Sociology: Criminal Justice - Term Paper Example

? Sociology: Criminal Justice OUTLINE Thesis ment: In order to comprehend the factors, whether religious or constitutionalthat influence the creation of each nation’s criminal justice and policing systems, it is critical to study each nation’s laws and justice department system separately. I - Policing systems in various parts of the world have different concepts about what policing involves. All the different approaches are essentially based on what the police forces operating in different jurisdictions feel are the most significant security needs of their community. (A) Saudi Arabia has weak traditions of constitutional law enforcement structures. Its policing system is basically determined by the authorities that are handpicked by the ruling minority. (B) The German policing system is tasked with upholding the law according to the nation’s constitution. (C) While the American policing system also upholds the law according to the national constitution, it is probably the most fragmented police force in the world, with roughly 18,000 different enforcement agencies. (D) Comparisons between the policing systems of Germany, Saudi Arabia and the United States shows how religiously based policing systems differ from those that are based on constitutional law. II - Most of the world’s criminal justice systems are formed to combat felonies as defined by a nation’s constitution or religious code of ethics and impose sentences on the guily offenders. While most criminal justice systems involve lawyers and the display of evidence in courts of law, many times, crimes are not penalized because of the absence of evidence or witnesses. (A) In Saudi Arabia, Shari’ah is the law under which criminal justice functions. There are extreme corporal punishments suvh as beheading and flogging. Every suspect, whether a Muslim or not, is judged according to the tenets of Islamic law. (B) Germany’s criminal justice system is based on the nation’s civil law. The federal laws shape the legal system that is used nationwide. (C) In the United States, there is no general criminal justice system whose statutes are observed by all of the nation’s states. Each of the more than 45 states has its own criminal justice system which has different rules about how to manage law enforcement processes. (D) There are considerable differences between how prosecution of suspects is conducted in nations where the law is based on religious factors and where the law is based on a constitution. The penalties given to criminals in nations with religious laws tend to be harsher than those given in nations run by a constitution. This is because in the former, the laws that are broken by the suspect are viewed as being the god’s laws. When a person breaks these laws, he is transgressing against god, not man. Sociology: Criminal Justice Introduction Most of the civil laws of most of the world’s nations come from the Roman laws in the days when Rome was viewed as the world’s most powerful empire. As (Reichel, 2005) asserts, this system has an openly inquisitorial structure where the word rather than the spirit of the law outweighs all other considerations. In this system, the accused person is accredited fewer rights. It is a basically elitist system where, most of the times, the leader(s) of society remain above the law while the poorer members of society are subject to the stipulations of the law. The only nation that does not use this system is Saudi Arabia. Though the Saudi Arabian government does not agree with this presumption, in reality, the Saudi Arabian criminal justice system is essentially a religious system. Studying the criminal justice and policing systems of different nation helps in comprehending whether the nation in question bases its justice system on religious or constitutional factors. POLICING SYSTEMS Saudi Arabia The Saudi Government bases its authority on governing through the principles advocated by a severely conservative interpretation of Islam. The official Saudi Arabian police force is divided into two different groups. There is the investigative police division and then there is the normal police security force (Vogt, Larsen & Moe, 2009). The investigative police division works on investigating criminal cases and operates under the office of the Directorate of Investigation. Its officers are also referred to as the Secret Police. There are many other subsections of police structures in the Saudi Arabian nation which though not acknowldeged to be bona fide police, report to the government. In Saudi Arabia there is a police force dubbed the Religious Police and several groups operate these forces. The Saudi Arabian religious police, also known as the Mutawaa, are a group that, though not officially considered to be a part of the mainstream police force, are expected to make sure that there is the strict observation of Islamic codes of conduct by all citizens and foreigners residing in the nation. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is in charge of the National Guard. The Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Aviation and Defense, is in charge of all the military forces. Germany In Germany, police services are offered by a group of different forces which operate in either national, state, or international jurisdictions. Germany is a nation that is made up of 16 states.  Every state takes care of its own policing concerns, and has its state police, who are commonly referred to as the “Landespolizei” (Reichel, 2005). The nationwide police force, known as the Bundespolizei (BPOL) is the operational police force that caters to all matters concerning domestic security. Its duties include maintaining border security, protecting foreign embassies as well as federal buildings, and the surveillance of sea and land borders. This national force also deals with domestic disturbances such as demonstrations, transportation problems and the manning of helicopter rescue servives. The Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), the INTERPOL National Central Bureau (NCB) in Germany, is the center for police information and communication. It extends support to all police forces and directs general crime suppression operations.  It also functions as the Criminal Investigations Department headquarters in Germany. The United States The United States probably has the most number of police bureaus in the world. Each force has its own responsibilities. Federal police agencies In the United States, federal law enforcement bureaus are an element of the administrative branch of the government. The main federal law enforcement bureaus include: The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI): This force is responsible for more than 200 types of federal crime. The FBI mainly serves to guard the United States from organized crime, terrorist activities, civil rights crimes, white-collar crimes, and other violent crimes like kidnapping and bank robbery. The FBI also helps other state, federal, and local police agencies through its crime lab, crime statistics, training academy, and fingerprint files. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF): This agency is responsible for investigating incidences of the unlawful use of firearms and explosives. It also pursues outlawed motorcycle bands that violate explosives, federal firearms, and drug trafficking rules. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA): This police agency enforces all national drug-control rules. Its agents have the right to seize drugs and capture drug traffickers. The U.S. Marshals Service: Marshals are responsible for providing security to all federal courts. They also gaurd federal judiciary members with the exception of Supreme Court judges who have their own special police force. Marshals also catch escaped federal detainees, oversee those who have been arrested, and run the federal witness protection program. The Secret Service: The Secret Service protects the president of the United States, as well as other high ranking government officials. It also apprehends criminals involved in counterfeiting U.S. money. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS): This police bureo seek to enter the United States. They stop illegal aliens from entering the nation while also deporting those that break the U.S. naturalization laws. There are many other police groups that are responsible for specific tasks in America. These include school police, transit police, highway patrols, municipal as well as state police, and sheriffs. Many times, branches of American police bureaus are assigned to foreign nations to deal with concerns of terrorism, human trafficking, and money laundering. Comparisons between the Policing Systems of Saudi Arabia, Germany and the United States Different nations have different types of policing systems. Neither the Saudi Arabian society nor the government accepts the theory of the separation of religion and state; which is widely accepted in Germany as well as the United States. The Saudi Arabian government forbids the founding of political parties and stifles opposition views through its police bureaus. American police usually use lie detector tests to verify the statements of criminals or suspects; these test results, however, are not usually acceptable in court unless both sides wish to use them (Terrill, 2003). In Germany, lie detectors are perceived as being unusable and are never used. Saudi Arabian police will only convict a person of the basis of the presence of witnesses to his acts of crime. In general, police have more power in America than in Germany. For example, police officers in the United States are permitted to carry out undercover operations in saunas or adult cinemas in order to apprehend people caught engaging in "indecent conduct". It is a common thing in New York City for the police to leave unattended bags in the city and then charge persons who steal the bags with committing a felony (Reichel, 2005). American police officers are also authorized to pose as "agent provocateurs" in order to catch criminals. For instance, they can pose as prostitutes, drug buyers, or teenage prostitutes in order to capture the people who solicit them. Undercover policemen also regularly infiltrate political demonstrations in order to learn of the people in charge of such operations. Undercover operations in Germany can only be used in serious occurences of organized crime. The German police are also not permitted to mislead a suspect into giving incriminating evidence about him or herself. Moreover, German law allows for evidence that was illegally acquired to be used during criminal trials like in cases against tax evaders (Reichel, 2005). This is not allowed in the United States. In Saudi Arabia, there are such stringent laws that govern the daily lives of citizens that there is not a lot of crime. The laws against intermingling of the sexes, also, are strong enough to discourage all but the most determined of criminals. The religious police patrol public places to make sure that all women who have deigned to leave their houses are dressed modestly. The religious police also seek to ensure that all men attend the many mosques for regular prayers. America and Germany do not have such a branch in their police forces. In addition, Saudi Arabia’s draconian laws discourage most criminals from participating in illegal activities. The religious police have the legal right to hold suspects for twenty-four hours of interrogation, after which they are turned over to the regular police. In Saudi Arabia, those who defy the laws of the Quran can be beaten, in the first 24 hours, by the Mutawaa with switch-like sticks. Most mutawwiin dress in the customary white thaub, and are paid by the government. Most of the time, the Saudi Arabian police function under the auspices of religious authorities and tribal chieftains, while in America and Germany, the police work to maintain the constitutional law. Thus, the role of the Saudi Arabian police is subject to the interpretation given to it by whichever authority happens to have asked for police assistance. Many times, police help is not sought at all, and the police accept that. Tribal leaders in Saudi Arabia usually make the important decisions in security matters concerning their tribes. Many times, it would seem that the law in Saudi Arabia, is subject to the ruling of traditional chieftains. For instance, if a daughter committed adultery and was sentenced to die by her male relatives, the police would not interfere even though the law says they should. The police would also detain any person who tried to interfere and use the law to judge such a case because he was “disturbing the public peace” (Kamali, 2008). CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS Criminal Law in Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is a realm that is ruled by a King who is the last authority in every matter. There are no political parties or elected representative institutions that are allowed to function in Saudi Arabia. In this land, the law is based on the stipulations held in the Shari'a (Vogt, Larsen & Moe, 2009). The Shari'a is an Islamic code of law which has been copied from the pages of the Sunna and the Koran, both of which outline the traditions spoken about by Islam’s messiah, Prophet Mohammed. The Koran is the nation’s constitution, and gives direction in all legal judgements. In addition, all government agencies and ministries are responsible to the King. The judiciary is also subject to influence by the members of the royal family and the executive branch. Other sources of the Shari'a include the Ijma, which are the views of Islamic religious scholars known as the Ulema, and the Qiyas, which is a technique in which the judges agree on how to use new legal factors (Kamali, 2008). Though the Shari’ah is clear that none shall be exempt from its laws, this is not a fact in Saudi Arabia, where the mornarchy rules and is above the religious law. When criminals are sentenced in Saudi Arabia, they have the right to appeal in an appeal court. However, if they still do not agree with the appeal court’s ruling, the king serves as the final arbitrator, a one man court of appeal and possible grantor of pardon. In Saudi Arabia’s religiously governed dictatorship, all felonies are grouped into three categories: Tazir, Hudud, and Qisas. Hudud crimes are those that Allah denounces; most of these carry a penalty of death. They include the consumption of alcohol, fornication, theft, adultery, and the defamation of Islam. In Saudi Arabia, thieves are often punished by imprisonment, the payment of fines, or the amputation of the thief’s right hand. (The left hand is severed if the right has already been cut off.) The consumption of drugs and alcohol carries with it a penalty of imprisonment and eighty lashes (Kamali, 2008). The defamation of Islam can result in flogging. Men are given the customary 40 lashes while standing while women are compelled to sit during the sentence. The heads, faces, and other vital body organs of the wrong-doer are usually well-covered before the flogging begins. Adultery is viewed as being the most serious of crimes. If the guilty person commited adultery while married, he or she may be shot, stoned to death, or beheaded (Trechsel, 2005). When a person is sentenced to die, he or she is usually drugged heavily before the sentence is carried out. Moreover, the law states that there must be four witnesses who saw the act of adultery take place, before the suspect can be killed. Tazir crimes are usually adjudicated by the regular police who also determine the appropriate punishment. In the punishment of Tazir crimes, there is no definite punishment; each suspect is judged on a personal basis, and according to the gravity of the transgression and the sorrow shown by the suspect (Vogt, Larsen & Moe, 2009). The crimes of Tazir are identical to misdemeanor crimes in the United States. In Qisas crimes, the victim or the family of the victim is given the right to choose an appropriate punishment and enact it on the wrongdoer. For instance, if a murder has been carried out, the victim’s family can choose the method through which to kill their loved one’s killer. All people are not considered as having a right to participate as witnesses to crimes in Saudi Arabia. Children cannot testify in court, and a non-Muslim’s testimony is not acceptable in a Saudi criminal court (Kamali, 2008). Women are also banned from testifying. Indeed, even when they testify, their testimony is regarded as mere presumptions which any court has the right to disregard. This, according to Saudi law, is because women are emotional and may alter the evidence to suit their own purposes. It is also believed that women are forgetful, and so may forget important parts of what they saw. In Saudi Arabia, women are also banned from participating in public life and so it is believed that they may not understand much of what they see on the few times when they do venture into the public. Criminal Law in Germany In Germany the system of criminal justice comes from civil law and not the common law that defines the criminal justice systems in the United States as well as Britain. Germany’s civil law includes the concept of work-release programs, nonconfinement punishments, and other methods aimed at treating the criminal instead of merely keeping him from society. In Germany, criminal cases can be tried in local courts, Land courts, or regional courts. Prosecutions that result in a maximum sentence of one year are tried by local court judges  (Fields  & Moore, 2005). In cases where there may be a sentence of up to three years, two lay judges will assist the sitting judge in deciding the appropriate sentence. In criminal cases where there may be a sentence o more than three years three to six lay judges will make the ruling in a Land court. A Land court of appeal is responsible for reviwing sentences and trying cases concerning genocide and treason. In Germany, torture is outlawed. A suspect has to be tried within 24 hours of being arrested. A relative of the accused also has to be informed immediately, especially if the detention will last beyond the day. All suspects, excepting terrorists, have the right to legal counsel, and bail bonds exist though they are rarelu used. Criminal Law in the United States The American criminal justice system functions through five major components. These include: 1. Local Law Enforcement: If an ordinary person witnesses a crime, he or she will identify the criminal to local police officers. The police officer(s) then determines the next course of action. If the misdemeanor is something like trespassing or overspeeding, this is quickly resolved by fining the wrong doer or issuing a ticket. In more severe crimes, the police turn to the courts. 2. Court Trial: When the lawbreaker has been booked, the next step involves a court trial. The facts are presented by the witness as well as the police to a prosecutor. The prosecutor then determines if there is a case to be heard. 3. Court Case: The prosecutor will bring the case before a judge in a law court. If the crimes are minor and the offender is obviously at fault, the judge will usually give a sentence. However, if the offender refuses to accept responsibility, a trial must be planned. 4. Trial with Grand Jury: A grand jury is can be employed to hear both the prosecutor’s and defender’s sides of the case. The jury, for most citizens, is important because it includes a group of people who favour no particular side. 5. Decision and Punishment: Once the jury members have listened to the defender as well as the prosecution, they decide whether to rule that the suspect is innocent or guilty. If proven to be at fault in such a case, the suspect will listen to the judge pronounce his or her sentence. Occassionally, the jury determines the punishment to be given. Comparisons between the Criminal Law and Policing Systems in Germany and the United States Saudi Arabian courts do not recognize juries, neither does Germany. In America, even the civil cases are decided by juries. In the US, when juries are used, the judge only has procedural power in the entire court proceedings. He or she has no say in the results of the court trial. There are very few instances where judges have overturned the decision of the jurors; in such cases, the jurors may have been compromised (Dorsen, Rosenfeld, Sajo & Baer, 2003). In Saudi Arabia, a judge will use the sworn testimonies of witnesses who must be Male, Muslim adherents who have attained the age of maturity as well as the stipulations of the Shari’ah to reach a verdict. If there are no witnesses, oral confessions given in front of the judge are necessary for a conviction to take place (Wilson, 2009). Trials are also held without the presence of counsel. In the German system, both the defense as well as the prosecution has the right to appeal an unfavorable result (Pakes, 2004). In America, the prosecution may not appeal. In Saudi Arabia, appeals are routinely assessed by the Ministry of Justice or occassionaly by a Shari’ah court of appeal. There were two sharia courts of appeal located in Mecca and Riyadh. Appeals are arbitrated by three judges; except for cases of amputation, or death sentences. These may only be judged by five sitting judges. The American Supreme Court may be viewed as being more transparent than the German Bundesverfassungsgericht. The opinions as well as dissenting opinions of judges in America are reported on, while the German media does not publish such data. Appellate court decisions in Saudi Arabia are final except for death sentences which may be altered by the king. The American legal system is openly political and partisan. Usually, when a new president comes to power, all the 93 functioning American attorneys are discharged from their duties and replaced by others who are with the incoming president’s party. The American attorneys are quite powerful and usually decide who will be prosecuted, and also oversee the process of plea bargaining. German prosecutors, on the other hand, usually have life-time positions that are not affected in any way by new political appointment. In Saudi Arabia, prosecutors are not used as judges are the ones who determine rulings based on the testimony of witnesses. The American system energetically puts off confessions from suspects. If a person confesses, he or she usually still has to endure the same punishment he or she would get if a jury were deciding the case. The trial part of the process, though, will be discontinued. In Germany, a confession will bring a reduced sentence. The trial, though, will continue as the confession is only considered as being a single piece of evidence, with the case still having to be proven. The Saudi justice system actively seeks confessions from suspects to speed up court processes. It is also a fact that torture is sometimes used to get confessions from suspects. The American system of criminal rules is wide and extensive. An ordinary citizen would probably require a lawyer to interprete its finer details over many days in order to understand it. The German criminal code, on the other hand, is a small pamphlet with clearly written rules that can be understood by all citizens, even children. In Saudi Arabia, even if non-Muslims, women, or children understand the Shari’ah because they meditate on it from the moment they can read, they cannot use it in any other useful way because they are viewed as being incapable of interpreting it accurately. Punishment is harshest in Saudi Arabia, though it is harsher in America than in Germany. Moreover, there is a concept in the German system known as Sicherheitsverwahrung, which basically stipulates that a criminal can still be imprisoned even after finishing his or her legal term if the judge decides that the criminal is still a danger to society. This concept goes back to the Nazi period (Dammer & Fairchild, 2006). In Saudi Arabia, floggings, torture, beheading, amputations, the firing squad, and using other inhuman methods treatment is regularly used to punish offenders. Saudi Arabia was recently in the news after a judge allowed for a man who knifed and paralysed an acquaintance in his youth to be surgically paralysed. In America, crime stopper programs are widespread: they offer a toll-free number which can be used to secretly accuse a person of a crime. A reward is given to the caller if a conviction results from his or her call. German citizens have in the past expressed their amazement at the existence of such a program since, in Germany, it was often used by the Nazis to turn people against their neighbours. In America, laws are generally created by congressmen. The laws observed in the Kindom of Saudi Arabia are those spelled by the Shari’ah law. There are no new laws that can be formed unless they are attachments that seek to better implement those already in existence. However, many times, the rulers in various positions bend them to suit their own purposes. In Germany, it is a rare thing for individual parliamentarians create new rules. When they decide to make new laws, parliamentarians will form large groups, work together, and find the best ways to represent the law in a way that will be well understood. This is an improvement on the American model in which congress men and women keep hapharzardly adding laws to the justice system without seeking to ensure that all the laws complement each other. The American bail system, which compels everybody who is arrested for an offense to produce a sum of money or be imprisoned, is perceived as being unashamedly partial to the affluent citizens by Germans. In Germany, bail is hardely ever used. The defendants awaiting court trials have to remain in prison if they are viewed as being dangerous or are expected to flee. In Saudi Arabia, bail is not recognized, even though suspects are occassionaly released on the basis of the testimony or efforts of his or her employer or patron. It is common for suspects to be detained for long periods of time if the police investigation is still incomplete, however. Laws also differ in the three nations where young offenders are concerned. In Saudi Arabia , juvenile delinquency is viewed as something that ought to be judged more leniently than adult cases of offense. Children are subject to the same harsh punishment, particularly when they have no patrons to argue for their release. Unlike Saudi Arabia, Germany's juvenile system offers special courts that make judgments based on youth law. German juvenile courts endeavor to ensure that wayward youths are rehabilitated through education rather than punishment. The American juvenile system is similar to that of Germany because it stresses on improving the behaviours of delinquents in order to reintroduce them into the mainstream society. Occassionally, in cases where the young offender is a teenager who has committed murder, the American juvenile courts will relinquish jurisdiction to the normal courts to be tried as adult offenders. Conclusion Comparing law enforcement agencies and criminal justice systems in different countries can produce interesting insights into matters regarding law enforcement, crime, and incarceration. The efficiency as well as success of any criminal justice system is not easily perfected. Its efficiency has to be improved gradually, even as it shifts developing needs of society . Comparing the three legal systems above , it is obvious that the criminal justice systems of all three nations can be traced back to each nation 's history. While Germany and the United States benefitted from the laws that were adopted by their forebearers, the religious Saudi Arabian criminal justice system is the result of the forces that forced the nation to welcome fundamentalists in large numbers. References Dammer, H. R., & Fairchild, E. (2006). Comparative criminal justice systems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Dorsen, N., Rosenfeld, M., Sajo, A., & Baer, S. (2003). Criminal procedure (due process) – comparative constitutionalism. St. Paul, MN: West Group. Fields, C. B.,  & Moore, R.H. (2005). Comparative and international criminal justice:  traditional and nontraditional systems of law and control. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Kamali, H.M. (2008). Shari’ah law: An introduction. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. Pakes, F. J. (2004). Comparative criminal justice. Portland, OR: Willan. Reichel, P. L. (2005). Comparative criminal justice systems:  A topical approach. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.  Terrill, R. J. (2003). World criminal justice systems:  A survey. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub. Trechsel, S. (2005). Human rights in criminal proceedings. New York: Oxford University Press. Vogt, K., Larsen, L., & Moe, C. (2009). New directions in Islamic thought: exploring reform and Muslim tradition. London: I.B. Tauris. Wilson, K.R. (2009). Anglo-Muhammadan law: A digest. Montana: Kessinger Publishing. Read More