Recidivism: A Destructive Cycle for Offenders Caught in a Spiral

Recidivism is a destructive cycle often observed among many offenders. Why does an individual who has already been convicted reoffend? How can we address this issue? Where are the gaps, and what solutions can be considered? To shed light on these questions, we spoke with lawyer Miguel Ramano.

What does the term recidivism mean, and who is considered a recidivist?
Recidivism is one of the fundamental principles of criminal justice, referring to a person's tendency to repeat criminal behaviors, usually after being sanctioned for a previous crime. However, it is essential to nuance the definition of a recidivist. Simply put, a recidivist is someone we define as a habitual criminal, a person whose history is marked by multiple convictions for various crimes. In legal terms, precision in defining a recidivist is crucial, especially when determining sentencing.

What are the reasons a person might reoffend, particularly for the same types of offenses?
Determining the exact reasons behind an individual’s recidivism is indeed complex. However, limiting ourselves to purely legal arguments would be a mistake. While the deterrent effect of the law can sometimes be questioned, attributing recidivism solely to a lack of strict laws is overly simplistic. In reality, the origins of criminal behavior are multifaceted, and socio-economic factors undeniably explain why some individuals are more prone to delinquency than others.

Do we have legal tools to combat this phenomenon?
This varies depending on the type of offense in question and the applicable legal provisions. A common example many can identify with involves offenses related to driving under the influence. First-time offenders may face simple fines, probation, or license revocation. In contrast, repeat offenders face mandatory prison sentences, heavier fines, and prolonged or even permanent license suspension.

The court's discretion in these cases is limited. It is important to remember that one cannot simply be punished more severely for being a recidivist. This is why the distinction I made earlier is vital. A person convicted of theft does not receive a harsher sentence simply because it is their first offense for driving under the influence. However, focusing solely on the legal aspect would overlook the essence of the issue. The imposition of harsher penalties for recidivists does not necessarily prevent recidivism.

How can we prevent a person from reoffending?
This is a complex question with no definitive answer. However, several factors and reasons can lead a person to reoffend. Preventing recidivism requires effective interventions based on an understanding of the factors that place offenders at risk and make their social reintegration difficult.

What is the purpose of a conviction?
The primary goal is to ensure individuals are held accountable for their actions and to deter others. It would be absurd for offenders to escape punishment. However, alongside its deterrent effect and guarantee of accountability, it is also essential that our criminal justice system ensures adequate rehabilitation for convicted individuals. Thus, it would be futile if people were convicted merely out of necessity.

What are the consequences of recidivism, and what do our laws say?
The consequences will depend on the offense in question. There is no universal answer to this. However, it is essential to understand the philosophy behind it. Each case should be based on its merits, and each conviction should consider relevant factors, including previous convictions related to the offense being addressed by the court. It would be incredibly absurd for someone to receive a harsher penalty solely for prior convictions unrelated to the offense for which they are found guilty.

The law must be applied fairly, even if crimes should not be tolerated. The principle of proportionality cannot be ignored.

Do you think the current penalties are not sufficiently deterrent, especially for serious offenses such as rape, theft, or murder?
Even though this argument holds weight, I believe it would be overly simplistic to claim a direct correlation between stricter laws and crime rates. Stricter laws are not a solution in themselves. If that were the case, there would simply be no crime. It would be absurd to think this.

This kind of flawed reasoning often brings the death penalty back into public discourse whenever we hear about a heinous crime committed. It is the kind of reactionary and simplistic thinking that some politicians adopt to stir up people's base instincts or desire for vengeance. However, this type of flawed logic is frequently employed by our decision-makers. Perhaps this shows that they lack the political will to genuinely address the social and economic issues that often create the conditions for crime.

Moreover, do those in power genuinely care about the root causes of crime? These issues are multiple: they range from lack of education, unemployment, poverty, breakdown of family structures, financial debt, among others. It is clear that the ostrich policy is not yielding results.

Returning to your question, one might argue that penalties are not severe enough for certain crimes. However, there exists a somewhat simplistic hypothesis, in my humble opinion, that harsher penalties deter crime. This is a reactive solution.

Where are our gaps?
It would be a mistake to focus solely on the legal gaps in crime prevention and recidivism. If we sincerely address the issues of recidivism, we might begin to ask whether appropriate rehabilitation programs exist that genuinely facilitate the reintegration of former offenders into society, even if we have implemented a proper structure.
Should we simply accept that someone who has committed an offense in the past is returned to the same socio-economic conditions that may have led them to become delinquent in the first place? Should we view crime and the risk of recidivism as isolated problems? These two questions must be addressed comprehensively. Authorities must accept that this is a societal issue rather than a lenient judicial system or a lack of strict laws.

The social and economic costs of failing to reintegrate offenders are a significant concern for policymakers worldwide. Every crime has social costs. Additionally, there are expenses related to investigations, prosecution, judicial procedures, and imprisonment. Therefore, it is essential to keep in mind other "social costs" for victims and the community. To achieve this, we need an appropriate political and economic vision. Unfortunately, the recycled rhetoric about "economic development" or the "economic miracle" does little to resolve the issues of wealth inequality, poverty, homelessness, mental health, and family breakdown, among others.

What solutions do you see?
The rehabilitation of offenders and their social reintegration into society should therefore rank among the fundamental objectives of any criminal justice system.

Most offenders face significant challenges. There is social adaptation, ostracism from family and community. Furthermore, there are negative repercussions affecting their ability to find employment or housing and to build their individual and social capital. Without support to overcome these difficulties, they are at risk of falling into a destructive cycle of failed social integration, leading to reoffending, subsequent convictions, and social rejection. Consider drug addicts convicted of drug-related offenses or frequently involved in theft. It is evident that without justifying their crimes, one of the main causes of their behavior is driven by their addiction.

Now, anyone seriously wishing to resolve the issue of crime and recidivism would also attempt to examine the question of drug use and dependency. The stigma surrounding drug addiction is treated as a crime rather than a disease. The fact is, we cannot even pretend to take crime seriously if we do not first address the root causes. Simply considering harsher penalties is not necessarily the solution to combat recidivism.