Recidivism

Recidivism means the tendency of a person who has been convicted of a crime to reoffend after being punished or released. It’s often used as a measure of how effective the criminal justice system is at rehabilitating people and preventing future crime. High recidivism rates suggest that underlying issues – like addiction, poverty, or lack of support – aren’t being fully addressed.

Definition and Meaning

Recidivism is a formal, statistical term used by governments and criminologists to track how many people return to prison or commit another offence after punishment.

When someone who has already been convicted of a crime commits another offence or returns to prison, they are said to have recidivated.

Because it reflects whether the system truly helps people change, recidivism is often used as a key measure of how effective rehabilitation and reintegration programs are.

Recidivism can be understood on three levels:

1. How it’s conceptually defined (what it means in theory)

2. How it’s measured in practice (how researchers count it)

3. How it’s explained sociologically (why it happens)

---

1. Conceptual Definition

At its core, recidivism refers to a person’s tendency to reoffend — to commit a new crime after they’ve already faced legal consequences for a previous one.

This concept is closely tied to the idea of rehabilitation, the belief that prisons can reform people through education, therapy, or training.

However, high recidivism rates — meaning a large number of former prisoners end up back behind bars — make many sociologists question whether prisons actually achieve this goal.

In that sense, recidivism is often seen as a failure of rehabilitation: a sign that prisons may not be helping people reintegrate successfully into society.

---

2. Measuring Recidivism

Because governments and researchers need to track reoffending rates, they use several different methods to measure recidivism.

These measurements vary by country and study, depending on what counts as “reoffending.”

Here are the most common ways it’s measured:

• Re-arrest Rates: The simplest and most common measure. Researchers look at whether someone has been arrested again within a certain period (for example, within three years after release).

• Reconviction Rates: This measure counts only people who are found guilty of a new crime. It’s more precise but can underestimate true reoffending, since not every crime leads to conviction.
  In Scotland, for example, reconviction rates are often measured over a one-year follow-up period.

• Re-imprisonment Rates: This approach counts how many people return to prison after being released. It gives detailed information about sentencing and previous convictions but can miss those who commit crimes that don’t lead to incarceration.

• Proven Reoffending (England and Wales): The Ministry of Justice defines “proven reoffending” as any new offence within a year that results in a conviction, caution, or warning, with an additional six months allowed for court processing.
  
  This method gives a more complete picture, including how many people reoffend, how often they do it, and how serious the offences are.

---

3. Sociological and Theoretical Explanations

From a sociological point of view, recidivism is often seen as part of a broader process called secondary deviance — when someone continues to break rules after being publicly labelled as a criminal or deviant.

Key ideas:

• Labeling Theory: When society labels someone as a “criminal,” that label can become part of their identity. This “master status” (e.g., ex-convict, addict) can make it difficult to find work, rebuild relationships, or reintegrate — which can, in turn, push the person back toward crime.

• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Once labelled, a person might internalize the label and behave in ways that fit it — confirming society’s expectations. In this way, the reaction to crime can unintentionally increase the chances of recidivism.

In short, sociological theories suggest that recidivism isn’t just about personal failure, but also about social reactions, stigma, and structural barriers that make it hard to start fresh.

Recidivism can be understood through a mix of individual traits, learned behaviors, and social conditions. These are often grouped into three main categories:

1. Static risk factors (personal characteristics that don’t change),

2. Dynamic criminogenic needs (changeable behaviors or circumstances), and

3. Structural risk factors (social and systemic barriers).

Criminologists emphasize that crime is rarely caused by one single thing.

Instead, it reflects multiple causation—a combination of factors that interact to influence behavior.

Research on deviance often focuses on identifying the etiology, or causes, of unwanted behavior.

---

1. Individual and Psychological Risk Factors

These involve the offender’s personal characteristics and long-term tendencies that increase the likelihood of reoffending.

Static Predictors (Unchangeable Factors)

These are enduring traits or life circumstances that can’t easily be altered but strongly predict reoffending.

• Criminal History: Past behavior is one of the best predictors of future crime. The more prior arrests or convictions someone has, the higher their chance of reoffending. Over time, criminal behavior can become a habitual or automatic response to stress or conflict.

• Age and Gender: Offending usually peaks in late adolescence or early adulthood and declines with age as people mature. Men are more likely to reoffend than women, and those who start offending at a younger age often continue longer.

• Personality and Temperament: Some offenders show traits like impulsivity, aggression, competitiveness, or low empathy, which make it harder to conform to social norms.

• Low Self-Control: People with low self-control or high impulsivity may act on emotion rather than reason, committing crimes for immediate rewards without considering long-term consequences.

Mental and Neurological Factors

While mental illness doesn’t cause crime by itself, it can increase vulnerability to reoffending, especially when untreated.

• Mental Health Problems: Conditions like emotional instability or egocentrism can make rehabilitation difficult.

• Psychiatric Disorders: Disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety can increase the risk of violent or impulsive reoffending.

• Trauma and Brain Injury: Many prisoners have a history of childhood trauma or traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can impair decision-making and emotional control.

---

2. Dynamic Criminogenic Needs (Changeable Factors)

These are modifiable areas of life linked to criminal behavior. Addressing them through intervention can reduce the risk of reoffending.

• Antisocial Attitudes: People who justify or rationalize crime are more likely to reoffend. Successful programs work to challenge and change these thought patterns.

• Criminal Peers: Mixing with deviant peers or being exposed to peer pressure encourages continued offending. Positive peer and community ties are protective.

• Substance Use: Drug and alcohol dependence often drives reoffending, particularly when treatment ends after release.

• Relationships and Belonging: Weak family bonds, lack of attachment, and social isolation increase risk, while stable relationships or family responsibilities support desistance.

• Education and Employment: Limited education, poor job skills, and unemployment reduce opportunities for legal income, making reoffending more likely.

---

3. Structural and Systemic Causes

These highlight how social structures and the justice system itself can make reintegration harder and increase the risk of relapse into crime.

Reintegration Challenges

Life after prison often involves major social and economic obstacles.

• Lack of Support: Many people leave prison without housing, income, or family support, which makes survival difficult and reoffending more likely.

• Poverty: Economic hardship and inequality create a cycle of disadvantage, pushing some individuals back into illegal means of survival.

• Housing Instability: Without safe, stable housing, maintaining employment or parole conditions becomes much harder.

• Social Isolation: Returning to marginalized or high-crime communities can reinforce old habits and limit access to positive social networks.

The Justice System’s Role

Ironically, correctional systems can sometimes worsen the problem rather than solve it.

• Stigma and Labeling: Being labeled as a “criminal” can damage self-identity and block opportunities, reinforcing the same behaviors society wants to prevent.

• Negative Prison Culture: Inmates often adopt the “inmate code,” which values toughness and resistance to authority, making reintegration harder.

• Disruption of Positive Ties: Incarceration can sever connections with family, work, or education—protective factors that reduce reoffending.

• Ineffective Rehabilitation: Many programs fail due to poor quality, low funding, or lack of follow-up support after release.

• Limited Deterrent Effect: Harsh sentences rarely prevent crime; in fact, research shows prison itself can have criminogenic effects, increasing the chance of reoffending.

---

Prevention

Recidivism is one of the biggest challenges in criminal justice.

Preventing it requires more than punishment; it calls for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach that focuses on rehabilitation, social reintegration, and reducing opportunities for crime.

High recidivism rates show that relying on incarceration alone doesn’t work and can even make problems worse.

Instead, effective strategies target changeable (dynamic) factors – like attitudes, peers, or employment -through programs proven to reduce reoffending.

---

1. Core Principles of Effective Intervention

Research known as the “what works” literature has identified four key principles that guide successful rehabilitation programs. Together, they form the foundation for reducing reoffending in the long term.

Risk Principle

Programs should match the level of intervention to the level of risk.

• Focusing on high-risk offenders: Those most likely to reoffend need more intensive supervision and treatment. Studies show that when high-risk offenders receive targeted support, reoffending can drop by up to 30%.

• Protecting low-risk offenders: Over-treating low-risk individuals can actually make things worse, disrupting their family, education, or work ties. For them, simple accountability and mild consequences are often enough.

Need Principle

Interventions must address criminogenic needs—the specific, changeable factors that lead to offending.

• Targeting key needs: Programs are most effective when they focus on issues like antisocial thinking, criminal peers, substance misuse, unemployment, and poor family relationships.

• Comprehensive programs: The more needs a program successfully targets, the greater the reduction in reoffending.

Responsivity Principle

Programs work best when they are tailored to the individual—their motivation, learning style, and abilities.

• Effective approaches: Cognitive-behavioral and social learning methods are the most successful. These focus on teaching practical skills like emotional regulation, problem-solving, and moral reasoning.

• Less effective methods: Purely educational or deterrence-based interventions (like lectures or fear tactics) rarely change long-term behavior.

• Building motivation: True change happens when people want to change, not when they are simply pressured to.

Fidelity Principle

Even the best-designed program fails without quality delivery.

• Programs need trained, empathetic staff and must be implemented exactly as designed.

• High “program integrity” is linked to lower recidivism; poor implementation can make outcomes worse.

---

2. Effective Programs and Interventions

Evidence consistently shows that the following approaches make a real difference in reducing reoffending.

Skills and Cognitive Programs

• Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Teaches offenders to recognize and replace harmful thoughts and behaviors. Meta-analyses show it can lower reoffending from around 40% to 30%.

• Relapse Prevention: Helps people identify triggers and risky situations that could lead to reoffending, especially useful for addiction-related crimes.

• Staff Training: Officers trained in Core Correctional Practices (CCPs)—like positive reinforcement, empathy, and cognitive restructuring—achieve significantly lower reoffending rates among those they supervise.

Education and Employment

• Prison Education: Offenders who take part in education programs are 32% less likely to reoffend. Higher education levels bring the biggest benefits.

• Vocational Training and Jobs: Job training and employment support reduce reoffending by around 9%. Work provides income, structure, purpose, and social belonging.

Substance Use and Mental Health Support

• Drug Treatment: Prison-based drug programs reduce reoffending by up to 37%, especially when treatment continues after release.

• Mental Health Care: Stable mental health improves self-control, functioning, and engagement with rehabilitation. Coordination between health and justice systems is essential.

---

3. Structural and Systemic Strategies

Long-term prevention also requires changing the system itself – making it more rehabilitative, less stigmatizing, and better connected to community supports.

Social Reintegration and “Throughcare”

Reintegration should begin before release and continue afterward.

• Start early: Programs should help offenders maintain contact with family, prepare for housing, manage debt, and plan for work.

• Ongoing support: Aftercare services—covering jobs, housing, finances, and counseling—are crucial for stability.

• Norway’s Model: Norway’s “reintegration guarantee” ensures every prisoner leaves with a place to live and a job plan. This approach is linked to some of the world’s lowest recidivism rates.

Alternatives to Prison

Community-based sanctions can be just as effective as prison, with fewer negative side effects.

• Avoid short sentences: Short jail terms (under 12 months) are linked to higher reoffending and often damage employment and family ties.

• Community corrections: Probation, service work, and treatment-based programs keep people connected to work and family while holding them accountable.

• Diversion: Directing offenders into treatment rather than prison helps them avoid stigma and supports long-term recovery.

Reducing Criminal Opportunities

Based on Routine Activity Theory, this approach focuses on reducing access to situations that trigger crime.

• Environmental corrections: Probation officers help reshape daily routines to minimize risky situations and increase pro-social activities.

• Informal support (“handlers”): Family members, friends, or mentors can act as informal monitors—often more effective than formal surveillance.

Community Engagement and Restorative Justice

Rehabilitation is most successful when communities are part of the process.

• Social Networks: Supportive relationships reduce violence and promote belonging.

• Restorative Justice: Restorative meetings between offenders and victims help offenders understand the impact of their actions and take responsibility, reducing reoffending.

• Aftercare Systems: Ongoing community programs that provide housing, job search help, and emotional support prevent isolation and relapse.

---

Measurement & Statistics

• No single definition: Recidivism can mean re-arrest, reconviction, or re-imprisonment, and each tells a slightly different story.

• Rates vary widely: Most countries report rates between 20% and 70%, depending on how reoffending is measured.

• Short sentences don’t help: People serving under a year are the most likely to reoffend.

• System design matters: Rehabilitation-based systems like Norway’s consistently achieve the lowest reoffending rates.

• Comparisons are tricky: Different definitions, data sources, and follow-up times mean international recidivism figures should be interpreted carefully.

---

How Recidivism Is Measured

Tracking recidivism is complicated.

Criminologists don’t all agree on the best way to measure reoffending.

There is no single international standard, so countries use different definitions and follow-up periods (ranging anywhere from 6 months to 5 years).

The three most common ways to track recidivism are:

1. Re-arrest

This method counts people who are arrested again after release.

• Strengths: Re-arrest data is easy to access because it comes from police or FBI records, which often include full criminal histories.

• Weaknesses: Being arrested doesn’t always mean someone is guilty. This can overestimate reoffending rates since not all arrests lead to conviction.

2. Reconviction

This measure focuses on people who are found guilty of a new offence in court.

• Strengths: It offers a clear, legally verified indicator of reoffending.

• Weaknesses: Because convictions require evidence that meets legal standards, they may underestimate the true level of criminal activity. Some crimes go undetected or unprosecuted.

3. Re-imprisonment

This method counts people who return to prison after release.

• Strengths: Prison data is usually very detailed and reliable, covering arrests, convictions, and sentences.

• Weaknesses: It captures only the most serious cases that lead to custody, so it often misses less severe reoffending.

---

Challenges in Measuring Recidivism

Several issues make it hard to get an accurate or comparable measure of recidivism:

• Different Definitions: Some systems measure re-arrest, others reconviction, and others re-imprisonment.
  
  For example, someone who has been convicted and imprisoned for a sexual offence could have their recidivism rate measured in two very different way:
  
  Either by whether they were later convicted of another sexual assault or by whether they were convicted of any new crime, even something unrelated like tax evasion.

• Inconsistent Inclusions: Countries vary in whether they include minor offences, fines, or traffic violations.

• Different Populations: Studies might track all offenders, only prisoners, or just those on probation.

• Uneven Follow-up Periods: Some studies follow people for one year, others for five, which affects the overall rate.

• Social Construction of Statistics: Interpretivist sociologists argue that official statistics reflect how societies choose to record and define crime, not necessarily its true level.

• Not Everyone Who Offends Is Counted: The people labeled as “criminals” are not a uniform group. Many individuals who break the law are never caught (“secret deviants”), while others are falsely accused or wrongly convicted.

In England and Wales, for example, the Ministry of Justice uses the one-year proven reoffending rate – the percentage of offenders who commit another offence within a year that leads to a conviction, caution, or warning (plus six months for processing).

Because of all these variations, international comparisons should be treated with caution—the numbers may not be measuring the same thing.

Lack of Nuance:

Recidivism data is usually treated as “yes or no” (reoffended or not). It doesn’t show whether someone’s crimes became less serious or less frequent, which could still represent progress.

For example, a person who was once convicted of a sexual offence could have their recidivism measured in two very different ways:

Either by whether they were later convicted of another sexual assault, or by whether they were convicted of any new crime, even something unrelated like tax evasion.

The choice of definition dramatically changes the reported rate.

---

Current Recidivism Rates

Despite these differences, research shows that reoffending is common across the world, especially among people released from prison.

United States

Recidivism rates in the U.S. are among the highest reported globally:

• Between 40% and 80% of former offenders reoffend, depending on the study.

• Around two-thirds of released prisoners are re-arrested within three years.

• Between 30% and 60% are sent back to prison within two to five years.

• In 2005, about one-third (34%) of new prison admissions were people returning for parole violations.

• A landmark 1994 study found that 67% of state prisoners committed another serious crime within three years.

• In an Ohio study, recidivism varied sharply by risk group—18% for low-risk offenders and nearly 60% for high-risk offenders.

England and Wales

The UK’s Ministry of Justice reports the proven one-year reoffending rate (October–December 2022 data):

• The overall adult reoffending rate was 26%.

• Among adults released from custody, the rate was 38%.

• For those serving less than 12 months, the rate rose to 57%—showing that short sentences are linked to higher reoffending.

International Comparisons

Across the world, recidivism rates vary dramatically:

• Many countries report rates of around 50%, and in some places they exceed 70%.

• In Europe, two-year reconviction rates range from 59% in England and Wales (including fines) to 43% in Sweden.

• The Nordic countries, known for rehabilitation-focused systems, report much lower rates:

  • Norway: 20%

  • Iceland: 27%

  • Denmark: 29%

  • Finland: 36%

  • Sweden: 43%

• Australia reports about 39% reimprisonment within two years, while Chile reports around 50% over three years.

The Norwegian Example

Norway’s prisons are often cited as a model of rehabilitation.

A recent study found that although raw statistics made it look like imprisonment increased reoffending by 11 percentage points, more careful causal analysis showed the opposite: incarceration in Norway actually lowered reoffending by 29 percentage points over five years.

This finding highlights the importance of context and system design – Norway’s focus on education, skill-building, and humane treatment helps people rebuild their lives rather than return to crime.

---

Policy & Ethical Debates

The question of how to balance punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety sits at the center of modern debates about criminal justice.

It’s not only a legal issue but also a moral and social one—about what kind of society we want to be.

Finding the right balance means weighing competing goals: reducing crime, protecting communities, helping people change, and using public resources fairly.

These debates draw on classic sociological ideas about deviance, social control, inequality, and power.

---

1. The Competing Aims of Sentencing

Modern criminal justice systems aim to achieve several goals at once—but these aims often conflict, forcing courts and policymakers to choose what to prioritize.

The main purposes of sentencing are usually defined as:

1. Punishment (Retribution) – giving offenders a penalty that fits the crime.

2. Crime Reduction – preventing future crimes through deterrence.

3. Rehabilitation – helping offenders change and reintegrate.

4. Public Protection – keeping communities safe by incapacitating dangerous people.

5. Reparation – encouraging offenders to repair harm to victims or society.

The challenge is that pursuing one goal often comes at the expense of another.

For example, imprisonment might satisfy retributive goals but can make rehabilitation harder.

Effective sentencing therefore requires balancing justice, safety, and reform rather than focusing on one alone.

---

2. The “Get Tough” Approach and Its Limits

In many countries – particularly the United States – a “tough on crime” approach has shaped criminal justice policy for decades.

This model emphasizes retribution and incapacitation as the main ways to protect society.

Retribution and Incapacitation

• Retribution means punishing offenders because they “deserve it.” It’s backward-looking, focusing on the harm done rather than future outcomes.

• Incapacitation aims to physically prevent offenders from committing more crimes by locking them up. This led to mandatory sentencing and “three strikes” laws, which caused prison populations to soar.

While these policies can make the public feel safer in the short term, research shows they don’t necessarily reduce long-term reoffending and can have major social and economic costs.

Deterrence and Its Weaknesses

Deterrence theory assumes that people avoid crime if they know punishment is certain and severe.

However, research suggests that certainty and speed of punishment are more effective than severity.

Many crimes happen impulsively or under emotional stress, so harsh penalties often fail to deter, especially among people with low self-control, trauma, or addiction.

---

3. Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Many criminologists argue that high recidivism rates show the limits of purely punitive approaches.

Instead of tougher sentences, they call for a stronger focus on rehabilitation – helping people change -and reintegration, supporting their return to society.

Evidence-Based Rehabilitation

Modern rehabilitation draws on the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model, which focuses on matching programs to the individual:

• Risk Principle: Focus intensive help on high-risk offenders who need it most, and avoid over-intervening with low-risk offenders.

• Need Principle: Target changeable risk factors like antisocial attitudes, substance abuse, and lack of employment or family support.

• Responsivity Principle: Use cognitive-behavioral and social learning methods that teach new skills and coping strategies through practice and reinforcement.

Alternatives to Incarceration

Prison can be criminogenic – that is, it can actually increase reoffending by disrupting jobs, families, and social ties. Alternatives help prevent that cycle:

• Community-Based Programs: Offenders who don’t pose a serious risk can complete community sentences, which keep them connected to work and family.

• Diversion Schemes: These programs redirect people—especially first-time or low-level offenders—into treatment or support instead of formal prosecution.

• Restorative Justice (RJ): RJ brings together offenders, victims, and community members to repair harm. This approach often leads to greater empathy and accountability—and lower reoffending rates.

---

4. The Ethical and Sociological Dimensions

The debate over punishment and rehabilitation isn’t just practical – it’s deeply ethical and political. It raises questions about fairness, equality, and how society defines justice.

Fairness and Vulnerable Groups

Criminal justice policy must ensure equal treatment under the law. Yet research shows that race, class, and gender can influence sentencing outcomes.

In the U.S., for example, Black and Latino defendants often receive harsher sentences than white defendants for similar crimes. Ethical justice requires acknowledging and addressing these disparities.

Sociologists also emphasize the importance of avoiding harm to marginalized groups. Policies aimed at deterrence or “public safety” can unintentionally deepen inequality if they don’t account for structural disadvantage.

Power, Labels, and Social Control

Conflict theorists argue that the legal system reflects and reinforces power dynamics – the interests of those who make the laws.

• Labeling theory warns that branding people as “criminals” or “ex-convicts” can trap them in cycles of exclusion and reoffending by damaging their self-identity.

• Foucault’s critique goes further, suggesting that punishment is also a tool of social control. He argued that modern systems of surveillance and discipline create categories like “delinquent” or “disorderly,” which justify ongoing monitoring and control—even when crime doesn’t decrease.

Balancing Core Values

At its core, the criminal justice debate is about balancing competing moral values: justice and mercy, freedom and control, fairness and safety.

• Laws must protect the public without violating individual rights or deepening inequality.

• True justice involves promoting social well-being, not just punishing wrongdoing.

• Sociologists argue that reducing crime in a fair and lasting way means addressing root social problems – poverty, inequality, and exclusion—that drive people toward offending in the first place.

---

Key Takeaways

• Balancing goals: Sentencing involves trade-offs between punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and fairness.

• Limits of harshness: Harsher penalties don’t always mean greater safety; effective deterrence depends on certainty, not severity.

• Rehabilitation works: Evidence-based programs reduce recidivism by targeting changeable risk factors and supporting reintegration.

• Ethics and equality matter: Justice systems must avoid deepening inequality or reinforcing harmful labels.

• Social justice connection: Lasting public safety depends not just on controlling crime, but on addressing the social and economic roots of it.

---

References

Beck, A. J., & Shipley, B. E. (1989). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1983. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Beesley, F., & McGuire, J. (2009). Gender-role identity and hypermasculinity in violent offending. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(2-3), 251-268.

Chukwumerije, U. (2012). Explanatory memorandum on amendment of prison act. (On-line: http://www.Senatorchukwumerije/id63html

Dawkins, M. P. (1997). Drug use and violent crime among adolescents. Adolescence, 32(126), 395.

Deming, A. (2008). Sex offender civil commitment programs: Current practices, characteristics, and resident demographics. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 36(3), 439-461.

Freund, K., Watson, R., & Dickey, R. (1991). Sex offenses against female children perpetrated by men who are not pedophiles. Journal of Sex Research, 28(3), 409-423.

Gendreau, P. Little, T. & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analytic of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works? Criminology, Vol. 34: 575–608.

Giddens, A., & Sutton, P. W. (2006). Sociology (Vol. 19932). Polity Press.

Greenwood, P. W., Rydell, C. P., Abrahamse, A. F., Caulkins, J. P., Chiesa, J., Model, K. E., & Klein, S. P. (1994). Three strikes and you’re out: Estimated benefits and costs of California’s new mandatory-sentencing law. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Leschied, A., Chiodo, D., Nowicki, E., & Rodger, S. (2008). Childhood predictors of adult criminality: A meta-analysis drawn from the prospective longitudinal literature. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(4), 435-467.

McKean, L. & Ransford, C. (2004). Current strategies for reducing recidivism. (On-line: http://www.targetarea.ord/research.doc/

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: key findings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(10), 633-642.

Obioha, E. E. (2011). Challenges and reforms in the Nigerian prisons system. Journal of Social Sciences, 27(2), 95-109.

Otu, M. S. (2015). Analysis of the causes and effects of recidivism in the Nigerian prison system. International Journal of Development and Management Review, 10(1), 136-145.

Peterson, J., Skeem, J. L., Hart, E., Vidal, S., & Keith, F. (2010). Analyzing offense patterns as a function of mental illness to test the criminalization hypothesis. Psychiatric services, 61(12), 1217-1222.

Rice, M. E., Quinsey, V. L., & Harris, G. T. (1991). Sexual recidivism among child molesters released from a maximum security psychiatric institution. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(3), 381.

Tenibiaje, D. J. (2013). Educational attainment and peer group influence as predictors of recidivism. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 5 (1): 30– 37.

Zgoba, K. M., Sager, W. R., & Witt, P. H. (2003). Evaluation of New Jersey’s sex offender treatment program at the Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center: preliminary results. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 31(2), 133-164.

Zgoba, K. M., & Salerno, L. M. (2017). A three-year recidivism analysis of state correctional releases. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(4), 331-345.