Dear Editor,
The Cayman Compass/Compass Media has been covering Cayman’s criminal justice system extensively of late, including their ongoing ‘Issues’ series taking a closer look at life inside His Majesty’s Cayman Islands Prison Service. I’ll be commenting on several of those pieces over the coming weeks.
But I want to start with a separate piece that caught my attention, one that I think deserves its own conversation: How do we measure whether the system is working?
Recently, the Compass reported that Cayman will now measure its recidivism rate differently, counting only those reconvicted of a new offence within two years of release. You can read the article by James Whittaker here.
On that measure, the official rate sits at around 15%. That is worth acknowledging. It reflects genuine investment in rehabilitation, community reintegration,and conditional release programmes. Progress is happening.
But a reconviction rate is a signal, not an explanation. And if we want to build a justice system that actually reduces harm (for individuals, families, and the community), we need to be asking the questions that sit behind the number.
What does a reconviction rate actually measure?
A two-year reconviction window tells us who was convicted of a new offence within that timeframe. It does not tell us why, and the why matters, both for understanding what’s driving repeat offending and for knowing what to do about it.
When I conduct a risk assessment, I’m not just looking at whether someone has reoffended. I’m looking at the context surrounding their offending history: adverse childhood experiences, trauma, educational and employment history, substance use, mental health, relationships, social environment, cultural context(s), current circumstances and future plans. Research consistently shows that reconviction risk isn’t just about ‘one thing’; it varies by offence type, and the factors associated with general offending look different from those associated with violence, sexual offending or intimate partner violence (Andrews & Bonta, 2023; Hanson et al., 2017).
A reconviction rate collapses all of that into one number. That number has value. But it cannot tell you which rehabilitation programmes are working for whom, what needs remain unaddressed at the point of release, or where in the system people are falling through the gaps.
There is also a practical limitation worth naming: With an average time from charge to conviction currently running at around 14 months, a person who reoffends shortly after release may not complete the court process within the two-year window (particularly if they enter a not-guilty plea). The methodology is not wrong, but it is worth understanding what it captures and what it doesn’t.
The infrastructure question
For a reconviction measure to be meaningful and consistent over time, it requires data systems that speak to each other across the full justice pathway – i.e., police, courts, probation, and prison, tracking the same individuals at each stage.
That kind of integrated infrastructure does not yet fully exist in Cayman. Without information-sharing agreements and a shared language across agencies, even a well-intentioned national definition will only capture part of the picture. The risk is not that the number is dishonest, but it’s that it’s incomplete in ways that aren’t always visible.
This is not a criticism unique to Cayman. The European Union’s own research body has noted that cross-country comparisons of recidivism are almost impossible precisely because of inconsistencies in data collection, definitions and the points in the system at which re-offending is measured (EUCPN, 2024). The United Kingdom has their own standardised framework built around a single national data source – the Police National Computer – which helps to address this problem (Ministry of Justice, 2016). Building that kind of infrastructure takes time, investment and political will. But it is what gives a recidivism figure real meaning.
What would success actually look like?
This is the question I find myself returning to. Reconviction is one measure of failure. But what are we measuring when things go well?
Research on desistance – i.e., the process by which people move away from offending – consistently points to a set of factors that look less like criminal justice outcomes and more like the conditions for a dignified life (EUCPN, 2024): stable housing, meaningful employment, pro-social relationships, physical and mental health that is attended to; a sense of purpose and belonging somewhere.
And here is something the data does not easily capture: community acceptance. If someone leaves prison and is ostracised – unable to find work, housing or connection – we could be unwittingly (re)creating the conditions of reoffending. The community is not a passive backdrop to reintegration. It is an active part of whether it succeeds or fails.
The people imprisoned at HMP Northward and HMP Fairbanks are going back into our community. That is not a reason for alarm, but rather, a reason to be invested in what happens to them, and in the conditions they are returning to.
A final note
I am Caymanian. This is my home and these are my people – all of them, including those who have ended up in the system. I don’t write about this from the outside. I write about it as someone who has worked within these systems, who cares deeply about getting this right, and who believes that Cayman has both the will and the capacity to build something genuinely good here.
The Issues series has put important questions on the table. Over the coming weeks I’ll be reflecting on more of what it has surfaced, e.g., on mental health in custody, on rehabilitation, on what a trauma-informed justice system might actually look like in a small island community. I’d welcome the conversation.
Larissa Johnson
References
Bonta, J. & Andrews, D.A. (2023). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (7th ed.). Routledge.
EUCPN (2024). Toolbox: Reducing Recidivism. European Crime Prevention Network.
Hanson, R.K., Bourgon, G. et al. (2017). Five-Level Risk and Needs System. Justice Center, US Council of State Governments.
Ministry of Justice (2016). Proven Reoffending Statistics: Definitions and Measurement. UK Government.
Related Videos
