The Paradigm of Desistance and Correctional Interventions: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Relapse Risk Reduction in Sexual Offenders

Abstract

The criminological approach to relapse is based, on the one hand, on the theories that explain the risk of relapse, including the risk level assessment tools, and on the other hand, on the rehabilitation theories—the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model and The Good Live Model (GLM), which explain the mechanisms of reducing the risk of relapse in the assisted desistance paradigm. The objectives of this study focus on identifying the predictors of relapse in correlation with relapse inhibitors that combine a number of personal, psycho-emotional factors with psychopathological, socio-economic, and cultural accents. The method used is that of the case study from the perspective of clinical criminology, referring to forensic psychiatry through specific techniques and working procedures of some institutions in the correctional system—territorial structures of probation (TSP) in cooperation with the penitentiary system. The results of the study focus on the impact of standardized programs on the reduction in the risk of relapse after prison (RRR) and on personal and socio-familial factors involved in post-executional surveillance and post-criminal assistance. In conclusion, the current study highlights the need to corroborate the clinical or subjective assessment of relapse risk with the actual or objective assessment, which also includes the risk of violence in the framework of community monitoring from the perspective of community or social psychiatry.

1. Introduction

The challenge of reducing recidivism among sexual offenders is not just a legal issue—it is a complex societal concern that affects both criminal justice systems and social welfare institutions. Understanding why individuals reoffend requires looking beyond isolated factors and instead examining the intricate interplay of psychological, socio-economic, and criminological influences. This study delves into the predictors of recidivism while also exploring how correctional interventions, forensic psychiatry, and community-based rehabilitation programs can work together to lower the risk of relapse.

From an interdisciplinary standpoint, social psychiatry plays a crucial role in addressing both the psychological and social needs of offenders, bridging the gap between clinical criminology and rehabilitative justice. The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model and the Good Lives Model (GLM) offer valuable frameworks for understanding relapse risk, balancing risk management with opportunities for rehabilitation. However, effective recidivism prevention goes beyond individual interventions. Broader societal factors—such as access to education, employment opportunities, and community support—are equally vital in shaping an offender’s post-release environment. Tackling recidivism, therefore, demands a comprehensive approach that integrates criminology, psychology, education, and socio-economic policy, ensuring that individuals have the tools and support needed to reintegrate successfully into society.

Recent empirical studies validate the use of RNR and GLM for probation intervention, particularly in handling sexual offenders’ complex needs. Beech and Mann [1], and Cramer and collaborators [2] refer to the efficacy of tailored treatment programs in reducing recidivism rates if cognitive distortions, emotional dysregulation, and risk awareness are addressed with focused clinical guidance. Our case study extends these contributions, using the models in a Romanian probation setting to explore real-world implications and challenges.

The anti-criminal policies and practices organized in the paradigm of restorative, relational, or balanced justice [3,4,5,6]—having an important ‘educational role in preventing crime’ [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]—are influenced by the evolution of the two main branches of criminology: aggressology and victimology. In this sense, the relational approach in the victim–aggressor–community triad is marked by the diversity of modern criminological orientations and theories, with different emphases depending on the prevalence of aggressive risk relative to (self)victimization [14,15,16,17,18,19].

Deterministic/causal criminology, with reference to dynamic/acausal criminology, approaches the ‘victim-aggressor couple’ [2] insisting on ‘bio-socio-moral accents’ [4], regardless of the dominant explanatory model. In this sense, the current approach reveals the importance of the psycho-affective factor, as a deterministic constant, both in criminology and in victimology [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. Thus, from the perspective of general socio-human determinations, with criminological relevance starting with primitive man’s aggressiveness, particular importance is given to individual bio-psycho-pathological determinations—‘aggressive dominance’, ‘aggressive spirit and surrender of the victim’, ‘aggressive conflict’—in correlation with socio-cultural determinism [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].

Clinical criminology, related to forensic psychiatry [15], with application to forensic mental healthcare (FMH) [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29] reveals the pathological manifestations involved in the etiology of violent crime, with reference to severe personality disorders in psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients [28]. At the same time, the criminology of social reaction [40] places the etiological explanations at three levels of reference—the drafting of the law, interpersonal reactions, and the institutionalized reaction—oriented towards the approach of relapse, including in the case of violent crime. Correlatively, the victimological perspective defines victimization and self-victimization by balancing social responsibility with increased vulnerability in the case of potential victims expressed by ‘victim inclination’, close to ‘victim receptivity’, ‘victim complacency’, or ‘victim impressionability’, with explicit reference to victim risk factors, namely, ‘provocative attitude’ of the victim, ‘recalcitrant behavior’ or ‘lightness and imprudence’ in attitude and behavior [19].

The concept of a ‘criminological relapse’ in correlation with risk assessment exceeds the legal notion, whether it is ‘post-sentence’ or ‘post-execution’ relapse; in all cases, the criminological meaning considers the ‘repeat offending’ [25,26] and resentencing the offender to prison terms. The assessment of the risk of relapse in the ‘risk prediction’/‘risk reduction’ paradigm is based on complementary theoretical models starting with the general theories—‘social control theory’, ‘the model of human development’, ‘differential association theory’—up to the specific theories—‘relapse theory’ and the ‘criminal career model’ [9,10,43,44,45,46,47].

If initially the assessment of the risk of relapse was approached in a static manner, with the help of the first generations of risk estimation tools [11], later, the standardization of these tools led to the introduction of some dynamic factors, namely [47]: negative or precipitating factors (risk prediction) with relevance to the estimation of the risk level (low, medium, or high); protective or inhibitory factors (risk reduction) with relevance to the intensity of rehabilitation programs within correctional practices [3,4,5,6,7,8]. It should be noted that the instruments for the actuarial and clinical evaluation of the risk of relapse contain specific indicators regarding the state of mental health, which can be separately evaluated by means of an ‘inventory for checking psychotic attributes’ made by Hare [17,18].

The paradigm of desistance [27]—primary, secondary [46], and tertiary [7]—in a criminological sense, as a process of prosocial change, proposes to shift the focus from the predictors of relapse, to the reduction in relapse, bringing to the fore the resources of the convicted person, without neglecting the perspective of the risk of relapse within the classical approach: risk-needs-responsiveness (RNR). Thus, key factors facilitating prosocial behavioral change are represented by the following protective/inhibitory factors [7,8,9]: the process of personality maturation supported by ‘maturation theories’; identity reconstruction supported by identity theories; and social relations that provide both external circumstances for desistance and individual reactions to these circumstances, aspects explained by ‘structural theories’.

Assisted desistance [46] based on the previously mentioned bio-pathological, psychological, and socio-cultural approaches is presented as a sequence of stages developed within the criminal trial with risk management as a fundamental principle applied in the correctional system (custodial or non-custodial). To exemplify assisted desistance, we started from a case study presented at the 5th international conference dedicated to probation (2016) [41], the unity and novelty of the approach being revealed in a relatively recent scientific article [39] dedicated to the collaboration between probation and prison within the ‘Reduction of the Relapse Risk’ (RRR) program. From this point of view, the correctional practices must be oriented towards those significant aspects that will guide the process of desistance so that, by psycho-social and medical intervention, they transform the person who commits crimes into a “desisted person” [16] within the victim–aggressor mediation process [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23].

This type of approach is based on the complementarity of the ‘risk, needs and responsiveness’ (RNR) model with the ‘Good Life Model’ (GLM) [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33], which proposes to correlate the formation of individual responsibility with that of social responsibility [3]. From this point of view, assisted desistance highlights the importance of individualizing the execution of the sentence, which must be centered on the contextualized narrative identity [45], in order to ensure continuity between the pre-release and the post-release phase correlated with the protection of the crime victim [39].

A truly effective approach to offender rehabilitation goes beyond just applying psychological and criminological theories—it requires a deeper, more holistic understanding, that also takes into account ethical considerations and the broader social impact of correctional practices. This study connects with the wider goals of interdisciplinary social research by tackling crime prevention from multiple angles, integrating insights from forensic psychiatry, education, and the social sciences. At the heart of this discussion is the need for ethical frameworks in correctional interventions, ensuring that human rights, social inclusion, and sustainable reintegration strategies are not just theoretical ideals, but practical realities.

2. Materials and Methods

The study utilizes an illustrative case study methodology grounded in clinical criminology tradition. The aim is to provide a critical analysis of risk and protective factors in a concrete case of a sex offender in the Romanian probation system. Rather than testing hypotheses, the study examines how inter-disciplinary assessments—psychological, psychiatric, and social—are coming together with correctional models (RNR and GLM) in responding to risk of relapse.

The analysis model proposed in our study is the one used by the Romanian probation system, regarding the presentence psychosocial evaluation of persons who have committed crimes. The analysis tool used is the ‘Evaluation Report’ [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39], whose effectiveness is revealed by conducting a clinical, subjective analysis—based on interviews, meetings and participatory observation—which, in conjunction with an eventual objective analysis—based on the application of standardized instruments—it led to the estimation of future behavior and, thus, of the risk of relapse, in three forms: the risk of committing similar crimes, the risk for public safety, and the risk of self-harm.

According to the regulations in the field of probation [21], the evaluation of the major offenders is aimed to support the court in the “process of individualization of penalties” (Article 45 of Law no. 252/2013) applicable to persons who have committed crimes. In principle, taking into account the restrictive specificity of the request—either at the discretion of the prosecutor or at the request of the court—the assessment of the major offender complies with the following principles (Articles 38–40 of Law no. 252/2013):

• The assessment of the major offender is carried out by the competent probation advisor at the request of the prosecutor or of the court, the data obtained during the evaluation being recorded in an evaluation report, which shall be drawn up and communicated within 21 days from the date of receipt of the request and addressed to the competent probation service (article 38, paragraphs (1), (2) and (3)).
• The evaluation report prepared for the major offender contains certain data relevant to the process of individualization of the penalties applicable to the adult person, as follows (article 39, paragraphs (1), (2) and (3)): information on the socio-familial responsibilities in the case of the accused person; the evolution of the educational and professional situation of the accused person; the criminal background and the analysis of present criminal behavior; the risk of committing crimes related to the general conduct of the accused person; the prospects for social reintegration and the reasoned proposals on measures considered appropriate to reduce the risk of repeating criminal behavior; and other information relevant for the individualization of the sentence, such as personal information—cognitive, emotional aspects, physical and mental health, addictive behavior, attitude toward the deed and the victim [39].

Due to the institutional and ethical constraints of obtaining confidential probation case files, this study was limited to a single case. While the scope of analysis allowed for in-depth examination of assisted desistance process and relapse risk factors, we accept this imposes a constraint on generalizability. Future research, with access to larger datasets across multiple cases, would allow for a comparative analysis and a greater validation in the results.

3. Results

3.1. The Pre-Sentential Assessment Within the Probation—Case Presentation

The pre-sentential assessment was carried out by the probation service in the defendant’s territorial area in order to identify the needs of the criminal potential, namely risk factors or precipitators, referring to the (self)victim conduct concomitantly with protective or inhibitory factors of criminal behavior. The evaluation report was made for a 49-year-old defendant in a criminal case for committing the following crimes: “determining or facilitating prostitution” and “sexual relations with a minor” (article 213 and 220 of the Romanian Criminal Code) [22]. The accused person, an adult, was investigated in a state of pre-trial detention in the penitentiary in his place of residence. Subsequently, the pre-sentential assessment report showed its usefulness both in the planning of punishment, including social reintegration activities for the sentenced person (in our case, a prison sentence of 6 years and 5 months), and in the evaluation and/or the assistance of the victims of certain categories of crimes [24].

The defendant was investigated in remand prison in the place of residence, the sources of information referring in particular to the adult defendant, his parents, the victims and their family members, and the assessments made for other co-offenders from the criminal trial. In presenting the case, certain relevant psycho-socio-cultural aspects were followed, including the aggressor’s behavior before and after committing the crime, the aggressor’s attitude towards the victim and their family, including the possible empathic reaction, the degree of awareness of the negative effects of committing the crime, and the critical behaviors in special situations [39].

A first point of relevance to the individual circumstances is that, as evidenced by the statements of the parties injured in the criminal case, the defendant has engaged in consensual sexual relations while trying, by his own means, to stop the practice of prostitution by one or more of the injured parties.

The second point of relevance in the personal circumstances is that the defendant did not derive material gains from the practice of prostitution by the injured parties. The relevant aspects of the defendant’s individual circumstances also take into account his conduct during the preventive arrest, which manifested as a state of confusion/emotional shock, and had a negative impact on his mental health and psycho-emotional balance, primarily caused by his perception and misinterpretation of some socio-cultural facts and past contexts, against the backdrop of personality disorders, in various degrees of severity. In these circumstances, the lack of prior criminal activity—more precisely, a lack of a criminal record—decreases the risk of violence due to the scientifically proven fact that, the impact of a criminal record on aggressive behavior is more significant than that of psychiatric pathology [43].

3.2. Results Regarding the Prediction the Risk of Relapse

The results of the pre-sentenial assessment show that the defendant was influenced by a number of personal factors, doubled by a number of socio-economic and cultural factors—static and dynamic—with a negative impact on criminal behavior, and which are the predictors of relapse, as follows:

• Depressive disorders accompanied by phobias, and above all, by an intense fear of abandonment and intolerance of loneliness.
• Confusion of self-identity, which amplifies the fear of real or imagined abandonment, with an impact on family and socio-professional relationships.
• Socio-affective instability manifested in the conjugal couple relationship leading to socio-family imbalance.
• A low resistance to psycho-emotional frustration correlated with a low resistance to pressure, manipulation, or threat from a negative entourage with criminal potential.
• Ignorance and credulity doubled by vulnerability/victim predisposition to emotional abuse/victimhood as a dominant characteristic of personality.
• The predisposition to enter into verbal disputes and conflicts triggered by the socio-emotional frustration manifested both as a negative reaction to female authority, sometimes perceived as oppressive, and to certain situations and contexts perceived as ‘unfair’.
• Confusion about the procedural status of ‘defendant’ and ‘injured party’ in the criminal case.

A significant result of the pre-sententential assessment is the confusion manifested by the aggressor regarding the roles within the criminal trial—‘defendant’ and ‘injured party’—which, from a criminological and victimological perspective, leads to a shifting dynamic between the roles of aggressor–victim versus victim–aggressor [19] and, thus, to the (self)victimization of the aggressor in this case.

3.3. Results Regarding the Reduction the Risk of Relapse

Among the significant results of the pre-sentential assessment are factors with a positive or protective impact on criminal behavior, as well as on the general conduct of the accused person. These factors hold a special relevance for reducing the risk of relapse in the assisted desistance paradigm, including the following:

• Moral and material support from the family of origin, other relatives, and even from the ex-wife.
• The empathy for the injured parties, along with the intention to protect them and not cause them pain.
• Motivation to care for mental and physical health by changing the lifestyle, supported by psychosocial-medical interventions with religious influences specific to the state of pre-trial arrest or imprisonment.
• The passion for a certain profession and the desire to work, correlated with volunteering and involvement in household activities carried out within the penitentiary.
• The desire and the willingness to find a job in case of the loss of the temporarily suspended one, reflecting the desire to pay the financial debts.
• The concern and regret of the reprehensible actions against his ex-wife, against the family of origin, and against work colleagues.
• The desire to pay off the financial and moral debts that he understands he has toward the victims, their families, but also toward his own family, relatives and colleagues.

The results of the pre-sentential assessment are synthesized through a summary of the main criminogenic and protective variables, as shown in

Table 1. Summary of identified risk and protective factors.

Category	Factors
Risk Factors	Depressive symptoms; fear of abandonment; emotional instability; low frustration tolerance; victimhood tendencies; misinterpretation of legal roles
Protective Factors	Family support; empathy toward victims; religious coping; work motivation; remorse and moral responsibility; desire to reintegrate

.

3.4. Results Regarding the Risk of Relapse Prediction

Given the predictive factors of relapse that signal the risk of criminal perseverance analyzed in the paradigm of assisted desistance, it can be estimated an average risk of further developing antisocial conduct and thus an average risk for public safety. In the context of maintaining personal factors, with a focus on severe personality disorders as predictors of relapse, an increased risk of committing crimes of the same kind can be estimated. In this respect, maintaining an increased level of repetition of the criminal behavior is argued by the progressive alteration of mental health with a pronounced psycho-affective retardation, especially during the period of preventive arrest and in the first part of the execution of the prison sentence.

Thus, if at the beginning of the preventive arrest period, the defendant manifested a state of confusion regarding both his own procedural quality as ‘defendant’, without the recognition of the act, and the role of ‘injured party’, subsequently, as a result of interventions in the correctional environment—psychosocial assistance with spiritual–religious values and family involvement, even during the preventive arrest—the accused person began to acknowledge the seriousness of the crimes committed. This was marked by developing attitudes and behaviors oriented toward expressing responsibility and regret for the criminal acts, as well as compensation for non-material damage to the injured parties, seeking help from their family of origin and from their relatives.

4. Discussion

The RNR model provides a structured framework for interpreting the identified risk factors (e.g., personality disorders, affective instability), guiding interventions based on their severity and responsiveness. Simultaneously, the GLM framework supports the protective dimensions uncovered in the case, such as prosocial goals (employment, moral repair) and identity reconstruction. Together, these models underline the multifactorial nature of relapse risk and reinforce the need for tailored rehabilitation.

The cooperation in the field of mental health between the penitentiary system with its own health network [34], probation, and the public health system [32] in the planning of punishment emphasizes the opportunity for rehabilitative intervention in RRR-type programs by implementing the Norwegian principle ‘seamless’ [5]. For this, a flexible medical system is needed, especially in forensic and social psychiatry, supported by a legal framework so that potentially problematic situations—such as malpractice—are covered by law [44].

Practically, depending on the needs and risks of social exclusion to which prisoners with mental health problems are subjected, both the preparation for release—on term or conditional—and the post-executional intervention are made more efficient. The preparation for release and post-criminal assistance represents a complex process that starts from the first day of detention, debuting with the planning of the execution of the sentence, which initially defines ‘criminal psychosocial assistance’ at the level of the penitentiary system, continued by ‘post-criminal assistance’ at the level of the probation [40], in collaboration with institutions and organizations in the field of mental health and social inclusion [35].

The ‘seamless’ principle aims for an integrated approach to psychosocial-medical interventions, specific to the pre-liberatory and post-executional stages, needed to facilitate the transition of inmates from the prison to the community through the probation system. In this respect, the novelty induced by the ‘seamless’ approach at the level of the Romanian correctional system aims rather at the priority normalization and continuity of intervention, thus ensuring community monitoring [29] through inter-institutional collaboration from the perspective of RRR-type programs [39].

The European and national legal framework regarding the prevention of the risk of relapse in violent crimes, in the case of non-psychiatric and psychiatric patients, in the context of restorative justice, provides a legal and institutional basis for the implementation of specific strategies aimed at preparation for release and post-criminal assistance, as follows:

• European recommendations on prison rules and the individualization of prison sentences with regard to education, health and conditional release [38]; the European recommendations regarding the application of community measures and sanctions—European Probation Rules (EPR) [37]—which highlight principles and rules recognized as‚ ethical-legal standards’ [1] in the field of managing community measures and sanctions, ensuring a uniform development of practice at the level of national probation systems; Final Report, Research Project—Placement and Treatment of Mentally Ill Offenders—Legislation and Practice in EU Member States, which traces the main research approaches in the field of forensic psychiatry, with an emphasis on the correlation between mental disorders and criminogenic risk and the risk of violence [12].
• The National Strategy for the Reintegration of Persons Deprived of Liberty 2020–2024 regarding the planning and management of prison sentences allows the application of progressive individualization regimes for the execution of custodial sentences [31]; the development strategy of the national probation system in Romania 2021–2025 [14], which assumes the application of the European standards, referred to previously, with an emphasis on post-release surveillance and post-criminal assistance; the reform of institutional and organizational structures of the high security mental hospitals in Romania’s program (MATRA 2007–2008) through which the violence risk assessment methodology was implemented in the four high-security mental hospitals at the national level [29,30,31,32,33,34,35].

The development of the correctional system in Romania has in mind both the efficiency of collaboration between penitentiary and probation, as well as between correctional institutions and organizations in the field of social inclusion, to support post-criminal assistance programs, with openness to the implementation of the ‘social economy’ concept [31]. Thus, the legal and organizational framework to which we referred to here can represent a strong premise, both for the development of institutional capacity in the correctional environment and the establishment of its own sanitary network, as well as for the development of inter-institutional capacity in order to organize ‘transit centers’ and ‘community monitoring’ [29] on the model [30] offered by the forensic medical healthcare (FMH) system.

The findings of this study highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive approach to assessing and reducing relapse risk in cases of sexual abuse. Addressing this challenge requires more than just legal or punitive measures—it calls for an integration of forensic psychiatry with social and educational rehabilitation models. Our research reinforces the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration in correctional practices, aligning with previous studies that have shown how competency-based interventions focusing on life skills, cognitive restructuring, and social adaptation can effectively lower recidivism rates.

One of the most critical takeaways from our findings is the role of social responsibility in the reintegration process. How society perceives and accepts rehabilitated offenders can significantly impact their ability to successfully reintegrate. This is why policies that create pathways for employment, ongoing psychological support, and community education are essential. Public safety and offender rehabilitation should not be seen as competing priorities but rather as two sides of the same coin—when reintegration is performed right, it benefits both the individual, and society as a whole.

Beyond practical interventions, this study also raises deeper ethical and philosophical questions about how we approach relapse risk reduction. Recidivism is not just a legal matter—it is a reflection of broader systemic inequalities that shape an individual’s opportunities and choices. A more just and effective approach would incorporate restorative justice principles, community-based support, and continuous psychological care, rather than focusing solely on punitive measures. The ongoing debate between punishment and rehabilitation remains relevant, but as emerging perspectives in applied philosophy and social responsibility suggest, correctional programs should prioritize human agency, ethical reintegration, and long-term rehabilitation over isolation and retribution.

In addition, our findings are aligned with emerging interdisciplinary scholarship on the interaction of psychological vulnerability, system stressors, and rehabilitative outcomes. Empirical research in the recent years has placed an emphasis on the role of psychosocial factors—such as gendered manifestations of depression and personality’s influence on resilience and burnout—towards individual responses to stress, trauma, and long-term recovery processes [48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. These results are particularly relevant in forensic and correctional environments, where underlying mental illness, unmet emotional needs, and job stress—most notably in institutional personnel—are well-documented to affect the efficacy of rehabilitation and reintegration efforts [58,59]. The incorporation of such nuanced psychological considerations into correctional treatment can enhance not just the assessment of relapse risk but also the development of supportive interventions targeted at the complex profiles of offenders and professionals who work with them.

5. Conclusions

This study offers a comprehensive perspective on recidivism by integrating psychological, criminological, and socio-economic insights. Our findings emphasize that reducing the relapse risk among sexual offenders requires a multifaceted approach—one that blends clinical criminology, forensic psychiatry, educational rehabilitation, and community-based programs. By addressing the problem from multiple angles, we can create a more effective and sustainable system of intervention.

One of the most important takeaways from this study is the necessity of evidence-based correctional interventions. Punitive measures alone are not enough; meaningful rehabilitation must include mental health support, competency-based education, and structured reintegration programs. These efforts should be grounded in social justice and ethical rehabilitation frameworks, ensuring that correctional systems work toward restorative justice rather than reinforcing cycles of marginalization and exclusion.

Beyond correctional practices, socio-economic policies also play a crucial role in successful reintegration. Former offenders often face systemic barriers, such as employment discrimination, social stigma, and limited access to psychological care, which can contribute to recidivism. Addressing these structural obstacles is just as important as implementing rehabilitative programs within correctional institutions. Future research should further investigate the long-term impact of interdisciplinary rehabilitation models, particularly their effectiveness across different cultural and economic contexts.

Reducing recidivism is not the responsibility of one discipline alone—it requires collaboration across psychology, law, education, and economic policy. By prioritizing ethical, evidence-based, and socially responsible correctional strategies, we can shift toward a rehabilitative justice system that balances public safety with offender reintegration.

Additionally, our findings highlight the need for improved risk assessment methodologies, incorporating longitudinal studies to track post-release outcomes. Future research should evaluate which intervention strategies are most effective in preventing relapse, especially within the framework of assisted desistance. Comparative studies across different legal and correctional systems could provide valuable insights into the best practices for reducing recidivism on a global scale.

In conclusion, this study underscores the urgent need to move away from a predominantly punitive approach and instead focus on social rehabilitation and psychological well-being. Strengthening collaboration between institutions, fostering community-based interventions, and embedding ethical considerations into correctional practices are essential steps toward building a more effective, humane, and just system for reducing recidivism and promoting long-term reintegration.

Despite its heuristic value, this study’s reliance on a single case constitutes a methodological limitation. Access to additional cases was restricted by ethical and legal considerations involving confidentiality. Future research is invited to test this interdisciplinary approach with larger and more diverse samples to increase external validity of findings related to assisted desistance and risk reduction in relapse.