Conclusiones

The last results chapter (Chapter 9) focussed on the disengagement process.

While only 22 participants of the sample mentioned having desisted from their gangs at the time of the interviews, some important findings were revealed, especially because gang members were invited to provide further details of their disengagement experience in the open-ended section of the questionnaire. First, as suggested by Decker and Lauritsen (2002), both group and individual characteristics influence the process of desistance. Individuals may make the decisions, but, at the same time, the gang seems to influence why and when such a process is more likely to occur.

At an individual level, four characteristics were important to consider in the disengagement process. First, the only characteristic that was found to be significantly associated with the occurrence of desistance was being a female. Though the sample of the current study only included 9 female gang members, these participants seemed to have been more likely to desist from gangs than male gang members of the sample, a finding that is supported in past research. In fact, prior research on female gang members had shown that the duration of their membership tends to be shorter compared

particularly the case for Aboriginal youths (see Goodwill, 2009; Grekul & Laboucane-Benson, 2006). Perhaps Aboriginal gang members are less likely to desist because the gangs meet their needs of feeling a sense of belonging and acquiring some respect.

Another possible explanation might be associated with the fact that all Aboriginal gang members of the sample were initiated, and mostly through violent rituals. The belief that exit from a gang is only possible through a violent ritual (Decker, 1996; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996; Klein, 1971; Vigil, 1988) could be even stronger for members who have been initiated through a violent entry ritual. Third, in terms of criminal social capital, the main hypothesis was that having family members involved in gangs was a stronger predictor of non-desistance. The results did not support this hypothesis. However, among the criminal social capital indicators, having been introduced by multiple sources (for example, friends and family, or neighbourhood and family) was significantly associated with continuity of gang involvement. The fact that these individuals were surrounded by environments supportive of the gang membership lifestyle may have had an impact on the duration of their membership. The concept of criminal embeddedness appears to be important in understanding continuity, just as it was central to predicting early entry into gangs. Although the study did not confirm the criminal nature of the sources who introduced prospective members to gangs, it can be hypothesized that they were related to the criminal world since they facilitated gang entry. This type of social environment is determinant in individuals’ trajectories as it maintains them in a context that normalizes the criminal lifestyle (Miller, 2001). This phenomenon is an important challenge in the elaboration of gang intervention strategies because it means that the social environment that first facilitated the recruitment of the individuals remains present and influential during the gang involvement. As such, it represents a stable condition in the lives of gang members and could be a crucial obstacle to the disengagement process.

Fourth, another important finding was linked to violence within the gang. The results of this study showed that prospective members who had been initiated through violent initiations were less likely to have desisted at the time of the interview. It is hypothesized that this result is nested in the gang belief that violent entry and exit rituals are required (Decker, 1996; Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Klein, 1971; Vigil, 1988) to ensure loyalty and long-term commitment. Though some researchers argue that this is a

common belief among gang members, only rare cases of violent exit ceremonies are reported (Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). In the current study, only one participant reported having undergone a violent exit ritual.

A similar association at the group level was observed. In fact, participants who had reported that their gang enforced rules violently were less likely to have left their gangs. These two results (both at the individual and group levels) are governed by the same process: internal gang violence (Decker, 1996; Vigil, 1988). Past research has shown that violence is one of the mechanisms that enhances group cohesion and solidarity (see Decker, 1996; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996), and it has the capacity to enhance the ties that bind the individuals to gangs. Previous studies have also shown that gangs that have violent forms of enforcement tend to be more organized (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998; Decker, Katz, & Webb, 2008; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996).

In the current study, participants who reported that their gangs were involved in several different types of gang criminal activities were less likely to have disengaged from their gangs, especially those who were involved in drug dealing. This result suggests that at the time of the interview, these participants evaluated their involvement in their gangs as rewarding enough to continue to be involved. In other words, these participants were aware that the gang provided them with opportunities to commit a certain amount of crimes that benefitted their own needs and individual goals. As mentioned by Moreland and Levine (1982), it is only when divergence between commitment and goals occurs that gradual desistance from the group begins.

From the narratives of the 22 desisted participants, it has been possible to complement previous findings by providing more contexts to the process of disengagement from gangs. The reasons given for disengaging from gangs are similar to those found in previous research: maturation, incarceration length, desire for independence, exhaustion from gang life, near death experience, and gang dissolved (see Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Vigil, 1988). As suggested by recent U.S. literature, gang desistance should not be conceptualized as an event, but

between the desires and objectives of both parties; (b) disengagement is facilitated by an accumulation of factors that occurs over time, and, when a threshold is reached, desistance occurs; and (c) the persistence of gang ties, even as individuals become

“non-members”, creates a gray area where the “desistance” status becomes even more unclear. Considering this process on a continuum of disengagement is more realistic, and more accurate.

Although the Chapter 9 on disengagement from gangs was exploratory, it uncovered the complexity and the challenges of the process. Individuals do not hold all the cards when they need to desist from gangs. They can’t leave completely according to their own will, at a time of their own choosing. The group process that governs the gang affects the process, and the criminal social environment (including the non-gang involved criminal environment) pressures individuals to remain in this lifestyle.