Peacekeepers turned peacemakers: police as mediators

Abstract

We discuss the potential of law enforcement officers to function as mediators in everyday disputes encountered in the field. Examples are drawn from mediation and peacemaking occurring in a variety of contexts, focusing on a description of the Navajo peacemaking program currently in operation, using interviews with Navajo law enforcement professionals who discuss the benefits of officers serving as mediators/peacemakers in the field. Peacemaking is a community‐oriented policing tool with the potential to reduce crime and simultaneously improve public perceptions of the police. By enabling citizens and victims to solve their own problems, the police can earn the respect of the communities they serve. Programs such as those discussed here represent a way for police to transform themselves from officials primarily concerned with keeping the peace to those making it.

Keywords:

• Navajo peacemaking
• community policing
• restorative justice
• mediation

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Rutgers University Research Council in completing this research, and thank Philmer Bluehouse for comments on an earlier draft.

Notes

1. A variety of terms are used to describe what is now called peacemaking, including Achiyati (literally, ‘talking to’), ‘traditional Navajo dispute resolution’, and ‘original dispute resolution’.

2. During the 1930s, the Navajo police were given the additional resented duty of enforcing the Livestock Reduction Program, which forced Navajos to decrease greatly their cherished sheep herds due to a reduced market for meat (Phelps‐Stokes Fund, 1939, p. 75) and overgrazing due to expanding herds.

3. The authors thank James Zion (1997, personal communication), the telephone‐owning neighbor, for his sharing of this anecdote. Of interest, four of the interviewees in this study recounted stories about being asked to lecture wayward individuals on the reservation. One of those lectures took place in 2007, showing that such requests are far from historical artifacts.

4. The idea of law enforcement officers as mediators should not be confused with programs in which police refer disputants to external mediation services. These efforts are laudable in their own right (Palenski, 1984, p. 32; Volpe 1989, p. 234), but do little to address mediation needs in the field.

5. While honesty is important during peacemaking, the process does not aim to assign guilt to any of the parties.

6. Grillo (1991) notes that mandatory mediation programs, while often conceptualized as a positive alternative to the formal criminal justice process for victims, can put the victim at a significant disadvantage relative to the offender. It is important to note that this concern refers to mandatory post‐arrest mediation schemes.

7. Once a situation escalates into violence and someone is injured, the potential utility of on‐the‐spot peacemaking is greatly reduced (Cooper, 1997, p. 92). The focus then changes to controlling the situation to protect the victim and others from additional harm. These cases may, however, still be good candidates for diversion or other post‐arrest mediation/peacemaking programs.

8. Furthermore, service‐oriented officers may be more satisfied if they are involved in community‐oriented programming (Halsted et al., 2000, p. 95).

9. Some officers already utilize peacemaking techniques on their own (e.g., Cooper, 1997; Wachtel, 1983, p. 62), demonstrating that the idea has some support among police.