Desistance: Future Implications on Criminal Justice Policy…

The association between age and crime is one of the most established facts in the field of criminology. It is generally agreed upon that aggregate crime rates peak in late adolescence / early adulthood (ages 18-21) and gradually drop thereafter. Although most adults who engage in criminal behavior also offended during adolescence, most juveniles who commit crime do not persist in adulthood. This is true even among those who engage in more serious forms of crime. In other words, desistance from crime tends to be normative in adolescence.

In this regard, the age-crime curve creates a curious paradox. Individuals are more susceptible to crime in late adolescence and early adulthood, but they are also more likely to abandon criminal behavior after this period. As such, some of the more punitive criminal justice interventions targeting adolescents and emerging adults may interrupt an otherwise downward slope of criminal behavior. Given the overrepresentation of minority youth at all stages of the juvenile and criminal justice processes — including arrest, pretrial confinement, prosecution, sentencing, and incarceration — the stigma of criminal justice responses overwhelmingly affects youth belonging to marginalized populations.

The empirical literature has identified different prompts for desistance from crime, whether they be in the form of marriage, employment, peer relationships, or changes in identity. Ultimately, there is no single framework that will explain desistance for all individuals. The ability of life events to shape behavior depends on the extent to which they enable individuals to find purpose and meaning to their lives. The same is true for our assessment of criminal justice interventions. Instead of simply asking what works, the better questions are: what works, for whom, and when? There is no one-size-fits-all program that is effective for everyone, juveniles and adults, at all stages of the life-cycle.

Advocating for a reduction in the number of people incarcerated for violent crimes does not suggest that we should tolerate violence, but rather that we should shift our focus from reactive responses to preventive strategies to address the problem. A desistance-promoting criminal justice system would resort to the harshest forms of punishment as a last recourse, not as the first option. Retributive sanctions may serve a moral purpose, but we must acknowledge that they are often at odds with the desistance framework and crime prevention efforts. We need courageous leaders who are receptive to adopting innovative strategies to reduce re-offending and who are willing to invest in long-term solutions that will promote desistance from crime.