The Pros And Cons Of Traditional Justice And State-Based Justice

Traditional Justice Resembling state-base justice, traditional justice has a rich history and before we talk about the pros and cons of this justice approach, I will first define traditional justice and its history. Unlike state-based approach, traditional justice attempts to repair harmed relationships and there does not exists any formal procedures (Diamond). What this means is that both parties must come together and solve the issue and often with the help of a third party who is often a chief or anindividual that is respected and with no stakes in the issue (Diamond). Both parties also have to come together with the intent to repair harm that was damaged through the wrongful act and as a result, they are less selfish (Diamond). In addition, in order for the two parties to come together, the guilty party acknowledges their misbehavior and explain why they did it (Diamond).
Same as with the history with state-base justice, there is a lengthy history, but for the purpose of this paper, it will

This is a very important first step into repairing a broke relationship (Diamond). Often times, by accepting blame, people will tend to apologize, a rare event in state-base justice (Diamond) and this aids the process of repairing harm. Traditional justice systems also attempt to help the offenders back into the society (Vincenti, 1995). Too often are the offenders left to reintegrate back into society by themselves and this is difficult especially if they have no support. This is not the case with traditional justice approach as the whole society has a stake into how well the offender reintegrates back into society, and as a result of that, society comes together and helps the offender out (Vincenti, 1995). As well, by incorporating culture into the criminal process, it could help not only the victim, but the offender heal as well (Vincenti,