Peacemaking Criminology the First Difficulty

Peacemaking Criminology

The first difficulty in assessing peacemaking criminology (PMC) begins with identifying a clear, reasonably encompassing definition, or even isolating a group of precepts that binds adherents. The PMC perspective is not a theory, because it lacks an identifiable core of readily testable postulates or claims, contains more vision than explanation, and does not seem amenable to modification when confronted with contentious factual or other challenges. In fact, many advocates of the perspective seem to avoid addressing criticisms. It is not a systematic philosophy, because it contains no well-articulated premises or rigorous method for critiquing, testing, or advancing knowledge. Although identified with the discipline of criminology, peacemaking criminology is not a discipline, because it possesses no integrating set of systematic theories or method or immediately obvious policy-oriented guidelines. Therefore, we begin our exploration of PMC by initially viewing it as a perspective, or a stance from which to view and comment upon objects within our gaze.

A peacemaking perspective in the social sciences is hardly new. Three decades ago, Curle (1971) articulated a detailed theory of strategies for replacing conflict with peace, and journals such as Humanity and Society have long nurtured a social science humanistic perspective. but, the emergence of a distinctly criminological form of "peacemaking," although it emerged over 20 years ago, has mushroomed primarily in the past decade. The growth occurred largely as a response to the perceived futility of the warmaking metaphor that dominates crime control research and scholarship, and in part as a response to the need to integrate criminal justice theory and practice within a broader framework of basic human needs. Although origins of PMC are often attributed to Richard Quinney, the seeds of a kinder, gentler mainstream criminology that responded to human needs rather than reacted to human misdeeds were sown especially by the works of Tifft (1979), Tifft and Sullivan (1980) and Pepinsky (1979). In arguing for minimalist state control structures and spiritual rejuvenation as the preconditions for a just society, Tifft offered one of the earliest systematic attempts to establish a base for a criminology of peacemaking. Tifft's responsive anarchism was a call for a society based on love, one that attends to essential human needs. Stressing empathy for the plight of others, he argued that existing social structures and forms of interaction perpetuate human misery, and that crime and misery are irrevocably intertwined. Spiritual rejuvenation requires empathy with those who, because of their social position, are more likely to be relegated to life conditions characterized by structural inequality, existential despair, and physical or mental suffering.

The articulation of an explicit peacemaking perspective in criminology arguably began with the works of Richard Quinney (1988), and further developed by others, such as Anderson (1989) and Pepinsky (1988). Pepinsky and Quinney (1991) reshaped the perspective with twenty articles by peacemaking proponents in a single collection that addressed the PMC tradition, integrated PMC with other genres such as feminism, and then connected the perspective to radical/critical criminology. Their collection not only increased the visibility of the perspective, but it also cast a wider intellectual and ideological net than had previous works by uniting scholars who had been writing on the periphery of explicit peacemaking issues.

Developing a similar theme of a humanist social science, Pepinsky observed that, "rather than trying to find out what is, the humanist uses data to calculate what can be." In doing so, he contributed to criminology a transformative set of ideals to guide the emerging perspective as a research direction. In later refinements, Pepinsky argued that there is a direct relationship between violence and social unresponsiveness that occurs through processes of depersonalization. Like Tifft, Pepinsky challenged us to rethink our conceptualization of crime and suggested that an act of crime is conventionally defined by nuances of context and motive, a distinction he rejects.

Related to PMC, restorative justice is a theory of criminal justice that focuses on crime as an act against another individual or community rather than the state. As Pepinsky writes, "more than one criminologist has told me how refreshing it was to read Criminology as Peacemaking because the book contained so many ideas of what to do. 'Now I can feel good about being a criminologist,' I hear. This is also the primary appeal of 'restorative justice,' although as I have explained in this volume, I think that 'making things right' is more than any social process can deliver." The victim plays a major role in the process and receives some type of restitution from the offender.

Restorative justice takes many different forms, but all systems have some aspects in common. Victims have an opportunity to express the full impact of the crime upon their lives, to receive answers to any lingering questions about the incident, and to participate in holding the offender accountable for his or her actions. Offenders can tell their story of why the crime occurred and how it has affected their lives. They are given an opportunity to make things right with the victim - to the degree possible - through some form of compensation.

For petty or first-time offenses, a case may be referred to restorative justice as a pretrial diversion, with charges being dismissed after fulfillment of the restitution agreement. In more serious cases, restorative justice may be part of a sentence that includes prison time or other punishments.

Victim-offender mediation, or VOM (also called victim-offender dialogue, victim-offender conferencing, victim-offender reconciliation, or restorative justice dialogue), is usually a face-to-face meeting, in the presence of a trained mediator, between the victim of a crime and the person who committed that crime. This system generally involves a small number of participants, and often is the only option available to incarcerated offenders, due to limits on visitors.

Family group conferencing (FGC) has a much wider circle of participants than VOM. In addition to the primary victim and offender, participants may include people connected to the victim, the offender's family members, and others connected to the offender. FGC is often the most appropriate system for juvenile cases, due to the important role of the family in a juvenile offender's life.

A community restorative board typically is composed of a small group of citizens, prepared for this function by intensive training, who conduct public, face-to-face meetings with offenders sentenced by the court to participate in the process. During a meeting, board members discuss with the offender the nature of the offense and its negative consequences. Then board members develop a set of proposed sanctions which they discuss with the offender, until they reach agreement on the specific actions the offender will take within a given time period to make reparation for the crime. Subsequently, the offender must document his or her progress in fulfilling the terms of the agreement. After the stipulated period of time has passed, the board submits a report to the court on the offender's compliance with the agreed upon sanctions. At this point, the board's involvement with the offender is ended.

Sentencing circles (sometimes called peacemaking circles) use traditional circle ritual and structure to involve the victim, victim supporters, the offender, offender supporters, judge and court personnel, prosecutor, defense counsel, police, and all interested community members. Within the circle, people can speak from the heart in a shared search for understanding of the event, and together identify the steps necessary to assist in healing all affected parties and prevent future crimes. Sentencing circles typically involve a multi-step procedure that includes: (1) application by the offender to participate in the circle process; (2) a healing circle for the victim; (3) a healing circle for the offender; (4) a sentencing circle to develop consensus on the elements of a sentencing plan; and (5) follow-up circles to monitor the progress of the offender.

Cases in which the offender denies responsibility for the crime or has no remorse are unsuitable for restorative justice and are usually referred back to court. If the victim is unwilling to participate, the effectiveness of restorative justice is diminished, because the process depends on holding the offender directly accountable to the victim. Offenses without a readily identifiable victim, such as truancy or marijuana possession, are less suitable for restorative justice than other crimes, according to Prince William County, Virginia juvenile probation officer Danielle McCauley.

A study of 1,298 juveniles conducted throughout the late 1980s and 1990s found a 32% reduction in recidivism relative to a comparison group, according to an article in the Summer 1999 edition of VOMA Connections. The Fiscal Year 2004 annual report of Prince William County, Virginia's Restorative Justice Program found that of the 234 offenders served in Fiscal Year 2003, 18 had re-offended through June 30, 2004, for a recidivism rate of 8%. A 2001 report by Department of Justice Canada found that "restorative justice programs, on average, yielded reductions in recidivism compared to non-restorative approaches to criminal behavior."

In 1995, Dennis Sullivan and Larry Tifft discussed the possibility of creating a new journal that would publish work on justice that had a difficult time finding a home in conventional academic journals because of its view of the nation-state and the globalizing market economy. They began to outline an issue of the journal which they tentatively called Contemporary Criminology: A Journal of Ideas Predisposed Toward Radical Democratization. It was hoped that the first issue might arrive during the Fall of 1996.

About the same time, Sullivan and Tifft also spoke about creating a new association for scholars, activists, and practitioners that would serve as an alternative to the conventional academic criminology and criminal justice organizations. It was suggested that the members of this association might come together each year and share their ideas and discuss their current work in mostly plenary sessions. Great emphasis would be put on the participation of everyone present through extensive discussions. An invitation would be extended to all those associated with the restorative justice community who, though they met periodically around the globe, had no permanent home or community with which to share their ideas and find support.

It was also apparent that there were small groups of scholars in the academic fields of anthropology, political science, religious studies, and sociology among other academic disciplines which were grappling with nonviolent, non-state, non-power-economy-based approaches to justice. Moreover, many of the people interested in these issues were not limiting their concerns about justice to criminal or even restorative justice but were in fact extending them to matters within the family, the school, the workplace, and the neighborhood.

To help with the establishment of the new journal and the new association, the Institute for Economic and Restorative Justice was formed. It was intended to serve as a catalytic agent to bring the new journal and association into existence. After Tifft and Sullivan guest-edited a special issue of the Justice Professional on "Criminology as Peacemaking," Sullivan began negotiations with Gordon & Breach to publish a journal not on criminology or criminal justice but on justice issues generally. The journal would be called Contemporary Justice Review with a subtitle of Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice. The journal soon became a reality. In the meantime, Tifft and Sullivan with the assistance of Peter Cordella and Peter Sanzen began work toward making a trial run of the new association in the form of a conference in Albany, New York.

This three-day conference was held in early June 1997. Its theme was "Justice Without Violence: Views From Peacemaking Criminology and Restorative Justice." It was cosponsored by the Institute for Economic and Restorative Justice and the Criminal Justice Department of Hudson Valley Community College. There was great uncertainty about how many people would come but in fact over 165 scholars, practitioners, and activists from all parts of the United States (U.S.), Canada, New Zealand, England, and Australia, arrived to examine new ways to think about and practice justice without violence.

The following June (1998), about a dozen people were invited to Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire for a three-day symposium to discuss issues of restorative justice but also to talk about ways to further the development of the new association. Among those present were David Karp of Skidmore College, Javier Trevino of Wheaton College, Peter Sanzen of Hudson Valley Community College, Peter Cordella and Polly Smith of Saint Anselm College, Dennis Sullivan of the Institute for Economic and Restorative Justice, Fred Boehrer and Diana Conroy of the Albany Catholic Worker, and Frank Kirkpatrick of Trinity College, CT.

Then, in November of that year, during the 50th annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Washington, DC, Javier Trevino, Peter Sanzen, Peter Cordella, Larry Tifft, Dennis Sullivan, Hal Pepinsky (who was presenting at the time of the formal organizational meeting), and Fred Boehrer (who had to return home early) met to form the new international association which was named Justice Studies Association (JSA). The cofounders decided that, while the new association would be concerned about issues of criminology and criminal justice, its focus would extend globally and to issues of justice in all areas of our lives.

The cofounders also emphasized how important it was that the association welcome activists and practitioners as well as scholars to share their ideas and current work and hopefully collaborate on projects. Hence, they continue to see members come from all fields of academic endeavor interested in justice: anthropology, social work, history, religion, criminal justice, sociology, psychology, law, among others. The work that people come to share ranges from broad theories of social justice to specific restorative justice demonstration projects including direct action and practice. Members of JSA continue to reiterate that the association considers activists and practitioners to be an essential part of its makeup. They are seen as an integral part of the mix that gives depth to the exchanges that take place throughout each conference. The first formal conference of JSA was held in June 1999, also at Saint Anselm College. The 2000 conference was held in Albany, New York in May/June of 2000, attracting participants internationally and from all parts of the U.S.

Different theories of criminal justice can usually be distinguished in how they answer questions about punishment. Punishment is a penalty imposed by a legal system along with, or because of, a stigma of wrongdoing or lawbreaking. This definition purposefully excludes penalties unrelated to wrongdoing or lawbreaking, even when imposed by a legal system. It also distinguishes, or at least restricts, this definition from the one used in operant conditioning. "Although some peacemakers reject the concept of punishment and confinement, most do not, and neither concept is incompatible with PMC. The goal is to balance the needs of all parties rather than exact a 'just measure of pain.' Prison-oriented peacemaking activity includes working for the attrition of prisons."

Should criminals be punished? The answer to this question is important as a negative answer makes further questions about punishment irrelevant. In fact, if we answer no, then the theory of punishment does not even belong in the theory of criminal justice. Most theories answer yes, that there are at least some criminals or criminal acts that should be punished. However, this question should not be so easily dismissed as there are theories which do answer no. Consider, for example, the political theory of anarchy. Also, certain versions of restorative justice might optimistically make the claim that punishment is unnecessary.

There is also the question of why we should punish. "A legalistic definition of crime takes as its starting point the statutory definitions contained in the penal code, legal statutes or ordinances. A crime is a crime because the law says so. Sure, there are concerns about overcriminalization (too many laws) and undercriminalization (not enough laws), but at least on the surface, a legalistic approach seems practical." Utilitarian reasons for punishment include deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. A popular moralistic basis for punishment is that punishment of a wrongdoer is good in and of itself. This is the position of many adherents to retributive justice. It should be noted, however, that there are other moral arguments for punishment. These include the idea that victims have a right to retribution, or that the criminal has a right to punishment. It is not necessary for a theory of punishment to have a single underlying reason, although many do.

We should punish criminals, but unfortunately, the answer is not that simple. Should we punish only lawbreakers, or other wrongdoers? Should we punish all criminals? Often, the answers to these questions are interrelated with the reasons for punishment. For example, if the reason for punishment is rehabilitation, then we should not punish criminals who show genuine remorse. In practice, this is difficult to determine.

Peacemaking criminology is a non-violent movement against oppression, social injustice and violence as found within criminology, criminal justice and society in general. Its proponents propose that crime and the criminal justice process are characterized by suffering to victims, offenders and society, and that crime and justice problems may be eliminated or reduced by healing the suffering which makes them a possibility. "A strategy of compassion and service is therefore advocated to affect suffering and thus crime. Peacemaking criminologists recognize the dialectical relationship between the individual and society, each shaping and being shaped by the other." A strategy of compassion and service is therefore advocated to affect suffering and thus crime. Peacemaking criminologists recognize the dialectical relationship between the individual and society, each shaping and being shaped by the other. It is therefore important that individuals achieve a measure of peace within themselves in order to move society in the direction of peace. To this end, peacemaking criminologists advocate spiritual practice, respect for the sacred, and love as tools with which one may develop the discrimination to recognize injustice and the desire and ability to end suffering.