Course Title: Modern Penology

A Research Paper
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School
REPUBLICAN COLLEGE
42 18th Avenue, Murphy, Cubao
1109 Quezon City

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science in Criminal Justice
With specialization
In Criminology

By:
WILJHON GUIANG MANANSALA
Date: May 10, 2024

Professor:
Ms. Myka Guinevere Bayanay Lalo
CLASSICAL SCHOOL:

1. What are the key principles of the Classical School of criminology?

The classical school of criminology was a response to the brutal and arbitrary criminal
justice system of eighteenth-century Europe. Classical criminology emphasizes both the
government's role in regulating and punishing inappropriate behavior and individuals' ability to
guide their own actions. Individuals are considered to be rational actors who are able to logically
determine if the pleasure received from a criminal act is greater than the potential sanction. Thus,
individuals can be inhibited from engaging in criminality if the punishments outweigh the
rewards. Classical criminology has been the foundation for several paramount theories in the
discipline, including rational choice, self-control, and routine activity theories (Matthew Valasik,
2022).

According to the article that was published by “Masterclass” The Classical School of
criminology introduced several fundamental principles that significantly influenced the field of
criminology. The following are the key principles of the classical school of criminology;

A clear system of justice: Individual judges often impose their punishments, leading to a
variable system. Having clear guidelines and a cohesive criminal justice system means people
would know the exact sentence for a crime.

Fair and equal treatment: Mild criminal activity often leads to extreme punishment, such
as the death penalty. This classical school of thought accounts for human rights and advocates
for sentences that match the severity of the crime.

Swift punishment: In his study of crime, Beccaria felt that admonishing quick
punishment showed definitive consequences to illegal activity, which would lower crime rates.
Lengthy trials would show the gray areas of an unclear system and would show those who might
commit crimes that punishment does not always directly follow a crime.

These ideas established the framework for a more methodical and ethical approach to
justice, emphasizing fairness, logic, and the importance of appropriate punishments.

2. How does the Classical School view the causes of criminal behavior?
 Classical criminology views criminal activity as the result of individuals' free and
reasonable decisions. In the study conducted by “Ch. Archana and D. Rao, 2022” they
emphasized in their journal for studies in management and planning, that “classical thinking says
that criminals make a rational choice, and choose to do criminal acts due to maximum pleasure
and minimum pain. The classical school says criminals are rational, they weigh up the costs and
therefore we should create deterrents which slightly outweigh what would be gained from the
crime”.

3. What role does deterrence play in the Classical School's approach to crime prevention?

Deterrence is an important component of the Classical School's crime prevention

strategy, emphasizing the importance of creating a legal system that effectively shows the
consequences of illegal action to potential perpetrators. Deterrence tries to discourage people
from committing crimes by raising the perceived cost of crime, while also promoting social order
and legal compliance. This is supported in the study conducted by “Kusal Kavinda
Amaransinghe, 2020” which emphasized that there must be certainty of punishment, according
to the Classical School, for deterrence to be effective, punishment must be certain. Individuals
are less likely to engage in criminal behavior if they believe they will be caught and punished for
their actions. Therefore, law enforcement efforts should focus on increasing the likelihood of
apprehension through effective policing and surveillance.

4. Can you provide examples of criminal justice policies or practices that align with the
principles of the Classical School?

Several of our criminal justice practices adhere to the classical school's ideas. Some
examples include speedy trial, admonishing fast penalty indicated essential consequences for
criminal activity. To deter criminal behavior, the government must be fair and just in imposing
appropriate penalties. Here are some examples aligned with the principles of the classical school;
Enhanced Penalties for Serious Crimes: The Philippines has implemented laws that
impose enhanced penalties for serious crimes such as drug trafficking, homicide, and sexual
offenses. These penalties aim to deter individuals from engaging in particularly harmful or
socially disruptive behavior by increasing the severity of punishment for these offenses.
 Anti-Drug Campaigns: The Philippine government has launched aggressive anti-drug
campaigns, such as "Oplan Tokhang" and "Operation Double Barrel," which target individuals
involved in the illegal drug trade. These campaigns emphasize deterrence by imposing strict
penalties on drug offenders, reflecting the Classical School's focus on the certainty and severity
of punishment in deterring criminal behavior.
5. How does the Classical School's perspective on punishment differ from other schools
of criminology?
Overall, while the Classical School's perspective on punishment has some common goals
with other schools of criminology, such as maintaining social order and preventing crime, its
emphasis on deterrence, proportionality, and individual rationality sets it apart from other
approaches to punishment. While other schools of criminology do not only focus in deterrence
and rationality, but rather they also empahisize some external factors. Positivist School of
Criminology, challenges the classical school, Positivism emerged in the late 19th century as a
challenge to the Classical School. Positivists emphasize social and psychological factors that
drive individuals to commit crimes. Positivists argue that punishment alone is not enough to
prevent crime. They consider individual characteristics, environment, and social influences.
Positivists downplay the role of free will and focus on external influences (White and Hanes
2004).

References:

Classical School of Criminology: Principles of Classical Criminology - 2024 - MasterClass

Beccaria, C. (1963) On Crimes and Punishments (trans. H. Palace). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
(Originally published in Italian 1764.)

Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Dangle, L. E., & Madensen, D. (2006) The empirical status
of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (eds.), Taking
Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory. Advances in Criminological Theory. Volume 15. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 367–396.

The Classical School of Criminology (lawteacher.net)

All Answers ltd, 'The Classical School of Criminology' (Lawteacher.net, May 2024)
<https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminology/the-classical-school-of-
criminological.php?vref=1> accessed 10 May 2024
POSITIVIST SCHOOL:

1. What distinguishes the Positivist School of criminology from the Classical School?

Positivist School of Criminology, challenges the classical school, Positivism emerged in

the late 19th century as a challenge to the Classical School. Positivists emphasize social and
psychological factors that drive individuals to commit crimes. Positivists argue that punishment
alone is not enough to prevent crime. They consider individual characteristics, environment, and
social influences. Positivists downplay the role of free will and focus on external influences
(White and Hanes 2004). Positivist Theory, emphasizes the importance of understanding
individual differences in criminal behavior, including biological, psychological, and social
factors. Positivist theorists argue that interventions and prevention strategies should be tailored to
address these individual differences effectively. While, Neo-Classical Theory acknowledges the
influence of individual differences on criminal behavior, it still places a significant emphasis on
the role of rational choice. Neo-Classical theorists argue that individuals should be held
accountable for their actions but advocate for considering mitigating factors in sentencing and
rehabilitation efforts. Neo-classical theory assumes that aggravating and mitigating
circumstances should be taken into account purpose of sentencing an offender (Tibbetts and
Hemmens, 2014)

2. How does the Positivist School view the causes of criminal behavior, particularly regarding
biological, psychological, and sociological factors?

In the study published by “White and Hanes, 2014”, they cited that the earliest form of
positivism, arose in the late 19th century, involved an attempt to correlate criminal behavior with
certain physiological traits. This led to the identification of a genetic “criminal type” - an idea
that is now wholly discredited. Later, psychological positivists used detailed studies to link
personality traits with particular crimes and to identify those formative experiences (e.g. parental
neglect) that might produce a general predisposition to law-breaking. Alternatively, sociological
positivists have sought the causes of crime in factors external to the offender, such as poverty,
alienation, high population density, and exposure to deviant subcultures (e.g. gangs or drug-
takers). One particularly influential approach was that taken by the Chicago School of the mid-
20th century, which used ecological methods to study the breakdown of social order in inner-city
neighborhoods. Other social positivist approaches include Marxist criminology, which sees
crime as an inevitable product of class conflict and the capitalist system, and critical
criminology, which focuses on the role of power elites in defining what and who is regarded as
criminal.

3. Can you provide examples of research or studies that support the tenets of the Positivist
School?

Positivism In Sociology: Definition, Theory & Examples, Charlotte Nickerson, 2023

Positivism is a belief that we should not go beyond the boundaries of what can be
observed. To a positivist, science is the single most important route to knowledge, and only
questions that can be approached by applying the scientific method should concern us. Reality
exists outside and independently of the mind, and therefore, it can be studied objectively and as a
real thing. They believe that there are social facts that make up the rules of society, which are
separate and independent of individuals. Social facts are things such as institutions, norms, and
values that exist external to the individual and constrain the individual. Sociological positivism
holds that society, like the physical world, functions based on a set of general laws. Positivism is
based on the assumption that by observing social life, scientists can develop reliable and
consistent knowledge about its inner workings.

THE POSITIVIST SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY, Brandon Hamann

The Positivist School of Criminological Theory was in direct conflict with the Classical
School. Think of it like two people who think they know everything having a very loud argument
in public. While the Classicists believed that criminal behavior could be explained through
rationality of choice and a cost/benefit analysis, Positivists believed criminal behavior was a
product of scientifically explained phenomenon. It was not a matter of choice, according to
Positivists, but a matter of observable, empirical fact that criminality could be identified. And
there was no better way to prove it than with science. The Positivists can be broken down into
three subsections: the Biological Positivists, the Psychological Positivists, and the Social
Positivists, or as they are more commonly known, the Chicago School.
Positive Criminology: Theory, Research, and Practice, Natti Ronel and Ety Elisha 2020

Positive criminology is an innovative perspective that underlies existing theories and

models emphasizing the positive forces that influence and assist individuals at risk and offenders
in their recovery process. The theories and models included in positive criminology (e.g.,
peacemaking criminology, social acceptance, crime desistance, restorative justice) are not new;
its novelty lies in their inclusion in a unique and distinct conceptualization. This has led to a shift
in discourse and research in criminology, which goes beyond focusing on risk and criminogenic
factors while focusing on the positive factors and strengths that help individuals to rehabilitate
and successfully integrate into the community.

Studies and practices developed over the past decade have confirmed and reinforced the
assumptions of the positive criminology perspective. Despite its specific limitations, positive
criminology provides a promising platform for further developments and innovations in research
in theory (e.g., positive victimology, spiritual criminology) and in practice (e.g., restorative
justice, problem-solving courts, community policing).

4. How does the Positivist School's emphasis on rehabilitation influence criminal justice policies
and practices?

Treatment Programs in Correctional Settings: One major impact of the Positivist

perspective on rehabilitation is the development and implementation of treatment programs
within correctional facilities. These programs aim to address the underlying factors contributing
to criminal behavior, such as substance abuse, mental health disorders, and cognitive deficits.
Rehabilitation programs may include therapy, counseling, educational programs, vocational
training, and substance abuse treatment, among others (Zaller and Gorvine, 2022)

Diversion and Alternative Sentencing Programs: The Positivist emphasis on

rehabilitation has led to the creation of diversion and alternative sentencing programs that
prioritize treatment and rehabilitation over traditional punitive measures. These programs aim to
redirect nonviolent offenders away from the criminal justice system and into community-based
treatment programs, such as drug courts, mental health courts, and restorative justice programs
(Bell and Mcleod, 2022)
 Risk Assessment and Case Management: Positivist principles have influenced the
development of risk assessment tools and case management practices aimed at identifying
individuals' criminogenic needs and providing targeted interventions to reduce their risk of
reoffending (Bell and Mcleod, 2022).

Reentry and Aftercare Services: The Positivist perspective underscores the importance of
continuity of care and support for individuals transitioning from correctional settings back into
the community. Reentry and aftercare services provide assistance with housing, employment,
education, healthcare, and social support to facilitate successful reintegration and reduce the
likelihood of recidivism. These services may include halfway houses, parole supervision, case
management, and peer mentoring programs (Cannonier, Burke and Mitchell, 2021).

5. What are the criticisms or limitations of the Positivist School's approach to understanding
crime?

While the Positivist School of Criminology has provided important insights into the
reasons of criminal conduct and the efficacy of rehabilitation programs, its approach is not
without criticism. Some of the critiques and limitations are:

Reductionism: Critics argue that Positivist criminology tends to oversimplify the complex
and multifaceted nature of criminal behavior by reducing it to biological, psychological, or
sociological factors. This reductionist approach may overlook the interactive and dynamic
interplay between various factors contributing to criminal conduct, such as the interaction
between genetic predispositions and environmental influences (Herbert Feigl, 2024)

Stigmatization and Labeling: The emphasis on identifying and labeling individuals as "at-
risk" or "high-risk" based on biological or psychological factors can have stigmatizing effects
and may perpetuate stereotypes and discrimination. This labeling process can lead to self-
fulfilling prophecies and exacerbate social marginalization, hindering individuals' opportunities
for reintegration and rehabilitation (Russell Keat, 2000)

References:

Positivist school of criminology - Oxford Reference

Positivism in Sociology: Definition, Theory & Examples (simplypsychology.org)

Positive Criminology: Theory, Research, and Practice | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology

2.6 The Positivist School of Criminological Theory – CCRJ 1013: Introduction to Criminal Justice
(pressbooks.pub)

Providing substance use disorder treatment in correctional settings: knowledge gaps and proposed
research priorities—overview and commentary | Addiction Science & Clinical Practice | Full Text
(biomedcentral.com)

(PDF) Criminal Justice Diversion and the Importance of Program Retention (researchgate.net)

The Impact of a Reentry and Aftercare Program on Recidivism - Colin Cannonier, Monica Galloway
Burke, Ed Mitchell, 2021 (sagepub.com)

Positivism | Definition, History, Theories, & Criticism | Britannica

Microsoft Word - the critique of positivism.doc (russellkeat.net)

REHABILITATION SCHOOL:

1. What are the core principles of the Rehabilitation School of criminology?

The Rehabilitation School, also known as the Rehabilitative Ideal or the Treatment
Model, is a criminological perspective that emphasizes the need of rehabilitating offenders in
order to reduce recidivism and encourage successful reintegration into society. This approach
differs from more punitive or retributive forms of criminal justice, which prioritize punishment
as a deterrent or retribution. The Rehabilitation School's key principles are:

Individualized Treatment: The Rehabilitation School advocates for treatment strategies

that are personalized to each offender's specific needs and circumstances. This could entail
addressing underlying issues including substance misuse, mental health illnesses, educational
gaps, or a lack of employment skills through targeted interventions and support services (Stump
and Zavala, 2022).

Therapeutic Interventions: Rehabilitation programs often incorporate therapeutic

interventions aimed at addressing the psychological, emotional, and behavioral factors
contributing to criminal behavior. These interventions may include counseling, cognitive-
behavioral therapy, anger management, and substance abuse treatment, among others. (Stump
and Zavala, 2022)

Skill Development and Education: Rehabilitation efforts often focus on skill development
and education to enhance offenders' abilities to succeed upon release. This may include
vocational training, job readiness programs, educational opportunities, and literacy initiatives
designed to improve offenders' employability and self-sufficiency (Vandala and Bendall, 2019).

Reintegration and Community Support: The Rehabilitation School emphasizes the

importance of reintegration and community support in facilitating offenders' successful transition
back into society. This may involve providing access to housing, employment assistance, social
services, and supportive networks to help offenders rebuild their lives and avoid further
involvement in criminal activity (Vandala and Bendall, 2019).

2. How does Critical Criminology analyze the role of power, inequality, and social structures in
shaping crime and criminal justice systems?
 In a study conducted by (David Friedrich, 2018), Critical Criminology examines the role
of power, injustice, and social structures in influencing crime and criminal justice systems
through the lenses of critical theory, Marxism, feminism, and other social justice approaches.
Here's how Critical Criminology addresses these concepts:

Power Dynamics: Critical Criminology investigates how power operates in society and
how it effects lawmaking and enforcement, as well as the administration of justice. It investigates
how people in positions of power, such as the government, companies, and dominant social
groups, utilize their influence to establish legal definitions of crime, criminalize specific acts, and
maintain social control.

Inequality and Social Structures: Critical Criminology acknowledges that crime and
criminal justice are inextricably linked to larger social structures such as economic, political, and
cultural systems. It looks at how socioeconomic disparities including poverty, racism, sexism,
and classism influence crime patterns and how people interact with the criminal justice system.
Critical criminology focuses on how crime and criminalization disproportionately affect
marginalized and underprivileged communities.

Critical Criminology rejects the idea that crime is an objective and universal category,
instead emphasizing its social production. It investigates how social norms, beliefs, and power
dynamics influence the classification of certain acts as criminal or deviant, whereas others are
normative or tolerated. Critical criminology investigates how the criminal justice system
selectively targets and punishes underprivileged populations, maintaining socioeconomic
disparities and reinforcing existing power dynamics.

3. Can you provide examples of social justice initiatives or activism informed by Critical
Criminology principles?

Social justice projects and activism based on Critical Criminology concepts include a
wide range of attempts to challenge systematic injustice, promote equity, and advocate for
revolutionary change in criminal justice institutions and society as a whole. Here are few
examples:
 Community-Based Restorative Justice Programs: Restorative justice projects, guided by
Critical Criminology concepts, aim to repair harm, encourage healing, and promote
accountability via discussion and reconciliation. These initiatives work with impacted parties to
address the core causes of harm, helping communities to resolve conflicts and address social
injustices outside of traditional punitive frameworks.

Prisoner Rights Advocacy: Prisoner rights organizations and activists fight to raise
incarcerated people's voices, question prison conditions, and lobby for humane treatment and
rehabilitation facilities. These efforts strive to protect inmates' civil and human rights while also
addressing challenges such as overcrowding, brutality, and limited access to healthcare and
education.

Reentry and Reintegration Programs: Initiatives aimed at assisting those returning from
incarceration, such as reentry and reintegration programs, provide critical resources and support
to help formerly incarcerated people rebuild their lives and reintegrate into their communities.
These initiatives prioritize access to housing, job, education, healthcare, and social services in
order to prevent recidivism and encourage effective reintegration.

4. How does Critical Criminology contribute to our understanding of crime and justice in
contemporary society?

Critical criminology has achieved a substantial presence within the field of criminology
over the past several decades. Critical criminology has produced a framework for the
understanding of crime and criminal justice that challenges core premises of mainstream
criminology. Critical criminology emerged—principally from about 1980 on—in relation to
radical (and “new”) criminology in the 1970s, and various influential societal developments and
forces associated with the Sixties. The roots of critical criminology can be located in Marxist
theory, in the work of Willem Bonger, and in that of other scholars who were not self-identified
radicals—including Edwin H. Sutherland. Interactionist (labeling) theory and conflict theory
provided an important point of departure for the development of radical—and subsequently
critical—criminology. More specifically, the Berkeley School of Criminology in the United
States and the National Deviancy Conferences in the United Kingdom were influential sources
for the emergence of critical criminology. The core thesis of critical criminology can be most
concisely summarized as a critique of domination, inequality, and injustice. Starting with the
definition of “crime” itself, critical criminologists expose the biases and political agenda of
mainstream criminology and advance an alternative approach to understanding crime and
criminal justice. That said, some different choices are made by self-identified critical
criminologists in terms of underlying assumptions, methodological preferences, and different
forms of activist engagement. A call for news-making criminology, or a form of public
criminology, is one theme for activism: direct political mobilization is another. The term “critical
criminology” today is best understood as an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of
different perspectives with quite different core concerns. Some of these strains were more
dominant at an earlier time; some have emerged or become more prominent recently. The
following are among the most enduring and consequential strains of critical criminology: neo-
Marxist, critical race, left realist, feminist, crimes of the powerful, green, cultural, peacemaking,
abolitionist, postmodern, postcolonial, border, and queer criminology. Some critical
criminologists have called for replacing the core focus on crime with a focus on harm, broadly
defined, and replacing criminology with zemiology, or the study of harm. Critical criminologists
have concerned themselves with crimes of the powerful; gendered, sexualized harm and intimate
partner violence; raced harm and racial oppression; hate crime; the war on drugs; the war on
immigrants; police violence and the militarization of the police; mass incarceration and
privatized criminal justice; carceral regimes; mass imprisonment; the death penalty, and
alternative forms of justice including a form of restorative justice—among many other
substantive concerns. The call for a Southern criminology that incorporates the outlook and
concerns of the Global South is one significant development within critical criminology. Critical
criminology has the potential to be of special relevance within the context of a historical period
characterized by intense conflicts in relation to the political economy and civil society (David
Friedrichs, 2018)

5. What are the challenges or criticisms associated with Critical Criminology?

Critical criminology, like any other theoretical framework, is not without problems and
criticisms. Some of the primary issues and criticisms related with Critical Criminology include:

Political Bias and Ideological Agenda, critics contend that Critical Criminology is
frequently marked by a political bias and ideological agenda that prioritizes social justice and
equity over empirical facts and objectivity. They argue that Critical Criminology may ignore or
marginalize opposing perspectives, as well as fail to interact with different points of view and
research results that do not fit within its ideological framework (David Friedrichs, 2018).

Neglect of Crime Victims, critics contend that Critical Criminology sometimes ignores
the experiences and needs of crime victims, instead concentrating on criminals and systemic
causes. They argue that Critical Criminology should take a more balanced approach, recognizing
the different viewpoints and interests of all stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including
victims, offenders, and communities (David Friedrichs, 2018).

Overall, Critical Criminology provides essential insights into the social, political, and
economic components of crime and justice; yet, it also faces challenges and criticisms that
require careful examination and ongoing conversation within the discipline. To address these
issues, Critical Criminology may need to engage with different points of view, develop its
methodological foundations, and strive for more inclusion and relevance in guiding policy and
practice.

References:

Evidence-Based Strategies for Treatment Personalization: A Review - ScienceDirect

Full article: The transformative effect of correctional education: A global perspective (tandfonline.com)

Critical Approaches to Law and Crime – Criminology: Foundations and Modern Applications
(pressbooks.pub)

Critical Criminology and the Critique of Domination, Inequality and Injustice | Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Criminology

Critical Criminology and the Critique of Domination, Inequality and Injustice | Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Criminology

Critique Of Critical Criminology by Ron Evans on Prezi

PEACEMAKING CRIMINOLOGY:

1. What are the key principles of Peacemaking Criminology?

Peacemaking criminology is an alternative approach to crime that endorses nonviolent,

socially just methods for dealing with victims and offenders and, ultimately, achieving social
control. It lies in direct opposition to the war on crime model that seeks social control through
coercion, intimidation, and, sometimes, violence. Peacemaking is viewed as a radical departure
from the warmaking model that is so pervasive in the criminal justice system (Kimberly Dodson,
2014).

Peacemaking Criminology is a branch of criminology that emphasizes the need of

creating peace, justice, and nonviolence as alternatives to punitive approaches to crime and
conflict. It aims to address the underlying causes of crime and social suffering, while also
encouraging healing, reconciliation, and revolutionary change. The key principles of
Peacemaking Criminology are:

Peacemaking Criminology promotes nonviolent ways to conflict and harm resolution,

eschewing punitive reactions in favor of restorative justice techniques that emphasize healing,
accountability, and reconciliation. It emphasizes the value of healing relationships and meeting
the needs of both victims and offenders via communication, mediation, and community
involvement (Kimberly Dodson, 2014).

Peacemaking Criminology supports social justice and equity by tackling underlying

structural disparities such as poverty, racism, sexism, and oppression that contribute to criminal
activity and societal harm. It advocates for structural reforms to address the core causes of
injustice and build more just and equitable communities (Kimberly Dodson, 2014).

Peacemaking Criminology views empathy, compassion, and understanding as critical

components in addressing crime and conflict. It promotes individuals and communities to
acknowledge the humanity of both victims and perpetrators, and to respond to harm with
empathy and compassion rather than revenge or punishment (Hal Pepinsky, 2013).

Peacemaking Criminology emphasizes the importance of community empowerment and

involvement in combating crime and social suffering. It encourages grassroots efforts,
community-based groups, and participatory methods to justice that enable individuals and
communities to take an active role in establishing safer, more peaceful neighborhoods (Hal
Pepinsky, 2013).

Overall, Peacemaking Criminology provides a comprehensive and compassionate

approach to crime and conflict resolution, based on nonviolent principles, social justice,
empathy, and community empowerment. It aims to facilitate healing, reconciliation, and
transformative change at both the individual and societal levels.

2. How does Peacemaking Criminology approach conflict resolution and crime prevention?

Peacemaking Criminology uses nonviolent, restorative, and community-based tactics to

resolve conflicts and prevent crime, with a focus on healing, reconciliation, and transformative
change. Here's how Peacemaking Criminology approaches these issues:

Restorative Justice activities: Peacemaking Criminology promotes restorative justice

activities as alternatives to punitive approaches to crime and conflict. Restorative justice brings
together victims, criminals, and community members to redress the pain caused by crime, rebuild
relationships, and encourage accountability. Restorative justice uses techniques such as victim-
offender mediation, circles, and conferencing to empower participants, promote healing, and
avoid future harm.

Community Empowerment and Engagement: Peacemaking Criminology emphasizes

community empowerment and engagement as critical components of crime prevention and
resolution. It highlights the significance of grassroots efforts, community-based groups, and
participatory methods to justice that include impacted communities in developing solutions to
crime and social suffering. Communities may create safer, more resilient settings by
strengthening their social networks, cultivating trust, and addressing underlying social
imbalances.

Addressing the Root Causes of Crime: Peacemaking Criminology acknowledges the significance
of addressing the underlying causes of crime and societal suffering, such as poverty, racism,
oppression, and social inequality. It advocates for systemic changes to address the underlying
structural issues and build more just and equitable communities. Peacemaking Criminology
seeks to avoid crime and conflict by addressing causes such as economic disadvantage, limited
access to education and healthcare, and social marginalization.

3. Can you provide examples of peacemaking practices or initiatives implemented in

communities or criminal justice systems?

Therapeutic Community, Modality, Batangas City, City Jail. Therapeutic Community

modality Program was perceived by the inmates as effective specifically the Work and
Educational Therapy Services, Livelihood Skill Training, Counseling and Religious Services and
Medical Services (Esquibel., et al 2015)

For instance, this program could give them a chance to acquire job skills which will
improve the chances that inmates will become productive citizen upon release. The programs
must aim to change those want to change. Those who are taught to produce useful goods and to
be productive are likely to develop the self-esteem essential to a normal integrated personality.
This kind of program would provide many useful skills and habits and replace the sense of
hopelessness that many inmates have (Esquibel., et al 2015).

Another example is Retributive Justice, retributive justice subjectively appropriate

punishment of individuals or groups who have committed a transgression. We discuss possible
evolutionary origins of retributive justice, move on to more reflective philosophies of
punishment prevalent in societal discourse, and discuss psychological underpinnings of
individuals’ adoption of particular philosophies or goals of punishment. We then focus on how
exactly punishment as a response to wrongdoing (i.e., retribution) may satisfy a psychological
justice motive. We highlight the communicative function of retribution and its ability to address
symbolic threats or concerns that derive from a wrongdoing. Finally, we will argue that while
retribution may be sought to alleviate various concerns and to repair justice, its capacity to do so
as well as individuals’ choices of punishment for these purposes can only be adequately
understood if non-punitive alternatives are considered. We call for an integrated understanding
of justice responses that recognizes the fluid and multifaceted nature of justice repair (Wenzell
and Okimoto, 2016)

Katarungan Pambarangay Law, Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the 1991 Local
Government Code, gives barangays the mandate to enforce peace and order and provide support
for the effective enforcement of human rights and justice. Decentralization has facilitated the
recognition of the Katarungang Pambarangay or Barangay Justice System as an alternative venue
for the resolution of disputes. The challenge facing local governments now is to maximize and
harness the katarungang pambarangay as one of the most valuable mechanisms available in
administering justice, advancing human rights protection and resolving and/or mediating conflict
at the barangay level through non-adversarial means.

4. How does Peacemaking Criminology address issues of social justice and inequality within the
criminal justice system?

Peacemaking Criminology emphasizes social fairness and injustice in the criminal justice
system by pushing for systemic reforms, encouraging restorative justice methods, and
confronting oppressive institutions and practices. Here are some main ways in which
Peacemaking Criminology addresses these issues:

Peacemaking Criminology criticizes punitive practices in the criminal justice system,

including mass incarceration, severe sentencing policies, and racial profiling, which
disproportionately affect underprivileged populations. It emphasizes the role of systemic racism,
sexism, classism, and other forms of oppression in maintaining inequality and injustice in the
criminal justice system.

Advocacy for Systemic Reforms: Peacemaking Criminology promotes systemic reforms

that address the underlying causes of unfairness in the criminal justice system. This could entail
campaigning for policy changes, legislative reforms, and institutional reforms that promote
fairness, equity, and accountability. Peacemaking Criminology also advocates for reducing the
use of punitive measures and investing in community-based alternatives to jail.

Restorative Justice techniques: Peacemaking Criminology advocates for the employment

of restorative justice techniques in the criminal justice system as an alternative to punitive
measures. Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm, encouraging healing, and rebuilding
connections among victims, offenders, and communities. Restorative justice methods aim to
address underlying causes of social injustice and inequality by prioritizing the needs of
individuals affected by crime and conflict.
 Community Empowerment and involvement: Peacemaking Criminology emphasizes the
significance of community empowerment and involvement in resolving social justice and
injustice in the criminal justice system. It promotes efforts that involve communities in decision-
making, encourage community policing, and foster collaboration between law enforcement and
community organizations. Peacemaking Criminology works to develop more just and equitable
solutions to crime and conflict by encouraging stakeholder participation and solidarity.

It’s about testing and capturing innovations to shift from automatic punishment, which
we know can magnify economic inequities and compound the effects of systemic racism, to
community-based solutions that enable people to thrive. It’s about creating a roadmap that other
governments can use to make their own systems more just (Ana Billingsley, 2021)

5. What are the potential benefits and challenges of implementing peacemaking approaches to
crime and justice?

Peacemaking criminology has a lot of advantages in our society, but at the same time,
there are also lots of challenges upon its implementation. Here are some potential benefits and
challenges of implementing peacemaking approaches:

Benefits:

Restoration and Healing: Restorative justice approaches enable victims to vent their
emotions, accept apologies, and participate in the resolution process. Offenders are given the
opportunity to make amends and accept responsibility for their acts.

Peacemaking involves the community in settling problems. Community members

participate in restorative circles or gatherings, which creates a sense of shared responsibility.

Restorative justice programs may reduce recidivism rates by addressing underlying issues
and developing empathy, as opposed to typical punitive measures.

Cost-effectiveness: Restorative justice techniques may be less expensive than

incarceration or protracted court proceedings.

Challenges:
 Victim Participation: Not all victims are willing or able to engage in restorative justice
processes. Some people may fear vengeance or find it emotionally difficult.

Offender Accountability: Some say that restorative justice does not hold offenders
appropriately accountable. Balancing recovery and accountability can be challenging.

References:

Peacemaking Criminology - Dodson - Major Reference Works - Wiley Online Library

(PDF) Peacemaking Criminology (researchgate.net)

EJRSS-EFFECTIVENESS-OF-THERAPEUTIC-COMMUNITY-MODALITY-PROGRAM-IMPLEMENTED-IN-
BATANGAS-CITY-JAIL-PHILIPPINES.pdf (lpubatangas.edu.ph)

De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York City: Springer
Publishing Company.

(PDF) Retributive Justice (researchgate.net)

Community-Based Drug Rehabilitation and Care in Philippine Local Governments: Enablers, Barriers, and
Outcomes | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

Related_Laws_Katarungang_Pambarangay_Handbook.pdf (dilg.gov.ph)

Bringing equity to the justice system is possible — Harvard Gazette