Desistance Signals

I have a new article in what I think is a fascinating exchange in the newest issue of the ASC journal Criminology and Public Policy. See
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/capp.2012.11.issue-1/issuetoc
This is a special issue on “Prisoner Reentry, Employment, Signaling, and the Better Identification of Desisters” (whew, that’s a mouthful) and it is tied into a (US) Congressional Luncheon of some sort, so the idea is that the debate should have some real policy relevance. That said, the discussion ended up being far more academic and theoretical than was probably intended, but I found the whole “signaling theory” thing just too interesting to resist.

Here is an excerpt from my response below. It makes most sense if you read the lead article by Bushway and Apel to which I am responding. If people need help accessing the issue, as always give me a shout at s.maruna @ qub.ac.uk or we might see about posting.

Excerpt:
Robert Martinson’s (1974) infamous “what works?” question has much to answer for here. The argument that perhaps “work doesn’t work,” cited in Bushway and Apel (2012), has to be one of the most frightening phrases I have read in criminology in a while. Surely, it is time to retire this “what works” phrase once and for all and to agree that the word “works” does not “work” when talking about human lives. What does it even mean? I have heard people ask, “Do the arts work?,” “Does prison work?,” and “Does supervision work?” as if these questions could be meaningfully answered. After a presentation, I was once asked, “Yes, but does desistance work?” Has anyone ever asked, “Does grad school work?” or “Does university work?” I hope not, or else they will start testing it by randomly assigning people to Ph.D. programs in criminology.

The beauty of the signaling approach is that it allows us to recognize the folly of such a question when the subjects involved are human beings trying to live meaningful lives. Furthermore, the signaling theory would take apart what about graduate school we would need to test to answer the question that matters. Would graduate school work if you did not get a degree at the end? That is, what if you got all the “dosage” (i.e., took all the courses and completed a dissertation), but you received no official credential at the end (e.g., because you forgot to pay your tuition)? What about the opposite? Imagine you skipped all the “dosage” (never attended a single lecture), but you forged or scammed a Ph.D. credential from one of the top university departments. Which of those scenarios (all dosage, no degree or all degree, no dosage) would “work” better on the job market? (I think I don’t want to know the answer to that).

So, does grad school work? Don’t ask me! In fact, don’t ask that at all. Bushway and Apel (2012) would argue that the better question (and certainly the more pertinent one for aspiring criminologists) is “what do I have to do to get the job I want in academia?” Now, that is a question that I can answer.

Prisoners ask the same sort of questions. The prisoners whom I have met and worked with over the years are deeply ambivalent about expert correctional treatment and highly skeptical of expert risk assessment. They are, however, very interested in the idea of redeeming themselves (i.e., signaling their desistance). They ask, “What do I have to do to get a second chance?” and if that means sitting through a “what works” course or smiling while a 23-year-old trainee psychologist from the suburbs risk assesses them, so be it. The problem about such signaling opportunities, that every prisoner knows well, is that these signals carry little or no weight in the real world. Successful completion of a criminal thinking course or an expert assessment of low-risk of recidivism is hardly something one puts on a job application. As employers would not understand either one or accord them much legitimacy, they have little by way of what Pierre Bourdieu (1977) deemed “symbolic capital.”

8 thoughts on “Desistance Signals”

  1. Shadd, you now have me very worried about my ginger beard and fake tortoise plastic rimmed glasses. I just hope someone thinks I’m a throwback to the 70’s in Sweden! Thankfully I don’t frequent youth clubs!

    I’m pleased I returned to your reply – I got a bit lost ‘paying credits’ in Shawn D. Bushway & Robert Apel’s research article! However, it made sense!

    That said, a well thought out reply would be necessary – Shadd please expect further questions soon in your e-mail inbox!

    A proviso in sentencing for recognising ‘desistance signals’ would surely help directing possible ‘desisters’ & thier ‘rehabilitation’ (refers to the restoration of the person’s “reputation” and full citizenship.1: in Maruna (2012) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00789.x/pdf).

    I’ll need a longer period of thought, and maybe a shave!

    Like

    1. Thanks Raymond, I look forward to talking more on this. Yes, the signal stuff is not easy to get one’s head around at first, but I think it is worth the effort. As for your fashion style, from one beardo to another, I say let it grow.

      Like

  2. Hello. Saw your comment above, that “the word ‘works’ does not ‘work’ when talking about human lives. What does it even mean?” While I know a rhetorical question when I see one, I must answer nonetheless that I can agree with the first but not the second point of the question, and for essentially the same reason. The word ‘works’ certainly means something, and what that is is not hard to discover. Simply: what will have a reliable result? What government expenditure ‘y’ will produce result ‘z’? ‘What set of inputs will produce a consistent set of outputs?’

    Explicating the question this way teases at the larger problem inherent in the research enterprise ‘what works?,’ which is that impersonal forces and persons remain definitionally different, that sociology is not physics – or at least not Newtonian physics, to predict the discrete behavior of objects under stress – because the human is a subject which only violence can reduce to an obect. To Martinson’s surprise, his generation decided that violence (mass incarceration) was the only reliable tool to get Newtonian results in a world of stubbornly quantum human individuality. They solved the non-scientific problem of human choice and freedom by refusing individuals both en masse. They answered his question definitively, at least for his generation. But the question was not meaningless, it was loaded.

    Like

    1. Wow, what a second paragraph. I wasn’t expecting that. That may be the smartest, wisest thing I’ve read on the “WW” question in, well, ever. Is “Michael Martinson” your real name? If you are a relation of sorts, you have inherited Robert Martinson’s considerable and admirable abilities as a writer and clear thinker. If it is a nom de plume, I would love to find out your real name — most immediatly because I’d like to quote the above para, but also I’d love to read more where that came from. All the best, shadd (s.maruna @ qub.ac.uk)

      Like

  3. Thank you, you are very kind. Bob Martinson was my dad (I am his only child), but my comment was really only a situational response, there’s nothing more in print. On issues of freedom and violence I am (arguably!) informed by H. Arendt.

    Like

    1. What an inspiring exchange. Shadd’s right, of course, about that second paragraph. Brilliant stuff. I’d love it if we could tempt you into writing us a post of your own; maybe a little more on Arendt that could help us get clearer on the differences between supporting change as opposed to compelling compliance?

      Like

  5. An honour and a privilege to meet you, Michael. I must say I am really moved by this — as a criminologist (your father is more than a legend in our world), but also as a son and especially as a father. I meant what I said about your point being the most insightful summary of the What Works legacy I have read, and the thought that it was written by Robert Martinson’s only child, well… that just makes so much sense. Like Fergus, I do hope you will consider writing more about this crucial legacy — not just of your father, but as you say, of his generation. Beyond this blog too, of course. I think that you (and Arendt) really have something very important to say. I hope we can be in touch. All the very best, shadd

    Like

Comments are closed.