Comparative Criminal Justice - Essay Example

Comparative Criminal Justice Paper Comparative Criminal Justice Paper The role of comparative criminal justice, a majority of scholars would concur, is to compare and contrast people’s ways of reacting to crime with those practiced in another place (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). It also normally concerns, even though it does not essentially have to do so, adapting from, or at least attempting to study from, what is carried out in other regions (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). It would appear clear therefore that, if it is to be at all helpful, then comparison needs comprehension and interpreting what people in other areas are, in fact, trying to do. This paper offers an evaluation of the most central and important themes, as well as issues of comparative research on criminal justice taking three countries into question, the United States, France and Malaysia. The importance is on investigations of the contemporary, instead of the historical, proportions of criminal justice, predominantly the newest developments in this field of comparative justice over the past 10 years. To provide a useful insight to the rich field of comparative criminal justice in the United States, France and Malaysia, this paper includes a discussion of applicable themes following a route from criminal procedure and law, including over law enforcement, adjudication, to corrections, as well as other types of punishment, in the three counties. Another part deals with the significance of ethnicity, age and gender in comparative criminal justice. The spotlight of this paper is on conclusions of empirical research, but in the last section special concentration is dedicated to conceptual and methodological issues, which are specific to this field of study in the United States, France and Malaysia. Country Overview The United States In the U.S., the rule of self-defense permits an individual to use realistic force in their own protection or the protection of other people as permitted by the nation’s “theoretical background.” On the federal level, the law is authorized only in reply to an assenting, illegal act realistically thought to generate a fight foreboding fatal consequences or injurious (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The meaning of lawful self defense on a state level, on the other hand, normally differs considerably from this meaning and from other states, but every state makes a significant distinction between the utilization of deadly and non-deadly force (DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, 2007). An individual might use non-deadly force to stop impending injury; nevertheless, the same individual might not use lethal force unless that individual is in realistic fear of death or serious injury. In the United States, the entrapment defense has grown largely through case law. Two rival tests exist for deciding whether or not entrapment has occurred, referred to as the "objective" and "subjective" tests (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The "subjective" test dwells on the defendants emotional state; entrapment can be applied if the defendant had no "disposition" to conduct the crime (DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, 2007). The "objective" test dwells rather on the governments behavior; entrapment takes place when the deeds of government officials would typically have led to a generally law-abiding individual to conduct a crime (DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, 2007). The defense of property/assets is a widespread justification method used by defendants who claim that they ought not to be held accountable for any injury and loss, which they have caused since they were only acting to safeguard their property/assets (DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, 2007). Courts have, in general, ruled that the application of force might be tolerable (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). France In France, self-defense is the right to protect or prevent yourself or another individual from a danger such as theft or violence (Niemonen, 2005). It normally concerns a possible victim reacting aggressively against a supposed danger to stop it from taking place. France has a rule of thumb in that an individual must not take matters into their own hands and let law enforcers deal with it (Niemonen, 2005). Nevertheless, as it is doubtful that law breakers will act in the company of a law enforcer, the law of France wisely identifies the likely victim might commit what would rather be a crime to stop one being carried out against them (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The least age at which an individual can be charge with a criminal defense in France is 13. Under the France law, the defense of infancy was articulated as a set of beliefs. A teenager under the age of 13 was considered incapable of doing a crime (Niemonen, 2005). The assumption was definite, barring a court from offering proof that the teenager had the ability to understand the wrongfulness and nature of what he had committed. Finally, the justice system of French has an extensive understanding of entrapment (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). In a case referred to as "affaire de Broglie", a police officer called M. Simone provided the weapon to an individual with criminal record so as to murder prince Jean de Broglie, a well recognized politician and businessman (Niemonen, 2005). The France court found the killer and the officer guilty and were both sentenced to a decade in jail. Malaysia Unlike France and the United States where one can self-defend him/herself to the extent of killing the other individual making them to self-defend him/herself, in Malaysia, an individual is only allowed to defend him/herself to a reasonable extent without killing them individual or else they might also be held liable in a court of law (Pakes, 2010). In Malaysia, it is up to the courts to decide what extent of force a logical person may have utilize depending on the circumstance they are in (Niemonen, 2005). This has being a tough exercise for the Malaysian courts. Thieves who walk with knives, as well as other weapons are ready to at least intimidate the application of serious violence (Pakes, 2010). A rational father who faces such a person may feel right to apply any amount of force (Pakes, 2010). In Malaysia also, it is usually forbidden to persuade or induce an individual to do a crime, or to try to do so. Nevertheless, the Federal Court of Justice of Malaysian has claimed that entrapment by covertly police agents is not a ground to stay the issues per se (Niemonen, 2005). If covert agents have been used with no proper validation, penalty for the committed crime might be reduced. In the case of individuals who are not unlikely to do a certain crime and originally under suspicion, a verdict from 1999 claimed that entrapment of such individuals violates the freedom to a fair trial (and hence the sentence for the committed offence might be reduced) (Pakes, 2010). Finally, with regards to the defense of infancy, Malaysians also only take only individuals above the age of 13 to court. The rest cannot be tried in a court of law (Pakes, 2010). Country Comparison Contrasting different yet related criminal justice systems, researchers normally propose how one system can adapt from another. Therefore, contrasting the U.S., French and Malaysian criminal justice systems, Deflem & Swygart (2001) propose that both the United States might and Malaysia adapted from the French system a number of traits such as: supervision of police and more careful selection, judges and prosecutors; more effectual rule of prosecutorial charging carefulness; and enhanced use of choices to plea bargaining. More significant compared to such suggestions —which might remain without actual impacts— are the different trends of meeting between criminal justice systems in different nations, which scholars have found to have been occurring in recent years (Pakes, 2010). For instance, describing distinctions between the U.S., France and Malaysian systems, Deflem & Swygart (2001) note that the France and Malaysia has shifted towards assuming a due process system, whereas the United States more and more employs crime control methods. Also, researchers talk about changes in criminal justice ideology in the United States, France and Malaysia and acknowledge that the once more open-minded penal ideology of France has shifted to a much harsher approach, as marked, for example, by assuming of tougher noncustodial verdicts and much longer custodial verdicts (Pakes, 2010). In contrast, U.S.s’ and Malaysia’s traditional harsh organization of penology has of late transformed towards assuming more lenient techniques that are manifested in a reduction of prison term, as well as an easement of verdicts (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). In similar vein, research from numerous other institutions found out that the France criminal justice system, unlike American and Malaysian, has united inasmuch as the criminal justice process in the nation, which is being synchronized as an element of a wider scheme of the alleged Europeanization, i.e. a synchronization of criminal justice in the nations of the EU (Pakes, 2010). The institutions acknowledge that international efforts like reform practices rooted in a global human rights discourse have made easy this France assimilation trend, even if the court systems of France is rooted in distinct ideologies compared to other European nations. However, it should be noted that, as Deflem & Swygart (2001) discussed, America and Malaysia adapted some of the elements of its criminal justice system from France’s criminal justice system. Beyond the distinctions among criminal justice systems, which are used in the Western world (America to be specific), there are significant distinctions between non-Western (France and Malaysia) and Western systems. Deflem & Swygart (2001) applied a suitable model, which distinguishes among four criminal justice systems: Civil, Common, Socialist systems and Islamic. Common law systems, for instance, in the U.S., are adversarial-related, linking two differing sides of a lawyer in place of the defendant, as well as a prosecutor standing in for the people (Niemonen, 2005). The common law system characteristically depends on prior court rulings as models to be applied in later court cases (Niemonen, 2005). The continental or civil law system, which is used, for instance, in France and Malaysia, is an inquisitorial replica, which normally grants much lesser rights and freedom to the accused and works on the ground that pre-trial investigation and use of written law ought to guide society’s pursuit of justice (Pakes, 2010). Finally, socialist systems (Malaysia included) echo a Marxist-Leninist philosophy, which views the system of criminal justice as a way of coaching a nation’s citizens to accomplish their duties the state has claimed to be supreme (Niemonen, 2005). Scholars argue that in the Malaysian system, people considered as dangerous-to-society get much harsher penalties, particularly when they take part in the alleged counter-revolutionary political endeavors or have information of state secrets; this is basically the same also in France and the United States Deflem & Swygart (2001). Other socialist countries have likewise been found to use much harsher forms of penalty compared to exist in democratic states such as the United States and France (Niemonen, 2005). During the colonial era, Western powers brought in values and criminal justice systems, which had not developed spontaneously in the Malaysian context, brining conflicts and tensions in the system (Pakes, 2010). Traditional Malaysian values were likewise in tension with more contemporary notions, which emerged, particularly among the much younger generations. These difficult conditions caused a condition of discrepancy in the criminal justice system of Malaysia (Pakes, 2010). These transformations point out that it is vital to look at state systems of criminal justice not just in terms of wide comparisons across different nations of the world, but in historical terms also as being subject to changes over time (Niemonen, 2005). Mainly in recent years, criminal justice research has thus focused on patterns of change, rising interdependency among national systems, and long-term issues of numerous traditions of criminal justice (Pakes, 2010). In the next segment, a more specific form such as community policing is discussed in reference to recent economic and political changes (Pakes, 2010). Country Overview in Community Policing The United States The shift towards community policing has strengthened in recent decades as community leaders and police look for more effective ways to prop up public safety and improve the quality of life in American neighborhoods (Niemonen, 2005). Community policing refers to a philosophy, which promotes organizational/institutional strategies that endorse the efficient use of partnerships, as well as problem-solving methods, to proactively tackle the instant conditions, which lead to public safety problems like social disorder, crime, in addition to fear of crime. The ancestry of community policing rose from the history of policing and drew on a lot of the lessons learn from that history (Niemonen, 2005). The real strategies and initiatives, which have been executed under the pretext of community policing are as varied as the meaning of community policing itself. The United States uses public education programs, neighborhood watch programs, neighborhood town meetings, storefront mini-stations and weed and seed programs (Niemonen, 2005). Public education programs in community policing, in the United States, are applied for a number of reasons. For instance, they are applied in garnering general endorsement for the police and for rises in police resources. Neighborhood watch, on the other hand, normally concerning community members joining in small clusters in a small estate to share information concerning local crime issues, share crime impediment methods and create plans for inspecting the neighborhood and reporting crimes (Niemonen, 2005). Finally, police mini-stations help in effort of decentralizing the police and bringing them much closer to the citizens they are serving. They are also helpful methods for the public to offer crime-related information to the authorities. In high crime regions, mini-stations are erected to offer the appearance of enhanced police presence (Niemonen, 2005). France In looking for a short account of French evolvement in community policing over the past three decades, one should acknowledge the big progress that has been made with regards to social crime prevention (Casey, 2010). One must also factor, at the same time, the difficulties the nation has endured in transforming from the 19th century idea of distant paramilitary law officers to the much friendly, obliging and recognizable problem-solvers now embodied by the police de proximité. In the late 70s, as well as early 80s, the country underwent through numerous wrenching social changes, and experienced a raise in property and violence crimes, together with local, politically-motivated terrorism acts (Casey, 2010). The French government, feeling that an uncompromising and oppressive police force was only making the situation worse, created plans to commence on community policing. Then, a new mechanism referred to as the Local Security Contract, was formulated in 1997 to close the gap between municipal social prevention methods, as well as the top-level partnerships of police directors plus civil servants in the France judiciary system (Casey, 2010). In this transformed effort to come to terms with the rising violence and crime, crime prevention was de-stressed and the essential concept of Security was endorsed as one of the key pillars of French government (Casey, 2010). Prosecutors and police prefects signed agreements with mayors of towns and cities. As the towns by then had their community teamwork in place and functioning, the Local Security Contracts could depend on bringing the two main forces, which had been working disjointedly together –and frequently at cross-goals—up till that time (Casey, 2010). Malaysia In the past, Malaysia used to extensively blame crime activities and violence on their emergency ordinance. However, today, the country strongly embraces the idea of community policing in its attempt to generate a much safer living condition for its citizens (Casey, 2010). This was greatly adopted from the United States’ endeavors in the field of community policing (Niemonen, 2005). The country derives community policing from a partnership between the community and the police whereby the law enforcement and the community share task for recognizing, reducing, eradicating and preventing problems, which affect community order and safety (Casey, 2010). They work through fostering bilateral trust, beliefs, understanding, respect and responsibilities and embracing smart solutions and strategies between the police and the public in crime prevention. The Malaysian police force works towards creating crime awareness and sharing responsibilities among people, as well as denying and reducing crime (Casey, 2010). The force also moderates and addresses police complaints and grouses made against them. They offer free legal advice and essential services to the general public and in order to guarantee the fairness and justice of law (Niemonen, 2005). The Malaysian police force also encourages communities to embrace the “Broken Window” premise (Niemonen, 2005). The will ensure that they are constantly on the lookout for any suspicious activity that is happening around their neighborhood. The Malaysian police force also promotes a truthful and trustful working association between them and the public (Casey, 2010). They establish and boost partaking of local authorities’ effort and collaboration in crime impediment. Finally, they advocate and educate the general public on ways of creating a much safer concept through practical community based programs (Casey, 2010). Country Comparison What these three countries acknowledge is that community policing should mainly center on police engagement with the broad “community” (which can likewise be depicted simply as the “residents,” “local population,” or “general public”), by the reforming of police organizations and also by changing the day to day actions of police personnel (Casey, 2010). The countries acknowledge that it is both an operational approach and a viewpoint of policing predicated on the thought that policing ought to have a much closer relation to the people it serves (Niemonen, 2005). It reached a point where the militarized system of policing wherein the law enforcement based itself far away from the people stopped working in the three countries so they all endorse the community policing policy. In the United States, they claimed that they wanted a model where police personnel would work together with the citizens (Casey, 2010). France, on the other hand, knew that such an endeavor would need a localized component to policing and extremely close relations between the public and the police with reference to policing priorities (Casey, 2010). Whereas community policing is like the catch-all word for this form of approach in the three countries, other descriptors now connected to policing, which center on preventative and social strategies are rooted in similar principles of close interaction and association with the community – these include problem-solving, partnership, problem-oriented, responsive, reassurance and proactive (Casey, 2010). Philosophies of community policing in these three nations are also element of the background framework for talks of whether or not policing ought to be regards as a service or a force. The common factors that support community policing in the United States, France and Malaysia are the support of community trust in policing, as well as the formation of equally beneficial relations between citizens and the police to assist in making sure that the two groups can work together to solve and prevent crime and to deal with disorder in society (Casey, 2010). Whereas the basis most normally cited for using a community policing model is operational effectiveness, its realization mostly in the United States is likewise concerned with making sure that the police force is legitimate through offering local-level accountability and dealing with not just crime itself but the less tangible fear of crime and citizens’ perception of their security and safety, as well (Niemonen, 2005). France has embraced community policing in a different manner by re-branding it as “proximidad/de proximité” or neighborhood policing (Casey, 2010). France incorporates neighborhood watch just like the United States where community members are joined in small clusters in a small estate to share information concerning local crime issues, share crime impediment methods and create plans for inspecting the neighborhood and reporting crimes (Casey, 2010). From the viewpoint of the service delivery system and police organization, community policing is a means of lessening the bureaucratic work of police agencies (Niemonen, 2005). On the ground, law officers are considered as generalists and not specialists, a feature of the industrial group from which law enforcement systems were planned (Casey, 2010). However, service delivery and decentralized management are foundation stones of the community policing movement in the three countries, supported by the claim that the arrangement of traditional policing deeply inhibits the power of the police force to deliver efficient and effective services to discernible and vigorous clients (Casey, 2010). The police force in these three nations is seen as being in a vibrant state, vigorously occupied with the surroundings and establishing numerous boundary-spanning roles connecting the organization to its direct task environment along with cultural, economic and social environments (Casey, 2010). The patrol system of Malaysia is meant to enhance more personalized interaction between the public and police, which includes foot patrols, as well as the creation of storefronts and/or, other types of mini-police stations, which are more reachable by people living in the neighborhoods (Casey, 2010). Another similar aspect among the three countries is that there is mass public outreach, as well as education programs, which inform citizens concerning police operations and help them enhance their own security (Casey, 2010). Conclusion The role of comparative criminal justice, a majority of scholars would concur, is to compare and contrast people’s ways of reacting to crime with those practiced in another place. It also normally concerns, even though it does not essentially have to do so, adapting from, or at least attempting to study from, what is carried out in other regions. This paper has offered an evaluation of the most central and important themes, as well as issues of comparative research on criminal justice taking three countries into question, the United States, France and Malaysia. The importance is on investigations of the contemporary, instead of the historical, proportions of criminal justice, predominantly the newest developments in this field of comparative justice over the past 10 years. It is important to dwell on this field of comparative criminal justice because it not only helps in solving local crime issues, but also international problems. A vital aspect of comparative criminal justice concerns learning about justice models from diverse parts of the globe. This brings in a global perception to someone’s comprehension of law, including how diverse government systems and cultures impact how the system of criminal justice is institutionalized and exercised the world over. Learning how systems of criminal justice have transformed and changed over time is a vital part of comprehending how and why the current justice system functions, giving someone a perceptive of how to shun past issues and an imminent into how it is possible to rise in the future. References Casey, J. (2010). Implementing community policing indifferent countries and cultures. Pakistan Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 55-70. Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2013). Comparative criminal justice systems. London: Cengage Learning. Deflem, M., & Swygart, A. J. (2001). Comparative criminal justice. New York: Oxford University Press. DuPont-Morales, M. A., Hooper, M. K., & Schmidt, J. (2007). Handbook of criminal justice administration (4th ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker Publishers. Niemonen, J. (2005). NAFTA & Neocolonialism: Comparative Criminal, Human & Social Justice by Laurence French; Magdaleno Manzanárez. International Review of Modern Sociology, 31(2), 283-289. Pakes, F. (2010). Comparative criminal justice (2nd ed.). London: Willan Press. Wisler, D., & Onwudiwe, I. D. (2008). Community policing in comparison. Police Quarterly, 11(4), 427-446. Read More