THE CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM PROCESS by Edward Zamble and Vernon L. Quinsey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, l997, 181 pp. Cloth. ISBN O-521-58179-6.

Reviewed by Dennis J. Palumbo, School of Justice Studies, Arizona State University. Email: Dennis Palumbo@ASU.EDU.

 
If Zamble and Quinsey are right about one of their findings it explains why the current get tough approach to reducing crime is failing. Current criminal justice policy is based on the Benthamite assumption that if the penalties are very harsh the potential perpetrator will figure that the possible benefits are not worth it. This deterrence theory assumes that individuals carefully plan and weight the costs and benefits of their actions. However, Zamble and Quinsey found that the majority of the 311 subjects they studied "had not experienced even the first thought of an offense until they were virtually involved in the crime--or at least within 15 minutes of its occurrence" (p. 62). Only one in five had planned any aspect of the offense or its commission more than an hour in advance. Only 11% reported planning for more than an hour. Some had thoughts of the possible negative consequences before they acted, but that did not deter them. The authors speculate that this is because thoughts of negative consequences may have been offset by stronger thoughts of positive effects. However, they did this to bolster their confidence, not because they actually weighed costs and benefits. Once they were involved, they felt they were no longer in control.

This book is not an easily read essay about recidivism; it is a report about the large-scale research project that the authors conducted. The 311 recidivists in their study were male prisoners in Ontario, Canada. The authors, who are professors of psychology and psychiatry at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, included only those male prisoners whose offense was serious enough to merit a federal term. The 311 subjects were randomly selected from recent recidivists from three groups: those convicted of any form of assault, robbery, or burglary.

Most studies about recidivism have been done by sociologists or economists. Zamble and Quinsey add a fascinating psychological dimension to what we know about it (proving incidentally, the merits of multi-disciplinary research). They focus on the psychological factors immediately preceding the offense. They are highly critical of the literature on recidivism because the factors that have been identified as predictors of recidivism (i.e. age at first offense, drug abuse, and poor educational attainment) are static and no help to authorities. These factors only tell authorities which offenders need the most supervision, not what the nature of that supervision should be. Thus, traditional parole supervision is not effective beyond the period of supervision (In fact, it is a failure even then because a large percent of parolees-- as many as 40% in California--wind up back in prison due to technical violations such as missing appointments or having dirty urine).

What we need to know instead, they say, are the dynamic factors that cause new offenses; i.e., what happens just before and during an occurrence of recidivism. Thus, they say their study is the first step in developing a model of recidivism as an ongoing psychological process by integrating coping and relapse theories. The heart of the model is the step by step thought process of offenders leading up to the offense. This begins when the parolee is faced with a problem similar to what everyone faces in life, most often an economic or relationship problem. The parolee has an emotional and cognitive reaction to this. Then the parolee must appraise the situation and decide what consequences it might have, i.e., it might be judged to be personally threatening. The person's initial cognitive reaction may be influenced by his or her temperament (which is partly genetic and partly due to parental factors), but the authors say these are not a part of their model.

Next the elements of response availability and choice mechanisms come into play. These are strongly affected by individual learning history. While there isn't a single determinate path, the most important component of the theoretical model is the person's failure to cope; his/her frustration or anger lead to a relapse. However, the relapse is different than addictive relapse; which fits the case of assaultive offenses, but not the other two types of crime. The role of emotional mediators does not seem to be as important for robbery offenses as for personal assault.

The practical applications of the theory pertain to what the parole officer should do. Instead of monitoring offenders to see if they are taking drugs or failing to make appointments, the parole officer should "focus on some of the mundane events in offenders' lives, especially the problems they encounter, how they manage these problems, and their moods or emotional reactions" (p. 149). Periodic monitoring of changes in moods or signs of emotional deterioration could signal relapse into criminal behavior and the parole agent could take preventive measures. The authors call this "monitoring of the psychological thermometer of individuals after release."

This is both an interesting and well researched look at why offenders recidivate as well as a disturbing journey into potential big brotherhood. I can almost see the scene in a science fiction movie: Electrodes are placed into the person's brain upon release from prison. These send signals back to a monitor that displays a squiggly line somewhat like a heart beat monitor. Whenever the monitor shows a blip indicating emotional deterioration, the person is brought into the parole office where a doctor who wears a white smock administers psychotherapy and pharmacological medicines. The doctor is played by a Vincent Price clone.

Of course the scenario may not be science FICTION. We already have electronic anklets or bracelets that offenders on home arrest wear to track their movements. Why not add a brain monitor that tracks their emotional moods as well? Because, in my view, it is scary and dangerous. The author's suggestions are meant to improve public safety and perhaps rehabilitate offenders. Perhaps parolees ought to have some privacy rights even though they have committed a crime--nowadays usually a drug offense.

Research such as this raises well-known questions about having science serve government purposes. These questions are too complicated to address here; I recommend that you read the book and decide them for yourself. The last chapter titled "Final Considerations." is where the authors discuss the practical applications of their theory. The authors readily admit that their theory and nicely-executed research still have limits and their methods have flaws. I agree that they have added to our understanding of the recidivism process. Nevertheless, I still worry about their recommendations.