Peacemaking Criminology Case Study

Generally speaking, peacemaking criminology contends that crime is connected to human suffering and that to put a full stop to crime, we must first end suffering. This implies poverty, bigotry, sexism, estrangement, mishandle inside families, provocation, and every single other type of brutality and abuse must be managed if wrongdoing is to be diminished. Peacemaking criminology is decidedly not standard criminology (Pepinsky, & Quinney, 2011). It isn't positivist in its presentation and isn't focused on point by point genuine examination of the explanation behind criminal direct. It isn't the case that peacemaking criminology isn't involved with the purposes of wrongdoing; instead, it approaches the etiology issue in nontraditional means.

The peacemaking pyramid consists of first, nonviolence which is concerned with the issue of violence. This peacemaking criminology argues and defends death penalty as a form of criminal justice. The second one is social justice which considers a larger prospect of justice compared to the criminal justice. The third one is inclusion that suggests that criminal justice needs to include the stakeholders of the community. In this, the offender is pitted against the state, and his family are included in the cases and have valuable insights. Forth, the categorical imperative that considers the problems of the crime. In this stage, peacemaking comes forth at developing a predictable viewpoint. This stage argues that the response towards crime should reflect a philosophy of not being violent and the social justice that is extended throughout the criminal system. This theory has been viewed as utopian and very unrealistic. This peace making theory is a high philosophy of criminal justice but does not offer the explanation why the system operates the way it does and why offenders commit the

Problem-solving is the act of resolving the underlying issues rather than reacting to 911 calls which are referred to the 911 policy. Neither the aggressive officers no the 911 improved technology can be efficient towards solving such issues. In situations where conflicts arise between married people or relatives, arresting is not the primary solution under the peace solving perspective. I believe that peacemaking criminology holds the possibility to impact instances of aggressive behavior at home. In circumstances where clashes emerge between couples or individuals from family units, a capture isn't the main arrangement under the peacemaking point of view. Cops would have the capacity to react to calls of household savagery to accumulate data on the circumstance, intervene and discover an