Descripción textual de los casos de uso del sistema

At the end of the sequential process of the gang trajectory, there is the ultimate turning point, the disengagement from gangs. Many studies conclude by recommending that future research should focus on the process of disengagement, but the fact is very few, up to now, have followed this recommendation. As stressed by Pyrooz and Decker (2011), the literature on gang desistance is limited to ethnographic observations, reviews of broader desistance literature, or the examination of the effect of the continuity or discontinuity of the membership on delinquency.

Recent studies first recognized that disengagement from gangs is a process and not an event. These studies then examined what happens and what changes once members leave gangs (see Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010; Sweeten, Pyrooz, & Piquero, 2013). Gang desistance has been shown to occur in two different ways: leaving abruptly or leaving gradually (Decker &

Lauritsen, 2002; Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010). Most gang members reported having left their gangs without incident (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996);

however, a few former gang members reported a more structured and violent process of leaving. Pyrooz and Decker (2011) proposed a unique study that examined the internal (e.g., tired of the lifestyle, avoid violence) and external (e.g., girlfriend, job, children) individual motives and the modes of departure (hostile vs. non-hostile) among a sample of 84 desisted juvenile gang members. According to the authors, a hostile departure involved events or ceremonies such as being beaten-out or having to commit one last crime. A non-hostile departure simply referred to being able to walk away from the gang without any incident. A hostile mode of departure was found for 1 out of every 5 former gang members, and non-hostile methods were the modal response to leaving the gang.

Their results showed that the method was conditional on the motive for departure; all the individuals who reported external reasons (such as family and employment) did not experience a hostile departure. This latter finding suggested that examining the motivation is crucial to understanding the desistance process.

One objective of the current study is to identify the factors that are associated with the disengagement process and what could influence in such process.

3.4.1. Incentives to desist from gangs

Gang members, more than any other young offenders, are actively engaged in violent conflicts, whether the issue is considered from an offending (Decker, 1996;

Thornberry et al., 1993) or a victimization perspective (Melde, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009;

Miller & Decker, 2001; Peterson, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2004; Rosenfeld, Bray, & Egley, 1999). When the attraction to violence turns into an over-exposure to violent victimization, some members will prefer to leave a gang. Decker and Lauritsen (2002) examined the process of desistance by using data from a field study of 24 ex-gang members in St. Louis. The main reason for quitting the gang was associated directly with the level of violence (e.g., witnessing or personally experiencing violence). Some either had been threatened or feared being violently victimized, others had experienced serious violence (resulting in hospitalization), and some had family members who were victimized or threatened to be. In other words, when the lifestyle significantly impacted their own or family members’ security, gang members reconsidered their membership.

The general desistance literature would also suggest that life turning points have the potential to create changes in the criminal pathway. Hughes (1998) identified the formation of social bonds/social capital, the age, employment, respect and concerns for children, fear of physical harm, incarceration, contemplation time and support/modelling as important factors that could have a positive influence on the desistance process (see also Pyrooz & Decker, 2011). Also, the role of interventions (programs and/or court sanction) is considered to have a positive effect on reaching the stability and support required in the process of desisting (Hasting, Dunbar, & Bania, 2011). Desistance scholars emphasize the importance of the interplay between the desister’s thoughts, actions, and an environment that can be affected by some intervention (Farrall, 2002, 2004; Giordano et al., 2002; Hughes, 1998; Rex, 1999).

Knowing that most gang members have been confronted with many of these factors during their time in gangs and that many still do not leave, it is reasonable to also examine the factors that may keep members from desisting.

3.4.2. Factors affecting the desire to desist (disincentives)

The process of making a decision to quit is not an easy one. First, the major concern about leaving the gang can be associated with the gang culture itself; many gangs require permanent and lifetime memberships (Decker & Lauritsen, 2002).

Wanting to join a gang also means wanting to die for it. The sense of belonging coveted at first complicates the process of withdrawal. It can be hypothesized that the more cohesive the group, the harder it is to quit. Violence has been used to keep order within a gang, strengthen cohesion, and punish violators (Decker, Bynum, & Weisel, 1998;

Decker, Katz, & Webb, 2008; Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Jeopardizing group cohesion and social capital is considered a punishable act (Fleisher & Decker, 2001).

Both violence and fear of violence play a role in the desistance process (Decker, 1996).

Klein (1971) identified the “mythic violence” that gang members could only leave gangs through violence (by being beaten out, fear of violence, suffering serious injury, or death) ( see also Decker, 1996). Although this is relatively infrequent, some researchers have confirmed this myth. Vigil (1988) reported that getting out of a gang can be as violent as joining it. This process has also been recognized in a more recent study on desistance (Pyrooz & Decker, 2011), where 1 out of every 5 former gang members (n = 84) reported having undergone a violent method of departure, that is, being beaten out. Walker (2010) added that the beating is often more severe and more injurious to the member than the beating an individual may have endured at initiation (para.10). More extremely, for prison gangs, the penalty for quitting the gang is death. The process is called “blood out” (Fleisher & Decker, 2001). Though the threat of violence associated with leaving the gang is present, it does not always materialize (Decker & Van Winkle, 1996). Its purpose appears to be deterrence (from quitting) and enhancing collective solidarity.

More empirical studies need to focus on that aspect in order to learn more about gang desistance processes.

Second, as argued by Decker and Lauritsen (2002), “the gang provides a source of support and friendship members do not leave until a suitable substitute has been

ties have also been described as a challenge in more recent studies (Pyrooz & Decker, 2011; Pyrooz, Decker, & Webb, 2010). Pyrooz, Decker, and Webb (2010) shed light on the desistance process by examining the social and emotional ties that 120 former gang members in Phoenix maintained from their previous network. Their results showed that desistance does not seem to eradicate totally the risk of victimization as long as the ties to the gangs are not sufficiently weakened. Knowing that gangs are often constituted of familial connections, when can it be assumed that the gang ties are completely attenuated? Decker and Lauritsen (2002) identified “the gray zone” as the gradual process of desisting from gangs where ties with the gangs are still present even though the desistance decision has occurred. The authors gave the example of youths hanging out, drinking, playing sports, and watching television with a cousin (who is a gang member), eating lunch in the high school cafeteria, etc. In Pyrooz and Decker’s (2011) study, former gang members reported at least two social and/or emotional attachments to the gang despite the fact they had quit their gang nearly 2 years earlier. More importantly, the authors mentioned that many former gang members in their sample stated that they would respond or retaliate if their gang was disrespected or if a member was attacked. This result illustrated how strong gang ties could remain even after desistance. These enduring ties complicate the process and should not be minimized.