Book Review: Criminology, Conflict Resolution and Restorative Justice.

The three strands indicated in the title are related, perhaps rather loosely, because the editors agree with those, such as John Braithwaite, who see restorative justice as linking conflict resolution in many spheres of human interaction, from the international to the local and the family.  They see war not as the expected relationship between states but as a threat to the survival of humanity;  ‘wars’ against terrorism, drugs and crime are, they might have added, almost as dangerous.   

The first two articles are about criminology.  Dirk van Zyl Smit divides South African criminology into three schools.  The ‘conservative’ tendency defended the status quo, even using Nazi theory.  Legal reformists claimed that research was ‘value-free’ and tried to make the existing system work more humanely without questioning its socio-political basis.  Critical criminology challenged the existing order, and worked with disadvantaged groups (African and Coloured).  Community-based solutions were linked with official structures, but there was still popular punitiveness, which van Zyl Smit thinks may be a threat to constitutional order.

In Northern Ireland, too, there were different criminological discourses.  Kieran McEvoy and Graham Ellison look at the positivist view of terror as an entity that can be ‘defeated’, while the legitimacy of the state is seen as axiomatic.  Here, too, critical criminology pointed to structural inequalities and crimes of the powerful, as well as human rights abuses.  An interesting community-based ‘transitional justice’ has arisen, but may be overwhelmed when the traditional system re-establishes itself.

Conflict prevention in Africa is described by Rachel Murray primarily in terms of declarations and structures that have not worked very well. It may be that this is because the alien Western concept of the ‘state’ has been superimposed on quite different traditions.  There is little mention of indirect approaches, such as unofficial mediators, the Harvard Negotiation Project, control of weapons supply, trained inspectors, support for civil society and free media.   

Jim Thomas and colleagues are 'candid friends' of peacemaking criminology (PMC).  It can easily be caricatured as merely 'being nice'.  Its proponents argue that instead of focusing on human misdeeds we should re-shape social structures to meet human needs. But they say little about how to make this happen.  Thomas, et al, argue that this 'passive-ism' lets conservatives have it all their own way. 

PMC has been criticized for not being empirically verifiable.  The authors suggest some answers to these and other criticisms;  for example, communities that implement RJ could be compared with others that do not.  PMC has an important role in making people think, but it needs to pay more attention to direct policy implications.

Harry Mika and Howard Zehr  worry that RJ is being subverted to fit conventional justice attitudes, and list the specific components of their vision of it.  They ask provocatively whether the ever-growing apparatus of state justice is the result, or the cause, of de-stabilized local communities.

One American bright idea for tackling juvenile delinquency is 'teen courts'.  They certainly involve young people, but the values they promote are those of conventional justice.  Lisa Rieger describes efforts to impose teen courts on communities in Alaska to which they are strikingly unsuited.  Firstly, those communities have a traditional respect for elders who are seen as having more wisdom than young people. Secondly, the teen court is not adversarial or punitive.  Local languages do not even have a word for 'guilt';  an elder simply explains to the wrongdoer how to act rightly. Some Westerners have become more receptive to First Nation traditions, as in family group conferencing and circle sentencing.

Adam Crawford gives a useful summary of recent juvenile justice legislation in England and Wales, and lists a number of possible unintended consequences such as the increased use of custody and failure to serve victims' interests.  RJ does not fit well with the prevalent managerialism.  While it should use its ability to draw attention to pressures towards crime;  it must also  recognise that dealing with them is a task for society as a whole, not for the justice system.

The final chapter, by Sandra Walklate, is a corrective for those who put their faith in 'the community', pointing out that in some cases a code of conduct is enforced by a criminal gang - who will also beat up anyone who reports them to the police.

This is a stimulating book, despite its price (and a few proof-reading errors).  It reminds us that criminology is not value-free but, like most of us, is influenced by its provenance and environment.  It can be conservative, idealistic or unrealistic;  it can also provide a vital
corrective when practice departs from acceptable values.

 

Martin Wright
February 2005