Caring and Compassion When Working With Offenders of Crime and Violence

Abstract

Getting tougher on men who use violence is a rallying cry for people on both sides of the political spectrum. This article challenges the notion that a punitive framework increases safety and promotes nonviolence. The dominant worldview in today's culture and science is based on a fragmentary perspective that reinforces disconnections that facilitate rather than prevent further violence and abuse. In contrast, the nonfragmentary perspective is also scientifically valid but has very different implications for how we treat each other. This nonfragmentary perspective makes visible compassionate responses to violence that can be more effective in ending abuse and building peace in our lives and relationships. Research to support this conclusion is provided.

A narrative evaluation of a faith-based aftercare program for youth involved in the juvenile justice system

“…These insights could support what the participants experienced inside MHAP in terms of the kindness that they received, and their experience of belongingness not only to the people working for MHAP but also among their fellow juveniles. These narrative accounts align with certain positions by scholars which focus on compassion, love, and care (Stefanakis, 2008; Vanier, 1998). From participants’ narratives about their lives in MHAP, it is evident that the MHAP embodies the three core principles of the Salesian preventive system (reason, religion, and loving kindness).…”

The Practice of Spiritual Criminology: A Non-Doing Companionship for Crime Desistance

“…Criminological, psychological and educational theories and practices based on the ethics of care support the notion that the best practice for increasing human good and decreasing suffering is our human love and compassion (Baskin & Slaten, 2010; Enright et al, 2016; Gilligan, 1993; Kohen, 2009; Noddings, 1984; Ronel & Elisha, 2011; Shonin et al, 2013; Song et al, 2020). In criminology specifically, this notion is supported by models that promote caring norms such as positive criminology (Ronel & Elisha, 2011); positive victimology (Ronel, 2015); compassion therapy (Shonin et al, 2013; Song et al, 2020; Stefanakis, 2008); forgiveness and self-forgiveness therapy (Enright et al, 2016; Kohen, 2009); and GLM (McNeill, 2006; Ward & Maruna, 2007; Ward & Salmon, 2011). While criminal justice-oriented therapy usually works with people who offended through the threat-protection-focused and drive-focused systems, compassion-focused therapy aims at working through people’s affiliative soothing system, which is highly sensitive to interpersonal cues of social safeness, acceptance and care, and can regulate the two other systems.…”