Calling time on crime: Motivation, generativity and agency in Irish probationers

Abstract

Why people remain involved in, or detach themselves from, criminal activity is not fully understood. This article presents the results of an investigation of psychosocial changes involved in the process of desistance among 73 male probationers in Dublin, Ireland. The stated desire of the great majority was to cease offending and their aspirations revolved around finding a job and a place to live, and stopping drug use. Generative concerns were raised infrequently. There was little evidence of agency, with few individuals talking of empowerment or selfmastery. These findings mark an interesting point of contrast with other research in this area.

Desistance from Offending in the Twenty-First Century

“…Examination into identity change and agency highlights the work undertaken by individuals to transition out of offending and reintegrate into conventional society. Former offenders often place responsibility for their desistance on themselves; however, studies suggest that a desire for change (Liem 2016), belief in one's ability to desist (Soyer 2016), and generativity (Healy & O'Donnell 2008, Liem & Richardson 2014) are insufficient to distinguish among persisters and desisters. Instead, one's sense of self-efficacy or personal control (LeBel et al 2008, Liem 2016) and/or purposeful, intentional action (Carlsson 2016) may be key facilitators of behavioral change.…”

Agency and outcome expectancies for crime desistance: measuring offenders' personal beliefs about change†

“…Agency has been identified as an important area of future study within desistance research (Bottoms, Shapland, Costello, Holmes, & Muir, 2004;Laub & Sampson, 2001;Sampson & Laub, 2005;Vaughan, 2007;Weaver, 2009), but researchers are not unanimous in their definition of this concept (Healy & O'Donnell, 2008). As such, various related constructs have been discussed simultaneously in the literature, including self-efficacy and hope.…”

“…Any turning point, or 'hook for change' (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002, p. 992), will only be effective if the individual embraces it as meaningful, accessible, and subjectively desirable (Bracken, Deane, & Morrissette, 2009;Healy & O'Donnell, 2008;LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway, 2008). The non-experimental nature of prior research makes it particularly difficult to separate propensities (internal orientation influencing the likelihood of committing criminal acts) from life events (external manifestations associated with differential likelihood toward crime; Gottfredson, 2005;Kazemian, 2007;LeBel et al, 2008).…”

The Consolations of Going Back to Prison: What ‘Revolving Door’ Prisoners Think of Their Prospects

“…According to some studies, while offenders may report significant anxiety about leaving, they often have lofty expectations about what will happen upon their release (Irwin, 1970;Nelson, Dees, & Allen, 1999;Studt, 1967;Uggen, Manza, & Behrens, 2003). In the waning days of a prison sentence though and when appraising their social circumstances, they may be less confident about their ability to go straight and may ''hedge their bets'' (Burnett, 1992(Burnett, , 2004Healy & O'Donnell, 2008). However, the role of attitudes and cognitions in the re-entry process remains underresearched and little is known about how their prerelease self-beliefs and interpretations of their postprison prospects may influence outcomes following release.…”

“…Maruna, Immarigeon, and LeBel (2004) distinguish ''primary desistance'', a pause or gap in criminal activity, from ''secondary desistance'', a gradual process that may involve a number of such pauses but which involves changes on the level of roles and self-identity or the ''me'' of the individual. Healy and O'Donnell (2008) explored the understudied process of primary desistance by interviewing 73 recent male probationers in Dublin, Ireland, supplementing their accounts with interviews from their probation officers. Dissimilar to Maruna's (2001) study, empowerment or a ''language of agency'' in the narrative accounts of the probationers did not differentiate the desisters from active offenders.…”