The term desistance, as used in relation to criminal behaviour, is relatively new, first appearing in the 1970s and becoming more common in research in the last 30 years (Rocque, 2021). There are varying definitions of desistance and as a result this concept has been operationalised in a number of ways in criminological research. However, there is a general consensus that desistance refers to a dynamic and long-term process of moving away from, and ultimate cessation of, criminal behaviour (van Ginneken and Hart, 2017).
The last 15 years has seen a substantial rise in studies of desistance, with most being small-scale US- and UK-based studies focused on primary desistance (Sagara et al., 2024). Primary desistance describes short-term absence of criminal activity, while secondary and tertiary desistance refer to longer-term adoption of prosocial, non-offending identities, and development of a sense of belonging to a prosocial community (Maruna et al., 2004; McNeill, 2015).
This special issue consists of seven articles which highlight a range of contemporary developments in our understanding of primary, secondary and tertiary desistance from sexual offending which reveals a complex and multifaceted process shaped by identity, stigma, institutional practices and social (re)integration. The studies that make up this special edition focus on different aspects of this concept and journey, and highlight both the challenges and opportunities faced by individuals as they attempt to reshape their lives after conviction for a sexual offence.
The first article by Netten and Wakeling, takes a broad look at those factors that can support desistance among those convicted of sexual offences who are supervised by probation in the community. A number of factors emerge as being linked to a greater likelihood of sexually reoffending whilst under community supervision, including younger age, antisocial orientation, criminal history and offence-related sexual interests. However, the review also emphasises the importance of using a strengths-based approach, bringing together desistance-based approaches with the risk-need-responsivity model of rehabilitation. The authors conclude that routinely reassessing risk and needs, being alert to periods of stress and change, attending to factors that support reintegration, observing behaviour in different settings and ensuring coordinated multi-agency communication, are all important for supporting desistance from sexual offending. The article focuses on providing practical guidance to staff supervising men convicted of sexual offences in the community, and suggests a refined approach to supervision could improve outcomes by addressing psychological and situational risk factors for sexual reoffending while fostering reintegration efforts.
Winder and colleagues debut a novel collaborative research tool used to gain a greater understanding of desistance, based on insights from nine people with, or who work to support the rehabilitation of those with, sexual convictions. Perhaps surprisingly, participants were critical of the term desistance, as they felt that it lacked clear definition and implied that people were a “constant and ongoing risk” of reoffending. This sensitivity to potential labelling, and the importance of language, were themes that emerged throughout the articles in this special edition. Participants also stressed the importance of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to desist, and emphasised that whilst individual motivation is crucial to living an offence-free life, this must be combined with practical assistance, social support and opportunities to change. The study highlights the importance of understanding how the language and concepts used to support rehabilitation after a sexual conviction are experienced and affect those subject to them.
The third article, by Mydlowski, Turner-Moore and Kewley, explores the experiences of police home visits of 10 men on the Sex Offender Register in England and Wales. These visits, part of risk assessment and management procedures, often evoked anticipatory feelings of anxiety and shame among participants, who were unsure of what to expect. Encouragingly, there was evidence of desistance-supportive practices in these visits. Those who were classed as low- and medium-risk of reoffending generally perceived the visits as supportive and helpful and felt their initial fears were unfounded. However, those assessed as high-risk described the visits as hostile and experienced questions as accusatory. Whether this was a result of differential treatment from officers because of the higher level of risk these participants were assessed to pose, or whether this was down to the characteristics of these individuals (e.g. a greater level of hostile attribution bias, anti-authority attitudes), it highlights differences in the extent to which police home visits are experienced as supporting desistance and (re)integration. For most, the lack of transparency about the purpose of the visits and the lack of collaboration was problematic: many of those in the study were unaware that these visits contribute to formal risk assessments, and they were rarely involved in developing action plans for their own rehabilitation. The authors recommend a shift towards more consistent, desistance-focused practices that balance public protection with procedural fairness and support for reintegration.
Cooley Webb, Petersen and Sample examine how individuals on sexual offence registries in the USA internalise group identities. Drawing on data from 115 registrants collected over 16 years, as well as the perceptions of 40 family members of those on the register in one Midwestern US state, the researchers identify three distinct identity trajectories. The first and largest group, experienced “no liminality”; they at no point internalised the label of “sex offender” and maintained a prosocial self-concept. This group often rejected the notion that the behaviour leading to their conviction was a sexual offence, and maintained a non-offending identity, supported by friends and family. The second group was characterised by “liminoid experiences”. They temporarily adopted the “sex offender” label but ultimately transitioned back to a non-offending identity. The third group, a small minority of the sample, was described as trapped in “identity limbo” having fully internalised the stigmatised identity and remaining stuck in a perception of the self as inherently deviant. The findings emphasise the importance of individualisation of rehabilitative interventions that take into account identities, self-perception and people’s social context.
Woodward’s research sheds more light on the process of identity renegotiation and the role of stigma for those who has convictions for sexual offences against children. He interviewed ten men in England and used thematic analysis to identify the ways in which the label of “child sex offender” limited their progression, and inhibited identify reconstruction, social inclusion and long-term reintegration. Participants described attempting to manage the stigma in a series of different ways including concealing their past or isolating themselves. Over time, some men found that the intensity of stigma lessened, but many reported that managing their identity and building any aspirations for the future remained an ongoing challenge. These insights highlight the role of social attitudes in supporting or hindering reintegration, especially regarding the long-term impact of labels on psychological well-being and on factors that influence risk of reoffending. The article calls for changes to policies and language that consider the need for accountability but also allow opportunities for transformation.
Porter and colleagues focus on the important role of employment in the desistance process, by providing a critical review of experimental research on this topic. They note myriad difficulties in doing this kind of rigorous research, but underscore its importance. Employment provides not only financial stability but also a sense of purpose and social belonging, thereby acting as a means for tertiary desistance. The review highlights that individuals with sexual offence convictions face particularly severe barriers to employment due to regulations, stigma and employer reluctance to hire people with this type of offending history. The “Ban-the-Box” initiative, which removes questions about criminal history from initial job applications, has shown promise in improving employment rates among people with convictions. However, there are possible unintended consequences of applying this to those with sexual convictions, as employers can react negatively when sexual offences are disclosed later in the hiring process, perceiving this to mean the candidate is deceptive and untrustworthy. The study calls for more nuanced, offence-specific research and policy development to support fair and effective employment practices that aid desistance.
Finally, Blagden and colleagues report on a mixed-methods evaluation of the Safer Living Centre (SLC) in Nottinghamshire, a pioneering initiative aimed at supporting men with sexual convictions as they transition from prison back into the community. Through surveys and interviews with service users, the study found that the Centre contributed to improved mental wellbeing, reduced shame and increased hope, although levels of depression, anxiety and stress remained high. Participants described the SLC as a rare safe space where they felt valued and accepted, countering the loneliness, stigma and ambiguity surrounding post-release conditions. This study highlights the potential of community-based, strength-focused rehabilitation services to foster reintegration and reduce reoffending, while calling for broader policy support for desistance-based practices and initiatives and further research into their long-term outcomes.
Taken together, all of the articles in this issue emphasise the impact of the stigmatisation of those who have sexually offended, and how this can act as a barrier to identity transformation and building of social capital. They also highlight the challenge of integrating risk-focused policies with practices that support desistance, including procedural justice, transparency and multi-agency collaboration. Nevertheless, they identify some green shoots; from policing practices that are experienced as supportive of efforts to desist, to community-based centres that can protect the well-being of those trying to navigate the challenges brought on by their conviction. What is clear is that hearing from those directly affected, and working collaboratively, research can help us understand how to better support desistance and help people with sexual convictions build safe, meaningful and fulfilling lives as part of our communities.
