Özet:

It is common criminological knowledge that recidivism – relapse into criminal behaviour – is a major predictor of future criminal behaviour, one could say a ‘hard-core’ criminogenic factor, esp. when displayed at a young age. Yet, despite its prominence and importance in both criminology and the discipline and practice of criminal law, there is an ongoing confusion about the concept and social construction of recidivism, its basic terminology, approaches to its measurement (methodology), and finally about the best ways to deal with it. In the paper at hand, we aim to unravel at least some of the grand mysteries surrounding recidivism and its research, targeting particularly domestic criminal justice professionals and researchers, since we have found a certain lack of relevant and up-to-date Croatian publications on this topic. Instead of simply presenting or arguing for any of the competing perspectives, such as the criminological, normative or penological, or a more practical instead of a scientific perspective (to name but a few), we critically analyse each of these perspectives, highlighting their pros and cons, while leaving it to the readers to choose any or all of them – depending on their own perspectives and purposes. Thus, key findings from recidivism research are discussed in the context of steadily growing penal populism, which is characterised by broadening the scope of criminalisation and increasing sentencing frameworks as well as harsher punishment practices, targeting in particular recidivists. All this occurs in the context of populist public and media discourse about crime and criminals, which effectively undermines any notion of evidence-based crime policy. But times are changing and the future of recidivism research, spearheaded by neuropenology, might very well provide us with a new kind of knowledge and understanding needed to put a check on penal populism.

Anahtar Kelimeler: