Peacemaking Criminology

"Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice." 
    - Dr. Martin Luther King

The principles of peacemaking criminology looks to the community to resolve the social issues causing crime, and prefers restoration and restitution in a participatory process, over retribution and punishment by the criminal justice system.  This Peacemaking Criminology perspective seems predicated on the belief that peace is brought about by removing all social ills and social injustice.  Rather than the conflict-based legal system where there is always one winner and one loser (either the criminal is convicted ((loser)) and state wins, or criminal is exonerated ((wins)) and the state loses), peacemaking criminology seeks to create a win-win system of criminology where agencies and criminals work together in order to address the social ills causing the crime and focusing on restoration and reparation.  This seems entirely based on the principle that the absence of conflict is the presence of peace.  

Harold E. Pepinsky and Richard Quinney advanced the theory of peacemaking criminology by advocating that society moves away from thinking that stopping crime is the answer to crime control, and that making peace between everyone, in particular, agencies of the criminal justice system and citizens.  The Peacekeeping Criminology theory advances principles of "commonsense" theories about crime, moving away from conflict based social policies based on classic methods of criminology, crime control as the enforcement and endorsement of human rights, the role of education in creating peace, and how community settings are utilized to address conflict resolution.

By ending human suffering via peacemaking and elimination of conflict, Quinney and Wilderman state that crime can be eliminated.  Instead of punishment, conflict resolution panels and alternative-dispute resolution is utilized to create participatory justice and focus on rehabilitation, repairing and restoration caused by crime, and that victims are centrally involved in the process of resolving crime.  Peacekeeping criminology presumes to advance social theories of criminology to the extent that both society and the criminal are presumed accountable for crime.

However, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously and correctly stated, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the presence of justice."  A complete dictatorship where there is no conflict is not a system of peace, nor can there be peace without justice.   Critically, this theory seems incredibly naive, and you cannot solve crimes by providing a group hug.  What kind of reparation can you make for human suffering, loss of a limb/eye/mobility or death?  How will the destitute make reparations for thousands or even millions of dollars of damage from a crime?  The naive assumption that all crime can be blamed on society and societal problems, and that there is no personal accountability or psychology involved seems to have created a system that MIGHT operate effectively as arbitration for minor offenses, but seems ill-suited for violent crimes and felonies.

Indian reservations in the United States employ a number of alternative courts and dispute resolution processes, and many include restorative justice principles through alternative-dispute resolution.  As the article by Justin Peters published on Slate, Violent Crime on Indian Reservations Is Up, But Prosecutions Are Down demonstrates, violent crime on Indian reservations is more than 20 times the national average, and many estimate it to in fact be 200x more than the US.  The news article cites the reasons for this being ill-trained criminal justice systems, ineffective alternative-dispute resolution panels and general lack of quality in the agencies of criminal justice.  Violent crime cannot be resolved via dispute resolution, and drunken assaults are not going to be effected by the thought of going before a committee to explain your action.  Morning Star Brown, according to the article, had stabbed or threatened to stab her boyfriend's cousin, Jarret Two Bear, no fewer than 6 times in the 3 years of her relationship with her boyfriend.  She had been convicted of aggravated assault the year prior, but without effect.  Although it seems as though at least some of the courts adjudicating her various cases used classic retribution systems of incarceration, the overall lawlessness and prevalence of violent crime seems to have been caused by a lack of justice, not a lack of love and hugs by the community.  While the case could certainly be made that alcohol abuse was a substantive causative influence at the downfall of Morning Star Brown and the death of Jarret Two Bear. (Peters, Justin. 2013.)  

__

Peters, Justin. (2013).  Violent Crime on Indian Reservations Is Up, But Prosecutions Are Down. Slate, 8-Mar-2013. Retrieved 8-Mar-2013 from http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/03/08/morning_star_brown_violent_crime_on_indian_reservations_is_up_but_prosecutions.html 

Feminist Criminology

Adler and Simon were some of the original proponents of feminist criminology, which explains the difference in crimes committed by women as a result of sociological causes rather than biological in nature.  Feminist criminology points to sexual and economic oppression, disenfranchisement of women, marginalization of women in the home and society and reduced socioeconomic opportunities in a patriarchal society.  Much as the conditions and treatments of African Americans have not completely recovered from slavery, the oppression of women as chattel still causes deep societal divisions.  In the perspective of feminist criminology, crimes committed by women can be explained through gender differentiation in society causes those behaviors.

The 19-Mar-2013 article in the WV Metro News, "Woman Sentenced for Shooting Husband in Hospital Bed"  (http://wvmetronews.com/woman-sentenced-for-shooting-husband-in-hospital-bed/) details the story of Rhonda Stewart, aged 54, who is alleged to have shot her husband in the Intensive Care Unit, in Charleston, WV.  Ms. Stewart claims to have no recollection of the shooting, and appears to have been the victim of systemic and long-term spousal abuse.  According to her daughter, "she has been imprisoned all her life".  Feminist criminology would point to the sexual and social dominance of the husband, and power-control, as described by John Hagan, as introduced through the family class structure creating inequity and struggle.  Gender relationships and differences, from the feminist criminology perspective, would be responsible for the domestic abuse that appears to have been the daily existence for Ms. Stewart, and that ultimately led to her lashing out against her oppressor.

While I believe that there is much we can learn from a feminist perspective of crime, and that social, sexual and power issues created by gender are a causative influence for criminality, I do find that some feminist perspective on crime go too far in demonization of men. However, there is much to be learned from considering the role that gender plays in society and crime.  

My wife is my queen, and I try to honor her, as I hope all men cherish, honor and care for their wife.  Still, I admit that our nuclear family has definite and distinct gender roles, ones which we acknowledge and embrace in some ways, and others we laugh about, when we catch ourselves in a rut.  We recognize that there are different perspectives and views of the world - as a man, I want to kill the bear and drag it back to the cave, so think that my daughters are sharing life events with me so I can "solve the problem", and I've had to realize that they're communicating with me as a therapeutic and healthy way of relating to me as their father.  The criminal justice system has been male-dominated for thousands of years, and only recently has provided for roles for women in criminal justice.  I can see that consideration of a world through a man's eyes, including the world of criminal justice, would tend to focus on solutions that resonate with the male perspective.

Seeing the rich and varied way that family relationships, gender differences and social mores play out across gender boundaries, I can see where a feminist perspective on criminality would provide for insights that were sorely lacking when much of the field of criminology was established.  As we continue to learn and expand the role that feminism plays in our society, I think we will continue to improve the role of women in our criminal justice system -- and hopefully address root causes of crime based on gender inequality.

Justice, Social Justice, Mores and Deviancy

NOTE: This has some NSFW elements, but frank discussion of deviancy is sometimes required if you are to discuss justice. Let's face it, sexual deviancy is one of the easiest to discuss, so, yes, this is 75% about sex.  You've been warned...

----
No, this is not a furthering discussion of Forking DongleGate.

Justice is the pursuit of truth, and equality under the law.  Social justice is the ideal state where fairness in the social system gives everyone an equal opportunity and is based on cultural mores and values for fairness and morality.  As cultural systems create their own ideas of right and wrong (e.g. contrasting Islamic Sharia principles, Judaeo-Christian values and Shinto), there cannot be a single version of social justice.  Ready examples would be the treatment of women in different cultures, and what kind of social justice is presumed in that society to be fair and equitable.  The sense of honoring a woman and social justice for her in Israel will be different from that in Kenya, China and the UK.  One ready example made the newspapers this morning about women in combat - some cultures would view that as highly dishonorable and unjust.

Criminal justice is inexorably tied to the concepts of justice and social justice, because crime is a social problem, and operates within a culture and society.  Cultures will decide for themselves what is deviant behavior.  

In Amsterdam, the red-light windows where prostitutes earn their trade is seen as a necessary and, if not honorable, a relatively dignified answer to a social issue, and sex is viewed quite differently in other parts of the world.  Japan sees pornography as obscene, so has rigorous censorship, yet infamously has vending machines selling used undergarments, and bars where oral sex is purchased along with a beer, since oral sex isn't considered "sex" in Japan.  Purchasing used undergarments would be seen as deviancy in other cultures, and oral sex is a crime in some of them (e.g. Malaysia, Hong Kong).  So, the very notion of crime is tied to the social mores.  

The women of Amsterdam's infamous red windows would be committing crimes in Saudi Arabia, yet gay sex isn't seen as sex, according to reports I've received from soldiers returning from the Middle East.  A friend of mine was officer in the US Marines deployed to the Middle East, as a liaison officer with other NATO units. The number one morale issue he had to deal with regularly were the officers in the army of that country who were raping their own troops, and saw nothing wrong with it, though male-male rape would be a crime in most countries, and is against the Uniform Code of Military Justice of the US armed forces.  

We can see this in the changing work environment, where harassment and sexual harassment charges for behaviors today were just "part of the office" of the past.  Before you immediately jump to the conclusion that that was due to the oppression of women workers, let me share a story. I worked with an older woman from 1995-1999, let's call her Barbara.  Barbara was a collector of stories, and had some great experiences - one of her jobs was to book acts into the Sands casino in Vegas, and it seemed her primary job was keeping the Rat Pack sober enough to perform.  Barbara shared with me that, in her workplace in the 60s, they frequently (weekly?) played a game in the office where someone would yell some phrase I've forgotten (maybe "Grab Ass!" ??).  That would start the game, and the men would chase the women around, jumping over desks, chairs, whatever, with the goal being to tackle and remove the panties of the woman being pursued, and her goal was to avoid it.  The last woman with panties on won for the women's team, and the man with the most panties won on the men's team.  The TRULY unbelievable part was the sincere way in which she swore that this was a fun game for all, and was just some harmless fun.  I was floored.  I asked for clarification on that whole, "It was cool with the women, and they thought it was great" part.  Twice.  Not only were they fine with it, but looked forward to it as fun competition.  No, really.  With my 90s PC ears burning and brain on fire, I wondered at the time if I could be fired for just HEARING that story.  Tackling women to rip their panties off in the workplace would result in prosecution nowadays, but was apparently in accordance with the mores of the time and place, and not considered deviancy or illegal. #brainonfire #derp #reboot

The differing mores for deviancy provide for the criminality of some behaviors, and create differing views of social justice - Amsterdam sees dignity in prostitution, at least one Middle Eastern country sees normalcy in high-ranking officers raping their troops, and Japan sees oral sex from a sex worker as not breaking marital vows, because it's in the realm of a "massage", so there is no adultery, a form of social injustice, perceived in the act.  Yet, Japanese pornographers are breaking the law, and porn stars are deviants in that culture.  As notions of right and wrong effect both the opinion of social justice and criminality, how those deviancies are pursued and prosecuted creates a system of justice.