Jump to content

Adalci na shiga tsakani

Daga Wikipedia, Insakulofidiya ta kyauta.
Adalci na shiga tsakani
Bayanai
Ƙaramin ɓangare na justice (en) Fassara

Adalci na shiga tsakani, a bayyane yake, yana nufin shiga kai tsaye na waɗanda wani yanke shawara ya fi shafa, a cikin tsarin yanke shawara da kansa: wannan na iya nufin yanke shawara da aka yi a kotun shari'a ko kuma masu tsara manufofi. An kira shahararren shiga "takarar ɗabi'a ta al'ummar dimokuradiyya" ta Friedhelm Hengsbach, farfesa a fannin Kimiyya ta Jama'a da Tattalin Arziki da Harkokin Jama'a a Kwalejin Falsafa-Theological Sankt Georgen a Frankfurt da kuma " Siyasa ta nan gaba" ta Gene Stephens, farfesa na ilimin laifuka a Jami'ar South Carolina. Yana game da mutane da dangantaka.

Marubutan daban-daban sun yi iƙirarin cewa misalai na adalci na shiga sun samo asali ne daga wayewa kamar na Aboriginals na Kanada da Tsohon Atheniyawa, koda kuwa ba a yi amfani da kalmar ba a lokacin.[1][2][3][4] A cikin al'ummar Aboriginals na Kanada, an ba 'yan ƙasa damar ba da nasu asusun game da takaddama a cikin jama'a da kuma tantance hanyar da ta dace, wanda wani lokacin ya haɗa da bayar da gafara ga jama'a.[3][4] Ana kallon dattawa a matsayin hukumomi saboda iliminsu na musamman game da yanayin membobin al'umma.[3][4] A tsohuwar Athens, manyan kotuna masu mashahuri, wadanda suka hada da maza 200 zuwa 1000 da aka zaɓa ba zato ba tsammani, sun raba cikin ayyukan kafa da kuma amfani da doka.[1][2] Kalmar nan "adalci na shiga" kanta, duk da haka, ta fara amfani da ita ne daga Bellevue, lauya mai zaman kanta a Washington Claire Sherman Thomas a cikin 1984 don bayyana tsarin da mutane ke aiki a matsayin masu alhakin shiga cikin tsarin yin doka, don haka suna ba da gudummawa ga dalilai na adalci na zamantakewa.[5] A shekara ta 1986, Gene Stephens ya fara amfani da kalmar don bayyana wani madadin tsarin adawa na tsarin adalci da aka yi amfani da shi a kotu.

Tsarin shari'a

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Bayani na gaba ɗaya

[gyara sashe | gyara masomin]

Adalci na shiga na iya nufin amfani da madadin warware rikice-rikice, kamar sulhu, sulhu, da sasantawa, a kotunan aikata laifuka da na farar hula, maimakon, ko kafin, zuwa kotu.[6] Wani lokaci ana kiranta "ƙaddamar da rikice-rikicen al'umma". Kungiyoyin ba da agaji (Kungiyoyin da ba na gwamnati ba) na iya shiga cikin gudanar da shari'ar aikata laifuka.[7] A cewar Hukumar Ba da Shawara ta Kasa ta Ka'idoji da Manufofin Shari'a, jinkirin yanke hukunci da rashin kariya ga haƙƙin waɗanda ake tuhuma suna ba da gudummawa ga halayen cin zarafin shari'a.[8] A cewar babban rukuni na 'yan ƙasa, ana' yanka masu laifi yayin da marasa laifi, kuma sau da yawa baƙar fata da matalauta, ana cin zarafin su.[8] Tsarin adalci na shiga, bi da bi, yayi ƙoƙari ya dawo da amincewar jama'a a cikin tsarin shari'a.

Masu sukar tsarin adalci na shiga sun ambaci manufarsa don sau da yawa wulakanci wani jam'iyya. Inkiko-Gacaca, tsarin kotunan al'umma da aka kafa a 2002 don amsa yawan wadanda ake zargi da aikata laifin da aka daure bayan kisan kare dangi na Rwanda na 1994, sanannen misali ne.[9] Da yake nufin cimma zaman lafiya na dindindin ta hanyar inganta adalci mai maidowa, Gacaca, a cewar marubuta da yawa, kawai ya zama mai ramawa da tilastawa.[9][10] Ta hanyar wannan tsari, wadanda suka tsira daga kisan kare dangi na Tutsi sun yi zargin cewa suna da laifi a kan Hutu, suna rokon su da su furta ayyukansu, su nemi gafara ga duk wadanda abin ya shafa da danginsu, kuma su biya su a hankali, ta hanyar kunyatar jama'a.[10][11] An kuma soki tsarin adalci na shiga saboda rashin tantancewa da ma'auni da rashin shiga kwararru. Saboda yawanci ba a horar da masu tattaunawar wajen tattara shaidu ba kuma ba su da masaniya game da asalin aikata laifuka na wanda ake zargi, ana iya yin ƙuduri ba tare da cikakkun hujjoji da ilimi ba. Bugu da ƙari, dalilin mai laifi yana da wuyar tantancewa idan madadin shine mafi yawan hukunci.

  1. 1 2 Brownlee, Peter (May 1977). "The Administration of Justice in Ancient Athens and in Plato's Laws- Some Comparisons". Politics. 12:1: 116–120. doi:10.1080/00323267708401591.
  2. 1 2 Ast, Federico; Sewrjugin, Alejandro (November 2015). "The Crowdjury, a Crowdsourced Judicial System for the Collaboration Era". The Crowdjury: A Judicial System for the Internet Era. A Medium Corporation. Retrieved 22 April 2018.
  3. 1 2 3 Giuduce, Michael (2006). "Asymmetrical Attitudes and Participatory Justice". Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal.
  4. 1 2 3 Empty citation (help)
  5. Thomas, Claire Sherman (1984). "The Common Law Jury: An Essential Component of Participatory Social Justice". Alsa F.
  6. "Participatory justice | Barreau de Montréal". www.barreaudemontreal.qc.ca (in Turanci). Archived from the original on 2018-04-17. Retrieved 2018-04-16.
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named NYCourts
  8. 1 2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named stephens19862
  9. 1 2 Waldorf, LT (2006). "Rwanda's Failing Experiment in Restorative Justice". Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective: 422–434.
  10. 1 2 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named cobban2002a2
  11. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named cobban2002b2