Justice Systems Compared2
Abstract
The United States and Australian laws of criminal procedure show many common features which originate from their common English origin. These include the presumption of innocence, the neutral role of the trial judge, and the use of the jury trial. However, between the jurisdictions there are also significant different approaches especially in relation to the treatment of illegally obtained evidence, improperly obtained confessions and entrapment. The transparency of the jury is also an important distinguishing feature of the United States' system not evident in Australia.
Introduction Australia and the United States of America share a common heritage, close ties to their mother country of England, the same language, and a genuine sense of connection to one another though separated by a large ocean and thousands of miles. The similarities of our two individual criminal justice systems are particularly remarkable in so many ways. One may think of the rules regarding the investigation of crime, the fact finding process at trial, and the sense of fundamental fairness required for a just procedure. However, there is a strong lack of similarities between the two systems in considerable respects. Differing views concerning the limits on law enforcement actions, the admissibility of evidence in criminal prosecutions, and the roles of the lawyer and the jury reflect important and significant value judgments which have been made by the people and governments of the two countries.
Similarities of the Regulation of Criminal Procedure
Australia
The regulation of criminal procedure in Australia occurs on two levels: state and federal. The Commonwealth's Crimes Act of 1914 largely codified federal regulation of criminal procedure. At the state level, where the majority of criminal activity is investigated and prosecuted, the regulation of criminal procedure is mixed. Victoria and Queensland have followed the federal lead by arranging their rules of criminal
The United States and Australian laws of criminal procedure show many common features which originate from their common English origin. These include the presumption of innocence, the neutral role of the trial judge, and the use of the jury trial. However, between the jurisdictions there are also significant different approaches especially in relation to the treatment of illegally obtained evidence, improperly obtained confessions and entrapment. The transparency of the jury is also an important distinguishing feature of the United States' system not evident in Australia.
Introduction Australia and the United States of America share a common heritage, close ties to their mother country of England, the same language, and a genuine sense of connection to one another though separated by a large ocean and thousands of miles. The similarities of our two individual criminal justice systems are particularly remarkable in so many ways. One may think of the rules regarding the investigation of crime, the fact finding process at trial, and the sense of fundamental fairness required for a just procedure. However, there is a strong lack of similarities between the two systems in considerable respects. Differing views concerning the limits on law enforcement actions, the admissibility of evidence in criminal prosecutions, and the roles of the lawyer and the jury reflect important and significant value judgments which have been made by the people and governments of the two countries.
Similarities of the Regulation of Criminal Procedure
Australia
The regulation of criminal procedure in Australia occurs on two levels: state and federal. The Commonwealth's Crimes Act of 1914 largely codified federal regulation of criminal procedure. At the state level, where the majority of criminal activity is investigated and prosecuted, the regulation of criminal procedure is mixed. Victoria and Queensland have followed the federal lead by arranging their rules of criminal
Cited: Arnold, B. (2006, June). Caslon Analytics. Retrieved from Caslon Analytics Law: caslon.com.au Chan, J., & Oxley, D. (2004, October). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A Review of Reasearch Evidence. Contemporary issues in Crime and Justice, pp. 1-15. Commission, L. S. (2013, Febuary 8). Legal Service Commission of South Australia. Retrieved from Search and Seizure: http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch03s01s02.php Debelle, B. (2006). Judge for Yourelf: A Guide to Sentencing in Australia. JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIA. Marcus, P., & Waye, V. (2004). Australia and the United States: Two Common Criminal Justice Systems Uncommonly at Odds. William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository, 28-116. Reuters, T. (2010, November 20). Sentencing Guildlines in the American Justice System. Retrieved from FindLaw: http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2010/Nov/203582.html The Attorney Store. (1999-2013). Search and Seizure Law. Retrieved from Get Legal Public: http://public.getlegal.com/legal-info-center/fundamental-rights/search-and-seizure