US Justice System versus Justice System in Iran - Case Study Example

US Justice System verses Justice System in Iran US Justice System verses Justice System in Iran Justice is a fabric that holds the society by safeguarding the interest of the people in a system that is acceptable by all. Human interest differs, but the justice system applied in different countries tends to uphold international human rights. United States has a criminal justice system, which accord different sentences to criminals according to gravity of crime committed. Some people who commit heinous crimes end up in trials, which conclude their lives with death sentence. This attribute tend to feature in justice system of Iran. Justice system of Iran subject criminals to trials, which borrows on Islamic laws. The Islamic nation may pronounce a death sentence to a criminal that the court has found guilty of a crime punishable by execution. While several reasons that attest that American justice system is different from justice system in Iran, evidence show that justice system of these nations support execution of criminals. This essay compares of various aspect of criminal justice system applied in the United States and Iran. United States of America uses criminal laws for specific states to prosecute criminals or people who face trials on those states (Walker, 2011) while Iran uses it criminal laws defined by laws found in Islamic doctrines to prosecute criminals (Dehghan, 2011). The difference in this criminal justice system is the manner of execution of the laws. For instance, a trial conducted in Iran and United States would rely on evidenced adduced during trial but the sentence will differ according to the preferred sentence indicated in their criminal justice system. For instance, the trial of Iranian Movahedi who threw acid on the face of Ameneh Bahrami got an eye for the same sentence when Ameneh asked the court to apply Islamic law in executing its judgment against the person who assaulted her (Dehghan, 2011). The court granted her request and Movehedi faced the acid splash in his face to pay for the evils that he did. In contrast to the American system of criminal justice, Troy Davis a criminal who murdered a police officer got a death sentence after twenty-two years after his arrest (Walker, 2011). The trial has attracted criticism from people who felt that Jurors made a mistake by not preferring hearing of the case afresh after lawyers of the Troy produced new submission refuting earlier sentence. The penalty awarded by the criminal justice system of United States contrast the penalty awarded by criminal justice system of Iran. The American constitution, which contains the bill of rights, influences the penal code of its criminal justice system. In the above case, Troy execution would have taken a similar trend he applied when he murdered the police officer. The constitution of America defines a lenient method of punishing people found guilty of capital crimes. Islamic nation of Iran does not give anything less than what the Islamic law provides (Raphael & Sills). Evidently, justice applies in both cases but the difference is the amount of punishment that these two countries give to their criminals. Western critics have shown interest by arguing that criminal justice system in Iran grants harsh punishment to offender of the law (Raphael & Sills). Criminal code defined in the Iran constitution provides for Islamic system, which does not admit lesser or greater punishment to a person. Since the society perceives the Islamic laws as holy, the society has to execute provisions stated in the law. Criminal justice in United States follows the international human rights code, which roots for human punishment for criminals while Iran criminal justice system does not observe codes provided in the international law. Iranian believes that holy instruction stated in the Islamic doctrines remain viable and no amount of influence from the western culture can influence Islamic discharge of justice (Buck). It is apparent that Islamic law executed by Iran has contributed to execution of criminals in Iran than any other country in the world. The argument does not lie in the prosecution system but the kind of sentence that these two countries seem to offer to their criminals. The American criminal justice has room for appealing while criminal justice system in Iran does not provide for appealing. The contrast in application of law occurs due to the difference caused by the foundation of Iranian criminal laws and United States criminal laws. It is apparent that that the two countries have different foundations to their laws. America applies secular laws, which differs from Iranian laws whose foundation is the religion. United States of America does not seem to recognize religion influence in its constitution hence the observable changes noted. The American society is a secular society where the bill of right entrenched in the constitutions influences criminal proceedings in criminal courts. Clerical courts in Iran function independently from other judicial system in the country (Buck). This independence in justice delivery has given these courts powers to provide justice to the society as per the power vested in them to discharge. Supreme Court in America has the final say in the judicial system of the country. Challenging the ruling of the Supreme Court in the United States is like challenging a ruling of the clerical courts in Iran. These two courts do not have provisions in which somebody can appeal for the judgment made by these courts. Many instances in American criminal justice dispensation indicate that judgment made by Supreme Court could not accommodate any appeal from any one. Critics have observed the execution of Holly Wood and have come to agree that noting much can change a ruling offered by the Supreme Court. Studies have indicated that lawyers of Wood tried in vain to present their submissions, which could defend Woods (Walker, 2011). Findings indicate that Wood execution took place despite the effort employed by his lawyers to have his life spared. It is apparent that the social system of a country has influence over its judicial processes. Judicial interpretation takes the form of the existing laws (Lawyers Committee for Human Rights). When the existing laws lean of the international criminal procedures then the system will operate using these proceedings. Criminal justice system in Iran is authoritarian (Buck) when compared to justice of criminals in United States. Critics believe that the criminal justice in Iran is authoritarian because the laws dictating the justice dispensation do not recognize the so-called international human rights code, which borrows, on the secular laws of the western culture. Some critics of the criminal justice laws in Iran have argued that human rights and Islam are different entities, which project different interests at a time. Largely, this argument has a lot of sense owing to the fact that Islam is a religion and human rights are principles that men have enacted to protect what the society or the international community feels that is right. A religion differs from secular principles, which define the American laws because human hands have not authority in whatever manner to change divine law. This major difference constitutes the foundation of argument that American laws are different from the criminal justice in Iran. Law scholars have studied the Islamic doctrines as proclaimed by their laws and have been able to conclude that secular laws practiced in the western countries of which United States is a member cannot be compatible to laws devoted to Islamic religion (Lawyers Committee for Human Rights). Research indicates that American constituted their laws through existing principles that they felt guided humanity. The so called principles of natural justice that the American applied while constituting their criminal penal code does not address anything of religion inclination. Religions are organs in the society that promote certain morals in the society (Farajiha, 2006). It is arguable that the morals, which secular laws tend to advocate for, are part of what religious law stresses in the society. The difference crops whenever a compromising situation or a point that needs comprise crops. For instance, the secular laws in America provide for secular marriages. In contrast, Iranian criminal justice system outlaws any secular marriage, which interferes with the normal biological functions of the body organs. Law scholars believe that such natural facts are hard to dispel from existence in a society where religion plays a greater role. Research indicates that code of principles justice followed in Iran is an interpretation of the law as per the interpretation given by Islamic laws. On the other hand, the interpretation of the American criminal justice code takes the principles laid in the American constitution, which is subject to amendment, by the congress. Obviously, these two systems must contrast because constitution of America differs from the constitution of Iran. Some scholars believe that American constitution did not entrench religious aspect because of diversity of views that American people have (Jacobs, 2001). It is not strange to mention that issues such as gays do not have any favor of the law in the balance of Iranian law. Human right that the American constitution favors does not have any bearing in the Iranian laws, which observe religious inclination. The American system seems to balance between the needs of the greater society, irrespective of your religious inclination or race which the Iranian system inclines von Islamic religion. Perfect law or imperfect law does not apply in any society. Studies indicate the ancient people led their lives following some morals which they felt were necessary in their society (Jacobs, 2001). However, modernity instituted morals dictated by science or technology. In the view of the society, criminal justice depends on the societal bearing, which constitutes the laws that guides the society. US criminal justice system protects individual interests as provided for in the US constitution whereas criminal justice system in Iran fails to protect interest of the suspects because of the interpretation given to the law. Studies indicate that Iranian systems have failed to protect human right. Instead, it has awarded death sentence to people who never deserved death in the eyes of the international community. The international community feels that Iranian law does not protect rights of people in some spheres. For instance, the code of dressing has met a lot of criticism by the western community, which feels that it offers unfair trial to people who violate this code. Criminal justice system in the United States bestows a lot of power in the courts while judicial system in Iran is likely to accept the influence of the religious laws in court ruling. This means that a person is likely to get less charges or more charges with respect to provisions stated in the religious law. Some criminal cases in United States attract the interest of the public and other bodies, which advocate for human rights. These bodies usually send the attorneys to defend convicted suspects (Walker). This trend applies in Iran however, the cases that affecting suspects may not delay because of religious system of justice dispensation. It is evident that defending attorney usually offers their services to people who face various charges. The urgency of the charge facing a suspect may dictate judgment that the individual is likely to get. In conclusion, criminal justice is an aspect of the law, which addresses justice of an individual with respect to the society. Criminal justice in US and Iran are different because of the constitutions, which guide judicial systems in these countries. It is apparent that United States has a secular constitution which addresses issues affecting the society on a secular dimension while Iran constitutions bestows a lot of authority in the implementation of religious law. The religious laws do not recognize any moral founded on the grounds of secular society. In essence, the criminal justice in United States does recognize people’s rights in the international accord. The judicial system in Iran applies the wrong for a wrong kind of punishment to discharge justice to the society. The American system tends to prefer lenient punishment to people which contrast punishment offered through Iranian system. Religious inclination of the Iranian law does not compromise secular laws propagated by the western critics. Studies have indicated that the US secular constitution which has an influence on the criminal law in the same manner as Iranian constitution which promote the observation of Islamic laws. References Buck, C. (2010). The Trial of the Yaran under Iranian Criminal Procedure: “The Justice of God” or Procedural Injustice? Retrieved on 30 March 2012 from http://www.iranpresswatch.org/post/5459 Dehghan, K. S. (2011). Iran to blind criminal with acid in eye for an eye justice. Retrieved on 30 March 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/13/iran-blind-criminal-acid EduDecisions. The United States Criminal Justice System. Retrieved on 30 March 2012 from http://www.edudecisions.com/articles/criminal-justice-careers/system.php Entessar, N. Criminal Law and the Legal System in Revolutionary Iran. Boston College Third World Law Journal. Retrieved on 30 Mar 2012 from http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=twlj Farajiha, M. (2006). Community Involvement in Administration of Criminal Justice in Iran. J. Humanities (2006) Vol. 13 (1): (93 - 106) Jacobs, B. J. (2001). The Evolution of U.S. Criminal Law. Retrieved on 30 Mar 2012 from http://photos.state.gov/libraries/vietnam/8621/translations/ej072001.pdf Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. THE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. Retrieved 30 March 2012 from http://www.iranrights.org/english/document-93.php Raphael, S. & Sills, M. Urban Crime, Race, and the Criminal Justice System in the United States. Retrieved on 30 March 2012 from http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~raphael/ACTC30.pdf The Criminal Justice System. Retrieved on 30 Mar 2012 from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=45713 Walker, S. (2011). Troy Davis v the US criminal justice system: an unfair contest. Retrieved on 30 March 2012 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/22/troy-davis-criminal-justice-system Read More