Neutralization theory, though a popular framework for understanding deviant behavior, remains badly underdeveloped. Few attempts have been made to connect it to narrative and sociocognitive research in psychology and related fields. From this wider perspective, one reason neutralization theory has received only mixed empirical support is that it has been understood as a theory of criminal etiology. This makes little sense (how can one neutralize something before they have done it?) and makes the theory difficult to test. Neutralization should instead be seen as playing a role in persistence in or desistance from criminal behavior. The theory's central premises need to be substantially complicated. The notions that all excuses or justifications are "bad" and that reform involves "accepting complete responsibility" for one's actions are not tenable.

A 1992 study, The Dynamics of Recidivism, was cited by the Home Secretary of the Conservative government during the 1990s to support the political doctrine that 'prison works'. This claim drew on qualitative data from pre- and post-prison interviews of 130 male offenders to uphold a narrow rational choice perspective that emphasized the perceived 'costs' of imprisonment to the offender. A ten-year reconviction study was carried out as a follow-up to the 1992 study. The subsequent criminal careers of the majority of the sample contradict an assumption that imprisonment has a deterrent impact. In the light of these findings, and an analysis of the differential impacts of subjective and social factors in the experiences of these ex-prisoners, this article reviews the limitations of 'rational choice theory' as a basis for understanding recidivism and desistance from crime.

From a very small base of empirical studies in the 1940s and 1950s, the literature on how and why people stop offending has grown rapidly in the last two decades (see Laub and Sampson (2001) for a comprehensive review). Only recently, however, have researchers started to forge links between studies of desistance from crime and 'What Works' in offender management policy (see especially, Maruna and Immarigeon 2004). This 'coming together' of research into why people stop offending and the (re-)emergence of concerns with effective practice is, like many partnerships, partly the result of good timing, partly the result of fortune, and not without its tensions and struggles. The purpose of this introductory essay, and indeed of this special issue, is to explore these tensions in greater depth than has been possible in previous work.

Research on offender verbalizations traditionally focuses on the degree to which offenders accept responsibility or blame for their mistakes. This small study expands this cognitive perspective in criminology by incorporating basic findings from the psychological literature on attributions. Additionally, offender attributions or neutralizations are framed within a life course perspective. It was found that active offenders and desisting ex-offenders differ in terms of explanatory style. Compared to desisting ex-offenders, active offenders tend to interpret negative events in their lives as being the product of internal, stable, and global forces. On the other hand, active offenders were more likely to believe that the good events in their lives were the product of external, unstable and specific causes. These other dimensions of offender cognitions may be useful in understanding the psychological aspects of desistance from crime.

The topic of desistance from crime has been the subject of considerable research (much of it largely descriptive) but has not received the same amount of theoretical attention. This theoretical re-evaluation of the desistance literature is broken down into four sections. In the first section, we seek a new definitional understanding of what desistance is and how to conceive of it for theoretical purposes. In the second, we very briefly review the major competing paradigms in current desistance theory. Third, we develop Farrall and Bowling's (1999) structuration-based critique of this literature, arguing that greater attention needs to be paid to the interaction between agency and structure in understanding desistance. Finally, we conclude by offering the beginnings of our own theoretical account of the desistance process centering around the notions of self-determination and prosocial labeling.

The study of desistance from crime has come of age in recent years, and there are now several, competing theories to account for the ability of long-term offenders to abstain from criminal behavior. Most prominently, recent explanations have borrowed elements from informal social control theory, differential association theory and cognitive psychology. In the following, we argue that labeling theory may be a neglected factor in understanding the desistance process. Drawing on interview data collected as part of a study of an offender reintegration program, we illustrate how the idea of the "looking-glass self-concept" is a useful metaphor in understanding the process of rehabilitation or recovery in treatment programs.

The notion of 'desistance' (or 'going straight') is becoming a more prominent one in criminological discourse, and the Liverpool Desistance Study (LDS) aimed to provide a deeper understanding of this process from the perspective of the individuals taking this life path. However, the LDS was not intended to address how the research might be applied in practice. This article therefore briefly outlines the research and discusses some of the policy implications, in order to open a debate with practitioners and others about the way that the research might be relevant to everyday practice with people who offend. The papers that follow this article were written in response to the challenge of applying the findings of the LDS in probation practice.

In The Culture of Control Garland describes the 'policy predicament' of late modern society as involving the normality of high crime rates and the acknowledged limitations of the criminal justice system. This combination has triggered a contradictory range of policy responses that Garland describes as adaptive and non-adaptive, with the non-adaptive responses characterized as 'denial' and 'acting out'. Garland's invocation of these Freudian constructs invites a more fully developed psychoanalytic reading of the contemporary landscape of penal policy. Drawing on the writings of Jung and Freud as well as more recent psychoanalytic interpretations of punishment and punitiveness, we aim in this paper to put the Culture of Control 'on the couch'. That is, we try to draw out some of the psychoanalytic themes that Garland so tantalizingly dangles before us, and begin to flesh out the implications of a full-fledged psychoanalytic interpretation of Garland's argument.

To understand the work experiences of men who sexually offend against children, the authors conducted a qualitative study on a sample of 8 outpatients in mandated treatment. The results, based on both interview and quantitative data, highlighted the reciprocal influence of work and sexual offending and ways in which the offense affected participants' psychosocial and career stability. Participants who were rated as making the most favorable progress by their therapists ranked work as less salient than home and family, leisure, and community service, although they were relatively satisfied with their current jobs. Work was more salient than other life roles, but less satisfying for participants who were making less progress in treatment. Participants reported a loss of job security and career status, as well as restricted opportunities for vocational change and advancement.