In the article "The Blind and the Elephant:" A parable of crime and justice, Cromwell emphasizes on the need for academics, scholars, criminal justice stakeholders, and members to embrace diversity and acceptance of others' ideas. By so doing, there is the realization of change and advancement in terms of acquisition of more knowledge. Cromwell goal is to demonstrate that victory should be holistic. The article opens with a scenario of four blind individuals touching an elephant and giving their perception, and remain firm to it. Cromwell uses the narrative to bring out what happens in the criminal and criminal justice department. He criticizes the system for being rigid, intolerant and lacking diversification on their handling of criminal cases. Moreover, regarding the line of work in the criminal justice, he criticizes the how individual handle criminal cases based on personal interests. He holds the view that in most instances, there are little efforts made to understand the other views in the world of crime. Also, Cromwell blames the three wings of the justice system (courts, police, corrections) for not working together and more so recognizing the fact that crimes and behaviors need a broad methodology to handle. He blames the conflict existing among the three departments.
In the whole speech, Cromwell gives vivid and real-life scenarios where judges, parole board officers academics where he accuses them of letting their perceptions take precedence rather than looking into the realities of the matters. He goes ahead to state that not all criminal cases deserve the same punishment despite the similarity they share. Instead, he recommends a wider scope for determining punishments for the various crimes. Cromwell does not give scholar any bill of health. He condemns the limited approach of finding the truth that scholars and researchers tend to adopt when dealing with criminology issues. He gives an emphasis on researchers in criminology who embrace quantitative approaches instead of qualitative methods that would otherwise give more robust, adaptable and agreeable results. A researcher admits on finding qualitative research more interesting and detailed, a notion she previously disagreed. Similarly, he accuses the scholars of sticking to the old findings and perceptions where he compares them to a cello player who plays one melody rhythm over a long period time and when asked why he is not inventing something new like his fellows, he claims he has achieved his target and does not see the need to discover something new.
Regarding criminal theories, he criticizes the narrowness they depict in dealing with crimes. He states that more often; these theories ignore the finer details of the crimes more so biological and social patterns.in general, the article explores the need to be more accommodative to new ideas and knowledge from others. In the overall view, Cromwell suggests that intolerance to others' opinions not only retrogressive but also hinders any advancement in the field of criminology. He recommends policymakers to have a holistic approach in establishing punishments for various crimes. Nevertheless, I tend to disagree with Cromwell in the sense that he just does not give credit to established laws. Sometimes having to review punishments for criminal offenses makes judgments easily manipulatable depending on individuals in these cases. Therefore, the need to have established policies for specific crimes to achieve the equality in rendering justice.
Interesting note: I consider theories as a fundamental aspect of the field of criminology. However, how one perceives the theoretical aspects of crimes determines how best the criminology as a discipline influences the criminal behaviors of the inmates. As expected to join the criminal justice as policymakers, theories will remain one of the vital points of references. In a nut-shell, I think that while using a single theory is good, one should not remain rigid but instead must be more dynamic in crime approaches.
