The process of desistance from crime

Theories of offending have dominated criminological theorizing, with a plethora of different explanations having evolved over time. Contrariwise, the study of how and why individuals stop offending (desistance from crime) is relatively new. Adopting a strength-based approach to flip the age-old question of why crime occurs on its head is beneficial – it can inform responses that encourage and support the cessation of offending, potentially reducing reoffending.

Desisting from crime is widely accepted to be a process, rather than an event. It is non-linear and can involve periods of engagement and disengagement in law breaking. There has been much debate about how best to define and measure desistance. The scope of desistance research has extended beyond studies of the complete absence of offending to include reductions in law breaking, as well as intentions and efforts to stop offending.

Desistance from crime is impacted by an interplay of micro (individual), meso (community) and macro (structural) level factors. Whilst at the individual-level internal changes in identity, as well as readiness and willingness to desist, have been deemed critical, these factors have been found to interact with broader, structural conditions (see Hale, 2020). For example, though the individual may wish to desist, structural disadvantages can impede the ability to action these intentions. It is therefore important to acknowledge the relationship between individual agency and structure when considering the process of desisting.

Several factors have been identified as protective against offending and thus supportive of desistance from crime, including stable employment, secure housing, prosocial relationships and access to support. In rural areas, where disadvantages across these domains of social need tend to be amplified, increased barriers to desistance are likely.

Rural barriers to desistance

Whilst many of the typical barriers to stopping offending are experienced across both urban and rural places, these can be exacerbated by rurality and accompanied by additional, unique challenges. Rural citizens face more challenging circumstances with regards to access to housing, substance use and mental health supports and employment (see Perez, 2007). These conditions are more likely to be criminogenic than conducive to desistance.