One of the demands is to disregard modern justice institutions and utilize customary law as a means to achieve justice for those involved in a criminal offense. But on the other hand, the settlement of the case with customary law turned out to still cause injustice to the victim, and even gave birth to new crimes arising as a result of coercion carried out by the customary leaders of both parties acting as judges. This study discussed about the position of crime resolution institutions in indigenous peoples in the perspective of identity politics and the reassessing the position of crime resolution institutions in indigenous peoples, certainly cannot be separated from the recognition of identity with all the structures and positions of indigenous peoples themselves. This study was designed by using normative legal research approach. The results show that efforts to reassess the position of crime resolution institutions in indigenous peoples, of course, cannot be separated from the recognition of identity with all the structures and positions of indigenous peoples themselves. However, the dominance arising from the resolution of indigenous peoples' crimes is still determined by cultures that are patriarchal, rigid and as if forced from above so as to ignore dialogue both from perpetrators and victims, so that the measure used is the perspective of tribal leaders. However, domination is believed to restore order, order and harmony, but there is one neglected value of ethical legitimacy, namely justice. Therefore, the resolution of crimes against indigenous peoples does not all distribute justice to all parties.  

Dewasa kini muncul konflik-konflik serupa di sekitar politik diferensiasi (perbedaan). Dimana gengsi politik universal berjuang demi bentuk-bentuk non-diskriminasi sebagai kewajiban yang dengan tenang, tidak mampu melihat cara-cara mana yang para warga negara tersebut berbeda politik diferensiasi sering mendefenisikan asas non-diskriminasi sebagai kewajiban bahwa kita membuat distingsi distingsi ini. Suatu dasar perlakuan diferensial. Sehingga kelompok-kelompok anggota suku asli (pribumi) akan mendapat hak-hak dan kekuatan-kekuatan tertentu yang tidak dinikmati oleh orang-orang kanada lainnya, jika tuntutan-tuntutan otonomi pemerintahan penduduk asli (pribumi) secara final disepakati, dan kelompok-kelompok minoritas tertentu akan mendapatkan hak untuk melarang masuk orang lain dengan maksud agar dapat memelihara integritas kultural mereka dan lain sebagainya. Namun isu diferensiasi agama akhir-akhir ini mencuat dalam diskursus bangsa ini. Agama di frame jadi instrumen politk, bahkan ditunggangi demi kepentingan sesat untuk kelomopok lain, sehingga eksistensi bangsa tentang given sebagai multikultural sedikit mengalami guncangan.