Many scholars examining desistance from crime have emphasized the importance of social factors in triggering the desistance process. Most notably, the work of Sampson and Laub (1993) focuses on the role of social bonds (e.g., marriage and employment), which serve as turning points in offenders’ lives, while other scholars have emphasized other important social factors, such as antisocial peer influence (Stouthamer-Loeber, Wei, Loeber, Masten, 2004; Warr, 1998, 2002). However, missing from such works is the role of subjective factors (e.g., thinking patterns, expectations, self-identity) in the desistance process, despite evidence that changes in identity and other cognitive transformations promote desistance from criminal offending (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002; Maruna, 2001). Examining the combined role of subjective and social factors is important, because it may lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the desistance process. Desistance researchers typically focus on one set of factors, while downplaying the other set of factors. Rarely have researchers examined the effects of social and subjective factors simultaneously (for exceptions, see Healy, 2010; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Morizot & Le Blanc, 2007). And even fewer attempts have been made to examine the interplay between social and subjective factors (for exceptions, see LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway, 2008; Simons & Barr, 2012). Further, there is a special need to examine the impact of change in subjective and social factors on the desistance process using within-individual analyses (Farrington, 2007; Horney, Osgood, & Marshall, 1995; Kazemian, 2007). Thus, research on desistance is advanced in the current study in the following three ways. First, the influence of both subjective and social factors on desistance are considered, within the same statistical model. Second, this study is based on within-individual analyses. Third, the interplay between subjective and social factors is explored in this study, including mediation and moderation (interaction) effects. Data used in the current study are drawn from the Pathways to Desistance study (see Mulvey, 2004), following serious adolescent offenders for seven years – from mid-adolescence through early adulthood. The theoretical, policy, and research implications of the findings are discussed.

Mens Rea is a figure of Criminal Law which is very difficult to determine, especially if it is intended to appreciate the intention that a person has while commiting a crime, as well as the difference between intent and guilt is not clear in many cases.For that reason, the author of this article explains different theories that aim to determine when intent exists. Some of these theories are centered in objective factors (normative), which come from the law; and other theories are centered in internal, subjective factors (psychological). Then, the author presents the problems that affect each of the mentioned theories and explains what should be taken into account to elaborate a more efficient theory of Mens Rea. / El dolo es una figura de difícil determinación en el Derecho Penal, en especial si se pretende valorar la intención que tiene una persona al momento de cometer un delito, así como la diferencia entre el dolo y la culpa no es clara en muchos casos.Por ese motivo, el autor del presente artículo explica distintas teorías que pretenden establecer cuándo existe dolo; algunas centradas en factores objetivos, provenientes de la norma (normativas); y otras orientadas a factores internos, subjetivos (psicológicas). Luego, plantea los problemas que afectan a cada una de las teorías planteadas y explica lo que se debería tomar en cuenta para elaboraruna teoría del dolo más eficiente.