Introduction
‘Making Good’ is a widely acclaimed book by Shadds Maruna, is considered as one of the most fundamental contributions ever made to the study of criminology. It has opened a range of avenues in the study of criminal careers, and has become an essential study in order to know how psychological prospects can affect and contribute towards the study of (ex)-offender’s lives. Not only relevant for the students in the discipline of criminology, but it has also potentially engaged the non academic readers and audiences from vast backgrounds ranging from lawyers to criminologists, practitioners, abuse counselors, administrators, policy and law-makers, civil society and to the offenders themselves (Worrall, 2008).
It has clearly and thoughtfully compared and contrasted the narratives of ex-convicts and offenders who remained actively involved in the act of crimes with those who are desisting and abstaining from criminal and drug practices. The book is centrally focused on the Liverpool Desistance Study (LDS) and it attempts to provide an insight to the readers about the psychological and criminological thoughts of offenders. It has also highlighted the group of people who are potentially more vulnerable to commit crimes, in consistent with some theoretical studies of criminology, but they do not. According to Shaud Maruna (2001), ex-offenders need to develop a coherent, pro-social identity for themselves”, in order to create a psychological denial towards crime and this can be achieved by narrating their stories that explain to others and to themselves that how they have evolved from criminal identities into reformed personalities (pp. 45-97). Moreover, he argues that the redemption practices in which people could have their reform “certified” by the policing authorities and by their relatives often help in reinforcing the rehabilitation process. In this regard, the probable institutionalization of this restoration practice is recommended in this book (Hydk, 2003).
Analysis
According to Crutchfield (2007), the study undertaken in this book discloses a constructive new track for the rehabilitation efforts for offenders and the wide-ranging narratives are examined according to the contemporary psychological and criminological thinking. The extensive scripts from LDS study resulted into two distinct types of personal stories: a “condemnation” script favored by offenders who are active in crime and a “generative” script favored by those who are trying to desist crimes. The method by which these scripts are developed and used resulted in an agreement that in order to prevent reentry of offenders, the rehabilitative opportunities that strengthen the generative scripts plays a crucial and deciding role. An appealing observation was that both group expressed the same intensity of victim empathy, signifying a good understanding of the outcome of their conducts toward victims. Another startling prospect was that the social standings did not appear to be critical predictors of desistance with offenders and desisters expressed a same intensity of criminological needs. Therefore, the central themes which are taken into account by this reaction essay include rehabilitation, felon disenfranchisement and offender’s reentry (Worrall, 2008). The forthcoming discussion in this essay is emphasized on these central themes.
Felon Disenfranchisement
It has been recommended that what discriminates the offenders from desisters is not the structural barriers they face but the way desisters react towards them, they shows higher levels of personal commitment, and positive realization of their lives and futuristic viewpoint. The desisters reported in their narratives that they could deal with their own futures, whereas the offenders (persisters) expressed a defeatist attitude towards life. On the moral grounds, the desisters avoid to take responsibility of their criminal history and see a “good” person in them. This has been done in order to uphold a positive self-imagery and reflected a shift towards a pro-social identity from a criminal past. All of them want to detach themselves from their act of felony (Crutchfield, 2007).
Rehabilitation
Maruna (2001), made a significant point that rehabilitation is a perpetual process and many of us think of change as all of a sudden. Even if the criminological indication suggested it a common happening in most of the offenders’ lives, we fail to understand that it usually take time to evolve themselves from being offenders to desisters and then to pro-social individuals. On the contrary, to a certain extent, many of us spread cultural pessimism considering the prospects of rehabilitating persisters and this, in turn, results in a negative effect in the reforming of offenders.
It has been suggested that ex-offenders who receive a positive appraisal from the society are less likely to re-offend in contrast to those who feel stigmatized. This finding has also been indentified in other studies suggesting that rebuilding family ties and developing new pro-social relationships plays an effective role in crime desistance. Many criminologists want their interviewees to answer the 'why' questions, but she was wise to avoid this mistake. These questions rarely help in understanding the crimes; rather they usually construct offenders as ‘irredeemable’ (Uggen, Behrens, & Manza2005).
Offender Reentry
Moreover, the content analysis along with the interviewer and interviewee interaction documents both conveys how vital it is for desisters to be considered properly acknowledged, recognized and accepted in order to avoid the prospects of offenders’ reentry. The lack of this kind of recognition is itself a basis of concern for those who are struggling to find change in themselves that feel extremely uncertain. When the ex-offenders are able to find new importance in their work lives, relationships and in their remembrance of their past, it is actually the desire to get approval and acknowledgement is getting addressed (Uggen, Behrens, & Manza2005).
Taking into consideration these central themes, the re-narrating is not simply about denying or disclaiming the past, it is rather a method of first-learning to comprehend how incidents, often not in one’s control, made crime an attractive choice, and then recreating these incidents as disguises that covered the one’s legitimate character from view. Herein, lies another significant insight often missed by criminologist: that is what people tell about their lives can only even be partially true. However, she has again seems to rediscover something different in this regard. Those who do well in bargaining positive change are also those who restate their narratives through several, conflicting discourses, attaining some kind of coherence out of the disorder left behind by disgraceful behaviors, and poorly realized motivation. Maruna (2001), explain this phenomenon as: ex-offenders want to be guaranteed that they are not going to face intolerance and prejudice because of their past actions (pp. 33-51). In effect, his study validates what is articulated in some of the past autobiographies of the reforms.
Administrative handlings of offenders should keep in mind the significance of realizing the positive continuity in ex-offenders behaviors, as opposed to working on the leftovers of imprecise thinking. Change and reform is rarely an absolute transformation of self. The kind of discussion we often interpret as protective self-validation, or cognitive distortion, or self-protective can help several offenders to get back an essential self-control over their lives. Unlike most of the criminologist do consistently, Maruna (2001), argues that the offenders do not always want to know how their narratives could be scattered (77-88). The kind of humiliation they went through is often too agonizing to be reiterated. Accordingly, the policy-makers should realize that not only the change programmers offenders are confronting with, but also the method of disgracing to restorative justice, could impede the reforms amongst those who have been engaged in criminal activities for long time (Rothman, 2012).
Critique
While critically examining Making Good, there are a few significant theoretical queries raised by LDS study, which its own datasets could address, if approached from a more comprehensively interpretive position. Although, book gave much theoretical knowledge about the average desister but it did not focus on any particular individual. It does not give us a thorough deconstruction of the subjectivity of any individual who has committed crime in the past. This argument does not take away any credentials from Maruna’s work; no doubt, it is a landmark achievement and has done a much-needed job. However, the pile of dataset taken in LDS study can be used for something more. To be specific, it can be used to take a distinct methodological course that gives more importance to the latent meanings of narratives of interviewee to the same extent that the manifest meanings are incorporated (Rothman, 2012).
Considering a case on page 41 of Making Good, an account of a 27 years old man who narrated his act of crime, Maruna (2001), argues that only by knowing the way this individual understands his explanation of ‘common sense’ of the streets can allow someone to realize why he committed murder’ (p. 55-59). Although, it has to be the case, and moreover, it is certain that the criminal justice system needs a revival and would be more valuable if it keeps a retrospective look for those who are already committed to change their behaviors, but if we want to discover how to know the motivations of precarious persiters, then as academic we have an obligation to investigate more deeply into the meanings which lie underneath the surface of narratives we ask, and anticipate offenders to inform about themselves.
Conclusion
In short, Maruna’s work has gone a substantial way to restore a feeling of agency but it was often lost in academic accounts of criminals. In this regard, there is a need to highlight the relevance of concepts like identity, subjectivity to the issues of crime and the agenda of criminology onto a more satisfied psychological course.
References
Crutchfield, R. D. (2007). Abandon Felon Disenfranchisement Policies*. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 707–715. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2007.00483.x
Hydk, X. V. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record ’, 108(5), 937–975.
Maruna, S.(2001). Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives, 7-8, 141-142. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Rothman, D. J. (2012). Correctional Theory in Crisis. Columbia University Press.
Uggen, C., Behrens, A., & Manza, J. (2005). Criminal Disenfranchisement. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1(1), 307–322. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115840
Worrall, J. L. (2008). Crime Control in American what Work: Rehablitation, treatment and Job training. University of Texas Press.
