#
Traditional Justice System
Global Preventive Justice
1
In TJS a right is typically claimed, it is asserted by one party and often disputed by the other, which leads to a legal conflict that requires adjudication.
In GPJ, the right is acknowledged and affirmed by both parties. There is no adversarial conflict but rather mutual understanding dialogue, and a shared will for resolution reinforcing social cohesion and avoiding adversarial.
2
In TJS the dispute between two parties is formally known as legal conflict, or adversarial litigation, which requires a judge intervention and may leave lingering social scars.
In GPJ, there is no conflict nor legal dispute, because the would-be oppressor is assisted in restraining himself through legal and moral awareness. It is as if an invisible restraint is placed upon his hands, preventing him from infringing on others' rights before harm done.
3
In TJS proceedings, both the plaintiff and the defendant are often unaware of the legal ruling arguing based on personal interpretation or interest, and awaiting the Judge's decree.
In contrast GPJ both parties are already aware of the legal ruling concerning the established right, thanks to prior awareness and education thus avoiding disputes and establishing Justice through mutual understanding and consent.
4
In TJS, the same dispute may reoccur between the same parties, as the ruling might resolve the issue on the surface but not address its underlaying causes or behavioral patterns.
In GPJ, however the conflict does not recur, because legal awareness has shifting and spread between both parties, leading each to a deeper understanding of their legal and moral responsibilities, effectively preventing future disputes.
5
In TJS, the plaintiff must bear financial cost, including a percentage of the claim's value as court fees, as well as legal fees for attorneys, which can be burdensome and still not guaranteed a timely or amicable resolution.
In GPJ, however and through the "Qistas" solidarity charter, all fees and costs are collectively covered in a community-based model. Disputes are resolved without courts without lawyers, and without conflict, in a way that preserves dignity and fosters lasting justice.
6
In TJS Disputes are adjudicated after they occur, with the aim of achieving justice between the two parties based on the discretionary power granted to the subject judge in order to ensure that justice is served to the more deserving party.
GPJ on the other hand, aims to prevent injustice before it occurs and to resolve disagreements before they escalate into disputes, thereby preserving social cohesion without conflict or harm.
7
In TJS, testimony is provided by an external witness who is not a party to the dispute such a witness may be paid, driven by malice, or personal interest and may testify falsely in exchange for money, leading to the distortion of the truth and the death of justice.
In GPJ, the two parties bear witness against themselves in advance through documented declarations and voluntary signatures on the facts. Preventive Justice thus serves as a third witness – digital ad ethical – to everything that occurred.
8
In TJS, the role of society is limited to providing testimony. The entire judicial process is managed by the state represented by the judiciary, public prosecution, and law enforcement agencies.
In GPJ the role of the society is central and participatory. It helps raise legal awareness within a framework of social solidarity and manage emerging conflicts amicably, away from litigation and disputes that may otherwise create hostility and tear apart the fabric of the community.
9
In TJS, testimony may be based on false or incomplete information, often shaped by personal interests or psychological disorders, which form the root of prevailing injustice.
In GPJ, testimony is grounded in joint documentation, early acknowledgments, and both self and system-based monitoring conducted transparently.
10
IN TJS a verdict in traditional courts may favor the more cunning rather than the more deserving party, provoking the wronged individual to anger and a desire for revenge against the party who misled the justice system, potentially resulting in a criminal act that lands them in prison.
In GPJ fairness is achieved with the consent of the parties themselves, as they participated in crafting the solution in advance, before the conflict could escalate.
11
In TJS courts, supporting documents may be forged to mislead justice, undermining the reliability of evidence and the credibility of the verdict.
In GPJ, supporting documents are securely held within the preventive system and are signed by both parties, leaving no room for forgery or manipulation.
12
In TJS civil lawsuits in particular, proceedings may be prolonged and sessions postponed for years, wasting the time of both parties and negative impacting productivity and national income (GDP).
In GPJ, resolution is swift and consensual, often achieved in a single session, as the truth is ready established through the parties' own acknowledgments and self-witnessing.
13
In TJS traditional Judiciary, the judgment of the subject court is appealable if there is an error in the factual description or classification of the case. The Judgement of appeal courts is subject to cassation if the law has been misapplied or wrongly interpreted.
Whereas in GPJ the judgment is rendered by trusted magistrates, based on verified and mutually agreed-upon evidence, along with clear acknowledgement by both parties. Because both parties are aware of the legal implications in advance and the ruling is issued by mutual consent. Here no room for manipulation or fabricated evidence and no need for court intervention. The decree is final and satisfactory to both parties.
14
In TJS, judges often misclassify the case because they are unaware of the origin of the relationship between the disputing parties and don't fully grasp the nature of the conflict. The appellate judge may repeat the same errors, due to lack of legal insight, case overload and limited time, resulting in a lack of accuracy, focus, and understanding of the parties or the case, often resulting in pure injustice.
Whereas in GPJ both parties testify against themselves and preventive justice acts as a third witness. All points of disagreements are documented and signed by both sides, and disputes are resolved at the moment, without being allowed to escalate. This ensures the highest level of justice, satisfaction, and preserve harmony in human dealing.
15
In TJS lawyers intervene to defend the parties despite being entirely unaware of the origin and essence of the dispute. Their involvement is often driven by high legal fees, not by a commitment to truth or justice. As the result, justice is often slaughtered in the very courts meant to uphold it.
Whereas in GPJ there is no need for explanation or defense, because the matter is already resolved, based on the parties' own signed declarations and pre-recorded documents held by preventive Justice. No additional evidence is accepted except what is ready preserved and verified within the preventive system – eliminating any chance for forgery or manipulation.
16
In TJS judgments are issued compulsorily and executed through forced enforcement, which is a clear indication that the losing party is dissatisfied In TJS with outcome, The sense of coercion may generate resentment and hostility, sometimes escalating into violent or criminal acts against the winning party – posing a real threat to social peace and stability.
Whereas in GPJ the judgment is issued by mutual agreement, based on prior signed acknowledgments, by both parties. There is no In GPJ space for hostility or vengeance, instead, there is a prevailing sense of fairness and acceptance reinforcing social harmony and public safety.
17
In TJS traditional Judiciary many people are judged and punished despite not knowing the law. Isn't that a clear injustice? how then can someone be held accountable for a law they were never informed of? This result in systemic injustice rooted in ignorance, and leads to alienation from the legal system.
Whereas in GPJ both parties are aware of the law in advance, thanks to the spread of solidarity-based legal awareness. This leads to widespread legal understanding, strengthens the Rule of law and ensures justice is available through a low-cost community-supported system, making justice truly accessible to all.
18
In TJS injustice becomes almost inevitable, because the judge is unaware of the facts at the time they occur, and is only informed after they have turned into dispute. How can justice truly be served when facts have changed narratives are conflicted and clarity is lost. A ruling based on fragment or delayed facts is hardly just.
Whereas in GPJ Justice is likely and more accurate, because both parties testify at the time the events actually occurred, and the facts are documented immediately within the preventive system. Their equal contribution to solidarity-based legal awareness helped prevent the conflict and hostility from arising, thus increasing justice efficiency while reducing both cost and animosity.
19
In TJS the court's ruling often includes one of two punitive measures: Either imprisonment to compel debt repayment. Or freezing of accounts and closure of productive business, a form of forced enforcement based on a judgment often tainted by injustice, due to previously mentioned factors such as lack of access to original facts, delayed awareness, and distorted understanding of events caused by the passage of time and lack of documentation.
Whereas GPJ the ruling is entirely consensual and its execution happens through mutual agreement. There is no imprisonment, no confiscation of property, and no accounts freezes, because both parties had agreed in advance to a ruling that preserves documented mutually acknowledged rights ensuring dignity, clarity and voluntary compliance.
20
In TJS when a court rules to shut down a productive business, it's not just the owner who suffers, many families of workers are scattered by that decision. The owner's family who depends on the business income, and families of workers, who were earning wages to support their households. The damage extends to the state itself, as it loses a resource that contributed to, Taxes revenues and government fees, employment opportunities, and overall economic activity.
Whereas in GPJ there is no closure of businesses no loss of jobs, and no dismantling of families. Disputes are resolved amicably rights are restored and economic continuity is preserved.
21
If TJS court issues a prison sentence against a person, the punishment does not only affect them, but extends to encompass all family members, especially the children who are deprived of parental affection. Here, the family begins to fracture and tear apart due to the absence of its guardian, which leads to a disruption of family and social balance.
While GPJ is based on finding solutions that preserve human dignity and protect the core of society, which is the family, it thereby shields society from fragmentation and collapse. If the family is lost, the entire community is lost, leading to a cycle of security breakdown and chaos, which weakens the economy and causes capital to flee to more stable and secure places. This fundamental distinction lays the groundwork for restructuring the Justice System – shifting from a reactive model to a proactive one.
