Community Justice System Vs Community-Based Justice Systems
Despite initial appearances, state-based and community-based justice systems have some similarities in common. For example, both systems, regardless of their methods, are in pursuit of greater justice (Forsyth, 2007). These systems attempt to right some wrongs by balancing the scales of justice and resolve disputes through either mechanisms of retribution or restitution. Also, at the same time, many individuals are skeptical about the use of these systems as a means of punishing the offender and restoring social harmony. Moreover, in both systems, crime is seen as a violation of something integral to the functioning of the respective systems; violation of law for state-based justice systems and violation of relationships for community-based
…show more content…
justice systems (Morrison, 2017).
At the same time, there are many differences between state-based and community-based justice systems. As noted above, state-based justice systems employ complex legal procedures are expensive, and not easily accessible by a majority of people, particularly the poor (Kariuki, 2015). Such characteristics place state-based justice in sharp opposition to most community-based systems which are structured around flexible rules with outcomes based on consensus and reconciliation. It is also important to understand that community-based justice systems have culturally and context specific aims and principles; practices that may appear unjust from a state-based perspective that supports neutral distribution of justice (Wardak, 2011). For example, as previously discussed, the flexibility and negotiability inherent in community based systems are widely cited as inhibiting access to justice. However, proponents of community based justice would argue, that these factors are a necessary facet of processes that are specifically designed to restore social harmony and “thus cannot be isolated from their social context” (Luccaro, 2016, p. 25). Furthermore, community based justice processes are usually led by persons familiar to the disputants and who generally know the history of the dispute. In contrast, judges in state-based systems may be vested with authority but tend to be regarded as detached and foreign to disputants (Roberts, 2004). Further, lack of familiarity with court proceedings, complex administrative requirements and the formal atmosphere of the courts can intimidate users and present disincentives to accessing the courts (Wardak, 2011). For example, as Wojikowska (2006) stated, “this approach allow[s] the administration of justice in Aboriginal communities to take into account the experience of Aboriginal peoples . . . rather than baldly imposing the language and forms of non-Aboriginal traditions” (Wojikowska, 2006, p. 21). Another difference between the systems is that the state based system relies on the adversarial nature of court proceedings where the ‘winner takes all’. This creates tension and estrangement, threatening social harmony and cohesions. Community-based justice, by contrast, place strong emphasis on reconciliation and making peace among disputants (Roberts, 2004). Thus, unlike the state justice system, which creates losers and winners, in community based systems there are community-led decisions that promote restorative justice (as opposed to retributive justice), and help to restore peace and dignity among the victims, offenders, and the community. Thus, dispute resolution aims not only to punish and compensate, but also to reconcile the parties and reintegrate the offender into society (Morrison, 2017). Also, there are paradigmatic differences between state based and community based justice systems in terms of core legal values, the conceptualization of crime and notions of responsibility (Forsyth, 2007). For example, as Adoko and Levine (2009) stated:
People don’t see two legal codes at all. The ‘customary’ legal framework is not seen as law at all, but as a way of life, how people live —State Law on the other hand is something imposed and foreign. ... It is remote, in a foreign language and has little to do with most people’s lives . . . Legal pluralism isn’t about different laws—it’s about a different world view. (Adoko & Levine, 2009, p. 28)
When people are charged under such laws, the state based system appears unjust, illogical and arbitrary. Similarly, in community-based systems where conflict is regarded as involving groups as opposed to individuals, the notion of individual responsibility and punishment entrenched in many formal justice systems can be a source of confusion and anger (Forsyth, 2007).
Media Influences
Media portrayal of crime and justice has become incredibly widespread, with crime often considered a source of both news and entertainment.
Mass media popularity, play an integral role in the construction of both public opinion and the public ‘reality’ of crime (Surette, 2015). Most individuals do not have any direct experience with the criminal justice system so their only source of information on this topic is the media. Because of this, fictional and non-fictional portrayals of the criminal justice system on television shape and inform the public’s beliefs and attitudes concerning crime; the problem is that it creates major misconceptions in viewers about the realities of crime (Dowler, 2003). The media promotes a skewed view of the criminal justice system to the public by portraying only the most dramatic representations of the system, rather than a realistic one. As a result, many public demands for further retributive punishments have been heeded by the government, causing an increase in harsher sentences, prisons, and police on the street (Surette, 2015). However, in contrary research demonstrates that increasing the severity of sentences has no effect on crime rates. Also, the media tends to report selectively, choosing stories and aspects of stories, with the aim of entertaining more than informing the public (Dowden et al, 2005). They tend to focus on unusual, dramatic and violent crime stories that paint a picture of crime for the community that overestimates the prevalence of crime in general. Thus, public concern about crime typically reflects crime as depicted in the media rather than trends in the actual crime rate, which prove that crime has been steadily decreasing for years (Dowden et al.,
2005).
Conclusion
In conclusion, after comparing and contrasting state-based and community-based justice systems, it seems that both systems have strengths and weaknesses that if addressed may result in a more inclusive and ‘just’ criminal justice system for all parties involved. What has been examined previously indicates that both state and community based justice systems have strengths and weaknesses in delivering justice. An ideal solution for a more robust criminal justice system would include aspects of both these justice systems. This includes a system that is capable of bridging cultural values into modern ideas about justice and its delivery (Wojikowska, 2006). Such a vision, one of synergy between state and community based justice, would be the ‘best’ of both worlds and be able to adapt to the unique needs of victims and offenders, regardless of race and culture (Wardak, 2011). A more inclusive criminal justice system should incorporate elements of flexibility and accessibility from community-based justice systems and legitimacy and power from state-based justice systems into a ‘hybrid’ system. A ‘hybrid’ system that reflects deeply held moral and cultural values as well as thoughts about contemporary criminology and criminal justice would provide a coherent framework for the delivery of effective and accessible justice for all (Wardak, 2011).
justice systems (Morrison, 2017).
At the same time, there are many differences between state-based and community-based justice systems. As noted above, state-based justice systems employ complex legal procedures are expensive, and not easily accessible by a majority of people, particularly the poor (Kariuki, 2015). Such characteristics place state-based justice in sharp opposition to most community-based systems which are structured around flexible rules with outcomes based on consensus and reconciliation. It is also important to understand that community-based justice systems have culturally and context specific aims and principles; practices that may appear unjust from a state-based perspective that supports neutral distribution of justice (Wardak, 2011). For example, as previously discussed, the flexibility and negotiability inherent in community based systems are widely cited as inhibiting access to justice. However, proponents of community based justice would argue, that these factors are a necessary facet of processes that are specifically designed to restore social harmony and “thus cannot be isolated from their social context” (Luccaro, 2016, p. 25). Furthermore, community based justice processes are usually led by persons familiar to the disputants and who generally know the history of the dispute. In contrast, judges in state-based systems may be vested with authority but tend to be regarded as detached and foreign to disputants (Roberts, 2004). Further, lack of familiarity with court proceedings, complex administrative requirements and the formal atmosphere of the courts can intimidate users and present disincentives to accessing the courts (Wardak, 2011). For example, as Wojikowska (2006) stated, “this approach allow[s] the administration of justice in Aboriginal communities to take into account the experience of Aboriginal peoples . . . rather than baldly imposing the language and forms of non-Aboriginal traditions” (Wojikowska, 2006, p. 21). Another difference between the systems is that the state based system relies on the adversarial nature of court proceedings where the ‘winner takes all’. This creates tension and estrangement, threatening social harmony and cohesions. Community-based justice, by contrast, place strong emphasis on reconciliation and making peace among disputants (Roberts, 2004). Thus, unlike the state justice system, which creates losers and winners, in community based systems there are community-led decisions that promote restorative justice (as opposed to retributive justice), and help to restore peace and dignity among the victims, offenders, and the community. Thus, dispute resolution aims not only to punish and compensate, but also to reconcile the parties and reintegrate the offender into society (Morrison, 2017). Also, there are paradigmatic differences between state based and community based justice systems in terms of core legal values, the conceptualization of crime and notions of responsibility (Forsyth, 2007). For example, as Adoko and Levine (2009) stated:
People don’t see two legal codes at all. The ‘customary’ legal framework is not seen as law at all, but as a way of life, how people live —State Law on the other hand is something imposed and foreign. ... It is remote, in a foreign language and has little to do with most people’s lives . . . Legal pluralism isn’t about different laws—it’s about a different world view. (Adoko & Levine, 2009, p. 28)
When people are charged under such laws, the state based system appears unjust, illogical and arbitrary. Similarly, in community-based systems where conflict is regarded as involving groups as opposed to individuals, the notion of individual responsibility and punishment entrenched in many formal justice systems can be a source of confusion and anger (Forsyth, 2007).
Media Influences
Media portrayal of crime and justice has become incredibly widespread, with crime often considered a source of both news and entertainment.
Mass media popularity, play an integral role in the construction of both public opinion and the public ‘reality’ of crime (Surette, 2015). Most individuals do not have any direct experience with the criminal justice system so their only source of information on this topic is the media. Because of this, fictional and non-fictional portrayals of the criminal justice system on television shape and inform the public’s beliefs and attitudes concerning crime; the problem is that it creates major misconceptions in viewers about the realities of crime (Dowler, 2003). The media promotes a skewed view of the criminal justice system to the public by portraying only the most dramatic representations of the system, rather than a realistic one. As a result, many public demands for further retributive punishments have been heeded by the government, causing an increase in harsher sentences, prisons, and police on the street (Surette, 2015). However, in contrary research demonstrates that increasing the severity of sentences has no effect on crime rates. Also, the media tends to report selectively, choosing stories and aspects of stories, with the aim of entertaining more than informing the public (Dowden et al, 2005). They tend to focus on unusual, dramatic and violent crime stories that paint a picture of crime for the community that overestimates the prevalence of crime in general. Thus, public concern about crime typically reflects crime as depicted in the media rather than trends in the actual crime rate, which prove that crime has been steadily decreasing for years (Dowden et al.,
2005).
Conclusion
In conclusion, after comparing and contrasting state-based and community-based justice systems, it seems that both systems have strengths and weaknesses that if addressed may result in a more inclusive and ‘just’ criminal justice system for all parties involved. What has been examined previously indicates that both state and community based justice systems have strengths and weaknesses in delivering justice. An ideal solution for a more robust criminal justice system would include aspects of both these justice systems. This includes a system that is capable of bridging cultural values into modern ideas about justice and its delivery (Wojikowska, 2006). Such a vision, one of synergy between state and community based justice, would be the ‘best’ of both worlds and be able to adapt to the unique needs of victims and offenders, regardless of race and culture (Wardak, 2011). A more inclusive criminal justice system should incorporate elements of flexibility and accessibility from community-based justice systems and legitimacy and power from state-based justice systems into a ‘hybrid’ system. A ‘hybrid’ system that reflects deeply held moral and cultural values as well as thoughts about contemporary criminology and criminal justice would provide a coherent framework for the delivery of effective and accessible justice for all (Wardak, 2011).