Chapter 1 Introduction
Taking stock of the knowledge about desistance from crime
Criminology has traditionally been concerned with researching why people start offending. Recent developments in the field provided insight into desistance from crime, which refers to how and why people stop offending. While many of the key studies have been conducted in the UK or USA, recent research – and in particular those put forward by the series in which this present book is published – has provided valuable insight into processes of change in different national settings (among others, Benazeth, 2021; Kazemian, 2020; Segev, 2020; Villagra, 2019; Bugnon, 2019; Healy, 2019). These have deepened our understanding of the role of social factors, institutions, and criminal justice systems onto processes of desistance from crime. We now know that structural, institutional, societal, and communitylevel factors have an impact on individual pathways out of crime (Farrall, 2019). This book locates itself in the continuity of such studies by providing a comparative perspective, contrasting characteristics of different contexts to better understand what makes individual trajectories of desistance. The aim of this study is to explore the differences and similarities of desistance processes in England and France. To do so, in-depth semi-structured interviews with people supervised on probation in England and France were conducted. These demonstrate interesting similarities and differences in the ways in which people desist from crime in each country. This study delves into the ways in which desisters told their stories, the obstacles they faced, the support they received in their journeys of change, and what their lives looked like. Before presenting the findings of the analysis, this chapter will overview key studies and knowledge on desistance, locating the present study within the existing literature, before explaining the value of cross-national comparative work. Chapter 2 will set the theoretical framework and methodological steps taken in this research. Chapter 3 contextualises the study by comparing societal and key criminal justice characteristics in England and France.
Social bonds and change
Research on desistance from crime stems from developmental studies and life-course criminology, which took interest in changes and persistence in individuals’ offending behaviour over time. Longitudinal studies allowed us to analyse changes within individual lives and associate certain factors with desistance from crime. In the book Crime in the Making, Sampson and Laub (1993) offered a developmental approach to studying offending behaviour by taking a ‘life-course’ perspective. The longitudinal aspect of their study allowed them to gain insight into the relationship between certain life events and changes in offending behaviour. From this study, Sampson and Laub (1993) formulated a theory of informal social control, which explains changes in offending behaviour through changes in individuals’ bonds with different aspects of society. The authors demonstrated how certain ‘turning points’ can act upon criminogenic environments. These occur by having a ‘knifing off’ effect on offending, by providing opportunities for social support, by bringing structure to activities, and providing an opportunity for identity transformation (Laub and Sampson, 2003). ‘Knifing off’ refers to individuals significantly and abruptly distancing themselves from elements, people, or spaces that led to offending (Maruna and Roy, 2007). Their findings also identified exogenous factors associated with ‘turning points’ in people’s lives that shape desistance processes, which particularly come about in the transition to adulthood.
‘Turning points’, therefore, refer to changes in people’s lives that spark behavioural change (Sampson and Laub, 1993). These include for example: securing stable employment, getting married, and other significant life events which provide positive social bonds. These newly acquired social bonds act as catalysts to processes of desistance, as individuals get invested in these newly acquired pro-social roles. In other words, changes in adult behaviour are influenced by evolutions in adult social bonds. Laub and Sampson (2003) have shown that turning points can bring about change by providing routine, structure, and social support, and allowing for identity transformation towards the adoption of pro-social roles. There are certain limitations to understanding desistance through the notion of turning points. This is notably due to the methodological circumstances that lead to emphasis being put on certain life events as impacting behavioural change (Carlsson, 2016). Sampson and Laub concluded their study by challenging the criminal justice reliance on imprisonment (imprisonment being an example of a life event potentially a turning point), which inherently has negative consequences to positive social bonds. This point is interesting for an initial consideration of the role that institutions – and criminal justice institutions in particular – have in journeys of desistance, whether this is helping or hindering.
Employment
Securing employment is often cited as a significant turning point in people’ lives, strengthening their bonds with society and supporting efforts of desistance (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Employment can therefore be seen as a form of informal social control, since valued social bonds are created. Efforts are made to maintain these, which in turn encourage behaviours that would sustain these bonds and thus deter offending (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Employment typically provides a pro-social identity, which people can embody, which then facilitates their desistance (Giordano et al., 2002). Sampson and Laub (1993) have found that stable employment in early adulthood reduced the likelihood of subsequent offending in the mid-1920s to early 1930s. That being said, the causal relationship between employment and desistance from crime is not evident. Efforts for desistance could predate the start of employment. Employment itself could be understood as a normative result of ageing. In other words, employment could encourage existing processes of desistance rather than spark them (Skardhamar and Savolainen, 2014).
Life events and turning points therefore have varying impacts on people and will affect offenders in different manners according to their circumstances. Skardhamar and Savolainen’s (2014) research suggests that securing employment comes as a consequence of desistance, after people stopped offending. Uggen (2000) has found that employment acts as a turning point for men older than 26 years but not for those who are younger. A decline in offending behaviour thus tends to occur after a certain age, following involvement in conventional adult social roles, providing conformity and routine away from delinquency. Giordano et al.’s (2002) study found no link between employment and offending rates in both men and women. This challenges the extent to which conformity and social norms are linked with desistance from crime.
Further, van der Geest and colleagues have drawn a link between the quality of employment and reduced offending (2011), which illustrates the complexities of the dynamics of desistance when it comes to social bonds and the role of life events, whether this is employment or another aspect of adult social life. Persistent offenders (people who offend, as opposed to desisters, who used to offend) are unlikely to adopt pro-social identities or roles that are generally associated with adult status (Moffitt, 1993), meaning that employment is most likely to affect desistance if processes of change have already started. This means that motivation to stop offending is important for strengthened social bonds to lead to desistance. The notion of motivation is central to understanding desistance, and we will return to it later in the discussion.
The importance of employment (and other informal social institutions) is therefore not limited to when people stop offending, but in the nature and
quality of employment and how it interacts with people’s self-perceptions, emotions, and relational concerns (Weaver and McNeill, 2015). This suggests that people’s relationships with employment will vary according to factors pertaining to social context and individual circumstances. In other words, the impact of social institutions and societal goals on offending behaviour is dependent upon individuals’ circumstances, backgrounds, and social realities. The sole strength of the link with employment is therefore insufficient in understanding its role upon change, and the context surrounding employment, offending, and desistance is to be considered.
Marriage
Marriage is also considered as a significant potential turning point in desistance from crime. The role of marriage in desistance has been thoroughly researched (Craig and Foster, 2013; van Schellen et al., 2011; Bersani et al., 2009; Laub and Sampson, 2003; Farrington and West, 1995; Sampson and Laub, 1993), with findings broadly suggesting a positive relationship.
As was discussed, research points to the importance of quality of employment in desistance processes, and similar conclusions can be drawn with the role of romantic relationships. In their analysis of the Glueck’s data, Laub and colleagues (1993) found that a ‘good marriage’ had a cumulative positive relationship with a decline in offending behaviour. This means that the nature of the spousal relationship over time influences desistance rather than the marriage itself. Similarly, Farrington and West (1995) found that offending behaviour tended to decline more following marriage compared to remaining single. Much like for employment, a causal relationship between marriage and desistance is challenged, acknowledging that behavioural changes could be facilitated by factors accompanying marriage rather than the marriage event itself. For instance, marriage may lead to a decline in association with offending peers, it may restructure routine activities, and spouses may provide a source of informal social control (Laub and Sampson, 2003; Warr, 2002). Again, these findings highlight the importance of exploring people’s routine activities, social networks, and the places they occupy, when aiming to understand the dynamics of desistance.
Theobald and Farrington’s (2009) research produced similar findings. They suggested that for younger offenders, marriage might have a ‘knifing off’ effect on unconventional and offending behaviour whereas older offenders might have more difficulties to modify their social environment and habits linked to offending. The men in their sample who married late are more likely to have committed fewer serious offences, but for a longer period of time, thus being less open to change and ‘knifing off’ being more drastic and difficult to achieve. This suggests that the older the people are, the more difficult it is to change their lifestyle, social circles, and habits. These findings, in their
distinction by age, are coherent with Moffit’s developmental taxonomy identifying adolescent-limited and life-course offenders.
Considering these results, the universality of the link between marriage and desistance across social contexts is to be challenged. The significance of marriage varies across societies, meaning that getting married will have different consequences on offending behaviour accordingly. This is evidenced by certain studies – that, unlike aforementioned ones, are not based in anglophone countries – finding no link between marriage and desistance. For instance, Lyngstad and Skardhamar’s (2013) longitudinal study based in Norway found no evidence of marriage having an effect on offending behaviour. Another study based in the Netherlands has provided nuance to the aforementioned findings, by analysing the role of offending history on transitions to marriage (van Schellen et al., 2011). The seriousness of offending history was found to be linked with the likelihood of marriage, in that more offences committed led to fewer chances of having a spouse. People with significant offending history were also more likely to marry someone involved in offending (van Schellen et al., 2011).
These findings further indicate that characteristics associated with the likelihood of marriage are also linked with the likelihood of desistance and that the relationship between marriage and behavioural change is not as straightforward as it could seem. The societal norms surrounding marriage may also have bearing on its impact on changes in offending behaviours, which could explain these varying results. Evolved collective understandings of marriage may also lead to different impacts upon desistance. Savolainen’s (2009) research supports this, proposing an application of the theory of informal social control in a different national context. Their study, based in Finland, found greater links between desistance from crime and cohabitation than marriage. Marriage having different significance to different groups of people means it will affect processes of desistance in different manners.
Another example is found in the research conducted by Bersani and colleagues (2009) into the relationship between marriage and offending in Dutch men and women. They found that marriage reduces offending across genders but had a stronger effect on men than on women. This may be explained by Sampson and colleagues’ (2006) suggestion that because of men’s greater involvement in offending compared to women, they are more likely to marry ‘up’ than women (Bersani et al., 2009). This further supports the idea that understanding the societal context of turning points is necessary beyond simply acknowledging the potential for change of the life-event. Here, social context is meant as the personal level, the community, but also the broader national context. The importance of context is also evidenced by the literature linking parenthood with desistance from crime, which will be next discussed.
A number of studies have suggested that the experience of becoming a parent is also associated with desistance from offending (see, for example, Sampson and Laub, 1993: 218; Leibrich, 1993: 59). Much like research on employment and marriage, the literature on parenthood and desistance is nuanced. Having a child is more or less influential in processes of desistance according to different studies: Giordano and colleagues (2002) found that motherhood, for instance, was not inevitably linked to desistance, even though having children was often mentioned in their participants’ stories of change. Savolainen (2009) found that having a child reduced the likelihood of reoffending and that there was a cumulative effect of cohabitation and parenthood on desistance. In comparison, Kreager and colleagues (2010) identified motherhood more so than marriage as the primary turning point for change towards desistance in disadvantaged communities.
Key to explaining such different findings lies in the vastly different demographics of the samples used in studies linking parenthood and marriage to desistance from crime. The significance and collective assumptions on marriage and parenthood in one’s life differ both over time and according to cultural specificities. This means that the importance of getting married and becoming parents will differ according to historical and cultural settings. Societal developments have led to other life events – such as cohabitation –becoming more significant and replacing marriage for instance as a normative standard expectation or goal. What is more, the development and wide availability of contraceptives have led to parenthood becoming increasingly controlled and planned for. This type of societal changes may however suggest that in different settings, parenthood, relationships, and broadly speaking standard life objectives will have varying impact on people’s motivations and opportunities to stop offending.
Sampson and Laub’s contribution to understanding desistance is therefore crucial for the consideration of social factors and turning points in individual change. Nevertheless, there needs to be thorough consideration of the context at different levels, in which turning points occur to understand processes of change rigorously and accurately. Carlsson (2012: 5) eloquently summed this up:
In understanding the meaning of something – the employment, military service, marriage, the residential change, etc. – we must to a greater extent study and understand it in the context of the surrounding processes of which it must necessarily be part, and see how it is through these that the turning point emerges and how change is made possible.
Education
Less researched empirically in the desistance literature, education is nevertheless an interesting factor to explore. Educational attainment has been conceptualised in criminological research in terms of the onset of offending and crime prevention (Machin et al., 2011). Although dropping out of school has not been found to be a cause of offending, it is symptomatic of gradual disengagement from school (Sweeten et al., 2009). Moreover, long, difficult histories with school, poor performances, and antisocial behaviours were linked with offending in people who had dropped out of school. The social benefits of education have been found to prevent the onset of offending behaviour, so efforts are typically made for children to stay in school and complete their degrees and educational programs (Taheri and Welsh, 2016). Machin and colleagues’ (2011) research reflects this. These authors compared crime rates of cohorts that were and were not affected by a policy that increased the school leaving age. They found a significant difference in rates of property crimes, which was lower in the cohort that had additional time in school. The extra time in education had a clear impact on the decrease in offending, demonstrating the social benefits of educational attainment. The literature therefore suggests that dropping out of school is the result of complex processes involving disengagement, which could be alleviated by certain social benefits of education.
In terms of impacts on desistance from crime, very little is known on the role of education. Abeling-Judge (2019) conducted a study based in the USA, exploring the impact of educational attainment upon desistance, by analysing longitudinal survey data from the 1990s. They found that offenders who re-enrolled in education were less likely to reoffend than those who did not. These results suggest that following re-enrolment, commitment to education led to longer-term opportunities for change. This study indicates value in return to education for people who had dropped out of school. It highlights the role of human agency in desistance with the decision to return to formal education, which hints at desires for stability and conformity. These are desires that are found in the present study, which will be discussed in the analysis chapters. The return to education is part of a process of change, meaning that it is a step towards desistance rather than an element that would spark the desire to stop offending. Abeling-Judge (2019: 547) concluded:
Going back to formal education pursuits is reflective of a broader behavioural transition. This may not initiate the desistance process for stoppedout offenders [offenders who dropped out], but is a contributing influence to intensify the reduction in frequency and severity of offending.
There is therefore room for more research into the role of education in desistance at various stages of life. Abeling-Judge’s (2019) research shines a light on the importance of education in desistance transitions, but little is known on the motivations and circumstances that would encourage offenders to direct efforts into education.
Beyond social bonds
The studies mentioned above highlight common aspects of desistance that help us to understand how and why people stop offending. These studies were chosen not only for their relevance to establishing what is known about processes of desistance but also because of their impact on subsequent research conducted. The following section will further develop on what is known of desistance processes, according to personal characteristics, internal dynamics, and different social and criminal justice contexts. Following this, the chapter will overview existing comparative research before discussing the added value of cross-national comparisons, thereby justifying this current study.
Personal characteristics and context
Recent desistance research has sharpened our understandings of the different ways in which people stop offending. These provide knowledge on specific aspects of desistance, for example, according to the type of offence, like desistance from drug use (van Roeyen et al., 2016), drug trafficking (Campbell and Hansen, 2012), white-collar offending (Hunter, 2015) or from sex offending (Thompson et al., 2017; Laws and Ward, 2011), and gang membership (Pyrooz and Decker, 2011). Thanks to these studies, more is known on processes of change according to specific personal and social characteristics. In other words, individuals will face different obstacles and gain from specific support systems depending on their past, their social worlds, and their own personal attributes which will impact desistance. Desistance pathways have been explored in different national settings including France (Benazeth, 2021; Kazemian, 2020), Chile (Villagra, 2019), and Ireland (Healy, 2019). Differences according to personal attributes have also uncovered the variety of pathways out of crime: women’s experiences (Galnander, 2019; Rodermond et al., 2016; McIvor et al., 2009; Giordano et al., 2002) and desistance of young people (Bottoms and Shapland, 2011). Consequently, more is known on processes of desistance and how they are experienced by different groups of people.
Developments in desistance research have highlighted how different personal and social characteristics influence the ways in which individuals stop offending. To illustrate this, religion is a good example as it blends the personal, intimate realm with social, communitarian, and even national
aspects. The role of religion in processes of desistance is a relatively underexplored subject. Religion was found to have the potential to support positive change through pro-social roles, networks, and activities (Jang and Johnson, 2017; Calverley, 2013). The social context of religion can potentially contribute to structuring pathways of change. For instance, Muslim former prisoners were found to face distinct issues in resettlement compared to nonMuslim former prisoners (Marranci, 2009). Religion also has the potential to provide a ‘cognitive blueprint’ with which to act out behavioural change (Giordano et al., 2008).
In the French context, Mohammed (2019) analysed the relationship between religion and desistance within a wider project exploring criminal careers. The specificity of the potential of religion as a driver of change is explained by its relatively effortless and accessible aspects. A route out of crime through religion entails morals which are non-negotiable, unquestionable, and absolute. This is contrasted with familial or societal morals which are challenged and subject to change. Another specificity of religion as the main driver of change is its unconditional aspect. The influence of religion, unlike that of employment or relationship, for instance, is not dependent on the availability of relevant resources. In sum, desistance via religion provides opportunities for change that is “accessible, immediate and honourable” (2019: 60).
Mohammed highlighted the variety in spiritual pathways out of crime. Some pathways were entirely shaped by religion, while for others, faith was one motivation, among others. He found that the use of faith towards efforts for desistance was more likely if religiosity predated change. This means that people who were religious before desisting had greater ease in mobilising their faith towards change. He also found that those who were not religious prior to desisting, and converted, gave greater importance to spirituality. The author identified a pattern whereby people expressed that their offending behaviour was in contradiction with their faith and that they were seeking appeasement and redemption (Mohammed, 2019). This echoes the findings of Maruna (2001) identifying ‘redemption scripts’ in narratives of desisters.
Acknowledging that influences of religion upon processes of change occur within wider structural circumstances Mohammed distinguishes pathways of desistance led by romantic relationship, those facilitated by employment and other trajectories. Change led by religion, in contrast, does not have prerequirements like skills for employment or a social network for relationships. While this may be useful to understand the particular influences of religion, the consideration of desistance as being clearly led by one motivator such as a romantic partner, employment, or religion is to be challenged. Individuals whose trajectories out of crime are impacted by their faith are also subject to their social networks, relationships, and employment problematics, which will have varying degrees of influence upon change. As Mohammed’s study
demonstrates, desistance for some is solely motivated by faith, however, the variety of trajectories out of crime does not mean each is defined by a single characteristic. Nevertheless, this research shines a light on the relationship between religion and desistance, providing insight into different ways religion influences change.
This shows the inter-relatedness of personal characteristics and social contexts in processes of desistance. Bottoms and colleagues’ (2004; Bottoms and Shapland, 2011) research considered social circumstances, context, and individual transformations within desistance. Their Sheffield Desistance Study is a longitudinal study exploring trajectories of change. Their aim was to get a fuller understanding of processes of desistance in young adulthood. This study emphasised the importance of including social context in understanding changes in offending behaviour (Bottoms et al., 2004). The key predictors of desistance they have identified from their study are offending history and aspects of current circumstances (Bottoms and Shapland, 2011).
The researchers highlighted certain factors of change pertaining to individuals’ personal circumstances and how these interact with notions of self-perceptions and identity. For instance, they found that empathy and perceptions of possible achievements were related to views about future offending. In a similar vein to Paternoster and Bushway’s (2009) concept of future selves, this study found that perceptions of current personal circumstances were linked to future prospects envisaged in terms of desistance or persistence. Bottoms and Shapland underlined the idea that desistance entails negotiations for changes to occur, which interact with people’s social context and future perspectives. Compared to the previously discussed explanations of Sampson and Laub focussing on social bonds, Bottoms and Shapland also accounted for ‘background predictors’ in understanding behavioural change. Individuals’ personal historical contexts were highlighted as well as future opportunities in processes of desistance.
Bottoms and Shapland (2011) have also found a series of commonly perceived obstacles to desistance. These obstacles link back to the social issues associated with desistance and include employment, issues related to money, and ‘drug problems’. They also found that emotional ‘pulls’ towards desistance hindered change. They have also highlighted the role of situational and contextual nature of offending, which may lead to reoffending despite intentions to desist. Social pressures, excitement, or the need for money can contribute to reoffending even when there are desires for changes in lifestyle. Influences of offending peers can also constitute a push factor towards reoffending, hindering efforts to desist. Beyond offending peers, general social attitudes of non-offending people in civil society can have a stigmatising effect on people with convictions, hindering their involvement in the professional sphere (Farrall et al., 2011; Farrall, 2005). Laws, policies, and social attitudes can also consist of obstacles to desistance (Savolainen, 2009), especially when it comes to securing employment (Kurtovic and Rovira, 2017).
Identity and cognition
So far, we have discussed social factors and more individual, personal dynamics impacting desistance. Here, we are further exploring the individual mechanisms of change through the notions of identity and cognition. Research into the subjective layers of desistance from crime has provided fresh insight on processes of change. The Liverpool Desistance Study (LDS) studied changes in offending behaviour through narratives of both persistent offenders and desisters (Maruna, 2001). Beyond considerations of turning points and the search for causal explanations, this study explored perceptions of change. It focused on how people understand and conceive their own journeys of crime and offending. Unlike other studies mentioned, this research did not aim to explain why or how people stop offending, but what it means for people to stop, or have stopped, offending. This exploratory research investigated perceptions and understandings of people’s personal and social worlds. Desistance and offending were analysed with insight from the individual, and significant weight was given to exploring the role of identity and human agency.
Maruna compared narratives of people who had stopped offending and people who were still involved in it (2001). Differences were found, in ‘scripts’ or patterns of self-reflexion and how people tell their stories, according to their self-asserted status as desister or persistent offender. These correspond to different ways in which people make sense of their stories to account for their current situations regarding offending and change. People who continued to offend were found to have internalised a ‘condemnation script’ expressing feelings of being stuck, stranded, and doomed, lacking a capacity for internal conversation. They tended to point at external factors, out of their control to explain their continued offending, and demonstrated distinctive ‘sense-making’ processes compared to desisters. Obstacles to change were considered as overwhelming and insurmountable, explaining their inability to desist (Maruna, 2001).
In contrast, people who have desisted were found to have formed a coherent life story through a ‘redemption script’. Through a redemption script, desisters make sense of their past offending to explain their current situations, resolving any dissonance from a continuity in offending. Former offenders demonstrated a ‘language of agency’, demonstrating self-reflexion through contemplation of their actions and behaviours (Maruna, 2001). Desisters tended to perceive change in their offending behaviour as a result of them overcoming structural obstacles and disadvantaged situations. Past offences were seen as necessary in order to shape the present pro-social identity they take on. Desisters tended to take control and responsibility regarding their future and recognise selfdetermination when it comes to their behaviour (Maruna, 2001).
Giordano and colleagues (2002) also researched internal mechanisms of desistance in their Ohio Life-Course Study. The authors found patterns of
‘cognitive shifts’ in the narratives, in explanations of behavioural change. Drawing from this, they formulated a Theory of Cognitive Transformation (see Chapter 2). Acknowledging the role of social factors of desistance, they highlighted internal dynamics interacting with external influences. The role of motivation, or ‘openness to change’ was underlined in processes of desistance. The ways in which people reacted to opportunities were also found to be essential in understanding processes of change. Beyond this, the availability and exposure to opportunities for change were found to trump motivation to desist.
Their study also found differences, but mostly similarities between men and women’s trajectories of change (2002). They found that while there was an overlap in the language used by men and women, the two had different psychosocial processes involved in their criminal trajectories: women were more likely to look for ‘hooks for change’, elements that would support their desistance, whereas men seemed more susceptible to succumb to the control of structural factors, thus requiring favourable circumstances to desist (Giordano et al., 2002). The explanation for this is also suggested from a social perspective, that women are more likely to be stigmatised for their deviancy. This stigma-creating strain can be seen as a factor encouraging a break from offending, towards the adoption of traditional roles of social conformity associated with women such as ‘mother’ or ‘wife’ (Giordano et al., 2002).
The findings discussed here suggest an interplay between structural factors and agency, and how desistance can entail changes in self-perception and perceptions of one’s social world. These studies highlight the importance of understanding how change is experienced and what it means to people in the context of their lives. It is important to acknowledge that crime, punishment, and rehabilitation are only part of people’s realities. The LDS in particular also provided depth to understandings of identity and feared selves. Studies into identity and cognition are therefore noteworthy for considerations of the subjective aspects of desistance and insight provided into the several facets of internal mechanisms of change. There is more discussion on explanations of internal mechanisms of desistance in Chapter 2. The following sections of this chapter will discuss studies into the role of probation in facilitating desistance.
The role of probation
Rex’s (1999) study into desistance in probation was one of the first to have given insight into experiences of supervision and how these fit into processes of change. The perceived commitment of the probation officer, a sense of care, concern, and dedication for the probationers’ welfare were found to be crucial in compliance to supervision. For some, being supervised on probation was enough of a deterrent from reoffending. For others, Rex suggested that
in order to facilitate desistance, the probation officer could encourage their probationer to be actively pro-social and also provide direct support regarding social issues. The relationship between probationer and probation officer is thus important in the delivery of probation and potential behavioural change. The importance of the relational aspect of probation supervision is a common finding among studies of probation and desistance (McNeill and Robinson, 2012; McNeill, 2006; McCulloch, 2005; Burnett, 2004; Leibrich, 1993). Probationers tended to perceive probation as rehabilitative (see also McCulloch, 2005), valuing guidance and advice to address and resolve their social problems (Farrall, 2002; Rex, 1999).
An essential study informing us on the role of probation in desistance is Farrall and colleagues’ (2014; 2011; Farrall, 2002) Tracking Project. The researchers started this longitudinal study in 1996, with the aim to uncover what helped people to stop offending, in the context of probation supervision. The study analysed both the roles of social structures and human agency in processes of desistance. With time and new sweeps of interviews, the scope of the study went beyond the role of probation supervision to include matters of victimisation, spatial dynamics, citizenship, and imprisonment (Farrall and Calverley, 2006). The key finding of this project, however, lies in the role of probation supervision regarding individual trajectories out of crime. In the earlier sweeps, only a few participants thought that supervision had helped them in desisting (Farrall, 2002). With time, an increasing number of participants have credited probation supervision as a positive influence in their desistance journeys (Farrall and Calverley, 2006; Farrall et al., 2014). What this means is that probation supervision provides individuals with tools to support change, which are not necessarily immediately useful, but selectively used when the circumstances for desistance allow for it.
This project is particularly important in the scope of this chapter because the model for desistance shaped by its findings grounds the theoretical framework adopted in the current study. It is particularly useful for contextualising desistance, not just through structure, agency, emotions, and relationships, but also time and space, which provides a more tangible perspective to the obstacles and minutiae that people face during processes of desistance (see further down in the situational context section). The picture of desistance drawn by theory is comprehensive and covers relevant spheres impacting processes of change. More discussion on Farrall and colleagues’ (2011) integrated model of desistance is to be found in the following chapter.
Another essential study in the relationship between probation practice and processes of desistance is King’s (2014) research. His findings demonstrated that probation has the potential to facilitate desistance by working on enhancing individual agency, instilling relevant skills, and constructing strategies for change. That being said, assistance from probation officers in providing problem solving and practical support was found to be limited. A strength
of this research is its consideration for the political and policy contexts in which probation is delivered and desistance occurs. The political and policy contexts are found to shape the delivery of probation, which in turn impacts desistance pathways in a specific manner. In continuation, different institutional contexts could potentially lead to a variety of desistance processes. This thesis addresses this questioning by exploring desistance in different national, institutional, criminal justice contexts. The following sections of this chapter will continue to demonstrate the variety of ways in which people stop offending, according to context.
Social networks and places
A consistent finding in the literature is that desistance is a fundamentally social process. Changes in social network and distance from criminogenic settings are associated with desistance (Best et al., 2018; Farrall, 2002). What is more, continuous association with delinquent peers has been found to have a negative impact on desistance processes (Bottoms and Shapland, 2011; Warr, 1998). Notions of peer pressure and being influenceable are recurrent in narratives of desisters (Segev, 2020; Giordano et al., 2003). While desistance entails internal changes and cognitive transformations, it occurs within a given social context and is subject to social factors, as was argued throughout this chapter.
Weaver and McNeill’s (2015) study of interrelated narratives of a friendship group of former offenders in their 40s presented processes of desistance through individual, relational, and structural components. Their results emphasise the importance of relationality in explaining deviant trajectories through interactions. The group of friends as a unit was the point of focus in this study, which explored life stories of six individuals from a same friendship group, who have offended together in their youth and early adulthood. This research linked processes of desistance with friendships, but also intimate relationships, employment, relocation, parenthood, and religion (Weaver and McNeill, 2015).
Their findings demonstrate the significance of social relations within this group to individual change in offending behaviour: for some, desistance was not an objective in itself, but a tool for maintaining these reciprocal social relations, as they evolve over time (Weaver and McNeill, 2015). Desistance was for some achieved “as a means to realizing and maintaining the men’s individual and relational concerns” (2015:104). Some members of the friendship group relocated, both in order to escape violence and to live in an environment with more opportunities for them to achieve their goals of employment. These findings echo the theory that desistance is likely to occur when pro-social relations are strengthened (Sampson and Laub, 1993). In order to retain and protect social relations and feelings of shared reciprocity
within the friendship group, the men have stopped offending and taken on roles and identities outside of crime.
The role of situational context and places was also developed in the Tracking Project. Farrall and colleagues (2014) found that the extent of desistance or persistence was linked with the places participants were spending time in and people they were spending their time with: “where they were informed our interviewees about ‘who’ they were” (2014: 281). People who wish to stop offending may actively avoid certain spaces or people to maintain their desistance. This is particularly true for individuals desisting from substance abuse. Indeed, those who have desisted from drug use tend to take steps in ‘giving back’ and helping others who are going through similar journeys, as a ‘wounded healer’ would (Maruna, 2001). In contrast, people with non-drug related offending tend to explain their desistance as influenced by the ‘right’ partner, job, or becoming parents (Farrall et al., 2014). This group relied less on intentional self-change, but rather driven by social and personal influences and not “undertaken for their reformative potential” (2014: 280). The role of places and people in maintaining desistance is also found in the present study, specifically in the last findings chapter.
Through their research, Farrall and colleagues also demonstrated the role of social-structural influences in shaping offending trajectories. For instance, the collectively accepted norms on parenting and fatherhood may change over time, influencing processes of change and offending behaviours. This example illustrates the role of social norms in shaping identities, thereby influencing pathways out of crime. Moreover, the findings suggest that the availability of pro-social identities, roles away from offending, have an impact on processes of change. This further highlights the crucial aspect of context at different levels, which impacts aspects of social life like the labour market, and social norms, which have bearing on the existence and nature of pro-social identities. King (2014) also found that people’s priorities changed according to perceptions of the availability of pro-social roles, which influences the potential impact of projections of future selves. That being said, an imagined future self away from offending was also found to be largely dependent on past offending (Farrall et al., 2014). Findings from the Tracking Project suggest that these factors and influences interact with each other: past and present circumstances, agency, social context and structures, and policy, all contribute to shaping pathways out of crime. In other words, change in offending behaviour entails constant interactions between these factors and influences.
Other studies emphasising the role of social context in offending and desistance are those that explore residential moves. In particular, long-distance moves have been found to reduce reoffending and arrests (Vogel et al., 2017; Kirk, 2012; Laub and Sampson, 2003; Osborn, 1980). What is more, residential moves have been found to be central in transitions from adolescence
to adulthood (Geist and McManus, 2008). Widdowson and Siennick (2021) analysed the effects of residential moves during this transition to adulthood. Their study, based in the USA, found that residential moves reduced the likelihood of reoffending, particularly within-county moves. The researchers concluded that long-distance moves could consist in turning points in offending behaviour. The decrease in offending behaviour that accompanied residential moves tended to occur immediately after the move and was found to be lasting. This echoes the ‘knifing off’ type of desistance found in certain pathways of change (Maruna and Roy, 2007; see also Chapter 3). This research suggests that these findings are independent of marriage or employment, which are typically the main influence associated with desistance. This also suggests that residential moves could be considered as causal factors of desistance processes.
This chapter has so far demonstrated, through a review of relevant empirical research, the importance of structural factors and agentic patterns in processes of desistance. Research has increasingly explored how pathways of desistance differ according to personal characteristics including for instance age, gender, type of offence typically committed, religion, and according to social context, including relationships, social norms, or situational context. This thesis is inscribed in this growing interest for exploring specificities of how processes of desistance are experienced and different structural factors impacting change.
Research context and comparative research
While there have been an increasing number of empirical studies exploring processes of desistance from crime in various contexts, only a few have been comparative. Studies of desistance have emerged from considering offending behaviour in the life course, having evolved to qualitative methods of inquiry and more recently to a focus on agentic patterns of change. These various studies provided thorough understanding of how and why people stop offending, considering agency and structure in interaction. However, “there has been far less enquiry into the potential impact of social-structural differences – in different countries or different decades – on opportunities for and processes of desistance” (Farrall et al., 2010: 547). Considering processes of desistance in different settings allows us to understand how broad social contexts may impact social conditions and pathways for individual change. Comparison of desistance processes in different countries therefore has value in providing insight into the potential impact of social structure on trajectories out of crime and the interplay between structure and agency in processes of change.
The importance of the historical context has been mentioned by Giordano and colleagues (2002) in comparing their findings with those of Sampson and Laub. Sampson and Laub’s sample was taken from the Gluecks’ research
from the 1930s. Their sample was taken from a time previous to the Second World War when gender differences in roles and traditions were more pronounced than they are today. Giordano and colleagues conducted their research in the 1980s and 1990s. They specified: “the respondents in our sample matured into adulthood during a time when both women and men were less constrained by tradition and faced less favourable economic prospects” (2002: 1054). Therefore, in looking at the societal context in which the research took place, we can understand why women seem to demonstrate more agency in desisting towards traditional roles, and why men transition out of criminality according to societal pressures they may face, in this particular context. What is more, individual agency is dependent on, and conditioned by, the social context framing processes of change, so it is essential to consider relevant parameters of the environment in which people stop offending.
Examining historical data can shine a light on the shifting nature of certain societal norms which would impact changes in offending behaviour (Farrall et al., 2009). Looking at the historical context also means considering the type of offences committed. In a study exploring criminal trajectories of people in the town of Crewe, in England from 1880 to 1940, Farrall and colleagues demonstrated the importance of the cultural and historical context in studying social phenomena. Some of their findings were in line with contemporary analyses of desistance from crime, regarding the influence of employment in levels of offending behaviour: for most case studies, leaving employment was a factor in an increase of criminal behaviour. Nevertheless, a surprising finding was the increase in offending behaviour with the beginning of employment with the largest employer in the area. This was explained by analysing the types of offence committed: a culture of alcohol associated with this professional setting meant that employment in this particular time and place was a factor in sparking a specific type of offence. On the one hand, employment is an agent of informal social control, in that it prevents certain offences, as it can be deduced by the increased deviancy in leaving a job. On the other hand, because of a specific culture and societal context, which means a set of cultural norms and standards, deviancy can emerge as a result of employment. This study has effectively shown the importance of context – historical, cultural, and social – in determining the dynamics of criminal trajectories.
However, it should be noted that while offending behaviour here has been studied with consideration to societal norms and whether a certain behaviour is accepted or not, it can be argued that certain types of delinquent behaviour, while illegal, remain in the realm of acceptable conduct. This is why specifying the historical, cultural, and social context is important: to understand how desistance from offending behaviour can be examined, considered, and studied, as a social process, truly impacted by dynamics of a given environment, on various levels. Comparative work on desistance between different
settings is therefore helpful in grasping the cultural dynamics interfering with changes in individual behaviour and changing perceptions of what is and is not acceptable.
In terms of context, this study is based in England and France. As has been noted, much is known on processes of desistance from crime in England and more broadly in anglophone settings. In France, Benazeth’s (2021) study is one of the first with the present research, to explore the concept of desistance from crime in the French setting. Another is that of Kazemian (2020) who conducted qualitative research in French prisons and explored how long-term prisoners navigate change within the prison walls. The author demonstrates the failure of the French penitentiary to prepare these long-term inmates for life on the outside, both materially and psychologically, which we know has a significant impact on pathways of desistance.
There are only a few empirical studies on desistance from crime with a cross-cultural or cross-national perspective. Studies comparing experiences according to cultural background within one setting provide valuable information on how informal support systems can improve to facilitate desistance. To start with, Finestone (1967) compared post-release experiences of Polish and Italian first-generation immigrants in the USA. His research demonstrates the various cultural layers to consider when examining individual pathways. His work considered what it means to be an Italian or Polish immigrant in that context and how this affects individual trajectories of criminality. Setting the context surrounding the participant is important because of the specific social and political context of the USA at that time; the dynamics of being an immigrant in this context and more specifically of being an Italian or Polish immigrant.
Finestone found that Italians post-release offenders are more likely than Polish ones to be accepted back into their family, including with their extended family, thanks to shared values of familial solidarity. In contrast, when Polish former prisoners were accepted back into their family, this was more likely to be with relationships they would have maintained when incarcerated, with the example of a parent, or a married sibling who would welcome them in their own family. Moreover, Polish men were more likely to be subject of shame and stigma from their families, compared to the Italian ones, whose return from prison would be celebrated, and their criminality viewed as a part of growing up. Italian prisoners, upon their release, had more opportunities to find employment, accommodation, and opportunities in general, including illicit ones, due to their network. Polish prisoners being released from prison did not have access to such networks, and rehabilitation was more associated with the notion of redemption.
Finestone’s study emphasised on reintegration into society, specifically within the family and the community, and through notions of forgiveness, support, and human capital. While they were able to study the stories of postprison release, reintegration into communities, and avoiding reoffending,
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
tavoiltaan aivan kiltti ja siisti. Ainoa mikä toisinaan pisti silmääni oli se, että poika oli lauhan näköinen, mutta itse asiassa tulen kiukkuinen. Mutta kuitenkin minä kaipasin selitystä hänen hairahduksilleen. Pikainen muutos pahantapaisesta hyväntapaiseksi kohosi järkeäni korkeammalle enkä minä kyennyt sitä millään tavoin selittämään tyydyttävästi. Ainoa tyydyttävä selitys oli se, ettei Nyyri ollut milloinkaan ollut todellisesti pahantapainen, se oli kaikki ollut ohimenevää pälkähdystä ja päähänpistoa tai oli hän suorastaan ollut pakotettu menettelemään juuri siten, kuin hän oli menetellyt. Joku voima oli hypnotisoinut hänet, arvelin, ja kaikki se mikä oli tehty, ei langennut hänen syykseen, se oli jonkun toisen syy, olojen syy, ympäristön syy, sanalla sanoen kaikkien muiden syy, vaan ei Nyyrin itsensä.
Odottamattani minä sitte sain kurkistaa esiripun taakse ja sain nähdä ne tapaukset, jotka olivat turmella pikku ihmistaimen ja tehdä siitä hylkykalun ijäkseen, päiväkseen. Kaikki on jäänyt kirkkaasti muistiini. On joulukuun iltapäivä, maa on lumeton ja roudassa, ilma on kylmä ja tyyni, Nyyri ja minä astelemme yksissä joko lääkäriin tai apteekkiin, en muista kumpaanneko. Jonkinlaista tarttuvaa silmäkatarria on ilmaantunut poikiin, se raivoo kuin tuli kuivassa kanervikossa ja on osannut tien Nyyrinkin silmiin. Niitä kirveltää huonelämpöisessä, ne juoksevat vettä, lukeminen ja kaikki koulutyö on tukalaa, mutta ulkona kylmässä ne eivät kirvele eivätkä juokse vettä, ne sietävät kylmää, mutta ei lämmintä.
Me astelemme ja puhelemme. Nyyrin silmäkivusta huolimatta on meidän mielialamme hauska, sen vaikuttaa ehkä raikas talvipäivä ja tunne lähenevästä joululomasta. Astellessa nousee mieleeni kysymys Nyyrin entisyydestä, nousee houkuttelevampana kuin
milloinkaan ennen, ja kun kysymys on hetkisen pyörinyt mielessäni, lausun minä äkkiä:
— Miksi sinä käyttäydyit Helsingissä niin mokomasti? Hän punehtuu, nauru katoaa hänen huuliltaan.
— Siihen oli kai erityisemmät syyt.
— Oli.
— Kerrohan ne minulle. Kenen tähden sinä tekeydyit pahantapaiseksi?
— Isän ja äidin vuoksi, etupäässä äidin. Minulla oli uusi äiti.
— Ovatko asiat niin? kysyin minä, joka olin lukenut huolimattomasti pojan mainekirjan, tärkeimmän paperin, joka olisi opastanut minut arvaamaan kaikki, mutta huolellisesti sen sijaan virheluettelot ja muut mitättömät paperit.
— Vai niin, vai sait sinä uuden äidin.
— Isä rupesi pitämään äidin puolta…
Minä vaikenin ja koko puhelu olisi sammunut tähän, sillä Nyyri ei ollut ensimmäinen poika, jonka elämän äitipuoli oli piloille manannut, mutta hän tokasi odottamattani:
— Kaikki lähti alkuun kymmenpennin tähden.
— Mitä? Kymmenpennin tähden, kiirehdin minä lausumaan. Kerrohan miten.
Hän kertoi jutun kymmenestä pennistä, josta jutusta kaikki lähti alkuun. Silloin kun se tapahtui, ei heillä, äidillä ja hänellä, ollut enää hyvät välit. Äiti sitte muutamana iltana lähetti hänet ruokapuotiin ostamaan ryyniä, perunajauhoja, silliä ja sokuria. Rahoja sai hän käteensä noin kaksi markkaa, sekaisin vaskilantteja ja viisikolmattapennisiä. Maksaessa puuttuikin kymmenen penniä, ja siitä sukeusivat riidat. Äiti väitti hänen kavaltaneen puuttuvan kymmenpennisen, hän kinasi ja kannusti rohkeasti vastaan. Ja sitte hän sai isältä selkäänsä sekä kavaltamisesta että kinaamisesta ja kannustamisesta. Selkäsaunan jälestä makasi hän yön rapun alla, sai siitä toisen selkäsaunan, sitte hän karkasi päiväksi kotoaan — ja sai selkäänsä kerran kolmannen. Näiden kolmen saunan jälestä seurasi lyhyt saunaton aika, mutta sitte hän vahingossa särki jonkun vanhan porsliinimaljan, jonka arvo ei ollut suuren suuri ja joka harvoin enää oli käytännössä. Kun isä illalla saapui työstä kotiin, hiipi hän varpaisillaan jälessä, asetti korvansa oveen ja kuunteli miten äiti tuiskahutteli, että poika ilkeyksissään oli särkenyt maljan.
— Se tarvitsee enemmän selkäänsä, lausui äiti lopuksi.
Silloin hän vietti toisen yön rapun alla, vaikka oli kylmä ja sateinen aika, mutta selkäänsä hän lopulta kuitenkin sai maljan särkemisestä ja piileksimisestä, ja uhkauksia lausuttiin vastaisien saunojenkin varalle, joten tulevaisuus oli yhtä synkkä kuin nykyisyyskin.
Pikku veikosta koitui hänelle uusi kiusa, sitä piti vaalia ja varoa kuin tulikipinätä, ja jos se parahti tai loukkasi itsensä tai kaatoi kumoon kukkaruukkuja ja muita helposti kaatuvia esineitä, aina tuli vaalijan selkänahka kysymykseen. Kanteet olivat aina käynnissä, mutta kerran hän sitte puolustautuessaan paiskasi kuuman kahvipannun sisältöineen isää kohti ja syöksyi kadulle. Teon jälestä
oli hän useita vuorokausia kotoa poissa, laimiinlyömättä silti koulunkäyntiään, sillä täti antoi hänelle syödä. Ja täti yritti särkynyttä sovintoakin paikata ehjäksi, mutta yritys raukeni tyhjiin, koti oli käynyt hänelle kolkoksi ja isä vieläkin kolkommaksi. Ensimmäinen syyttä saatu selkäsauna oli aina hänen mielessään, kun häntä lyötiin kovalla aseella, vaikka hän miten rukoili ja vakuutti syyttömyyttään.
Kotona ei hän enää viihtynyt, isän silmissä ei hän enää lemmen kirkasta huomannut, kaikki oli muuttunut. Silloin hän heittäytyi pahantapaiseksi. Jonnekin muuanne piti hänen päästä, pois kotoa isän kylmien katseiden edestä ja äidin kanteiden tieltä… vaikka vankilaan.
Melkein vuoden kesti hänen seikkailijaelämänsä, jolloin hän koki kaikkia, mitä katupoika voi kokea, ja teki kaikkia elkeitä, joita katupoika voi tehdä. Eikä ensimmäinen, syyttömästi saatu selkäsauna sittekään herennyt kirvelemästä, se oli yhä kuin takaisin maksamatta ja korvaamatta.
Kun ei hän kehdannut näyttäytyä tädin edessä, täytyi hänen joskus, kun muu keino ei auttanut, pistäytyä kotiin anastamaan ruokaa ja muutakin, jota voi ruuaksi vaihtaa. Nämä anastukset aina myötäsivät. Jota rohkeampi hän oli, sitä parempi onni seurasi häntä, ja kun hän äkkiä ilmaantui äidin eteen, jäykistyi tämä aina ja katseli ristissä käsin hänen menettelyään.
Koulunkäyntinsä oli hän heittänyt valtaan, hän oleskeli vain kaduilla, satamissa, tekipä hän joskus retkiä maaseutukaupunkeihinkin.
Vihdoin hänet saatiin kiinni omassa kodissaan, jonne hän kovan onnen pakottamana oli taasen lähtenyt anastuksille. Kun ei hän
luvannutkaan parantaa tapojaan, ja kun hän jo oli ennättänyt tehdä pitkän sarjan pikku rikoksia, ei hänen kanssaan enää kokeiltu, vaan lähetettiin hänet piammiten laitokseen — onnellisinta mitä hänen mielestään hänelle saattoi tapahtua. Lähtöpäivä oli rajapyykki hänen elämässään, sen pyykin ohi matkattuaan paiskasi hän luotaan pahantapaisuutensa, kuten leikkikalun, josta oli jo saanut kyllikseen.
— Mitäpä jos olisit osunut kovakyntisien hoitajien käsiin, olisitko karannut ja tekeytynyt uudestaan pahantapaiseksi?
— En, sitä en olisi tehnyt, minä olisin kärsinyt.
Hän katsoi minuun ja hänen silmissään iski rohkea kipinä, joka vaikutti minussa luottamusta hänen sanoihinsa.
Seuraavana keväänä me erosimme.
Yhden ainoan kerran olen häntä tavannut sittemmin, ja siitäkin tapaamisesta on monta vuotta. Pohjoisesplanaadilla oli joulunaikainen ihmistungos, tungoksessa tarttuu joku minun palttooni hihaan, ja korviini kuuluu:
— Opettaja, hyvää päivää.
Se oli Nyyri.
— Mitä kuuluu? Hyvinkö menee?
— Hyvin menee.
Hän oli suuren liikkeen juoksupoikana, ja huomasin että hänellä oli siisti puku, iloiset kasvot ja tietenkin hyvät tulevaisuuden toiveet.
Mutta lyhyt hän oli ja kumarainen, kuten ennenkin.
Me astelimme yhdessä jonkun minuutin, mutta sitte hän sanoi hyvästit ja pyörtihe omille hommilleen. Hän pani melkein juoksuksi, ja hänen lyhyt vartalonsa hukkui pian ihmisvilinään.
JUSSI PEKKA
En ikinä unhota ensimmäistä tapaamistamme, se oli niin hullunkurinen että se panee minut vielä nytkin naurutuulelle. Kysyin tulokkaalta mitä tahansa, aina hän venytti omituisesti kaulaansa ja nielaisi vastineen alas, ja sitte hän hymyilevänä ja pehmeän näköisenä tuijotti lattian erääseen kohtaan, jossa kolme oksaa muodosti säteikön.
Minua harmitti ja nauratti. Näin että hän oli omaa lajiaan, semmoinen, joka antaa kyllä työtä, mutta ei katkeroita elämää. Kun en saanut häntä kunnon lailla vastaa maan, kysyin vihdoin harmistuneesti:
— Pidätkö sinä puurosta?
— Pidän, vastasi hän selvästi ja venytti vasta sitte kaulaansa ja nielasi tyhjää.
— Maidonko vai siirapin kanssa?
Tuo pani hänet ajattelemaan, hän ei muistanut venyttää kaulaansa, ei nielaista eikä tuijottaa säteikköön. Vihdoin hän vastasi:
— Maidon kanssa kai.
Mutta samassa hän katui ehkä tehneensä huonon valinnan, ja kun hän tahtoi kaikin mokomin korjata vahingon, kallistui hän suin päin siirapin puolelle.
— Luulen sentään että se on parempaa siirapin kanssa.
— Ehkä on, vastasin minä tyytyväisenä, kun olin saanut Jussi Pekan kunnolleen vastaamaan kysymyksiini.
Hänen erikoisnimensä oli Hokmanni, ja siihen nimeen liittyi pikku tarina niiltä ajoilta, jolloin hän vielä oli vanhempiensa hoidettavana.
Isä lähetti hänet eräänä semmoisena päivänä, jolloin väkijuomakaupat olivat suletut, ostamaan hokmannia rohdoskaupasta. Jussi Pekka viipyi matkalla koko päivän ja mikä vielä pahempi, kun hän vihdoin iltasella palasi, ei hänellä ollut hokmannia eikä lanttejakaan. Isä ryhtyi rakentamaan juttua menettämästään hokmannista, ja hän pääsi helposti päämäärän perille, sillä poika oli taipumaton kaikkeen lukemiseen ja oppimiseen, joten hän kolmeentoista kohotessaan tuskin kunnolla tunsi kirjaimet.
Isän ja äidin persoonat olivat myöskin painavia tekijöitä työntämään poikaa raittiimpaan kotiin, ja mitä viimemainittuun eli poikaan erittäin tulee, on minulla syy otaksua, ettei lähtöpäivä sumentanut Jussi Pekan silmää, siksi paljo oli tämä kokenut kurjuutta isän ja äidin hoidossa.
Hän oli omituinen poika, sangen omituinen, kokonaan vailla luonnetta, mutta kuitenkin ehjä kokonaisuus, jossa pieni täydensi suurta, vähäpätöinen tärkeätä, naurettava surullista. Hän oli aina kesätuulella, minä en nähnyt häntä kertaakaan suuttuneena, vaikka sanottiin että hän siihenkin kyllä pystyi. Enkä minä huomannut
hänessä mitään pyrkimyksiä tai pikku toiveita. Hän istui siihen mihin käskettiin, ja kun ei käsketty, seisoi hän ja venytteli kaulaansa ja nieleskeli tyhjää. Hän oli erinomaisen notkea, mutta hän näytti aina laiskalta, kankealta ja kömpelöltä. Hänen vartalonsa oli nuorukaisen, josta ei enää ollut pitkä askel miehen vartaloon, ja siinä oli notkeuden lisäksi voimaakin, mutta silti antoi hän pikku poikien muokata itseään melko lailla, jopa hän toisinaan puoli tosin, puoli leikin parkuikin niiden käsissä. Mutta joku raja sanottiin löytyneen, jonka yli meneminen saattoi käydä kalliiksi huviksi. Kerrottiin minulle että naapurikylän pojat kerran erhettyivät liian karkeaan leikintekoon, mutta silloin Jussi Pekka oli pöllytellyt heitä kuin heinäsäkkejä, vaikka oli yksin viittä vastaan. Sen näytöksen jälestä kohosi hänen arvonsa kolmessa kylässä.
Vuoden ponnistuksien palkkioksi oppi hän auttavasti lukemaan sisältä, mutta siihen pysähtyikin edistys, sillä kun oli ryhdyttävä eri aineisiin oikein toden takaa, venytteli Jussi Pekka kaulaansa ja nieleskeli tyhjää. Eivätkä siinä auttaneet jälki-istunnot eivätkä mielittelemisetkään, hän ei muistanut eikä voinut muistaa mitään, vakuutteli hän, mikä merkitsi oikeastaan sitä, ettei hän viitsinyt tarmolla yrittääkään. Houkutteluilla sain hänet jonkun aikaa lukemaan katekismustunneiksi ulkoa yhden raamatunlauseen. Kolme neljä viikkoa hän teki työnsä kunnolla, mutta siihen hyvä alku loppui. Eräänä semmoisena tuntina oli hänen määrä lukea joku valhetta koskeva raamatunlause. Hän nousi seisomaan ja katsoi tapansa mukaan lattiaan, venähytteli kaulaansa, nielaisi tyhjää, kaikki temppuja, jotka aina sähköttivät luokan nauruherkkään mielentilaan. Sitte hän luki karkealla, miesmäisellä äänellään: perkele on ollut muuraaja alusta asti, koska hän puhuu valhetta, puhuu hän omasta itsestään — — —
Luokka remahti raikuvaan nauruun, Jussi Pekka ei tajunnut mistä oli kysymys, vaan alotti uudestaan ja käytti taasen sanaa muuraaja. Käskin hänen avaamaan kirjan ja lukemaan läksyn sisältä. Hän luki kolmannen kerran muuraaja, ja vasta kun olin tavauttanut, pääsi hän erhetyksensä perille.
Mutta seuraavana katekismustuntina vaikeni hän kuin tikku.
Olin ymmällä mitä tehdä hänelle, miten menetellä. Ei auttanut kovuus eikä pehmeys eikä auttanut kovan ja pehmeän välissä luoviminenkaan. Ei auttanut kerrassaan mikään. Hän vain laiskistui päivien kera, hän torkahteli tunneilla ja antoi muokata itseään pikku poikien melkein arveluttavassa määrässä. Hänen kasvonsa olivat harvoin kokopuhtaat, joku osa oli aina jäänyt pesemättä ja pyyhkimättä. Jos tänään oli vasemman korvan tienot likaiset, oli huomenna oikean, ylihuomenna oli otsan vuoro j.n.e. Sitte kuului vielä kuin sääntöön, että hän kerran viikossa tuli kouluun kokomustana.
Nuhtelin häntä, kiusasin häntä jälki-istunnoilla, joskus kokeilin käteiselläkin herätellä häntä, kaikki turhaan, hän ei muistanut mitään eikä voinut muistaa mitään, vakuutti hän kaulaansa venytellen ja tyhjää nieleskellen.
Mutta kodissaan oli hän oikein kunnon pojan esikuva, hän teki mitä käskettiin, oli siten kuin oletettiin, ei koskenut luvatta mihinkään ja kärsi talon lasten puolelta mitä tahansa, ja muidenkin lasten puolelta, jos ne vain olivat häntä itseään vähäväkisemmät.
Kun ei mikään keino auttanut, löin minä viimeisen ja paraan valttini esiin, joka oli joskus ennenkin auttanut pälkähästä. Käskin hänet luokseni yksityiskeskusteluun. Piiskasin hänet sanoilla niin ankarasti
kuin suinkin taisin, paljastin hänen kunnottomuutensa ja laiskuutensa, solvasin häntä, häpäisin ja tein pilkkaa hänestä, ja sitte uhkasin:
— Se on sillä lailla, Jussi Pekka, että meistä kohdakkoin tulee ero, kaikki merkit viittaavat siihen, että sinä lasket asiat liian pitkälle.
Hän virkistyi huomattavasti.
— Meistä tulee ero, toistin minä, iskien nyrkkiä pöytään, sen saat uskoa.
— Minne minä sitte joudun? kysyi hän kaulaa venyttämättä ja tyhjää nieleskelemättä, kuten hänen tapansa muuten oli.
— Koivulaan, vastasin minä, kohottaen panosta kuin ainakin uhkapelissä.
Koivulaan sinut viedään, jollet sinä rupea kirjan ystäväksi.
Sanat sattuivat.
— Jollet paranna ahkeruuttasi, ei voi muu seurata.
Kyyneleet eivät olleet enää kaukana. Oli muuten omituista että Koivula kuului kaikkien poikien tietopiiriin, oli heidän kehityksensä sitte kohdallaan tai jälessä.
— Jos ei ensi viikon alussa tule tänne kouluun ahkera Jussi Pekka, ryhdyn minä kirjoittamaan semmoisen kirjeen, että laiskuri Jussi Pekka löytää itsensä piankin Koivulasta.
— Kyllä minä rupean ahkeraksi.
— Se on parasta se, muuten käy huonosti.
Hän itki.
— Tästä emme virka kenellekään, ei kukaan saa tietää mille kannalle sinun asiasi jo olivat kääntyä. Eiköhän se ole viisainta?
— Eiköhän se ole? toisti Jussi Pekka, kuivaen kyyneleensä ja tointuen entiselleen.
Hän rupesi ahkeraksi, raamatunhistoriaa ja katekismusta osasi hän kiitettävästi, muita aineita välttävästi. Luulin jo uhkapelilläni johtaneeni kaikki onnelliseen ratkaisuun, mutta jonakin kauniina aamuna tuli kouluun entinen laiskuri Jussi Pekka, semmoinen nahkapoika, joka ei tiennyt läksyistä aata eikä oota. Jätin hänet jälkiistuntoon, lisäksi toruin häntä vahvasti. Otaksuin sentään poikkeuksen satunnaiseksi, ja olin jo poistua luokkahuoneesta, kun hän äkkiä tokasi:
— Eihän sinne Koivulaan viedä lukemisen tähden.
— Mistä sinä sen tiedät?
— Kalle sanoi. Kun ei tee mitään pahaa, niin ei viedä.
Hän oli rikkonut vaitiololupauksensa ja kertonut lampuotin Kallelle, että hänen käy huonosti, jos ei hän rupea ahkeraksi. Ajattelematon poika särki pirstaleiksi minun kauniit piirustukseni, ilmoittamalla Jussi Pekalle totuuden, ettei häntä silti Koivulaan viedä, vaikk'ei osaakaan läksyjään.
— Eipä Kalle ymmärrä niitä asioita… kyllä sinne viedään.
Hän venytteli kaulaansa ja nieleskeli tyhjää.
— Ei sinne viedä muutoin, kuin että tuomari tuomitsee.
— Minä vien sinut tuomarin eteen.
— Mutta minäpä en ole tehnyt mitään pahaa.
— Eikö siinä ole kylliksi pahaa, kun laiskottelee koko vuoden.
— Ne pahat kuitataan arestilla.
— Niinpä istu sitte arestissa iltaan saakka.
Olin aivan voimaton ja aseeton häntä vastaan, ja siten kokonainen vuosi kului melkein hukkaan, tai ainakin siten ettei Jussi Pekka oppinut kymmenennestä kaikesta siitä, mitä hän olisi voinut oppia, jos olisi hiukan hikoillut ja ponnistellut.
Mutta syksyllä sattui elämän muutoksia, lampuoti muutti muille paikkakunnille, talon olot eivät ehtineet järjestyä niin pikaan, ettei olisi syntynyt järjestämätöntä lomaa, ja loma taasen koski kysymystä, minne joutuu Jussi Pekka?
Astuipa sitte eräänä iltana luokseni joku mökkiläisnaapurini, jolle jo ennenkin olin tarjonnut kaupungin poikaa.
— Minä otan mielisti sen Hokmannin, jos annetaan, virkkoi hän suoruudella, joka kaikille kunnon ihmisille on ominaista.
— Sitähän minä olen aina toivonut, että te otatte kaupungin pojan.
Seuraavana huomisena Jussi Pekka muutti uuteen kotiinsa, kului muutamia aikoja enkä minä huomannut mainittavampaa. Poika oli tapaisensa, luki väliin läksynsä, mutta oli enimmät päivät lukematta, torkkuen luokalla ja antaen mukiloida itseään, miten pikku pojat
lystäsivät. Mutta eräänä aamuna pisti silmääni jokin uutukaisempi ja virkeämpi ilme, joka kehysti hänen koko olentoaan ja painoi näkymättömiin entisen vetelehtijän ja hölmön. Hänen kasvonsa olivat pestyt puhtaiksi koko alaltaan, hän oli sukinut hiuksensa huolellisesti, ja kun hän seisoi pulpetissaan ja lauloi vakavan näköisenä aamuvirttä, en ollut tuntea entistä uneliasta Jussi Pekkaa, kaikkien poikien ilopuuta.
Alkoi katekismusläksyn kuulustelu, Jussi Pekka viittasi ensimmäiseen kysymykseen, viittasi toiseen ja kolmanteen, viittasi koko tunnin, mikäli kysymykset koskivat suoranaista läksyn taitamista ja muuten kuuluivat hänen kehityskantansa piiriin.
Kummastelin itsekseni mikä poikaan oli mennyt, ja tuumailin oliko kaikki satunnaista vaiko syvempää ja kypsempää. Päästiin siitä välitunnille, niin jopa kuului tanhualta möly ja ulina. Riensin näkemään mikä sen aiheutti; ja tapasinpa Jussi Pekan punakkana ja suuttuneena löylyyttämässä pikku poikia. Nämä olivat aina maanantaisin, oltuaan päivän erossa ilopuustaan, halukkaampia ja palavampia härnäilemään.
— Kun kerran kuulitte, etten minä kärsi, ärisi Jussi Pekka härnääjilleen, joista osa kelletti tantereella, toisien suiden ollessa vinossa poruun päin.
— Kun sen kuulitte, toisti hän… ja nyt pysykää erossa, muuten…
Tehtiin sovinto, pikku pojat pitivät saadut hyvinään, Jussi Pekka oli vakava. Ja vakavuus jatkui huomissa, ylihuomissa, se jatkui jatkumataan, kun oli kerran joutunut alkuun lähtemään.
Mutta minä en päässyt tolkulle, mikä sen oli vaikuttanut. Otin hänet vihdoin kaksinpuheluun ja virkoin:
— Sepä hauskaa että kerrankin nakkasit laiskan takin yltäsi. Eikö tunnu nyt paljo lystimmältä?
— Tuntuu, vastasi hän vakavasti, nieleskelemättä ja kaulaansa venyttelemättä.
— Sinä kai jatkat tähän tapaan.
— Aikomus on jatkaa, kuului vakavasti.
— Olet ruvennut ehkä jostakin syystä tuumimaan.
— Olen, kuului taasen vakuuttavasti.
Lyhyet, myöntävät ja täydentävät vastineet eivät minua auttaneet parempaan tolkkuun, kaikki pysyi arvoituksena, kunnes satuin käymään hänen kodissaan. Oli sunnuntaipäivä, mökin isäntä ja Jussi Pekka olivat menneet kirkkoon, minulla oli hyvä tilaisuus onkia vaimolta kaikki syyt ja synnyt.
— Poika on muuttunut kummasti teidän hoidossanne, virkoin minä, kun olimme hetkisen puhelleet talven tulosta ja muista yleisistä asioista.
Vaimo rupesi makeasti nauramaan.
— Mikä sen muutoksen pohjana oikein on? Olen kovin utelias kuulemaan.
Vaimo nauroi yhä makeammin.
— Tuo se pojan muutti, virkkoi hän sitte, osoittaen kehtoa, jossa makasi muutaman viikon vanha tyttölapsi.
Jouduin yhä tolkuttomammaksi.
— Miten ihmeissä? Kertokaa.
— Taimin ansio se on.
Vaimo kertoi, miten kaikki oli käynyt. Jonakin lauantaipäivänä tulee Jussi Pekka koulusta kotiin, Tuomas, mökin isäntä, sanoo:
— Tulehan katsomaan, mitä tänne on ilmaantunut, sill'aikaa kun sinä koulussa istuit.
Näytetään pikku lapsi.
— Oi, miten pieni nenä, miten pieni suu ja… huudahtaa Jussi Pekka.
Ja hän ihastuu ja ilostuu, hän koskettaa etusormellaan lapsen huulia, nenää, poskia, koskettelee ja huudahtelee ihastussanoja. Ja sitte pyörähtää hän ympäri ja tokaisee Tuomaalle:
— Minä menen naimisiin heti kun pääsen koulusta eroon.
Tuomas sylkäisee halveksivasti.
— Sinäkö naimisiin? Kissako sinusta huoli?
— Miksi ei minusta huolita?
— Kun et osaa lukea, siitä syystä ei huolita. Et pääse ripille, et pääse miehen kirjoihin. Jäät nahkaksi, ruunun raakiksi. Et kelpaa
muuksi kuin karjanpaimeneksi ja kilometripylvääksi.
Jussi Pekan naama venyy pitkäksi, ensin hän painuu syviin mietteisiin, sitte hän laskee ikävuotensa ja taitonsa. Kohtamaihin täyttää hän viisitoista, ja se on hyvä juttu se, sillä kahdeksantoista vanhana pääsee jo naimisiin. Taitoja on hänellä vähän, ja se on paljo ikävämpi juttu se. Käskyt hän osaa ulkoa, muutamia kohtia raamatunhistoriasta myöskin osaa hän, mutta rippikouluun ne tiedot eivät riitä. Lisäksi osaa hän hieman kertotaulua, hieman yhteenlaskua, laulua, kirjoitusta… ja muutamia klovnitemppuja hän osaa…
Jussi Pekan naama venyy yhä pitemmäksi, mutta äkkiä se sitte pyöristyy entisen näköisekseen ja hän tokaisee:
— Mutta minäpä rupeankin lukemaan.
— Se muuttaa asian, arvelee Tuomas.
Jussi Pekka ei enää horjahtele laiskuuteen, hän on ahkera, hän edistyy ilahuttavasti, hän kasvaa pitkäksi pojaksi ja hänessä alkaa jo siintää miehen piirteitä.
Kun hän käy viimeistä vuottaan koulussa, keksin minä usein hänet lukemassa virsikirjaa, minun uteliaisuuteni herää ja minä rupean vakoilemaan. Ja erään kerran, kun luokka on vallan tyhjä ja kun pojat lyövät pallia ja kalliot kaikuvat heidän huudoistaan, kuulen minä hänen lukevan itsekseen: minä Johan Petter otan sinut, Tyyni Maria, aviovaimokseni, rakastaakseni sinua — —
En jaksa kuulla loppuun…
Viikon, kahden kolmenkin viikon ilot valuvat minulle tuosta. Minun on usein vaikea näyttää tunnilla vakavalta, sillä minä näen yhäti Jussi Pekan makeailmeisen sävyn, minä kuulen hänen lempeän hörähtelevän äänensä, kun hän mutisee: minä Johan Petter otan sinut, Tyyni Maria — —
Oliko Tyyni Maria olemassa? Oli maarkin. Voudin tytär, jonkun kuukauden vanhempi Jussi Pekkaa, kykenevä kynsistään ja jaloistaan, sanottiin.
Koulusta päästyään meni Jussi Pekka rengiksi samaan taloon, jossa Tyyni Mariakin palveli.
Ja parin vuoden kuluttua viettivät he häitään.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK POIKIA
***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
