Some of them have just been released, and y’know, I can relate to what that’s like, y’know, going to a shopping center and all these choices . . . I’ve been involved in counseling for 15 years and I’ve heard every story, and so I feel it’s useful, and I think coming from a peer in a group, sometimes is more effective, hearing the same thing that a therapist would be saying . . . it comes across a bit differently when you’ve been there yourself and you know what they’re thinking, and you know what they’re going to say next sometimes. It gives me a sense of being able to put something back, a sense of being productive. (Subject 12)

Some men were almost melodramatic in describing their desires to help others.

And I said, y’know, no matter what, I’m gonna do everything in my power to make sure that I have opportunities to help other people. If I can do anything to help things like this from never happening again, then I am going to. (Subject 4)I try to help the sick and suffering . . . It’s very rewarding . . . I know why teachers teach, y’know, because of those “aha” moments. It’s a rush. It’s refreshing. (Subject 5)

As Becker (1998) reminded us, an equally important component of qualita-tive analysis is uncovering evidence of the opposite of an anticipated theme—a





“deviant” or “negative” case. This was not relevant for the theory of natural desistance in that no one reported being “not yet mature enough” to stop offend-ing, for example. It was, however, relevant for the theory of cognitive transfor-mation. Although themes of optimism, treatment-inspired behavioral change, redemption, and generativity were identified in those who desisted through cognitive transformation, there was also some evidence of the reverse condi-tions including resentment, resignation, and pessimism. Importantly, these “negative themes” were much more common among the small group of natural desisters, than the larger group of men who underwent cognitive transforma-tion. This is noteworthy because it offers further evidence of a distinction between the two groups of desisters and demonstrates that although both groups desisted, their reasons were unique. Each of these themes is described below.

Two of the three natural desisters expressed resentment at being “forced” to attend treatment, asserting repeatedly that they were not like the other sex offenders in their group and didn’t warrant the specialized therapy to which they had been referred.

I don’t go hunting, y’know? Like some of these guys that do stupid shit, like you know, to rape children. I don’t go to parks. I don’t go near schools. (Subject 3)I mean, I go to these classes right? And I hear these dudes. I got a guy in the classroom, I mean he’s always talking about how he got to stop himself because if he goes near a kid . . . and I be looking at him like, “ok, he’s got a problem,” but I don’t have that type of problem, y’know? I really don’t. I don’t get those types of urges. I really don’t; y’know? (Subject 8)

All three natural desisters reported a sense of resignation due to the perma-nent stigma that they felt being identified as a sex offender. These men were also considerably pessimistic about their futures.

Well I can’t overcome it ever because I’m going to be on parole for the rest of my life. (Subject 7)I can’t get nothing. I mean, it’s just getting worse. This situation I’m in now, y’know, ain’t nothing could get worse than this. I’ve lived in this shelter for 6 or 7 years now, y’know? I’m tired. I mean, I did a crime, I know I did a crime, I’m not justifying it or nothing like that, but I mean, I did 8 years in jail for it and like, I mean I’m trying my best to, I know I would never ever do that crime again. (Subject 8)

It is interesting to contrast these passages with the negative themes that were identified in just three (16.7%) of the “cognitive transformation” group. Although they technically reported being resigned to the permanency of their sex offender label, it was tempered by a sense of acceptance of and internal control over their behavior, and even a glimmer of hope.




Harris 17

I will always see myself as somebody who has a deviancy. I think if you understand that about yourself, it’s like understanding if you have a physical ailment—you have to care for that ailment, you have to treat that ailment, and I approach it in that direction. I have a deviance and my treatment is to remain in my programs, and to keep myself out of situations and areas of risk. (Subject 6)I sexualize kids. I’m a pedophile. I have pedophilia. I don’t think it’s ever going to go away. I don’t think there’s a cure for it, but I manage it . . . the only thing I can do is accept it. I can’t beat myself up over it . . . I’m not going to hate myself because I think kids are sexually attractive. That would be ridiculous. (Subject 18)

Evidence of Informal Social Control

The theory of informal social controls predicts that desistance is most likely for those who attain intimacy (such as a partner, family, friends, or other social supports) and mastery (such as employment, education, or military service). This theory aligns closely with the Good Lives Model (Ward & Marshall, 2004) which reminds us that sexual offenders share the same hopes and desires as everyone else. Perspectives emphasize that the active pursuit of a wife and a job (for example) are essential elements to successful com-munity reentry, as well as fundamental milestones on the road from crime.

The results from the present sample do not support this perspective. Many participants had achieved these social goods, but had done so prior to the commission of their offense, rendering them largely irrelevant in a discussion on what variables contributed to postrelease desistance. The considerable levels of social competence observed in this sample are indeed consistent with extant research indicating higher rates of marriage, employment, and superficial social conformity in child molesters when compared with rapists or nonsexual offenders. These demographic details are included in Table 1. Specifically, many participants lived in lengthy martial relationships, reported having cared for young children, and had work histories that featured deco-rated military service or long-term, stable employment. Almost without exception, however, these elements of informal social control were lost on arrest and subsequently never recovered on release. These results offer empirical support for Göbbels et al.’s (2012) argument that many prisoners are released from custody to worse conditions and with fewer opportunities than they had before their arrest.

Of the 21 men interviewed, 71.4% had previously married and two thirds of them expressed pride in their relationships. All had since divorced from their partners. Only one had remarried since his release, and three reported that they were dating (see Table 2). Although some men reported “being too old for all that now” (n = 3), most (n = 11) of the single men reported feeling lonely, and hoped to find someone, one day:





I want love. I want to feel like I’m in a sharing relationship, communication, the whole bit. I want it to be like 50/50. (Subject 19)I just want a wife, one wife to be faithful to. To love and to hold, to be my companion. (Subject 11)I would like to find love, and that he or she would want me for me. (Subject 20)

Most of these men also expressed fear about having to explain their situa-tion to a potential partner. It was typical for them to be fairly pessimistic about the likelihood that they would date again (see Table 2).

I’m just human you know. I would love to [date] but I’m scared, y’know? I’m scared that if I tell her who I am, maybe they’ll say “no.” (Subject 10)I’d like to [date], but I don’t see it happening. We talked about that in group a couple of weeks ago. A guy asked about how he should go about meeting this girl and because he has to also tell her about his record, so he doesn’t know how to approach it . . . how do you explain, after dating a girl, how do you explain this to her and have her understand? (Subject 17)

Of the 14 men who became fathers (representing 67% of the sample) only two had since reunited with their now adult children, and the rest had not had contact with or access to their children for many years. On reconnecting with his daughter (and victim), one man said,

The pain I put my daughter through, y’know? I say this always to her today: “why are you back in my life? I don’t deserve this.” She said, “Dad, I love you, I believe you changed.” So that always eats at me. I always cry when I talk to her on the phone. (Subject 10)

The above quotation was not representative of other cases, with the more common themes describing pessimism toward and almost complete isolation from their family.

I ruined my family. I mean, I can’t see them. To my knowledge my kids think I’m dead. (Subject 12)

Almost three quarters (71.4%) of the sample were employed in a steady job prior to their arrest; many in positions that required considerable skills or training (banking, computing, or mathematics, for example). Almost all of the employed participants (87%) remarked on the success they enjoyed in their chosen field or the pride they felt from decorated military service. Many men expressed a desire to work and to be productive on release but only three were working (all part-time, and in unskilled positions). Approximately half (48%)




Harris 19

of the sample were currently unemployed due to having retired or being dis-abled and the remaining half (52%) described the considerable hardships they had experienced while looking for jobs after release. The following quotes are just a few of the many comments that were made about barriers to reentry.

I’ve always known what it is to be independent and self sufficient and capable and now I feel handicapped because I still am smart and educated and capable but I’m handicapped because now if I apply for a job I get scrutinized and my criminal history gets looked at. (Subject 11)I want to work because sometimes I find myself being bored out of my mind, and even though I read and do things to keep busy, it’s just that I’ve been working since I got out of high school . . . I don’t like it ‘cos I don’t feel like I’m doing anything constructive for society. (Subject 9)I want to work but I just back down, because they ask if you have any criminal history—“can we run a record check on you?” and I’m like, “forget it, forget it.” (Subject 10)I went from a job doing customer support for a software company. I was with them for almost 3 years and then they found out I was a level 3 [high risk registered sex offender] and they let me go. (Subject 18)In three out of the five interviews that I had, the company wanted to hire me, and then the background check comes in . . . I don’t believe my offense should preclude me from working in the pharmaceutical research and development field. (Subject 6)

Discussion

The present study explored the factors that contributed to desistance from sexual offending in a sample of 21 men recently released from custody. All participants self-reported that they had not committed a sexual offense since their most recent release. Emphasis was placed on examining the relevance of existing theories of desistance to explain why these men had apparently stopped commit-ting sexual offenses. Participants were enthusiastic to share their experiences. These included dramatic tales of traumatic experiences in prison; harrowing sto-ries of childhood abuse; happy memories of the early stages of a good relation-ship; proud recollections of productive careers; and the daily challenges of being a homeless and unemployed registered sex offender, searching for a job and a safe place to live. Many participants actively expressed their gratitude that someone was interested enough to talk with them and listen to their stories.

These results provide mixed support for the three theories of desistance. Cognitive transformation seemed to exist on a continuum with many men expressing a desire to live a happy, offense-free life. The majority of the sample attributed their recovery to the support and guidance provided them





by years of treatment and in many cases to a conscious decision to create “no more victims.” Most of these men were active in their treatment groups and some volunteered as mentors. A small group of participants (n = 3) reported having stopped offending naturally, largely as a consequence of their age. For these relatively young men, sexual crime appeared to be simply another offense category on their long and versatile rap-sheet. Unsurprisingly, the cognitive transformation group reported the greatest number of positive themes for desistance by cognitive transformation. Interestingly, the natural desisters not only expressed positive themes of natural desistance, but also many negative themes of cognitive transformation. This finding underscores the discovery of two distinct groups of desisters who articulated very differ-ent reasons for their desistance from offending.

No men attributed their desistance from offending to the successful attain-ment of informal social controls. On the contrary, the narratives were instead replete with negative themes of informal social control. Many participants emphasized the obstacles to achieving a job or a relationship, as well as the immense stigma associated with a sex offense conviction. Emergent themes included being discouraged by the unavailability of safe accommodation, frustrated by the inability to find stable employment, and depressed by the unlikelihood of finding a partner.

We now have a fairly clear picture of what doesn’t work. Decades of research on the dynamic risk factors of sexual recidivism support the view that unemployment, isolation, stigma, and boredom, for example, increase a person’s likelihood of reoffending (Brown et al., 2007; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Willis et al., 2010). We also have an increasingly clear image of what does work. Although the application of a desistance framework to sexual offending is relatively new, research on relapse prevention, community reen-try, release planning (Göbbels et al., 2012), and the Risk Need Responsivity Model (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) underscore the importance of employment, education, treatment, family, and other social supports.

It is neither new nor uncontroversial to report that men who were recently released from custody are facing considerable difficulties finding paid work, safe accommodation, or appropriate social relationships. In fact, the now sub-stantial evidence that continues to call into question the effectiveness of recent sex offender policies suggests that the time for political stakeholders to reconsider such laws is long overdue.

Limitations

The present study is not without limitations, most notable are those associated with the bias created by sampling participants who are still active in treatment.




Harris 21

Evidently, this is not ideal for a number of reasons. First, the research design invariably attracted men who were relatively successful in that men who had dropped out of treatment or who had been rearrested were not contacted. Given that this study is focused on exploring desistance from offending and on examining what works, this is certainly not a fatal flaw, but it is noted that a control group would be valuable. Second, at the other end of the spectrum, those men who were especially successful on release and working full-time were unable to be interviewed during the day, and although interested, could therefore not participate. Including those men in future work is a priority. As the larger project (of which this study is a part) continues, men who have reof-fended and returned to prison will also be included in the sample.

As mentioned earlier, limiting the study to a mature sample was deliberate and was intended to provide a reasonable opportunity to capture actual desis-tance rather than a plateau between offenses (or lapses). Evidently, the dark fig-ure of crime remains a concern—there was no way to know with certainty that the participants were truthfully reporting having not offended since their release. This reality plagues all studies of desistance and is noted as a limitation. Moving forward, independent verification will be sought by accessing official criminal records of future interviewees in collaboration with law enforcement.

Indeed, not being able to verify the accounts of the participants is a reality that plagues all self-report studies, more broadly. Although the author made concerted pleas for honesty, and ensured anonymity of responses, it is cer-tainly conceivable that the social pressure of the interview and the sensitive nature of the topic would lead participants to engage in impression manage-ment, minimize their behavior, and provide more socially desirable answers. This is undoubtedly a limitation, but at the same time it should be noted that many of the participants made comments to the effect that they had already shared their stories so many times during treatment that they had “nothing to lose” and “no reason to lie.”

Finally, there is a divergence between the nature of qualitative research itself and the acceptable length of a journal article. The sheer length of each transcript, the depth of personal insight, and the number of quotations that were generated from conducting 21 interviews that each lasted between 90 minutes and 2 hours was profuse. Thus, the biggest limitation of this work might be space. There are evidently many more stories to tell, and the author looks forward to expanding the sample in the future, and focusing on each theory of desistance in more depth.

Conclusion

Some offenders will desist on their own, regardless of formal assistance or criminal justice system intervention. Some will benefit immensely from sex





offender specific treatment, and others might profit simply from reconnecting with their family of origin, or from the opportunity to earn an honest living. Still others, overcome by the stigma of their offense and now understanding the devastating consequences of their crimes, may decide quite rationally to never offend again, live an offense-free life, avoid another stint in prison, or the creation of more victims. And some might warrant the restrictive approaches that have become characteristic of enhanced community correc-tions, such as electronic monitoring or residence restrictions.

The present research underscores the importance of examining desistance from sexual offending and offers a number of avenues for future research. First, a deeper exploration of cognitive transformation within a sample of sexual offenders is in order, as well as a focus on the components of existing treatment plans which might best facilitate changing self-narratives and enhancing identity transformation. Second, the observation of natural desis-tance should be acknowledged. The related implications of reducing one’s risk level with age, or, as others have suggested, the concept of an expiry date for certain charges, after certain periods of time should be considered. Finally, the limitation on one’s ability to pursue informal social controls warrants much greater attention. Evidently, the achievement of “human goods”—which is what we know to be successful and what we know these individuals desire—is severely impeded by our present sex offender legislation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-cation of this article.

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview: Qualitative research methods series 44. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barbaree, H. E., & Blanchard, R. (2008). Sexual deviance over the lifespan: Reduction in deviant sexual behavior in the aging sex offender. In D. R. Laws & W. T. O’Donohue (Eds.), Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 37-60). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Becker, H. S. (1998). Tricks of the trade: How to think about your research while you’re doing it. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.




Harris 23

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

Brown, K., Spencer, J., & Deakin, J. (2007). The reintegration of sex offenders: Barriers and opportunities for employment. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 32-42.

Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ewing, C. P. (2011). Justice perverted: Sex offender law, psychology, and public policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Farmer, M., Beech, A., & Ward, T. (2012). Assessing desistance in child molesters: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1-21.

Farrall, S. (2010). A short history of the investigation into the ending of the criminal career. Safer Communities, 9(3), 9-16.

Farrall, S., Bottoms, A., & Shapland, J. (2010). Social structures and desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 546-570.

Farrall, S., & Calverley, A. (2006). Understanding desistance from crime: Theoretical directions in resettlement and rehabilitation. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Farrall, S., Hough, M., Maruna, S., & Sparks, R. (2011). Escape routes: Contemporary perspectives on life after punishment. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Francis, B., Harris, D. A., Wallace, S., Knight, R. A., & Soothill, K. (2013). Sexual and General Offending Trajectories of Men Referred for Civil Commitment. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment. doi: 10.1177/1079063213492341

Franzosi, R. (2010). Quantitative narrative analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gies, S. V., Gainey, R., Cohen, M. I., Healy, E., Duplantier, D., Yeide, M., . . .Hopps, M. (2012). Monitoring high-risk sex offenders with GPS technology: an evaluation of the California supervision program: Final report. Bethesda, MD: Development Services Group. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf

Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., & Rudolph, J. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 990-1064.

Göbbels, S., Ward, T., & Willis, G. (2012). An integrative theory of desistance from sex offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 453-462.

Guy, L. (2008). Performance indicators of the structured professional judgment approach for assessing risk for violence to others: A meta-analytic survey (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Hanson, R. K. (2002). Recidivism and age: Follow-up data from 4,673 sexual offend-ers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1046-1062.

Harris, D. A. (in press). Theories of desistance from sexual offending. In T. Ward, D. Polaschek, & A. R. Beech (Eds.), Theories of sexual offending (2nd ed.). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.


www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238481.pdf




Harris, D. A., Smallbone, S., Dennison, S., & Knight, R. A. (2009). Offense special-ization and versatility in the criminal histories of adult male sexual offenders referred for civil commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 37-44.

Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. (2007). Adjusting actuarial violence risk assessments based on aging or the passage of time. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 297-313.

Harris, M. K. (2009). Identity change through the transformation model of the pub-lic safety initiative of LIFERS, Inc. In B. Veysey, J. Christian, & D. Martinez (Eds.), How offenders transform their lives (pp. 143-164). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Healy, D. (2010). The dynamics of desistance: Charting pathways through change. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552-584.

Jeglic, E., Calkins Mercado, C., & Levenson, J. (2012). The prevalence and corre-lates of depression and hopelessness among sex offenders subject to community notification and residence restriction legislation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 46-59.

Kazemian, L. (2007). Desistance from crime: Theoretical, empirical, methodological, and policy considerations. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 5-27.

Knight, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2007). Evaluating and improving risk assessment schemes for sexual recidivism: A long-term follow-up of convicted sexual offend-ers. (Final Report, NCJ 217618). Retrieved from http://nij.ncjrs.gov/publications

Klein, M. (1984). Offence specialisation and versatility among juveniles. British Journal of Criminology, 24, 185-194.

Kruttschnitt, C., Uggen, C., & Shelton, K. (2000). Predictors of desistance among sex offenders: The interaction of formal and informal social controls. Justice Quarterly, 17, 61-87.

Laub, J., & Sampson, R. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laws, R., & Ward, T. (2011). Desistance from sex offending: Alternatives to throwing away the keys. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Leistico, A. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28-45.

Lussier, P., Tzoumakis, S., Cale, J., & Amirault, J. (2010). Criminal trajectories of adult sexual aggressors and the prediction of reoffending: Examining the aging-effect. International Criminal Justice Review, 20, 147-168.

Martinez, D. (2009). Former prisoners, their family members, and the transforma-tive potential of support. In B. Veysey, J. Christian, & D. Martinez (Eds.), How offenders transform their lives (pp. 56-71). Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making good. How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Maruna, S., & Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “knifing off” and desistance from crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 104-124.


http://nij.ncjrs.gov/publications



Harris 25

Massoglia, M., & Uggen, C. (2007). Subjective desistance and the transition to adult-hood. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 90-103.

McAdams, D. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). “Life-course persistent” and “adolescence-limited” antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Petersilia, J. (2004). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Presser, L. (2008). Been a heavy life: Stories of violent men. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. London, England: Harvard University Press.

Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (2003). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41, 555-592.

Scoones, C., Willis, G., & Grace, R. (2012). Beyond static and dynamic risk factors: The incremental validity of release planning for predicting sex offender recidi-vism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 222-238.

Shover, N., & Thompson, C. (1992). Age, differential expectations and crime desis-tance. Criminology, 30, 89-104.

Simon, L. (1997). Do criminal offenders specialize in crime types? Applied & Preventive Psychology, 6, 35-53.

Singh, J. P., & Fazel, S. (2010). Forensic risk assessment: A metareview. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 965-988.

Thornton, D. (2006). Age and sexual recidivism: A variable connection. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 18, 123-136.

Ward, T., & Marshall, W. L. (2004). Good lives, aetiology and the rehabilitiation of sex offenders: A bridging theory [Special Issue: Treatment & Treatability]. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 10, 153-169.

Willis, G., Levenson, J., & Ward, T. (2010). Desistance and attitudes towards sex offenders: Facilitation or hindrance? Journal of Family Violence, 25, 545-556.

Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime. New York, NY: Free Press.

Author Biography

Danielle Arlanda Harris is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Justice Studies at San Jose State University. She received her PhD from Griffith Univeristy in 2008. Her research has been published widely in many international journals and her work examines various components of sexual aggression over the life course including specailization, versatility, onset, desistance, and recidivism.




Harris 2014 JIV desistance narratives, n=21

Documents

Transcript of Harris 2014 JIV desistance narratives, n=21