Why has peacemaking failed

W 12 A

Why has peacemaking failed to evolve into a full-fledged theoretical perspective? Will it ever make this transition?

Provide a document of between 700 and 900 words that provides a detailed response to this question. It is not necessary to follow APA 6 formatting but please do format your citations and references according to APA 6

Response to the above

W 12 D Q 1 What are some of the contributing factors that are leading to a resurgence of conservative criminology?

Response to the above

W 12 Q #2

Why has peacemaking failed to evolve into a full-fledged theoretical perspective? Will it ever make this transition?

Response to the above

C S

w 12 D Q 1

The factors that are leading to a resurgence in conservative criminology is because of the classical school of criminology. This is because of the people with free will and can think and do what ever they want. The conservative criminology is a theory that individuals will not commit crime because of the high risks that come with it. Another factor is deterrence because criminals are being locked up and that is causing problems in the prisons. They are keeping people locked up instead of trying to rehabilitative the criminals.

Response to the above

S J

W 12 #1

According to Lilly,Cullen and Ball (2011) “First, efforts were made to revitatlize the early positivist school’s emphasis on ingrained individual differences, with a special emphasis on defects in human nature or in intelligence as the master predictor of Criminal involvement. Second, by revitalizing classical school princles, other scholars developed models that conceeive of individuals as logical actors choosing crime when the benefits exceeds the cost. In short, crime occurs because, in our society, it “pays”. Third, others attempted to revitalie the psychological approach by suggesting that offenders persist in crime because they think differently rather than logically. They are held to have distinct “criminal minds” that make them pathological, in ot psychopathic and beyond redemption. Fourth, still others of a conservative bent went beyond an individualistic approach but only to the point of linking crime to a distinctive type of social influence: the allegedly permissive culture-or “moral poverty”- that they trace to developments in the American society of the 1960’s. Finally, there was the claim that public disorganization or incivility leads to crime not because of enduring poverty and other social ills but because the police tolerate it.

(Lilly,Cullen, and Ball, 2011,pg 306)

Response to the above

C S

W 12 D Q 2

There is no evidence that peacemaking could be a theory. Peacemaking is something that people work together in a peaceful way instead of using violence towards each other. Peacemaking would not work in our society because everyone is different and not everyone can get along with each other. Even though it would be great if peacemaking could actually work because it would change us for the better. But violence happens everyday throughout the world and it would be impossible to rid the world of violence.

Response to the above

K K

W 12 D Q 2

Peacemaking has failed to evolve becuase it is not “tough on crime”. It is more like making friends with the criminal and seeing what we can do for them, figure out their life. In today’s society, people want to see criminals punished for what they did. They want them to suffer and pay for their crimes. But, for peacemaking they want mediation, conflict resolution, and reconciliation instead. Also, they have no reason on why crimes happen, it just says how you should deal with them after the crime is committed. So that is some reasons why it has not evolved into a full fledged theoretical perspective. Peacemaking could possibly become a theoretical perspective, but it most likely won’t. It will have to clear through a lot of stuff first and have more tests done on it before it can get to that point. Doing tests and research to know exactly how things will change, or stay the same. It is very needed when becoming a full fledged theoretical perspective.

Response to the above