Off the Hook? The “Loosening” and “Slipping” in the Context of Frustrated Desistance

Abstract

Expanding on the largely omitted concept “frustrated desistance,” the paper approaches desistance as an ambiguous, non-linear and contradictory experience. Qualitative interviews conducted with case managers and participants of a voluntary Swedish desistance and gang defector program were analyzed to add nuance to desistance derailment in an offender rehabilitative setting. While ostensibly a “hook for change,” the program struggled to provide appropriate assistance. Rather than facilitating desistance, various contrarian (and occasionally contradictory) institutional practices were found to undermine such efforts, subverting the very notion of a hook. When torn between conflicting motivations, treatment engagement is disincentivized rather than encouraged, creating dissonance and turmoil. Placed against these contradictions and weighed down by the many burdens of liminality, the agent may “loosen” or “slip off” the hook. Illegal debts accrued from involvement in drug trade (“street debts”) and interrelated security concerns constitute two hitherto unrecognized frustrations that complicate desistance efforts. The findings underscore how desistance is always situated in the context of other concerns and demands, with practical implications for offender rehabilitation.

Plain Language Summary

To “lose the hold” or “slip off” a hook means to forgo an opportunity to desist from crime when overwhelmed by the stressing elements (pains, losses, struggles, etc.) associated with leaving a criminal lifestyle. Pinned against the many concerns and demands of a crime-free life, the individual becomes frustrated with ensuing relapses in crime. The term liminality signifies the limbo state many aspiring desisters find themselves in after they have abandonded their criminal lifestyle but before a new, crime-free life has materialised.

Case managers and participants in a Swedish offender rehabilitation program were interviewed. Although the program was voluntary, many participants dropped out. Despite the program’s stated objective to help their participants with the many obstacles they faced, the support was lacking. At the same time, the program had several demands that the participants needed to comply with. Forced to weigh the many losses of desistance with the demands placed on them by the program, the experience of desisting from crime becomes contradictory. When attempts to desist are “frustrated,” early dropouts and relapses in crime and drug use are expected outcome. Like a heavy anchor, the individual is weighed down by these burdens, making desistance harder to accomplish. The paper also discusses the significance of “street debts” (debts owed to other criminals) and security concerns. The study finds that offenders risk being subjected to violence upon leaving a gang. When indebted to other criminals, offenders might have to stay in the gang for a longer time to “work off” the debt. The incentive to be safe thus conflicts with the incentive to desist. The aspiring desisters found themselves “frustrated” to the point that they choose to suspend or abandon their desistance journey. The findings have practical implications for preventing relapses in crime, and especially in an offender rehabilitative setting.