Maximizing Desistance

• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Author: Astrid Birgden
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854814550024
• Date: 01 January 2015
• Subject Matter: Response to Crime

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2015, Vol. 42, No. 1, January 2015, 19 –31.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854814550024

© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

19

MAXIMIZING DESISTANCE

Adding Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Human

Rights to the Mix

ASTRID BIRGDEN

Deakin University

Just Forensic

The law can be a systemically induced decision point for offenders and can act to help or hinder desistance. Desistance can

be described as a change process that may be initiated by decisive momentum, supported by intervention, and maintained

through re-entry, culminating in a citizen with full rights and responsibilities. Desistance within courts, corrections, and

beyond is maximized by applying the law in a therapeutic manner. In common, desistance, therapeutic jurisprudence, and

human rights support offender autonomy and well-being. The intersections between the three models have been explored to

propose a normative framework that provides principles and offers strategies to address therapeutic legal rules, legal proce-

dures, and the role of psycholegal actors and offenders in initiating, supporting, and maintaining desistance.

Keywords: desistance; therapeutic jurisprudence; human rights; ethics; offender autonomy

Contemporary policy in the management of offenders assumes that community protec-

tion can be best achieved by overriding offender rights. Reactionary public policy is

weighted toward community protection. Rather than being considered an individual in need

of support, the offender is more likely perceived as a risk to be managed. Systemic responses

to offending therefore have an offense-related focus (reiterating “malfunctioning” history,

behavior, and attitudes) rather than a future focus (the aspiration of an intervention and the

broader social context and conditions that support change; McNeill, Batchelor, Burnett, &

Knox, 2005).

Independent of public policy, desistance from crime is described as a gradual or emer-

gent process through which people cease and refrain from persistent offending (Maruna,

2001). McNeill et al. (2005) portrayed desistance as ambivalence in which motivation may

be prompted by life events or a person “believing in” the offender, based on narrative identi-

ties or self-stories. Supporting desistance requires human capital (internal capacities to

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Astrid Birgden,

Consultant Forensic Psychologist, Just Forensic, P.O. Box 1045, South Melbourne, Victoria 3205, Australia;

e-mail: astrid99@hotmail.com.

550024CJBXXX10.1177/0093854814550024Criminal Justice and BehaviorBirgden / Maximizing Desistance

research-article2014