Peacemaking and Nonviolence Essay ⋆ Criminal Justice Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The current model for justice in the United States is one of “war making,” as in the “war on crime” that has been waged for nearly four decades. Critics note that such a model has been in effect with little to show for its efforts. Recidivism and incarceration rates show no signs of slowing. There are some criminologists who believe that it is time to implement a peacemaking model. At the heart of peacemaking lies the need to adopt a philosophy that advocates principles of nonviolence, conciliation, and negotiation to achieve social control. To the contrary, the war-making model seeks to achieve social control through coercion, intimidation, and, often, violence.

The most serious problem with using a war model is that it naturally leads one to identify an “enemy.” Once an enemy has been identified, one develops combative strategies to deal with behavior considered outside the social norm. The empirical evidence thus far shows little empirical support for the success of such strategies in terms of reducing criminal behavior. This lack of success has led some criminologists to argue that a peacemaking model might be more appropriate for dealing with not only criminal behavior, but also with other societal ills such as poverty, homelessness, sexism, and racism. Stated differently, peacemaking criminologists reject the current system of criminal justice, which they characterize as unjust, violent, and destructive and which they view as part of the crime problem.

Peacemaking criminology is viewed by some as a critical or radical theory that departs significantly from other criminological theories. There are three primary distinctions that can be made between peacemaking criminology and traditional criminology. First, their views about the relationship between crime and social structure are different. Peacemaking acknowledges what traditional theories often ignore—social injustices and definitions of crime are ultimately rooted in power and not merely natural manifestations of the social order. This means that peacemaking recognizes that those in power have the ability to define criminal behavior while at the same time escaping such scrutiny themselves. Second, peacemaking and traditional theories of crime differ with regard to their beliefs about the etiology of crime.

For instance, mainstream criminologists generally accept prevailing crime classifications and apply the scientific method to define, study, and control criminals. Peacemaking criminologists, on the other hand, chose to start not by asking what crime is but what social harm is and what are the political, economic, and social arrangements that produce such harms. Third, peacemaking and other theories differ regarding their solutions to crime. Specifically, mainstream criminologists concentrate their efforts on working within the current framework of justice to make the system more effective and efficient. Peacemaking criminologists believe that the answers to crime lie largely outside the criminal justice system because social harms begin in the community. As a result, peacemaking criminologists advocate solutions that center on restorative models to help those who have been harmed, including victims and offenders.

Peacemaking criminology is rooted in ancient spiritual and wisdom traditions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Native American religions. Each of these religious traditions includes peace as a central feature. Although one cannot deny that the major religions have histories dotted with periods of holy wars and religious intolerance, the tenets of their belief systems envision a world where people live in communities that are characterized by harmony, mutual cooperation, and peace. Additionally, most world religions endorse the notion that life is part of a greater plan that makes it not only sacred but also has a purpose and meaning that transcends human existence.

The biblical Ten Commandments are viewed as a moral code for living a life of harmony and peace. Believers are instructed to honor their parents and not to covet the possessions of neighbors or lie, steal, or kill. Those who apply the commandments in their daily lives are more likely to achieve inner peace and live their lives in socially just ways. Similarly, the Five Precepts of Buddhism also speak against lying, stealing, and killing. Following these precepts will prevent harm to oneself and others and will lead to a peaceful life.

Three Themes of Peacemaking

There are three themes of peacemaking—connectedness, caring, and mindfulness. The idea of connectedness suggests that human beings are not isolated individuals, but are each integrally “connected” and bonded to other human beings and the environment. The environment is broadly defined to include not only physical space but also the inner psychological and spiritual environment. Peacemaking criminologists claim that people’s inability to see the connections linking them to others is the first obstacle to achieving peace. In other words, the first step toward inner peace is to shed the misperception that individuals are isolated and disconnected from one another and the environment. As people become more aware of how they are connected to all of what they are a part of, they will begin to see the importance of acting in more responsible ways.

Once people accept the idea that everyone is connected to everyone and everything, they come to recognize that their actions do not occur in a vacuum but within a complex web of interconnected people and things. This means that an individual’s actions have an impact on those around him or her. Perhaps the best way to understand the concept of connectedness is to visualize a spider web. The web is an intricate series of interconnected threads and pulling one thread has the potential to destroy the entire web. Connectedness can also be conceptualized through the visualization of a pebble being tossed into a pond. Once the pebble hits the water, a ripple effect occurs.

One action can cause a disturbance that is felt by many people. The peacemaking philosophy argues that people create the world they live in through their actions. If people choose to act violently, cruelly, and unjustly, they will live in a world ruled by violence, cruelty, and injustice. On the other hand, if people choose to act compassionately, humanely, and justly, they will live in a world that is more compassionate, humane, and just. Peacemaking means that choosing to act in nonviolent ways makes the world a better place in which to live.

Another central component of peacemaking is caring. The concept of caring is most closely associated with feminist criminology. Caring as used in peacemaking is best described as natural caring— similar to the care a mother has for her newborn child. Natural caring can be achieved when people begin to unlearn, erase, and transcend the artificial distinctions they have been taught from birth. Specifically, when people or things are classified as “good” or “bad,” artificial categories are created that prevent people from interacting with one another on a deeper, more compassionate level.

Mindfulness also plays a central role in peacemaking. Mindfulness permits individuals to experience a more transcendent sense of awareness. It also allows people to become more fully aware of the “bigger picture” in terms of the needs of others and helps them to explore a broader range of possibilities when presented with a problem. In the criminal justice arena, mindfulness helps officers and officials to consider fully the needs of offenders and to treat the whole person. In addition, mindfulness encourages people to move away from their own self-interest to a sense of compassion that includes others and their needs.

Ultimately, peacemaking entertains the possibility of compassion and mercy within the framework of justice. Peacemaking recognizes the intrinsic value of all human beings, which includes offenders. The peacemaking perspective endorses the notion that a more concerted effort should be made to separate the “sin” from the “sinner” or the “offense” from the “offender.” This does not mean that society agrees with offenders’ life choices, but rather is willing to accept that offenders are people who have made mistakes, some of which are very serious. Having offended, offenders are nevertheless still worthy of understanding and compassion.

Criticism of Peacemaking

It should be noted that the peacemaking perspective has its critics. There are those who endorse the war-making model of criminal justice, who argue that peacemaking is naïve and soft on crime. This criticism is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the peacemaking model proposes. Peacemaking recognizes that crime is a real problem and that some offenders are not ready to be released back into society. However, peacemaking has an optimistic view about human nature. It diverges from the war-making model on where the locus of responsibility for crime is to be found (i.e., the war model focuses on the offenders and the peacemaking model focuses on social structure factors). The peacemaking perspective does not advocate the elimination of the criminal justice system but does endorse reforms in the laws, the way the system operates, and government’s instruments of social control.

Critics of peacemaking also point to the immediate problem of dealing with offenders who have already been identified as dangerous, violent, and antisocial. They contend that peacemaking is not a viable theory because it is difficult to apply it to the pressing crime problem. To be more precise, there is no time to wait for offenders to be transformed through education and understanding. A related criticism of peacemaking criminology is that it is too idealistic and that its emphasis is on the transformation of individuals as a way of transforming society, rather than on the transformation of society as a way of transforming individuals. However, both the transformation of individuals and society are necessary for peacemaking to work. Peacemaking attempts to create a good society while trying to make people better human beings—there is an urgent need to work on both simultaneously. Even so, some argue that peacemaking fails to provide a blueprint of how such transformations can be achieved. But all theories and criminal justice policies have their limitations and it is unlikely that any of them are a panacea in and of themselves.

One final criticism of peacemaking is the inability to test it empirically. Although the aim of peacemaking criminology is laudable, it fails to offer a theory of crime or of the criminal justice system that can be empirically evaluated. That is to say, peacemaking does not offer an explanation of why offenders commit crime or why the criminal justice system operates the way it does. As such, it will be impossible to adequately assess the major tenets of the theory.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the criticisms, peacemaking is one way to achieve peace and social justice. It seeks to attain social justice through nonviolence, reconciliation, kindness, and compassion. Peacemaking rejects the war-making model, which is founded on coercion, violence, and retribution.

Bibliography:

Braswell, Michael C. and Jeffrey Gold. “Peacemaking, Justice, and Ethics.” In Justice, Crime, and Ethics, 7th ed., Michael C. Braswell, Belinda R. McCarthy, and Bernard J. McCarthy, eds. Burlington, MA: Anderson, 2011.
Fuller, John R. Criminal Justice: A Peacemaking Perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon., 1997.
Pepinsky, Harold E. and Richard Quinney. Criminology as Peacemaking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
Wozniak, John F. “Toward a Theoretical Model of Peacemaking Criminology: An Essay in Honor of Richard Quinney.” Crime & Delinquency, v.48 (2002).

This example Peacemaking and Nonviolence Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.