The problem of recidivism has been bothering theorists of criminal justice for many decades. Explanation of this phenomenon and its underlying causes would help to prevent over 70% thieves and robbers from repeating their crimes and risking jail time again. It would help to restrict those few percent of criminals involved in homicide or rape against committing the similar crimes. Currently, there are a few different explanations which shed the light on the nature of recidivism and help people understand whether punishment is enough for criminals.
One of the most common reasons for people committing crimes repeatedly is encouragement by the prison’s environment. Even when a person has made his or her mind to change and never get involved in anything unlawful, this might change dramatically after people find themselves in a prison. Communication with other criminals, making friends with inmates, reliving the situation of the real-life criminal world—although in a closed community—makes them inclined towards criminal behavior again. Many prisoners exchange details of their crimes with their inmates, and some even plan future wrongdoings together. For many, this is more appealing than start an exhaustive job search.
Another reason for people committing crimes repeatedly is that convicts are usually excluded from the society. They do not have much chance of finding a decent job, and sometimes they will not find any job at all, after their potential employers learn about their past. Even when a person is changed by serving the sentence, the society is very unwelcoming towards the ex-convicts and shows it all the time. With a little chance of earning money in a legal way, people with criminal past return to their previous activities.
Some criminal justice theorists believe that recidivism occurs when the potential gain from committing a crime is greater than the pain from punishment. This might explain the fact that thieves are very likely to repeat their crimes, even if they know they can get to the jail again. The gain is immediate and calculable, and the loss is always questionable. There is always a chance, however, and the seasoned convicts will agree.
There are supporters of an assumption that personal attributes, such as lack of self-control, emotional instability, and countercultural values, can become the reasons for committing crimes again after having served a sentence. In this case, if a predisposition to recidivism is a result of one’s individual psychological and social development, then it cannot be changed with punishment. The concept of restorative justice is focused on a similar belief, the one that a person should be reeducated in the encouraging social environment.
Taking the possible reasons of repeated crimes into consideration, such as encouragement by the prison environment, exclusion from society, gains-losses imbalance, and individual attributes, there is an obvious need to view all of them in a complex. Researchers have been making accents on the need for rehabilitation as opposed to punishment — personalized assistance and community involvement is something from where government programs should begin. Also, nothing will change unless the people are ready for the system changes.
References
- Andenaes J. 1972. “Does Punishment Deter Crime?” Pp. 342–357 in Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment, edited by Gertrude Ezorsky. Albany: State University of New York Press
- Blumstein A, Cohen J, Nagin D (Eds.). Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Crime Rates. Washington, DC: Panel on Research on Deterrent and Incapacitative Effects, 1978.
- Carlen P. “Crime, Inequality, and Sentencing.” A Reader on Punishment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1994.
- Duff R. “Punishment, Communication, and Community.” Punishment and Political Theory. Portland, OR: Hart, 1999.
- Gallo E, Ruggiero V. “The ‘Immaterial’ Prison: Custody as a Factory for the Manufacture of Handicaps.” International Journal of the Sociology of Law, Vol. 19, No. 3.
- Garland D. 1990. Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
- Lawrence T III. 2002. “Criminal Sentencing: Honesty, Prediction, Discrimination, and Ethics.” Pp. 175–187 in Justice, Crime and Ethics, 4th edition, edited by M. Braswell, B. R. McCarthy and B. J. McCarthy. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.