The Justice Trap: Law and the Disempowerment of Society

Hello Everyone,

For this meeting, we’ll be reading and discussing Peter Gelderloos’ essay “The Justice Trap: Law and the Disempowerment of Society.” It’s a provocative text that questions what happens when social movements rely on “justice” through legal frameworks and state institutions, and how the justice system can end up weakening collective power, autonomy, and even community bonds. The essay also explores alternatives: restorative approaches to conflict, decentralized ways of resolving harm, and what “social peace” might look like without policing and prisons.

Gelderloos argues that the “justice system” can harm movements even when it appears to be fair. He describes how repression can work without convictions: two people are arrested, and an entire community ends up “punished” through stress, time-drain, fundraising, legal admin, fear, and disruption — meaning the process becomes the punishment, even if the court later “absolves” them.

He also pushes us to separate resolving harm from justice institutions. He gives examples of restorative and community-based ways of arbitrating conflict without police, prisons, punishment, or a legal code. In these models, conflict is often defined subjectively by the people involved, based on shared cultural values that are not codified into law. Resolution is decentralized (not one official space, not one official outcome), and responsibility is shared rather than specialized. Instead of punishment, communities may use social sanctions meant to discourage harmful behaviour — from criticism and ridicule to withdrawing social ties, sometimes escalating to ostracism in serious cases. The underlying assumption is that most people want to remain part of the community and can be brought back into relationship through accountability and repair.

Guiding questions for the discussion
• Subjective conflict: if conflict is defined by individuals, how do we prevent constant conflict or bad-faith accusations — and how do we ensure real harms aren’t dismissed?
• Non-codified norms: what do we gain from not codifying values (flexibility, context)… and what do we risk (arbitrariness, bias, exclusion)?
• The spectrum of sanctions: which sanctions feel acceptable in your context, and which feel dangerous? Where is the line between “discouragement” and “punishment”?
• If we step away from the justice system, what practices or structures could communities use to address serious harm and protect people, without reproducing prisons and policing under a different name?

Looking forward to seeing you all for what should be a stimulating and welcoming session.