Similarities And Differences In The Criminal Justice System
Criminal Justice Systems
The world is what it is today because of the criminal justice systems that are created around the world to enforce the law for the greater cause of accountability and responsibility in the whole world as a community. Criminal Justice system is the term used to explain and understand all of the agencies whose goal is to control crime. It consists of police, courts, and corrections agencies, which act to enforce the law, adjudicate suspects, and deal with convicted offenders (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). There are similarities and differences in criminal justice system across the globe which make it interesting to compare systems and issues in criminal justice. Comparison are mostly carried out to benefit …show more content…
from the experience of other, to broaden our understanding of different cultures and approaches to problems, and to help us deal with the many transnational crime (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). Criminal justice systems of three countries, United States, England and Japan seem to be interesting to consider as they offer wide range of diversities and significant approaches in enforcing law and order in their respective societies. The United States criminal justice system is a unique systems that has a wider range of attributes and policies that stand out from the other two countries, England and Japan. It is important to compare these two countries against the United States to see the better knowledge of the system in terms of United States.
First, the law enforcement is a vast responsibility of any community at large and the police play the significant role to ensure that law are enforced which is a vital aspect of the judicial system of any country. There are two aspects of policing that are substantial to these countries—the deviance control which refers to police mission and tasks that enforce community values and laws, and the civil order control which refers to the duty of police to respond to, supervise, or control two more citizens in any situation that may disrupt the peace and tranquility of a society (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). In civil order functions, the United States and England have regular street police or military in extreme situations that need proper administration and control while Japan has a specialized police in each prefect called Kidotai, a quasi-militarized national guard. For the deviance order functions the United states has a regular street police in different jurisdictions such as local, county and states; England has a provincial police force to handle deviance order functions; and Japan deviance order functions addressed by the prefectural police. The model of policing in a democracy can vary in different ways. United States and England have similar policing model in which they are both democratic Anglo-Peelian in which policing is citizen focused. Here, the service and welfare of the community are as important as crime control and prevention. On the other hand, Japan uses the Asian policing model in which police place less emphasis on individual rights and utilize cultural norms to reinforce social order. United States and England has a decentralized police even though there is a national standard of policing all across the States. In a decentralized policing system each city or town makes rules and provides funds for its own police operations which include hiring, firing, and compensation of police personnel. Japan, here again, has a centralized police system. The community policing is another issue that is of interest when comparing these countries judicial systems. Due to the current issues of concern such as: drugs crimes, violent crimes, and gangs crime common in the United States; economic crimes and private policing common in England; and boryokudan or organized crime and cybercrimes common Japan; the countries employ community police to aid in their operations in which the regular police are used in United States, regular police through “reassurance policing” used in England, and community policing posts like koban and chuziaisho are used in Japan (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). The law enforcement agencies such as the police require some form of training standards which varies in different countries. United States requires 2-40 weeks, with an average of 10 weeks, a physical training and classroom training, and high school in some jurisdictions while others require some college. England requires 24 weeks of initial training and 2-year probation period—administers attend Bramshill College; classroom, field, and physical fitness training; and without any verified qualification needed. On the other hand, Japan requires 1 year for prefectural police; classroom, field, and physical fitness training; and national qualifying exam or high school qualification.
Second, the judicial systems criminal procedures of these three country take different directions even though in some areas there are some similarities in comparison.
The kind of procedural system practice in United states is the adversarial and popular which is justice of peace; in England they practice the adversarial and popular which in this case is the magistrates; and the lastly, Japan practices the inquisitorial and popular which is the new lay jurors that has been in practice as of 2009. It is important to know that the adversarial system is a set of legal procedures used in common Law countries to determine truth during adjudication whereby the prosecution and defense counsel compete against each other while the judge ensure fairness and adherence to the rules (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). The inquisitorial system is commonly associated with Civil Law system and has touched every system in the world to a state that without it, criminal justice professional would be unable to conduct any serious criminal investigations. During investigation of instance, in United States the police send crime information to federal, state, or local prosecutor. In England, on the other hand, the police or, in rare cases, individuals send charges to crown prosecution service. More, as experienced in Japan, the police transfer cases to prosecutor for investigation; and it is important to know that tor can dismiss case before trial. Another vital incidents of the judicial systems of these countries are the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to trial by jury, and right to bail. In United States criminal procedures these rights differs from the other countries in which the right to counsel is allowed at point where suspect is taken into custody; the right to be silent is a privilege for the accused to remain silent throughout all the steps of process; there is the right to trial by jury in all felony cases; and bail is allowed but can be
refused by judge. In England, legal advice is provided for all held suspects; accused can refuse to speak, but silence can be held against suspect; the right to trial by the jury is only in indictable offenses; and bail is allowed but can also be refused by judge. Finally, in Japan, the right to counsel is privileged in which counsel provided to those that cannot afford it at point where suspect is taken into custody; the accused can remain silent, but judicial system relies on confession; trial is by lay assessors with professional judges for only important cases; and bail is allowed for some offenses, but it can be denied by judge at request of procurator (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011).
Finally, what is also important is the sanctions used as a correction or punishment measure that are practiced by these countries. There are different sanctions employed by these countries with some similarity and differences. All this sanctions serves different purposes which can be attributed as a correctional measure implemented by various criminal justice systems. These purposes are retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, restoration and deterrence. In United States, the sanctions used are retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, restoration and deterrence. In England, rehabilitation, incapacitation and restoration are the only purposes for sanctions. On the other hand, Japan purposes of sanctions are retribution, rehabilitation, and restoration.
In conclusion, it is very interesting to see that England and United states has very similar criminal justice system with some minor differences, but both United States and England have huge differences with Japan.
Works Cited
Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese. (2011). Comparative Criminal Justice System. Belmont: Wadsworth .
The world is what it is today because of the criminal justice systems that are created around the world to enforce the law for the greater cause of accountability and responsibility in the whole world as a community. Criminal Justice system is the term used to explain and understand all of the agencies whose goal is to control crime. It consists of police, courts, and corrections agencies, which act to enforce the law, adjudicate suspects, and deal with convicted offenders (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). There are similarities and differences in criminal justice system across the globe which make it interesting to compare systems and issues in criminal justice. Comparison are mostly carried out to benefit …show more content…
from the experience of other, to broaden our understanding of different cultures and approaches to problems, and to help us deal with the many transnational crime (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). Criminal justice systems of three countries, United States, England and Japan seem to be interesting to consider as they offer wide range of diversities and significant approaches in enforcing law and order in their respective societies. The United States criminal justice system is a unique systems that has a wider range of attributes and policies that stand out from the other two countries, England and Japan. It is important to compare these two countries against the United States to see the better knowledge of the system in terms of United States.
First, the law enforcement is a vast responsibility of any community at large and the police play the significant role to ensure that law are enforced which is a vital aspect of the judicial system of any country. There are two aspects of policing that are substantial to these countries—the deviance control which refers to police mission and tasks that enforce community values and laws, and the civil order control which refers to the duty of police to respond to, supervise, or control two more citizens in any situation that may disrupt the peace and tranquility of a society (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). In civil order functions, the United States and England have regular street police or military in extreme situations that need proper administration and control while Japan has a specialized police in each prefect called Kidotai, a quasi-militarized national guard. For the deviance order functions the United states has a regular street police in different jurisdictions such as local, county and states; England has a provincial police force to handle deviance order functions; and Japan deviance order functions addressed by the prefectural police. The model of policing in a democracy can vary in different ways. United States and England have similar policing model in which they are both democratic Anglo-Peelian in which policing is citizen focused. Here, the service and welfare of the community are as important as crime control and prevention. On the other hand, Japan uses the Asian policing model in which police place less emphasis on individual rights and utilize cultural norms to reinforce social order. United States and England has a decentralized police even though there is a national standard of policing all across the States. In a decentralized policing system each city or town makes rules and provides funds for its own police operations which include hiring, firing, and compensation of police personnel. Japan, here again, has a centralized police system. The community policing is another issue that is of interest when comparing these countries judicial systems. Due to the current issues of concern such as: drugs crimes, violent crimes, and gangs crime common in the United States; economic crimes and private policing common in England; and boryokudan or organized crime and cybercrimes common Japan; the countries employ community police to aid in their operations in which the regular police are used in United States, regular police through “reassurance policing” used in England, and community policing posts like koban and chuziaisho are used in Japan (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). The law enforcement agencies such as the police require some form of training standards which varies in different countries. United States requires 2-40 weeks, with an average of 10 weeks, a physical training and classroom training, and high school in some jurisdictions while others require some college. England requires 24 weeks of initial training and 2-year probation period—administers attend Bramshill College; classroom, field, and physical fitness training; and without any verified qualification needed. On the other hand, Japan requires 1 year for prefectural police; classroom, field, and physical fitness training; and national qualifying exam or high school qualification.
Second, the judicial systems criminal procedures of these three country take different directions even though in some areas there are some similarities in comparison.
The kind of procedural system practice in United states is the adversarial and popular which is justice of peace; in England they practice the adversarial and popular which in this case is the magistrates; and the lastly, Japan practices the inquisitorial and popular which is the new lay jurors that has been in practice as of 2009. It is important to know that the adversarial system is a set of legal procedures used in common Law countries to determine truth during adjudication whereby the prosecution and defense counsel compete against each other while the judge ensure fairness and adherence to the rules (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011). The inquisitorial system is commonly associated with Civil Law system and has touched every system in the world to a state that without it, criminal justice professional would be unable to conduct any serious criminal investigations. During investigation of instance, in United States the police send crime information to federal, state, or local prosecutor. In England, on the other hand, the police or, in rare cases, individuals send charges to crown prosecution service. More, as experienced in Japan, the police transfer cases to prosecutor for investigation; and it is important to know that tor can dismiss case before trial. Another vital incidents of the judicial systems of these countries are the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to trial by jury, and right to bail. In United States criminal procedures these rights differs from the other countries in which the right to counsel is allowed at point where suspect is taken into custody; the right to be silent is a privilege for the accused to remain silent throughout all the steps of process; there is the right to trial by jury in all felony cases; and bail is allowed but can be
refused by judge. In England, legal advice is provided for all held suspects; accused can refuse to speak, but silence can be held against suspect; the right to trial by the jury is only in indictable offenses; and bail is allowed but can also be refused by judge. Finally, in Japan, the right to counsel is privileged in which counsel provided to those that cannot afford it at point where suspect is taken into custody; the accused can remain silent, but judicial system relies on confession; trial is by lay assessors with professional judges for only important cases; and bail is allowed for some offenses, but it can be denied by judge at request of procurator (Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese, 2011).
Finally, what is also important is the sanctions used as a correction or punishment measure that are practiced by these countries. There are different sanctions employed by these countries with some similarity and differences. All this sanctions serves different purposes which can be attributed as a correctional measure implemented by various criminal justice systems. These purposes are retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, restoration and deterrence. In United States, the sanctions used are retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation, restoration and deterrence. In England, rehabilitation, incapacitation and restoration are the only purposes for sanctions. On the other hand, Japan purposes of sanctions are retribution, rehabilitation, and restoration.
In conclusion, it is very interesting to see that England and United states has very similar criminal justice system with some minor differences, but both United States and England have huge differences with Japan.
Works Cited
Harry R. Dammer and Jay S. Albanese. (2011). Comparative Criminal Justice System. Belmont: Wadsworth .