| Critically discuss the nature of desistance and evaluate the extent to which current probation practices support desistance. | | | | |

|

Desistance has many definitions according to numerous theorists. Some definitions are vague. For example, Laub and Sampson explained how Neal Shover (1996) defines desistance as “voluntary termination of serious criminal participation”. Some other definitions are more arbitrary. For instance, Professor Laub and Professor Sampson came across other definitions, such as Farrington and Hawkins (1991) and how they define desistance as having no conviction between the age 21 and 32, following a conviction before 21. Another study they found was that of Weitekamp and Kerner (1994), and this explained how together they have both tried to unravel various workings in the area of desistance. They have defined the desistance as the period of time when the criminal or delinquent actions ends permanently. Comparing this notion, they define suspension as an interruption in offending activities. Laub and Sampson also showed how Maruna (2001), points out that the fore mentioned researchers, in addition to their definitions, view desistance as a developmental progression, and not as a happening; which means the rate of offending recurring decelerates and also becomes far less appealing.

In a documentary by Allen Weaver, on desistance, he spoke about Laub and Sampson’s study, about a research that was conducted in the 1940’s as part of a Harvard University study on delinquent boys. Laub and Sampson posed the questions; “Where are they now?” and “How did their lives turn out?”

Laub and Sampson found that nearly all of the delinquents desisted from crime, some faster and some slower. When Professor John H. Laub was interviewed for the documentary, he stated that he and Professor Sampson had indentified certain turning