Abstract
The problem of offender recidivism is serious and widespread. Throughout the past years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has published various statistical reports on the recidivism of former inmates in U.S. jails and prisons. Past reports compared rates of recidivism of violent and non-violent offenders in several states in 1983 (Beck & Shipley, 1989) and in 1994 (Langan & Levin, 2002). In 1983, almost two thirds (62.5%) of 108,580 released prisoners from 11 states were re-arrested within the first 3 years following their release, while in 1994, more than two thirds (67.5%) of 272,111 prisoners released from prison in 15 states were re-arrested within the 3-year period following discharge.
Another study (James, 2014) reported that since 1990, state and federal inmates have been released and placed under parole or probation supervision on an average of 590,400 annually. The BJS released a report that tracked state prison inmates for 5 years after being released in 2005 (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). Although many of these individuals reinserted themselves into society successfully, a large number did not. For example, of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005, more than two thirds (67.8%) had some form of contact with the justice system within 3 years and almost half (49.7%) had returned to jail or prison, either for violation of parole or a new crime. The recidivism rate for non-violent offenders during the above period was higher than that of violent offenders. At the end of the 5-year period, 82% of property offenders, 77% of drug offenders, and 74% of public-order offenders had been re-arrested; violent offender recidivism was 71.3%. The non-violent-offender recidivists, many of whom were young, were found to lack empathy, had moral reasoning deficits, an antisocial tendency with impulsivity, and some type of mental disorder, such as attention deficit disorder or borderline personality disorder.
Various studies have indicated that the reason for such high rates of recidivism include inadequate preparation for discharge and a lack of the offenders’ cooperation with these preparatory programs. These findings suggest that it is very important to prepare the offenders for discharge from the time of their first admission to a carceral institution and during the first year following release (James, 2014). Reentry programs that are offered are numerous and include, among other things, education leading to a GED (General Equivalency Degree), treatment for drug addiction, help in finding employment, assistance with mental health issues, and enhanced socialization. Helping offenders to become acquainted with the community in which they would like to settle has been found to be very efficacious.
In this issue, Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan and colleagues present a very interesting and extensively referenced article dealing with the recidivism of non-violent offenders in Hong Kong. Using self-reporting methodology, they take into consideration 278 incarcerated offenders. They point out the increase of recidivism of non-violent offenders following their reentry into society: 21%, 68%, and 84%, respectively, for the first, second, and third years. Touching on risk factors for offender recidivism, including the usual static and dynamic ones, they point out their finding that the dynamic risk factors are stronger than the static ones in determining recidivism, but, they write, they become weaker as the individual ages. The reader will find it very interesting to note how the findings of their study show similarities with those in the United States and other Western countries.