Criminal Recidivism

Criminal recidivism refers to the tendency of previously incarcerated individuals to reoffend, which can manifest as committing the same crime or a different one after release. The rates of recidivism vary significantly depending on numerous factors, including the nature of the offense, demographic characteristics, and available support systems. Research indicates that individuals with limited education, job skills, and social support are more likely to recidivate, as they often lack the means to reintegrate successfully into society. Notably, recidivism rates are disproportionately higher among marginalized groups, particularly Black men, highlighting the impact of systemic inequalities and socioeconomic conditions.

Efforts to reduce recidivism include government-funded reentry programs that focus on education, job training, and mental health support. However, many of these initiatives have faced challenges in effectiveness, and their success rates can be modest, with some programs yielding as little as a 5% reduction in reoffending. Specific populations, such as female and juvenile offenders, also face unique challenges, necessitating tailored approaches to facilitate their reintegration. Conversely, certain offenders, such as those with pedophilic tendencies, present particularly complex rehabilitation challenges, as conventional treatments may fail to fully address their underlying urges. Overall, understanding and addressing the multifaceted nature of recidivism is crucial for improving public safety and supporting successful reintegration of ex-offenders into society.

Published in: 2021

By: McMahon, Maureen

Subject Terms

Criminal Recidivism

Depending on the offense, recidivism rates vary for criminals. Some criminologists consider recidivism to mean any act of re-offending, while other specialists consider committing only the same crime to mean recidivism. Black men are more likely to reoffend according to data included here, with social inequity being blamed for this disparity. Access to education, vital job opportunities, and a healthy social network are some necessary considerations for an offender's successful reentry into the community. Pedophiles are a class of offenders for which treatment may never work; studies show that various interventions can lower a pedophile's ability to assault children but not remove the desire to offend for these and other sexual offenders. Female and juvenile offenders are also discussed, and information regarding programs aimed at reducing recidivism is provided.

Keywords Department of Corrections; Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (DSM-5); Driving Under the Influence (DUI); Incarceration; Juvenile Offender; Pedophilia; Racial Inequality; Recidivism; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI); The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)

Criminal Recidivism

Overview

Recidivism is the act of reoffending or relapsing into criminal behavior for a person who has already been incarcerated. It can mean that an offender commits the same crime for which he was originally incarcerated, or it can mean that he has offended in a different way while in jail, on probation, on parole, or after a period of time once reentering society. For practical use, recidivism here means reoffending in any manner after a period of incarceration. The issues with regard to recidivism are many and cross societal, legal and monetary boundaries.

Many people recidivate because they know no other way of life. In most instances, incarceration is a temporary fix for an immediate problem. Eventually, inmates will return to the societies they have offended. Unfortunately, for many of the inmates sent home, being outside of prison becomes the temporary situation. Most studies report that up to two-thirds of the inmates released will reoffend within three years of walking away from prison life. They will violate parole or probation or they will commit new crimes, being arrested and prosecuted and then placed back into the hands of the United States Department of Corrections.

For a majority of recidivists, incarceration has done nothing to assist them with the transition from convict to everyday citizen. They went in without an education; they came out without an education. The same can be said for job skills, social skills, and socioeconomic status. In 2003 the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) was started by the federal government to fund nationwide reentry programs focusing on education, employment training, and personal and family counseling. SVORI's $100 million budget was spread out between state and local agencies and then distributed to various civic organizations. Lattimore (2007) points out that there is an inequity in such a distribution: "$100 million represents less than $200 for each of the more than 600,000 individuals released to parole each year. Further, the SVORI funds were spread over three years" (p. 89). Ironically, the SVORI program was not refunded after its three year trial period.

Re-Entry Programs

In a report for the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), Aos, Miller and Drake (2006) analyzed 291 evaluations of offender reentry programs and noted that many weren't successful, despite government funding. While some programs show no difference in reducing recidivism, others were positively correlated with recidivism reduction. For example, adult drug courts have been shown to reduce recidivism by almost 11 percent for those incarcerated for drug offenses. On the other hand, education and cognitive-behavioral treatment has been shown to cause no reduction in recidivism for domestic violence offenders (p. 3). While an 11 percent reduction in recidivism may seem small, that figure equates to less crime, fewer victims, fewer prosecutions, and fewer tax-payer dollars spent on incarceration (Aos, Miller & Drake, 2006).

In addition to the programs listed above, Aos et al. (2006) identify the following programming strategies as reducing recidivism.

Within prison settings

• Cognitive-behavioral drug treatment;

• Correctional industry programs;

• Drug treatment;

• Vocational education programs;

• General and specific cognitive-behavioral programs;

• Cognitive-behavioral treatment for sex offenders (in prison or in the community)

Within the community settings

• Drug treatment;

• Treatment-oriented, intensive community supervision programs;

• Employment training and job assistance in the community (Aos, Miller & Drake, 2006, p. 3)

Again, it should be noted that even though these programs have been shown to decrease recidivism rates, the reductions may be small. For example, employment training and job assistance within the community has shown a 5% decrease in recidivism. That figure may equate to only a handful of offenders not reoffending, but the impact on society is much greater.

Further Insights

According to Lattimore (2007), offenders as a population face a great deal of challenges that make for a difficult reentry into society. For example, various studies indicate that inmates share the following damaging characteristics.

Little education, few job skills, little job experience likely to lead to good employment, substance and alcohol dependency, and other health problems, including mental health problems. In addition, their family and friends are often involved in crime and substance abuse, and they disproportionately return to neighborhoods with few economic opportunities and few, if any, positive role models. Finally, each must cope with a criminal record that can stand in the way of opportunities following release (Lattimore, 2007, p. 89).

Furthermore, the systems created to support society, have failed most inmates in some way or another. For example,

… many of those who end up incarcerated did poorly in the school systems that provide educational foundations for a successful adulthood. Many offenders have histories of abuse and neglect and may have been referred to, or in the custody of, family and social services. Adult inmates often have histories of juvenile confinement and adult probation that failed to provide the services, programming and support to reform and rehabilitate. And finally, many inmates have received alcohol and drug treatment outside the criminal justice system, but may remain addicted to drugs and alcohol (Lattimore, 2007, p. 89).

Race & Recidivism

Reisig, Bales, Hay, and Xia (2007) note that in the U.S. "recidivism is highest among males, African Americans, and those under the age of 18" (Beck & Shipley, 1989; Langan & Levin, 2002, as cited in Reisig et al., 2007, p. 409). In addition, "African Americans make up nearly half of both the prison population and the offenders reentering society from prison" even though they make up less than 15 percent of the population as a whole (Harrison & Beck 2004, as cited in Reisig et al., 2007, p. 411). Furthermore, of those offenders rearrested within a three year time period of being released from prison, African Americans are 16% more likely to be rearrested than other populations (Langan & Levin, 2002, as cited in Reisig et al., 2007, p. 411).

Reisig et al. (2007) conducted a study to predict the recidivism rates of inmates based on the economic stability of each county in the state of Florida. They based their predictions on the racial inequality (the unequal distribution of economic resources based on race) of various communities where inmates would be released. According to census and economic reports the researchers were able to determine that "reconviction rates for Black males are highest in counties where adverse economic conditions (e.g., income, joblessness, and poverty) disproportionately affect Black families" (Reisig et al, 2007, p. 419).

To be specific, Reisig et al (2008) determined that Saint John's County, Florida has the highest degree of racial inequality in the state. As such, they predicted a 100 % recidivism rate for offenders released into that county. That is, 100% of the African American offenders released into that county will reenter the criminal justice system based on the lack of economic resources within the community (p. 428). With no viable job opportunities, a former offender may view criminal behavior as the only means for supporting himself and/or his family. This pattern was repeated across the state; the counties showing high degrees of racial inequality were predicted to have high rates of recidivism for Black males (p. 419). Conversely, White male recidivism rates were not impacted by racial inequality (Reisig et al., 2007, p. 419).

Women & Recidivism

About one in three women will make a successful return to the community once released from prison (Fortuin, 2007). Reentering society is challenging with few job skills and little education, and as such, recidivism rates for women are high. A program created by the Volunteers of America Northern New England was established to assist women in the transition process from prison to the community. In Maine, the incarceration rate for women doubled from 1994 to 2002, a jump of over 52% (Fortuin, 2007). For those women participating in the Transition, Reunification and Re-entry program, however, recidivism rates have decreased, and women are finding the resources necessary to live successful in society. According to Fortuin (2007), the program includes

… case-management services that attend to housing, employment, education, family reunification and empowerment, birth control, and continuity of care for mental health, physical health and substance abuse … In the early days, transition planning for a female offender began three months prior to her release. It now begins six months prior to release and extends up to six months after release, providing a more comprehensive transition plan and greater support during the critical days immediately following release (Fortuin, 2007, p. 34).

In addition to the services it provides, this program encourages women to believe in their ability to be successful and responsible once in their communities. And, it isolates - from person to person - the services most necessary for each inmate in preparation for her release. For example, where one woman may need mental health services as a priority, another may need basic literacy skills, and another may need family counseling prior to reuniting with her children. Fortuin (2007) notes that this initiative is replicable in most women's correction centers, since much of the assistance is community based and already provided by civic organizations. With the help of many volunteers, this program simply sees to it that prisoner and services are united and that newly released women are mentored closely immediately following their release.

Another initiative created by the Volunteers of America is Women Building Futures. This program teaches construction skills to women by allowing inmates to assist in the building of modular homes for low-income Maine families. The women participating in the program learn skills offering construction certification and opportunities to continue building homes once they leave the DOC. Representatives of the program boast an 80% success rate in transitioning women from incarceration to society (Koegel, 2008).

Juvenile Recidivism

Recidivism is not only committed by adults. In fact, more juveniles will reoffend than adults will with national recidivism rate percentages running about 80 and 67, respectively (Soering, 2007). About ten percent of the juveniles detained each day are sent to adult prisons and jails (Soering, 2007). "Minors sent to adult facilities are eight times more likely to commit suicide, five times more likely to be sexually assaulted and twice as likely to be beaten by staff as youths confined in juvenile detention centers" (Soering, 2007, p. 30).

As is the case with adult criminals, an inequity of race arrests and convictions exists for juveniles. Soering (2007) points to this nation-wide disparity, noting that 44% of all the juveniles incarcerated are African American. Further,

While there is some evidence of higher offense rates among minorities in certain crime categories, both state and federal studies have found that for the same offenses, African American adolescents are more likely to be arrested or detained than white teens. Black children are also sent to detention facilities more frequently than whites--in the case of drug crimes, 48 times as often--and their sentences are 41 percent longer. Why the difference? A study published in the American Sociological Review in 1998 suggested that probation officers preparing pre-sentence reports on juvenile criminals tended to characterize white teens as reformable and redeemable victims of circumstances, while black adolescents were often depicted as intrinsically bad (Soering, 2007, p. 28).

Considering this information, it is not a stretch to think that upon release, a black youth represents a better chance of being arrested again in contrast to a white youth. With a previous record, offenders have less chances for leniency. Disparity aside, it may be that a newly released black youth is expected to reoffend and is watched more closely by law enforcement than his white counterpart.

An alternative to either juvenile or adult prison sentences for youth can be taken from the following example.

Missouri achieves its remarkable 8 percent recidivism rate by housing juvenile criminals in small, residential-style facilities whose staff all have college educations. Instead of spending their days turning keys, these officers are encouraged to form positive, nurturing, one-on-one relationships with the adolescents in their charge. Groups of nine to 12 wards and two staff members stay together throughout the wards' sentences, forming a kind of alternate family unit. And the annual cost of housing one minor in this type of facility is $10,000 to $30,000 less than the cost of punitive incarceration (Soering, 2007, p. 31).

Youth who offend often lack role models who do not offend. As such, there is a disconnect between society's expectations and what the offender has experienced. Programs that work for juvenile offenders are those that focus treatment on building personal relationships between youth and the people who are paid to care for them.

Pedophilia

There is no sexual deviant more despised than the person who preys on children. Most people do not know that while the action of molesting a juvenile is criminal, the basis for the deviancy is psychological in nature (Snyder, 2000; Lanning, 2001; as cited in Hall & Hall, 2007). According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) (2013),

… a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges toward prepubescent children (generally under 13 years) for a period of at least 6 months. Pedophiles are either severely distressed by these sexual urges, experience interpersonal difficulties because of them, or act on them. Pedophiles usually come to medical or legal attention by committing an act against a child because most do not find their sexual fantasies distressing or ego-dystonic enough to voluntarily seek treatment (as cited in Hall & Hall, 2007, p. 457).

When any of these offenders are incarcerated, they do not have access to their victims like rapists or murderers do. As a jail cell cannot lock up an offender's mind, it is fair to say that no pedophile is "rehabilitated" by the incarceration process alone. In light of the serious nature of pedophilic offenses, reentry interventions are an essential part of promoting safety for society.

Treating pedophiles is not easy, and Stone, Winslade & Klugman (2000) note that no treatment is fool-proof: "Individuals can offend again while in active psychotherapy, while receiving pharmacologic treatment, and even after castration" (as cited in Hall & Hall, 2007, p. 465). Again, this is a psychological - rather than a biological - disorder. Even if an offender is castrated or locked up away from children forever, the desire to have sex with children does not go away simply because the physical act of having sex is impossible. Therefore, "much of the focus of pedophilic treatment is on stopping further offenses against children rather than altering the pedophile's sexual orientation toward children" (Hall & Hall, 2007, p. 465).

The current treatments vary depending on the state and the people overseeing treatment. Hormone therapy to decrease levels of testosterone (known as chemical castration), mandatory reporting and monitoring, the use of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI), and surgical castration are all forms of current treatment to reduce recidivism rates for pedophiles (Schober et al, 2005; Rosler & Witztum, 1998; as cited in Hall & Hall, 2007, p. 465). Hall & Hall (2007), report that a multiple-strategy approach is the most effective when pedophile recidivism is the goal. "The combination of pharmacologic and behavioral treatment coupled with close legal supervision appears to help reduce the risk of repeated offense" (p. 469).

Drug Use & Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI)

Drug use convictions and incarcerations (possession, trafficking, sales, etc.,) do little to deter offenders from reoffending (Huebner & Cobbina, 2007). In fact, Olson and Lurigio (2000) note that people on probation who have a history of drug use are "twice as likely to violate their probation or have it revoked and 60% more likely to be arrested for a new crime while on probation when compared to individuals without a history of drug abuse" (as cited in Huebner & Cobbina, 2007). Similarly, people arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs (DUI) are more likely to recidivate if they have been arrested for a non-drug offense in their lifetime when compared to DUI only offenders (LaBrie, Kidman, Albanese, Peller, & Shaffer, 2007, p. 603).

This is notable data as many post-arrest and release programs are focused on treating the individual through drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation services. In many instances, a successful probation or parole is contingent on completion of such a program. In a study conducted by Huebner & Cobbina (2007), over 3,000 responses to a drug questionnaire were analyzed. The questionnaire had been presented to drug users who were on probation to determine effective support programming in the state of Illinois. According to the analysis,

… most offenders with a history of drug use (71%) received drug treatment while on probation, and most (71%) completed the full course of treatment …[however], 45% of the sample was rearrested for any offense and 18% were rearrested for a drug-related offense … within four years following discharge from probation (Huebner & Cobbina, 2007, p. 625).

Similar results were found for DUI offenders in a residential facility in Massachusetts. LaBrie et al, (2007) identified DUI recidivists as those who were reconvicted of a second DUI within a ten-year period (p. 606). Looking at over 1000 offenders, LaBrie et al, (2007) note that of the people convicted of a DUI offense at least twice in their lives, those who also had a history of an additional crime were more likely to recidivate (p. 612). Those who had only been convicted of the DUI offenses were the least likely to recidivate (Labrie et al., 2007, p. 609). Again, as most treatment plans enforce attendance at meetings, counseling sessions, or residential facilities that offer specific programming aimed at addiction/abuse rehabilitation, there is an entire "corrective" piece missing with regard to helping these people not reoffend.

Viewpoints

One of the biggest issues behind preventing recidivism is the lack of evidence that programs actually work. The Aos et al. (2006) study analyzed almost three-hundred program evaluations rather than the programs themselves, as a compilation of data was their goal. The actual evaluation is timely and costly. For this reason, Snyder (2007) notes that for over thirty years DOC administrators were divided into two camps. The first was that society, rather than programming was the issue. The belief was that society encouraged criminal behavior, and that "fixing" society would help the overall problem of offenders. The Reisig et al. (2007) study seems to support this notion, as racial inequality is a clear predictor of criminal behavior.

The second camp was based solely upon a reaction to the lack of evidence regarding reentry interventions. This side of the argument held that nothing was going to work and therefore, criminals simply needed to be off the streets. However, since the 1970's when this argument began, prisons have exceeded capacity across the country, juveniles are housed alongside the worst offenders of society, and the cost of criminal justice (law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, etc.) has increased placing a large burden on taxpayer dollars to keep society safe (Snyder, 2007).

According to Snyder (2007), the problem with reentry intervention programs is that

… a substantial level of effort is needed to prove that a program reduces recidivism. At a minimum, a program must be replicated in more than one site and evaluated using either random assignment or carefully selected control groups. For multiple sites to implement the same program, the program must be well scripted and documented. New programs are not good candidates for replication because they are likely to change and adapt during the first few years of existence. Thus, it takes a lot of time and money to develop, test and eventually give a program the evidence-based seal of approval (Snyder, 2007, p. 6).

Snyder (2007) also suggests that a combination of funding between states would be a solution.

Together they [various states] could select an existing, promising program that might be able to serve one of their unmet needs and then lend their support to an empirically-sound, multiple-site evaluation of it. Funds to support the work could come from state legislatures that are demanding evidence-based treatment programs and from local foundations eager to be part (at relatively low costs) of a large R&D [governmental Research & Development] effort that has the potential to produce a model recidivism-reduction program. If the test proved successful, the field would have a new tool to use; if the program failed to produce the desired effects, the costs to each member of the collaborative would be minimal (Snyder, 2007, p. 28).

In addition to the minimal cost, these states would be taking a proactive stance and at least attempting to provide documentation of a program's success.

Recidivism is not just a strange word, it is a strange concept. After being arrested, experiencing the court system, losing - quite possibly - everything he owns, including his family, and being incarcerated for a period of time, who would resort to criminal behavior once released? On the inside, one knows from where his meals are coming. In addition, an offender also knows who his friends and enemies are. Once back in society, it is difficult to distinguish who is friend or foe. Furthermore, with few job skills, little (if any) education, and no family support, it would also be difficult to find the motivation to avoid criminal behavior.

For those who do not recidivate in the first three years of release (approximately 30%), the likelihood that they will reoffend is low (Greenfeld, 1985, as cited in Reisig et al., 2007). This might point to the fact that those not reoffending have figured out how to stay clean on their own. It may also be that transitional programming during or shortly after incarceration has worked for these individuals. With little evidence pointing toward successful programming, it is difficult to tell. As there is proof that some interventions work, there continues to be progress for America's criminal justice field. On the other hand, it is necessary to point out the bigger problem: As most of us are guilty of breaking the rules at some point in our lives, recidivism prevention should be a priority, but clearly is not.

Terms & Concepts

Department of Corrections (DOC): Federal agency under the supervision of the Department of Justice; oversees correction facilities and regulations in the U.S.

Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Illness (5th ed.) (DSM-5): A reference book published by the American Psychiatric Association; describes mental illnesses and other psychological disorders.

Driving Under the Influence (DUI): A motor vehicle conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Incarceration: Jail or imprisonment.

Juvenile Offender: A person under the age of 18 who commits a crime.

Pedophilia: A sexual deviancy with a psychological basis; offenders desire sexual relations (and/or relationships) with children and adolescents.

Racial Inequality: An unequal distribution of economic resources that affects certain races and not others.

Recidivism: Reoffending (committing a crime, being arrested, or incarcerated) after being released from prison.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI): Antidepressant that blocks serotonin (a chemical that sends messages to the brain about mood) from being absorbed in the body, thus increasing the length of its effect.

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI): A program created to reduce recidivism by offering various transition services to released offenders.

Bibliography

Aos, S., Miller, M. & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: What works and what does not. Washington State Institute for Public Policy: Washington. Retrieved May 4, 2008 from website http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-01-1201.pdf

Fortuin, B. (2007). Maine's female offenders are reentering - and succeeding. Corrections Today, 69 , 34-37. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24833113&site=ehost-live

Hall, R. C. W. & Hall, R. C. W. (2007). A profile of pedophilia: Definition, characteristics of offenders, recidivism, treatment outcomes, and forensic issues. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 82 , 457-471. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24851320&site=ehost-live

Huebner, B. M. & Cobbina, J. (2007). The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment completion on probationer recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 37 , 619-641. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=27186952&site=ehost-live

Koegel, J. (2008). Women building futures . Retrieved May 1, 2008 from Volunteers of America Northern New England website, http://72.32.194.107/Default.aspx?tabid=6096

Koschmann, M.A., & Peterson, B.L. (2013). Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach to prisoner reentry. Journal of Applied Social Sciences (19367244), 7, 188–207. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89801707&site=ehost-live

LaBrie, R. A., Kidman, R. C., Albanese, M., Peller, A. J. & Shaffer, H. J. (2007). Criminality and continued DUI offense: criminal typologies and recidivism among repeat offenders.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25 , 603-614. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26181350&site=ehost-live

Lattimore, P. K. (2007). The challenges of reentry. Corrections Today, 69 , 88-91. Retrieved April 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24833136&site=ehost-live

National Alert Registry. (2008). Retrieved May 7, 2008 from website: http://registeredoffenderslist.org

Reisig, M. D., Bales, W. D., Hay, C. & Xia, W. (2007). The effect of racial inequality on black male recidivism. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 24 , 408-434. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=25915218&site=ehost-live

Rhodes, W. (2011). Predicting criminal recidivism: A research note. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 57–71. Retrieved November 4, 2013 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=58133140&site=ehost-live

Snyder, H. N. (2007). Nothing works, something works - but still few proven programs. Corrections Today, 69 , 6. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=28144774&site=ehost-live

Soering, J. (2007). Uncorrected. Christian Century, 124 , 28-31. Retrieved April 29, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=26652716&site=ehost-live

Criminal Recidivism

On this Page

Subject Terms

Criminal Recidivism

Criminal Recidivism

Overview

Re-Entry Programs

Further Insights

Race & Recidivism

Women & Recidivism

Juvenile Recidivism

Pedophilia

Drug Use & Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI)

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading

Criminal Recidivism

On this Page

Subject Terms

Criminal Recidivism

Criminal Recidivism

Deviance & Social Control > Criminal Recidivism

Overview

Re-Entry Programs

Further Insights

Race & Recidivism

Women & Recidivism

Juvenile Recidivism

Pedophilia

Drug Use & Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs (DUI)

Viewpoints

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading