Talk:Recidivism

Measurement of recidivism by sexual offenders is a "catch me if you can" endeavor, since offenders know their honed deception abilities assure they face a very low likelihood that their sexual abuse episodes will be detected or reported. Polygraph testing (see reports by Mrs. Cory Jewell-Jensen and separately by Dr. Anna Salter from their pedophile panel research) show even in treatment the offenders are highly unlikely to be truthful about their reoffending, especially if its disclosure is not self-serving. Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Parole authorities who are charged with minimizing recidivism, have a built-in incentive to keep the definition vague and to allocate scarce investigation resources elsewhere. (dallburn@SafeHarborResources.org July 13, 2005)

• As reported on BBC Radio 4 on 2 September 2005, the United States of America has a 60% recidivism rate, whereas the UK has a 50% recidivism rate. The UK attributes its lower recidivism rate to its focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners as opposed to the US focus more on punishment, deterent and keeping potentially dangerous individuals away from society. - Recidivism in regards to what? Drugs? Alcohol? Sexual assault? This paragraph should specify. -Branddobbe 19:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know in this instance, but recividism rates (which are general, like these ones are - not specifically about drug/sex/violence) usually refer to one of two options: the percent of all released prisoners that are rearrested or the percent that return to prison. 60% seems on the low side for a lifetime prediction, so I'm guessing that these are reincarceration rates (although it's easy enough to monkey around with statistics - recidivism is more often specified in terms of "within X years" since we don't know, e.g., how many prisoners released in 2000 will recidivate within 10 years). Long story short, someone should get the transcript or use more reliable figures (US DOJ and UK equivalent)--69.162.60.87 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Overall critique of page - v. weak article

The deeper problem with the BBC citation is not that it fails to give proper sources, but that it's used at all. A news gathering organization does not research; what are needed are actual statisitics from actual studies, or from Corrections UK, Corrections Canada, the US Justice dept, etc. To lead off with a BBC report is to announce: this is not a serious article.

In the comments on that first section, someone has added a riff on sexual offenders and their ability to hide their own recidivism. I can see the relevance to the TOPIC, but not to this section. Perhaps some studies on pedophile recidivism rates would merit a sub-section of the article.

Further down the page, we have an amazing (perhaps Foucaldian) assertion that recidivism depends on who's defining the violation. Well, with respect, that's a debate that belongs elsewhere, maybe in an article on social deviance, with normative definitions of recidivism as the focus of a critique (and it could link to this page). Otherwise, it merely confuses the topic, by introducing more theoretical concerns where they are not warranted, or, it seems to me, particularly well-grounded. First give the normative meanings and discuss them, then link to the critiques, and the methodological concerns. The writer begins this section with the assertion that the word "effectively" means continued rebellion against authority; again, and with respect, it doesn't. The root form simply means to fall again, and was originally used in the 16th and 17th centuries to label religious apostates or backsliders (see OED). Its application to criminal behaviour is relatively recent, but it has nothing to do with authority per se; that is something the writer has imported into the definition.

Recividism has also been combatted by trying to educate and retrain prisoners, that is, to make up for some of the social and educational deficits that led them to crime in the first place. Wherever that discussion is, it belongs on this page, since such programs have been shown to have an effect on reducing rates of recidivism. Keep in mind too, that almost all studies have shown that recidivism across most prison systems is slightly below 50 percent, that is, more than half of prisoners returned to society manage not to get busted again. Whether that is because they become better criminals, or because they go straight, is another discussion that perhaps should be on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonemacduff (talk • contribs) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No citations

No citations, tagging for cleanup. 86.133.229.194 (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"Div"

Deleted the claim about this phrase, I don't believe it belongs in the article, is likely unverifiable and a quick search shows at least 5 other alleged originations of this term. 86.133.229.194 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Looks like the standard "therapy makes psychopaths more manipulative" was the intended claim here rather than "therapy makes psycopaths" but without the benefit of the book... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.178.244 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC) The underlying importance of this article is not in proving therapy works or not. It is pointing out a serious problem results from a general lack of faith in the ability to succeed in reducing crime to an eventual one percent. I know a strategy for ending the epidemic. I need qualified researchers to guide my insights. danieljones8814@gmail.com

Paedophilia Offences

The low recidivism rates of murderers and rapists was interesting. Does anyone have the rates for paedophiles? It's often plastered across certain "news" sources that such individuals are prone to recidivism, yet one wonders if this is truly the case. 87.112.178.244 (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Charts vs. Statistics?

What's the difference between these two sections exactly? I'd suggest just putting all the info in one Statistics section. Theshibboleth (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Repeat Offender redirect

Hi there, just a drive-by note to say that I think Repeat offender should redirect here, possibly via a disambig page, but my preference would be straight here. Cheers. 205.228.108.58 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops - it does! Apologies, I was fooled by Repeat Offender (note capital 'O'). 205.228.108.58 (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)