This master thesis explores the utility of the distinction between ‘crime’ and ‘offender’ as a critical lens for understanding desistance, particularly through the framework of Shadd Maruna’s redemption and condemnation scripts. Drawing on legal principles such as actus reus and mens rea, this study critiques the conflation of actions with identity in contemporary desistance theories and highlights the gaps in Maruna's theory of desistance. The thesis begins with an overview of desistance theories, tracing their development from classical criminology to contemporary sociogenic and identity-based approaches. By examining Maruna’s focus on self-narratives, it identifies the central role of personal agency in sustained desistance, as illustrated through the redemption script and condemnation script. This thesis argues that Maruna’s framework overly simplifies offenders' identities, neglecting the broader cultural, situational, and psychological contexts of crime and rehabilitation. Through a phenomenological methodology, including examples from personal experiences with prisoners, the thesis critiques Maruna’s reliance on a binary framework and the flawed conceptualisation of the ‘real me.’ It highlights the limitations of such frameworks in accounting for offenders who morally justify their actions or whose narratives don’t fit into the binary categorization of redemption or condemnation script. Additionally, it examines the role of cultural influences, the nature of specific crimes, and external subcultural influences within criminal networks. The thesis concludes that desistance theories must move beyond the prescriptive goal of creating law-abiding citizens. It instead advocates for a holistic approach to rehabilitation that enforces the development of a moral compass independent of legal obedience.