Recidivism Rates: Definitions, Measures, and Correctional Goals

Introduction to Recidivism

In the context of criminal justice, recidivism represents a relapse of criminal activity by a person after being convicted of an offense, punished, and ostensibly corrected (Maltz, 2001). Recidivism emerges from a series of failures: society's failure to meet the expectations of the individual, or the individual's failure to meet the expectations of society; the person's resultant failure to stay out of trouble; the individual's failure to avoid capture and conviction following the commission of an offense; the individual's failure as a correctional-institute inmate to make the most of correctional interventions — or the institution's failure to provide adequate rehabilitation programs; and the person's further failure to refrain from criminal activities following release (Maltz, 2001).

Defining Recidivism: Conceptual and Operational Challenges

Recidivism, from a correctional perspective, has a fairly explicit meaning. The term derives from the Latin recidere, meaning "falling back" (Maltz, 2001). Recidivists are individuals who are not rehabilitated following release from confinement and instead revert to their former behavior by committing further offenses. While this conceptual definition seems straightforward, a more operational one — which allows for measurement — is considerably more complex (Maltz, 2001).

The data on which recidivism measurement is based is seldom comprehensive, and even when complete information can be obtained, data analysis methods are inconsistent. Substantial variation exists in recidivism measurement techniques (National Advisory Commission, 1973).

Complete Information

Consider recidivism measurement when comprehensive data is available. Complete information means that all offenses an individual has committed — whether or not he or she was arrested for all of them — are known to evaluators. This improbable condition also poses a challenge, as the term "crime" covers a wide range of behaviors (Maltz, 2001).

A child-molesting individual, for instance, may be detained, found guilty, and sentenced to a correctional intervention designed exclusively for treating such offenders. After release, he may genuinely stop molesting children. However, if he turns to other forms of crime — such as forgery or armed robbery — should he be considered a recidivist? From one perspective, he may be labeled a recidivist because he engaged in criminal behavior after release. From another, this new crime is entirely different; while the original offense has been curbed, he has resorted to a different type of harmful behavior. The question of whether an individual who moves from one type of crime to a completely different one should be classified as a recidivist remains unresolved (Maltz, 2001).

One could label an individual a recidivist only if he or she repeats the same type of offense for which he or she was originally convicted (Maltz, 2001). This definition, however, implies that offenders specialize in a single crime — a claim that contradicts available and emerging evidence (Petersilia, 1980; Chaiken & Chaiken, 1982; Goldstein, 1982; Miller & Dinitz, 1982). Moreover, creating a separate recidivism category for each individual offense type would correspondingly reduce the available information within each category (Maltz, 2001). The four broad categories of crime — personal, white-collar, property, and public-order — may be considered; however, no clear lines divide these categories, as many crimes (such as arson or robbery) may overlap, supersede, or magnify one another (Maltz, 2001).

In order to understand the full impact of "return to crime" and the time period in which the probability is highest, it is necessary to categorize re-imprisoned convicts, identify the most probable reasons and timing of such recurrence, and examine the influence of gender on the phenomenon.