‘F*ck It!’: Matza and the Mood of Fatalism in the Desistance Process
‘F*ck It!’: Matza and the Mood of Fatalism in the Desistance Process
复制标题
“F*ck It！”：Matza 和停止过程中的宿命论情绪
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Wright
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Halsey;R. Armstrong;S. Wright
近20年来，人们一致关注停止犯罪（Maruna 2001; Giordano et al 2002; Maruna & Immarigeon 2004; Laub & Sampson 2006;麦克尼尔2006; King 2013 a），引发和维持它的条件是持续争论的主题（例如Bushway et al 2003; Burnett &麦克尼尔2005;巴里2013）。有证据表明，即使对于那些“成功”的人来说，在被判刑事犯罪后重建自己的生活往往涉及轻微和更严重的挫折（Bottoms & Shapland，2011; Farrall 2002 a; Bereswill 2010;哈尔西& Deegan 2015; Wright 2015）。在这篇文章中，我们证明，放弃犯罪确实是一个脆弱的项目（哈尔西2007），但在停止过程中的脆弱性的影响很少被整合到释放前和释放后的规划和支持战略。更具体地说，我们认为，脆弱性--无处不在的中止脱轨威胁--对于那些表现出严重和长期监禁和释放历史的人来说尤其明显（见我们各自的数据集，下面）。比如说，航空公司的飞行员科普重大湍流的能力通常会随着飞行小时的增加而增加，而“久经沙场”的潜在渴望者往往会被环境所压倒，尽管他们以前“去过那里”很多次。我们并不认为这种复发完全是个人缺点的结果，而是将这种瓦解与官僚主义（不）行动联系起来，而官僚主义行动是那些努力停止的人的合理恐惧和担忧。因此，我们的论点是，复发和重新犯罪的现象学前景（Katz 1988）在中止研究中被低估了（但请参见Gadd & Farrall 2004; Agnew & Messner，2015），这些知识对于打破犯罪和重新监禁的循环至关重要。
For nearly two decades there has been concerted interest in desistance from crime (Maruna 2001; Giordano et al 2002; Maruna & Immarigeon 2004; Laub & Sampson 2006; McNeill 2006; King 2013a) with the conditions that spark and sustain it the subject of ongoing debate (e.g. Bushway et al 2003; Burnett & McNeill 2005; Barry 2013). Evidence suggests that even for those who have ‘made it’, re-building one’s life after being convicted of a criminal offence frequently involves minor and more serious setbacks (Bottoms & Shapland, 2011; Farrall 2002a; Bereswill 2010; Halsey & Deegan 2015; Wright 2015). In this article, we demonstrate that giving up crime is indeed a fragile project (Halsey 2007) but that the implications of fragility in the desistance process are rarely integrated into preand post-release planning and support strategies. In more specific terms, we argue that fragility – the omni-present threat of the derailment of desistance – is especially pronounced for people evincing serious and lengthy custodial and release histories (see our respective datasets, below). Unlike, say, the airline pilot whose capacity to cope with major turbulence typically increases with each flying hour, the ‘battle-hardened’ would-be desister often becomes overwhelmed by circumstances in spite of having ‘been there’ many times before. Rather than viewing such relapses as entirely the result of individual shortcomings, we show this unraveling to be linked to bureaucratic (in)action over the legitimate fears and concerns of those struggling to desist. Our contention, therefore, is that the phenomenological foreground (Katz 1988) of relapse and reoffending has been under-examined in desistance research (but see Gadd & Farrall 2004; Agnew & Messner, 2015), and that such knowledge is central for breaking the cycle of crime and reincarceration.