A Comparison of Ancient Roman Justice Systems and Canadian Indigenous Justice Systems: Approaches to Crime and Punishment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian law is legally pluralistic and combines common law, civil law, and Indigenous legal traditions. Roman law has contributed largely to both the Canadian common law and civil law traditions while Indigenous law has developed from its own belief system and history. Conflict has arisen within Canada’s criminal system with respect to Indigenous offenders due to the retributive nature and positivistic approaches of both the common law and civil law systems in the face of the restorative methodology found in Indigenous approaches to crime. The retributive approach is largely reflective of the legal ideology developed by the Romans and their methods for punishing crime. However, Rome had many different periods of law and the history of Roman law before the classical period has largely been ignored in legal scholarship. By contrasting the two systems, I argue that criticism for Indigenous law as being largely custom is misplaced and that Indigenous law derives force from similar sources of law found in the Roman system. Moreover, I argue that the overincarceration and representation of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian criminal system is partially the result of differences in core values resulting from separate histories and customs. The Canadian criminal system may benefit from adopting smaller organizational structures in order to provide more personal services as is seen in Indigenous systems. Furthermore, the Canadian criminal law system needs to incorporate further aspects of Indigenous law into its structure which represent traditional Indigenous values in order to encourage reconciliation and help heal Canada’s Indigenous peoples. However, this presents difficulties given the sizeable population of modern cities and the needs of administering justice over a large population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".