An empirical framework for studying desistance as a process

Headnote

AN EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING DESISTANCE AS A PROCESS*

Headnote

Recent reviews of the desistance literature have advocated studying desistance as a process, yet current empirical methods continue to measure desistance as a discrete state. In this paper, we propose a framework for empirical research that recognizes desistance as a developmental process. This approach focuses on changes in the offending rate rather than on offending itself. We describe a statistical model to implement this approach and provide an empirical example. We conclude with several suggestions for future research endeavors that arise from our conceptualization of desistance.

Most criminologists define desistance as the state of having "terminated" offending. But recently, criminologists have begun to reexamine and expand the definition of desistance to include attention to the process by which people arrive at this state of nonoffending. Uggen and Kruttschnitt (1998), for example, use the term "behavioral desistance," suggesting that desistance has two implicit components: (1) a change from offending to nonoffending and (2) the arrival at a permanent state of nonoffending. We believe Fagan (1989) first recognized these two components when he defined desistance as the "process of reduction in the frequency and severity of (family) violence, leading to its eventual end when `true desistance' or 'quitting' occurs" (p. 380; see also Loeber and LeBlanc, 1990). Laub and Sampson (2001) recently identified two similar components. They refer to the first as the causal process of desistance and the second as termination, the outcome of the desistance process. In their view, the desistance process is a gradual social transition that involves real change in individuals and how they interact with the world (Maruna, 2001; Shover, 1996). Termination or "true desistance" is a discrete state marking the permanent end of an offending career.

Theoretical accounts of desistance focus on explaining the relationship between age and offending and often confound these two distinct components (Laub and Sampson, 2001). There are two camps in this debate, the ontogenetic or maturational theorists, and the sociogenetic theorists.1 The first group claims that "aging is the only factor which emerges as significant in the (desistance) process" (Glueck and Glueck, 1940:105). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) represent the most current and prominent example of this "aging of the organism" argument. The second group, which...