Positive-Cooperative Justice (PCJ) offers a comprehensive competitive model for the replacement – not reform – of the well-oiled and destructive machine we call "criminal justice." It provides a model for competing with this model starting at the level of a single community. Punishing by way of locking people away, socially ostracizing, bankrupting or killing them for their misdeeds, addictions – or for that matter for things which they may not even have done or things which are not even clearly wrong – does little if anything to deter future infractions, or to protect the public.
The things which do work best toward promoting interpersonal harmony and public safety on the other hand are mainly known and have been well-tested. PCJ would devote much of its energies toward utilizing the findings of the best available research. We would also look to the collective wisdom and experience of those who have demonstrated approaches that produce the kinds of outcomes PCJ strives to achieve.
Those who have caused harms would be held account in meaningful and functional ways. Such individuals would not however be forced into conditions which are likely to promote further acts of violence or an other forms of abuse, nor would their families and communities be punished for their association to them. PCJ would instead contain components designed to address the needs of families and communities and both the needs and problems of those who have caused harm in order to help ensure that they do not continue to go on causing more harm. At the same time, it would help elevate and perhaps ultimately eradicate many of the underlying causes and conditions which contribute to addictions and violence. Furthermore, it would be designed with failsafe measures to ensure that individuals wrongly found at-fault for harms to others do not in-turn incur harms they themselves did nothing to merit. In short, PCJ would always strive to arrive at solutions everyone can live with and perhaps thrive under while maximizing meaningful forms of accountability.
Unlike the police, PCJ would not rely on displays of force or other intimidation tactics in order to obtain cooperation. Instead we would look to the findings of sociology and behavioral economics to ensure that we are using the best possible methods to make people feel included and participate in those things which serve the greater good because they are also in like with the individuals own best interests. In those cases, wherein the use of force is unavoidable to disrupt greater harms, PCJ would apply that force mindfully with great care and concern for outcomes.
We spend more money on law enforcement per person than any other country and get fewer positive results than many who spend a fraction.
Despite the outrageously high expenses on the criminal justice system today, crime rates are among the lowest they've been throughout our history. Our spending is completely out of proportion with our problem. Yet, the effect of all this spending is not resulting in any apparent changes to these crime rates. In fact, analysis of the specific programs we spend money on under the heading of "law enforcement" shows that most of what we put money into only makes things worse, while most of what has been proven to work remains underfunded – even though all of those programs together, if done right, would still cost a fraction of what it costs to do things wrong.
Various countries have been developing smarter strategies for combatting the array of inter-personal problems that the US addresses through law enforcement. Many of these strategies have proven to be dramatically more effective and far less expensive. And, it is clear that it is these countries changes in strategies which have produced better results, because those countries who switched gears all started with more or less similar crime rates as us, at least in their major cities.
What other countries have done so far has mainly centered on the reform of the various law enforcement and detention institutions. Some have made strides toward developing alternative mechanisms for dealing with certain kinds of interpersonal problems. Furthermore, in so doing, they have managed to simultaneously reduce crime, recidivism, and the underlying causes for these including poverty while actually spending significantly less money per-person than we do, all while keeping substantially fewer people behind bars or under any sort of enhanced community supervision for far less time at much lower rates.
The arguments made that such methods won't work in this country all fall apart under scrutiny. Sweden was once as violent as the US or more. They no longer are. They changed tactics, we stayed the same. Sweden has had similar drug problems. They responded pragmatically and are managing okay. We did not and are not. The results have been ceaselessly catastrophic.
In this country we are seeing some amount of movement in these directions and a lot more talk than anything else about these types of changes. While the changes being discussed are better than continuing to do business as usual, they are not enough to really bring about the level of transformation needed to produce a safer or more just society. We need to change how we address 100% of these problems.
While PCJ prefers to use less emotionally charged, more neutral language, in line with restorative justice and science, this site makes use of some terms typically associated with the criminal justice system for sake of clarity and to reach a wider audience. See the footnotes of the paper Positive-Cooperative Justice: A Practical Alternative to Fighting Fire with Fire for further discussion.
While simply copying what is being done in other countries could be of benefit, we could do even better. This is where the idea of Positive Cooperative Justice comes in.
Positive-Cooperative Justice offers a real and practical alternative to the age old tactics of fighting fire with fire. PCJ would focus on preventing harms wherever possible and improving upon the outcomes of bad situations. It would be based on scientifically-evaluated best practices, state of the art treatment, dispute-resolution, and a commitment to – wherever possible – avoid doing more harm than good. It would be community-centered and overseen, operate transparently and expertly, and contain components designed to enrich the communities it serves. Whenever and wherever it goes wrong, it would be setup so that it could be readily modified as required to work better while remaining true to the core philosophies encapsulated in the words positive and cooperative.
We need a practical alternative to our dysfunctional, mislabeled justice system. We need one that works. We need it to work for everyone. PCJ offers a framework for such an alternative.
PCJ is a model which promises both to be more effective than the criminal justice system at addressing our societal and inter-personal ills and significantly less expensive from the outset. Furthermore, it is possible that its benefits-at both the human and economic levels-will far outweigh the measurable costs of operation in t he long run. The criminal justice system makes no such promises. It costs more and more money and lives and freedoms year after year, and seemingly requires that it does not improve the things it is tasked to address in order that it can sustain itself. We need a model which is sustainable not one which is self-sustaining.
Source: Positive Cooperative Justice: A Practical Alternative to Fighting Fire with Fire - Appendix 2
Copyright © 2022 Positive Cooperative Justice - All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.