Desistance from Sexual Offending: Do the Mainstream Theories Apply?

The literature on desistance from crime has become well established in recent years with strong bodies of evidence supporting the role of factors such as employment, relationships and identity change in this process. However, the relevance of this literature to individuals convicted of sexual crimes is not known as such individuals are almost always excluded from this research. This article presents the results from one of the first empirical studies on desistance from sexual offending based on 32 in-depth life story interviews with adult males previously convicted of child sex offences. In this analysis we explore the significance of work, the role of relationships and changes in imagined selves in the self-identities of individuals successfully desisting from sexual offending. The findings provide support for all three factors in helping to sustain desistance from sex offending, but also suggest clear differences between desistance from sex offending and other types of crime in these regards. </jats:p

Sex Offending and Situational Motivation: Findings from a Qualitative Analysis of Desistance from Sexual Offending

Sex offending is typically understood from a pathology perspective with the origin of the behavior thought to be within the offending individual. Such a perspective may not be beneficial for those seeking to desist from sexual offending and reintegrate into mainstream society. A thematic analysis of 32 self-narratives of men convicted of sexual offences against children suggests that such individuals typically explain their pasts utilizing a script consistent with routine activity theory, emphasizing the role of circumstantial changes in both the onset of and desistance from sexual offending. It is argued that the self-framing of serious offending in this way might be understood as a form of “shame management,” a protective cognition that enables desistance by shielding individuals from internalizing stigma for past violence. </jats:p

SALES-CRIMINAL LAW- ELEMENTS OF UNLAWFUL SALE OF NARCOTICS

Appellant, known to be peddling morphine, was contacted by a federal narcotic inspector who posed as a prospective purchaser. A price having been agreed upon, appellant permitted the inspector to handle and examine several of the tablets. After stating that he would take the drug, the inspector placed appellant under arrest. From a conviction of selling narcotics in violation of the Harrison Act, appellant appealed. Held, affirmed. A sale of narcotics is not complete without payment of the purchase price or delivery, but the facts here warranted a jury in finding that delivery was made. Barnett v. United States, (9th Cir. 1949) 171 F. (2d) 721

Desistance as a Social Movement

Desistance from crime has been a considerable success story for academic criminology. The concept has deep roots, but did not emerge as a mainstream focus of study for the field until the 1990s movement towards developmental or life-course criminology. From these origins, however, the term has taken on a life of its own, influencing policy and practice in criminal justice. This paper will briefly review this history, then explore what might be next for desistance research among numerous possible futures. I argue that the most fruitful approach would be to begin to frame and understand desistance not just as an individual process or journey, but rather as a social movement, like the Civil Rights movement or the ‘recovery movements’ among individuals overcoming addiction or mental health challenges. This new lens better highlights the structural obstacles inherent in the desistance process and the macro-social changes necessary to successfully create a ‘desistance-informed’ future

MD Shadd Mahmud, Assistant Professor, Electrical and Computer Engineering (CEPS) travel to United Kingdom

Professor Mahmud traveled to the United Kingdon to form strategic connections within multiple universities and to give a research presentation at the University of Oxford and a seminar at the University of Surrey

WILLS-PUBLICATION OF WILL AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURE

Testatrix telephoned two friends, asking them to come to her home and witness her will. When they arrived, the document was lying on a table in testatrix\u27 presence, and she declared, Here is the pen, sign it. Both witnesses were positive testatrix did not sign in their presence. The evidence, while not conclusive, also tended to show that neither witness saw the signature, testatrix having signed on page seven while the document was opened to the attestation clause on page eight. The superior court admitted the will to probate over appellant\u27s objection that testatrix had failed to meet the statutory requirements for execution. On appeal, held, affirmed. In re Gray\u27s Estate, (Cal. 1948) 201 P. (2d) 392

CORPORATIONS-ELECTION OF DIRECTORS-POWER TO ENJOIN SHAREHOLDERS\u27 MEETING UNTIL SHAREHOLDERS ARE FURNISHED INFORMATION CONCERNING CONDITION OF CORPORATION

Defendant company was operating at a loss of approximately $50,000 per month; the directors delayed three months in reporting the financial affairs of the company; and the shareholders\u27 meeting was delayed six months in violation of the by-laws. On January 24, 1948, the directors called an election meeting for February 16, 1948. On receipt of this notice, plaintiff and others formed an independent shareholders\u27 committee to effect a change in management. The directors refused to allow the plaintiff to make a photostatic copy of the list of 3,080 shareholders, but did permit him to inspect the list five days before the meeting, as required by Pennsylvania law. Plaintiff\u27s committee secured proxies from about seven hundred shareholders who were previously unaware of the true condition of the company, but lacked time to contact some four hundred others before the meeting date. Plaintiff petitioned for an interlocutory injunction, requesting additional time to give his committee an opportunity to secure proxies from the rest of the shareholders. Held, injunction granted. Steinberg v. American Bantam Car Co., (D.C. Pa. 1948) 76 F. Supp. 426

INSURANCE-SUBROGATION-RIGHT OF INSURED TO RECOVER ON AN AUTOMOBILE COLLISION POLICY AFTER FULL SETTLEMENT WITH THE NEGLIGENT WRONGDOER

Respondent, whose automobile was covered by a policy of collision insurance in appellant insurance company, suffered serious personal injuries and complete loss of his car as a result of a collision with an oil company truck. Despite numerous telephone calls, appellant failed to settle for the cash value of the automobile, as required by the insurance contract. In the meantime, respondent brought an action against the oil company, joining the claims for personal injury and property damage, and executed a full release to that company in return for a settlement of $20,000. He then brought this action for actual damages to the automobile on the theory that appellant fraudulently breached its contract, knowing that respondent had to claim all elements of damage in the oil company suit. Appellant defended on the ground that respondent\u27s release destroyed appellant\u27s right of subrogation and discharged appellant\u27s contractual liability. Held, appellant, by its conduct in failing to pay the loss when reported, waived all subrogation rights. The verdict of the jury in the present action was for$400 less than the value of the automobile and that sum represented a reasonable proportion of the $20,000 settlement allocable to the car loss. Powers v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., (S.C. 1950) 57 S.E. (2d) 638