Peace and Justice in Cuajimoloyas

Cuajimoloyas is a small mountain community in the state of Oaxaca with a population of 900.  Its residents are Zapotecs, descendants of the ancient civilization responsible for constructing Monte Alban, the site of the ruins pictured in various photos on this blog.  The older residents of the pueblo still speak Zapoteco, although younger generations generally speak Spanish.  Until 40 years ago, there was no road leading to Cuajimoloyas.  I had the opportunity to visit this community this past weekend, enjoying beautiful hiking trails and interesting conversations with members of the community.

Given that this is an indigenous community, the land is communal, and the pueblo has its own system of governing itself, separate from that of the state of Oaxaca.  Each year the pueblo elects a “Municipal Agent,” who is essentially the leader of the community.  The community is governed by “usos y costumbres,” a system of customary rules.  A sense of community responsibility is intrinsic in these “usos y costumbres,” such as a requirement that each community member dedicate him or herself to community service full-time for one year, every two years.  Such community service may include working at the school, in the government, constructing infrastructure such as roads, or working in the community’s Eco-Tourism department.

I was intrigued by the way that the community addresses conflicts, or violations of the law.  According to the residents I spoke with, the community has very little conflict or crime.  This is due in part because the community is close-knit; with a population of only 900, everyone knows one another.  Further, family ties connect many community members.  In addition, the community imposes strict consequences for violations, including permanent banishment from the community.  A woman told me about an incident that happened a couple of years ago where 2 young men stole a chain saw that they found in the forest.  The community had a meeting to determine the appropriate sanction, and the decision was that the young men be banished.  Children are raised with the knowledge that failure to abide by the rules of the community will result in certain and swift punishment, including potentially being removed from the community. 

Deterrence theory is an important criminological theory that asserts that future crime will be prevented if punishment is certain, swift, and appropriately proportional to the crime.  Much of the current criminal justice system of the United States is built upon deterrence theory.  I am of the opinion that policies based upon deterrence theory are largely ineffective in the context of the United States.  Deterrence theory is based upon the premise that people understand the consequences of their actions before they decide to commit a crime, and that people engage in a rational cost-benefit analysis prior to deciding to commit a crime.  This belief drives policies that continue to put harsher and harsher sentences on the books, under the guise that sentences must not be harsh enough if people continue to engage in crime.  There are two major problems with this belief:  (1) most people who commit crimes are unaware of the sentencing schemes written in the Penal Code; and (2) most people who commit crimes do not engage in this type of rational cost-benefit analysis prior to engaging in criminal behavior.

But deterrence theory does seem quite applicable in the context of Cuajimoloyas.   Maybe because the community is involved in determining sanctions, as in the case of the community meeting that determined that banishment was the appropriate response to the theft of the chain saw.  The public and inclusive nature of this process means that people are by and large aware of the consequences.  In addition, the small population and importance of community norms and customs make deterrence theory more relevant in that people are more likely to be caught for wrongdoing, and consequences are more certain.  

 

Towards a Culture of Justice

“…la reforma mas importante es la cultural y mental, pues no basta  con la creacion de nuevas normas o insticuciones para resolver nuestros problemas…se requiere una cultura juridica alternativa, con una nueva forma de pensar el derecho, mas justa, mas digna, mas humana.”  

-M.D. Jose Luis Eloy Morales Brand (2006)

Because I‘m living in a foreign country, I am more conscious of culture – both my own and other people’s—than I usually am in Los Angeles.  Through food, music, language, and day-to-day life, I am constantly encountering different aspects of life and culture in Oaxaca.   

While I’ve been observing within the juvenile prosecutor’s office here, I have been noticing subtle differences in the culture of their organization that stand in contrast to the culture of the prosecuting agencies in Los Angeles.  Although it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, there are interesting aspects of the language, values, and orientations of the juvenile prosecutor’s office here that lead me to believe that there is a different kind of culture being developed within this office – one that is rooted in an understanding of adolescent development and the idea that juveniles who commit crimes deserve another chance.  

These differences are apparent through the language prosecutors use to describe juveniles being charged with crimes.  They refer to them as adolescents, or youth, here.  (In contrast to my conversations with prosecutors in Los Angeles, I have not heard prosecutors here refer to youth as “monsters,” “scum,” “predators,” or other derogatory terms).  In almost every conversation I have had with members of the juvenile prosecutor’s office here, I have heard references to international human rights treaties and the importance of protecting the rights of children accused of crimes.  (Many of these are treaties that the United States has not signed because our juvenile justice policies violate the terms of the treaties).

The prosecutor’s office here also seems to have infused within its members an understanding of adolescent brain development, and a belief that it would not be right to hold an adolescent to the same standard as an adult because adolescence is a time for maturing and developing.  (In the U.S., although the Supreme Court finally decided that it was not right to allow the death penalty for juveniles because of research about adolescent brain development, juveniles are still regularly prosecuted as adults).  The prosecutors here also seem to believe that it is important to give young people the chance for redemption – for rehabilitation -- and for the chance to move forward with their lives without facing stigma or other negative consequences such as strikes, priors, or convictions that appear on their records as a result of their contact with the juvenile justice system.  

If you have not had many interactions with prosecuting agencies in the United States, the values I have described above may not seem unusual.  They seem like common sense in a lot of ways.  If, on the other hand, you have interacted with prosecutors in the U.S., you will probably agree that the core values I am describing are very different than the core values of many prosecuting agencies in the U.S., or at least in L.A. 

The quote that appears in Spanish above is from an article written by M.D. Jose Luis Eloy Morales Brand in a discussion about judicial reforms for adolescents in the Mexican state of Nueva Leon.  Loosely translated, he is saying that “…the most important reform is cultural and mental, it is not enough to create new norms and institutions to resolve our problems…it requires an alternative judicial culture, with a new form of thinking about law, more just, with more dignity, more humanity.”  This makes a lot of sense. 

Without the actors who make the law come to life, the law itself is essentially meaningless.  The way it is enforced gives life to what otherwise would just be words on paper. To truly reform a legal system, deep cultural shifts are necessary.  It is interesting to see what seems to be the beginning of a radically different approach to prosecuting adolescents.