The L.A. Times has an interesting article about the "community" or "indigenous" justice provisions of the recently-passed constitution. You can get the article here.
They point out that "community justice" often takes the form of "mob justice" (not like The Sopranos, the other type of mob). And what is sometimes called "community justice" by some people is called "lynching" by others.
The article is very balanced, however, in pointing out that, in the face of an ineffective justice system and corrupt police force, sometimes, even the questionable practices that pass for "justice" may be superior to the absence of any justice at all, which is sometimes the only other alternative in these places.
I understand that there's a pretty good literature in Sociology that looks at this stuff (which I can't cite because I haven't read), but if I understand correctly, one of the reasons for lynchings is a pervasive feeling of insecurity in society, often because of an absence of the rule of law. In these circumstances, lynchings are bad, and having a well-functioning justice system may be the only cure.
In other cases, though, community or indigenous justice is very well developed, consistent, and fair--not only may it be the only option for "justice" in many poor rural places, but it may, in fact, be superior to the centralized "justice" of even a well-developed country like the US, in some ways. And indeed, we in the United States might be said to have a system of "community justice," as many of our legal encounters take place with municipal, county, or state courts which are not centrally controlled, even to the extent that their ruling are often not based on a simple, codified system of rules, but on precedent. There may be some interesting parallels with the informal justice systems of many indigenous communities.
One example might be this community landholding system, in which individuals who break community rules are not granted land to farm the following year, if they fail to make good their debt to the community in the form of paying a fine. This, linked with the social pressures that come along with rule-breaking and rule-obeying in small, rural places where everybody is related may do a better job at preventing crime and promoting rehabilitation than other alternatives.
2 comments:
This is a really interesting topic, no doubt. I ponder it at least a few times a year and have to say I have come to zero conclusions about it. I have not read much that has been written about it in anthropological and sociological studies, but some of the questions that usually arise are pretty commonplace: what if they get the wrong person? What about women, who are living in a machista society (arguably both the indigenous and Spanish cultures are), etc. Gets really complex, huh? -Denise Z.-
All true, and I don't disagree. I wonder if the alternative (a centralized system with well-known prejudices against women, indigenous folks, etc.) is any better, though. Ideally, what we would like would be a system that is impartial, efficient, and effective. I wonder if the centralized system is more impartial but less efficient and effective. On the other hand, if the indigenous system is less impartial, in general, but more efficient, is that a worthwhile tradeoff? And will indigenous systems become more impartial over time.
Of course, anything is speculation, as I know of no way, at this point, to accurately measure either the impartiality or efficiency of a system that hasn't been set up yet!
Denise, maybe your PhD dissertation? Seriously. Somebody should do it.
Post a Comment