What is Peacemaking Criminology and how is it used within today’s criminal justice system? As part of your response, please defend your view in regard to whether or not Peacemaking Criminology should be used.
Please be specific and use scholarly literature to support your perspective.
Peacemaking Criminology: A Contemporary Approach to Justice
Peacemaking criminology is a paradigm within criminology that seeks to transform the criminal justice system by focusing on peace, healing, and restorative practices rather than punishment and retribution. It emerged in the 1980s as a response to traditional criminological theories that emphasized punishment as a solution to crime. Rooted in social justice and inspired by various philosophical and religious traditions, peacemaking criminology emphasizes the importance of understanding crime in the context of social inequality, conflict, and the need for healing within communities. This approach suggests that addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty, inequality, and trauma, can foster long-term peace and stability in society. In today’s criminal justice system, peacemaking criminology is increasingly relevant as issues like mass incarceration, racial inequality, and the failure of punitive measures to reduce crime remain persistent challenges.
Peacemaking criminology is fundamentally different from traditional criminology, which often emphasizes punitive measures as a response to crime. The key tenets of peacemaking criminology focus on understanding crime as a social construct and an outcome of injustice, inequality, and conflict within society. It advocates for restorative practices, rehabilitation, and healing rather than retributive justice.
- Social Justice and Healing: Peacemaking criminology argues that crime should not be viewed solely as an individual act but as a reflection of broader social injustices. According to proponents like Harold Pepinsky and Richard Quinney, who have been central to the development of this approach, crime often arises from societal issues such as poverty, marginalization, and disenfranchisement. As such, peacemaking criminology advocates for addressing these root causes by promoting social justice initiatives and community healing. This contrasts with the retributive approach of punishing offenders, which fails to address the deeper social causes of crime (Pepinsky & Quinney, 1991).
- Restorative Justice: One of the most important tools used within peacemaking criminology is restorative justice, which emphasizes repairing harm rather than punishing offenders. This approach involves victims, offenders, and the community in dialogue, with the goal of reconciliation and healing. In this process, the offender takes responsibility for their actions, and the victim has an opportunity to express the impact of the crime. By facilitating communication and understanding, restorative justice can promote healing for all parties involved and reduce the likelihood of reoffending (Zehr, 2002).
- Conflict Transformation: Peacemaking criminology also incorporates elements of conflict transformation, which involves addressing the underlying causes of conflict in communities. This process involves fostering dialogue, understanding, and collaboration to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence or punitive measures. It encourages communities to work together to find peaceful solutions to issues such as domestic violence, gang conflict, and neighborhood disputes, thereby reducing crime and promoting social cohesion (Lederach, 1997).
In the contemporary criminal justice system, peacemaking criminology is often applied through practices like restorative justice programs, community-based sentencing, and alternative dispute resolution. Several programs and initiatives aim to shift the focus from punishment to rehabilitation and reintegration.
- Restorative Justice Programs: Many jurisdictions across the United States and around the world have implemented restorative justice programs as an alternative to traditional criminal justice proceedings. These programs, which are often used in cases involving juvenile offenders, first-time offenders, and low-level crimes, provide offenders with an opportunity to make amends for their actions by engaging with victims in a restorative dialogue. For example, programs like Victim-Offender Dialogue (VOD) and Family Group Conferencing have been used successfully to reduce recidivism and promote healing among victims and offenders alike (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1995).
- Community-Based Sentencing: Peacemaking criminology advocates for community-based sentencing as an alternative to incarceration. This approach focuses on rehabilitation through community service, probation, and counseling, rather than subjecting offenders to prison sentences that may perpetuate cycles of criminal behavior. By engaging offenders in positive community roles and offering support services, this approach fosters reintegration and reduces the stigma associated with incarceration (Shapland, 2009).
- Prison Reform: Peacemaking criminology has influenced prison reform efforts, particularly those focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment. By promoting programs that address the psychological, social, and educational needs of prisoners, such as anger management, addiction treatment, and educational opportunities, peacemaking criminology aims to reduce recidivism and improve inmates’ chances of successful reintegration into society (Petersilia, 2003).
Should Peacemaking Criminology Be Used?
Despite its promising goals, the widespread adoption of peacemaking criminology faces several challenges. Critics argue that restorative justice may be inappropriate for certain types of crime, particularly violent crimes, where victims may not be ready to engage with offenders. Moreover, there are concerns about whether restorative justice programs can adequately address power imbalances between victims and offenders, particularly in cases involving vulnerable or marginalized individuals.
However, in my view, peacemaking criminology should be used more broadly within the criminal justice system. Although not a one-size-fits-all solution, the principles of restorative justice and rehabilitation offer a more humane and effective alternative to punitive measures, especially for nonviolent offenders. The overwhelming evidence that mass incarceration has failed to reduce crime rates and has disproportionately affected marginalized communities suggests that it is time for a paradigm shift. By emphasizing healing, reconciliation, and social justice, peacemaking criminology aligns more closely with the broader goals of public safety and social equity, which are essential for a functioning criminal justice system.
In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the applicability of peacemaking criminology in certain cases, its focus on restorative justice, rehabilitation, and addressing the root causes of crime provides a promising approach to criminal justice. As long as it is implemented thoughtfully and with appropriate safeguards, peacemaking criminology can offer a transformative path toward a more just and effective criminal justice system.
References
Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1995). A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 46(2), 37–49.
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of Peace Press.
Pepinsky, H., & Quinney, R. (1991). Criminology as peacemaking. Indiana University Press.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
Shapland, J. (2009). Restorative justice in practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(2), 102–119.
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.