Comparing Models

“I heartily support and endorse your continuing
efforts to improve the safety and well-being
of the people of the State of Washington.”

— Representative Roger Goodman.

Washington State Legislature

Comparing the Punitive Model with the
Violence Integrative Prevention and Restoration (PAR) Model

The table below illustrates key concepts and components of violence and the way in which two different models for describing and responding to violence deal with each of these concepts and components.

The two models are: 1) the traditional “punitive” model and 2) the new “Violence Integrative Prevention and Restoration (PAR) Model" developed by Ari Cowan.

Concept/Component		Traditional Punitive Model	New PAR Model
1.	Historic application	Common forms of the model have been used for thousands of years	New model
2.	Foundation	Fear based (removal of perpetrator’s power and control)	Power based (re-establishing healthy power and control for all stakeholders)
3.	Nature of violence	A moral and legal issue	A health issue
4.	Definition of violence	Vague, varied	Precise — differentiated from injurious (which may not be violent). Established criteria for qualifying as violence
5.	Orientation/focus	Protection oriented	Solution oriented
6.	Response objective	Punishment	Prevention and restoration
7.	Moral valuation	Violence is seen as “bad”	Violence is seen as unhealthy
8.	Acts of violence are…	Single events	The extreme manifestation of a continuum of events
9.	Responsibility for violent acts	Perpetrator only	Perpetrator, contributors, supportive systems and environmental conditions
10.	Perpetrator seen as…	The villain	A key stakeholder in diagnosis, treatment, restoration process

11.	Violence occurs in…	Physical body, occasionally the emotional bod	Physical, emotional, mental, environmental, and spiritual bodies
12.	Preventive approach	Fear, aversion-based (threat of sanctions — economic to incarceration to death). May require temporary or permanent time in prison	Identification and reduction of risk factors, preemptive intervention and redirection of power and control. May require temporary or permanent quarantine
13.	Response approach	Punitive — characterized by punishment, righteousness, scapegoating, revenge, retribution	Public health approach — characterized by restoration (making whole) of all involved in the violence continuum
14.	Intervention methods	Interpersonal — identification, apprehension, adjudication, incarceration. International — economic sanctions, war	Diagnosis and application of response protocols (interpersonal and international)
15.	Language used	Personal negative descriptors — derogatory, demeaning, humiliating, condemning, depreciatory, critical, etc.	Behavior descriptors — vectors of transmission, infection rates, toxicity, trauma, addictive qualities, risk factors, etc.
16.	Structural approach	“Drama triangle” — victim (to protect), persecutor (to apprehend), rescuer (to suppress and punish persecutor)	Public health approach — assessment, treatment protocol design, application of protocols, evaluation. Focus on accountability, restoration
17.	Acceptance of violence	Depends upon context — criminal violence not accepted, sanctioned violence approved	All acts of violence require a response and treatment
18.	The role sanctioned violence plays	Considered a legitimate strategy for preventing and responding to violence	Not considered a legitimate response — sanctioned violence most commonly aggravates the condition and can drive the growth and continuation of the malignancy
19.	Application areas	Law enforcement, corrections, international relations	Education, healthcare, mental health, law enforcement, corrections, international relations
20.	Effect upon resiliency	Erodes resiliency	Builds resiliency
21.	Impact on management	Reduces management to punitive action	Makes violence understandable; provides a context and structure for increasing effectiveness in preventing and responding to violence

Contact

About SRI

Privacy