Criminal Justice Systems in the United States, France and Malaysia - Term Paper Example

Comparative Paper Comparative Paper Introduction Criminal justice refers to the system of s and justice of regimes meant to deter crime and uphold social control (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). It is also meant to sanction individuals who break the law through imposing criminal penalties, as well as rehabilitation efforts. People accused of breaking the law also have protections against abuse of prosecution and investigatory powers, although the efficiency of such rights are normally varied (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The world today has many criminal justice systems. A number of them have similar policies and others are significantly different (DuPont-Morales, Hooper & Schmidt, 2007). Even though, these systems are different, they are all intended for the goal expressed above. The three criminal justice systems that will be discussed in this article, are those of the United States, France and Malaysia (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). When comparing and contrasting these three systems, it is vital to understand the grounds that all of them were formed in the effort to control the proliferation of offenders, crime and prevent likely offenders. U.S. France and Malaysia’s criminal justice systems apply police enforcement organizations, a court system and correctional and detention facilities on a regional basis (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The elements that will be compared in this article are criminal law and policing. To be specific, it will discuss self-defense, criminal responsibility, crime definitions and search and seizure, from the criminal law perspective and police officer recruitment and training, community policing, and police corruption, from the policing perspective. The policing system in Malaysia and France is different compared to the one in the United States. In France and Malaysia, there is one extensive centralized police system managed by the central government. Origins of Criminal Justice Systems This section will briefly discuss the origins of the criminal justice systems of the three nations in question. The United States The criminal justice policy of the United States is guided by the 1967 “Challenge of Crime in a Free State” report by the commission that was sanctioned by the government to research law enforcement and administrative justice (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The group advocated for a "systems" (decentralized) approach to criminal justice, with enhanced organization among courts, the law enforcement, as well as correctional agencies (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The commission limited the criminal justice system to only enforce the standards of conduct vital to secure citizens and the community, at large. France France is very a powerful nation, which has a political system that is run by a centralized administrative regime. Its civil service system, at the same time, is decentralized as every region/province has covered services that vary by their need (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). In this manner, the French provinces get the advantages of a centralized regime while maintaining a certain amount of independence. In general, the criminal justice system of France is rooted in the Roman legal institution referred to as civil law (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Malaysia The Malaysian legal system was adopted from the English system following the introduction of the Royal Charter of Justice in Penang on March 25th, 1807 under the auspices of the EIC – a then Indian Administrative Firm (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The criminal justice system of Malaysia came years of hard experience of trying to control crime, which finally came to succeed with the help of Britain; as does its legal system which went together with the evolvement of its criminal justice system (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Overview of the Country’s Criminal Justice System This next section will provide an overview of self-defense, criminal responsibility, crime definitions and search and seizure of the three countries. The United States The right to self-defense grants people the right to prevent or stop violence or force towards them by applying a reasonable level of violence or force (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). As a basic rule, self-defense simply defends the application of force when it is applied in reply to an abrupt danger (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The danger can be verbal, on condition that it puts the intended party in an instant fear of physical threat (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). With regards to criminal responsibility, under article 32 of the United States criminal code, a man or woman who has reached the age of 12 shall be liable of criminal liability before a crime commission. Before the age of 12, it is regarded as the primary responsibility of the parent, or guardian to build the code of conduct of the child (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The U.S. Fourth Amendment grants that the right of individuals to be secure in their persons, papers houses and effects, against perverse searches and seizures, shall not be dishonored or no warrants shall be issued (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). However, upon probable cause, supported by affirmation or oath, and specifically describing the area to be searched, as well as the things or individuals to be seized, the law enforcement can go ahead and search the property (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). France Under the French Constitution, self-defense is the right to protect oneself or any other individual from considerable threats, which could lead to violence. The constitution stipulates that self-defense is only lawful if it is correlates to a threat (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Therefore, setting a trap for a thief and assaulting them after that cannot be considered as self-defense. Furthermore, the individual can even be charged in a court of law for such as act. The criminal responsibility age in France is 13 years. This implies that children under the age of 13 cannot be charged with a crime or even be arrested (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). However, France has stipulated some other forms of punishments, which can be given to children below the criminal responsibility age (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). However, children above the age of 13 who have not passed 18 years can be arrested and taken to specific juvenile courts for dealing with the youths (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). France is a low crime nation and rates well in relation to other European nations with regards to crime (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). In France, law enforcement has extensive authority of search and seizure with regards to a flagrant offense and when an illegal endeavor is being conducted or has just been conducted, but in other cases, court approval is needed (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). However, there have been some cases where the police force has gone to search and seize the property of many individuals in France claiming that the delay from the court could have deterred the case (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). Malaysia Self-defense in Malaysia is part of the private defense, an English law doctrine that allow people to prevent/stop injury to oneself or other individuals (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The right also permits people to prevent crime, in general. The right to self-defense in Malaysia was adapted from the British English law, which states that self-defense is the right to apply equal force against an opposing threat (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The age of an individual is vital when considering the responsibility, and procedure, as well as punishment to be given to a child (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). The criminal responsibility age of Malaysia is 10 years old. This is slightly higher compared to the age provided by British law which is 8 (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). It also relies on the child’s level of understanding of the crime’s nature and its consequences. Clause 36 of the Malaysian constitution grants powers for search and seizure to the Malaysian authorities so as to prevent or stop the dissipation of personal belongings/assets (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). However, in Malaysia, the property might be seized while still awaiting a court confiscation order to be made. Also, the seizure power is normally under the arms of the judiciary. If the court order is made, then the property might be sold so as to satisfy the order (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). In other words, the court is the institution that grants the search and seizure order, but if they delay this, the police force might go ahead to search and seize the property because of probable cause. Comparison between the Three Countries In the three countries, with regards to self-defense, offensive words that do not provoke physical harm do not justify the application of force with regards to self-defense (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). In addition, the application of force in self-defense essentially loses justification after the threat has terminated. For instance, if the provoker assaults the victim, but then terminates the assault and shows that there is no longer any danger of violence, then there is not justification for the victim to use force against the attacker of danger (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Therefore, in the three countries, any application of force against the assailant at that level by the victim would be regarded as retaliatory and not self-defense. All three countries have laws concerning self-defense that urge individuals claiming self-defense to initially make an effort to circumvent the violence prior to applying force. This is referred to as the “duty to retreat.” However, not all states in America use this rule (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). However, they support the use of reasonable, nonlethal force. Numerous states still urged that an individual makes an effort to flee the situation prior to applying lethal force. In comparison to the duty to retreat, a number of states have passed the alleged “stand your ground” rule (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). This rule eliminates the duty to retreat and permits self-defense as a claim even though the plaintiff did nothing to try to escape from the danger of violence. As stated above, this is a slightly more common rule when scenarios concern nonlethal force. However, a number of states do not agree on the “stand your ground” rule when lethal force is in play. The “stand your ground” rule can also be seen in France and Malaysia (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Moving on to the age of crime responsibility, all three three nations have different ages pertaining to when a child can be charged with a crime (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). For the United States it is 12, France 13 and Malaysia 10. In the United States, when a child below the below the age of 12 commits a crime, the primary responsibility for the illegal endeavor falls upon the caregivers of the child (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). In these cases, then the minimum charge against the child’s caregiver shall be equal to the crime articulated in the context of negligence in spite of the intention of the child doing the crime (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). In France, the child can be given some form of punishment also to pay for the crime. Also, children between the age of 13 and 18 get special treatment when they are charged with any crime. In Malaysia, on the other hand, even though they crime responsibility age is 10, the court also relies on the child’s level of understanding of the crime’s nature and its consequences to come up with a ruling (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The three countries have similar crime definitions such as manufacturing, domestic violence, drug distribution / trafficking, DWI / DUI, embezzlement, forgery, extortion, fraud, harassment, homicide, hate crime, indecent exposure, insurance fraud, identity theft, voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, kidnapping, medical marijuana, money laundering, a minor in possession (MIP), first-degree and second-degree murder, open container law, probation violation, prostitution, perjury, public intoxication, pyramid schemes, rape, racketeering / RICO, robbery, sexual assault, securities fraud, shoplifting, stalking, statutory rape, solicitation, telemarketing fraud, tax evasion / fraud, vandalism, wire fraud and white collar crimes (Reichel, 2005). In the United States, a criminal charge of aiding and accessory or abetting can normally be brought against any person who assists someone else to carry out a crime, though legal definition differ by state (Reichel, 2005). An individual charged with aiding and accessory or abetting is normally not present when the illegal endeavor itself is carried out, but he or she is aware of the crime prior to or following the act, and might help in its commission by actions, advice, and/or financial support (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). When it comes to search and seizure, the three countries grant their citizens rights that protect them from unwarranted search and seizure (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). However, one notable factor is that the law enforcement has also been granted power to search and seizure property even without a court order whenever there is probable cause (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). The only difference between the three countries is that they have stated different scenarios that can lead to probable cause (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). For Instance, in the United States, the property owner in question might agree to the search. The consent, however, should be voluntary, but there is no apparent test to decide whether or not it is (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). In France, on the other hand, the law enforcement might go ahead and search or seize property when they consider that the court is taking too long to bring the search order to the extent that it might destruct the case (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Finally, in Malaysia, property might be seized while still awaiting a court confiscation order to be made (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Also, the seizure power is normally under the arms of the judiciary. If the court order is made, then the property might be confiscated so as to satisfy the order. Overview of the Three Countries Policing This next section will provide an overview of police officer recruitment and training, community policing and police corruption, in the three countries. The United States The recruitment and training of police officers, in the United States, falls on the Department of Justice and the Federal Police, but the ground work is done by government agencies at the state level (USCCR, 2014). For instance, the U.S. Training and Recruiting Bureau was set to better offer required department, federal and state training to all police personnel, plus it is accountable for planning, creating and assessing training programs (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Training offered to sworn personnel comprises defensive tactics, firearms, first aid, physical fitness, CPR, search and seizure, legal updates, as well as other areas mandated by federal or state law (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). With regards to community policing, the U.S. police department pledges to support the criminal justice system, as well as support extensive community coverage (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Community policing is aided by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Enforcement of Law Act set by the Justice Department (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The purpose of community policing is to promote group strategies in order to effectively deal with the immediate issues that affect public safety and also social disorder. The concept of community policing arose from the history of American policing itself and employ a number of the lessons that history taught (USCCR, 2014). Police corruption, in the United States, is divided into two categories: meat-eaters and grass-eaters. Meat-eaters forcefully misuse their powers for individual gain and grass-eaters only, accept the payoffs, which the happenstances of the nature of their work throw to them (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The U.S. Department of Justice advocates for integrity and effective leadership among the law enforcement in order to curb corruption (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The body has also rewards police officers who are not corrupt on a monthly basis and one comprehensive yearly basis (Hopson, 2012). France The recruitment and training of police officers, in France, falls to the Police Nationale and the Gendarmerie Nationale (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The recruitment and training of these personnel is done at the National Police College. The college was formed in 1988 (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Teaching at the college is tailored to go with the prior knowledge/experience of every student, as well as the method through which they are recruited and trained (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Having selected a specialization, each new officer is required to pledge their last training section to applying what they have learned for the last 18 months in a situation parallel to their next role (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Community policing in France is strengthened by the 2002 “Loi dorientation et de programmation pour la sécurité intèrieure,” the Guidance and Planning for Homeland Security Act. This law set up Crime Prevention and Local Security Councils, which structurally put France in a position where the entire community was responsible for their neighborhood’s security (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The 2002 act also achieved the social integration of crime prevention with crime suppression (security) techniques, leaving significant decision-making authority with the locals (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). They also changed the country’s policing structure from being centralized to a decentralized system. In France, corruption is the misuse of power, public function or authority with an aim of seeking individual benefit, and it is an endemic dysfunction, which impacts everything from the State’s functions to social, economic and cultural activity (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). There have been numerous corrupt activities with regards to police officers in France (Hopson, 2012). Law from the FCPA and French Criminal Code, as well as the French Criminal Procedure Code, the laws meant to curb corruption in France. France works with other organizations such as INTERPOL to curb this illegal endeavor (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Malaysia In Malaysia, the Kuala Lumpur Royal Malaysian Police College is charged with recruitment and training senior police officers in the Malaysian Police Force, as well as the Malaysian Armed Forces (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). To achieve its objective, the institution plans and offers a chain of competency-related training and recruitment programs at the basic, middle and higher level to tackle and meet the demands and needs of modern policing together with policing challenges of the globalized world (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The endeavors of this institution are kept in check by the Malaysian Department of Justice in order to ensure that all goals are being met. The concept of community policing is highly supported in Malaysia (Hassan & Haji, 2014). This is all in an effort to curb criminal endeavors at the community level. The community policing endeavor in Malaysia is manned by the Royal Malaysia Police, which is, on the other hand, run by the Royal Federation of Malaya Police, Malayan Union Police Force, Federation of Malaya Police and Civil Affairs Police Force (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Malaysian community policing is rooted in the partnership between the community and the police through which the police force and the community at large have dictated responsibility for recognizing, reducing, removing and stopping criminal activities (Hassan & Haji, 2014). The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission is the body charged to look after corruption matters in Malaysia (Hassan & Haji, 2014). The body was modeled after high anti-corruption agencies like the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of Hong Kong, as well as the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of New South Wales, in Australia (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The body does not take corruption matters lightly, particularly the ones pertaining to police corruption (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). They have set up nation-wide organizations to ensure that corruption in effectively controlled. Comparison between the Three Countries When it comes to police recruitment, the United States and France seem to have a comparable method of recruiting and training police personnel. In the United States, for example, the recruitment and training of police officers is run by the Department of Justice and the Federal Police, but the ground work is done by government agencies at the state level (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The U.S. Training and Recruiting Bureau was set up to better offer required department, federal and state training to all police personnel, plus it is accountable for planning, creating and assessing training programs (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Comparing this with France, the recruitment and training of police officers is run by the Police Nationale and the Gendarmerie Nationale. The Police Nationale is the central body and the Gendarmerie Nationale has many bodies distributed equally in every province in France. The two bodies use the help of the National Police College to recruit and train police personnel (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The similarity comes in the fact that the recruitment and training is done in a decentralized but manner by a central body: the Department of Justice and the Police Nationale for the U.S. and France, respectively (DuPont-Morales et al., 2007). In Malaysia, however, the recruitment and training of police officials is done by one body, the Royal Malaysian Police (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). The body has charged the Royal Malaysian Police College with the groundwork task of recruiting and training these personnel. With regards to community policing, the endeavors to effectively execute community policing are fairly the same (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). The purpose of community policing in the three countries is to promote group strategies in order to effectively deal with the immediate issues that affect public safety and also social disorder (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). Community policing, in the United States, is controlled by the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Enforcement of Law Act set by the Justice Department (Wisler & Onwudiwe, 2008). In France, it is controlled by the “Loi dorientation et de programmation pour la sécurité intèrieure,” the Guidance and Planning for Homeland Security Act. Finally, in Malaysia, there is not specific law, but it is run by the Royal Federation of Malaya Police, Malayan Union Police Force, Federation of Malaya Police and Civil Affairs Police Force. Finally, with regards to corruption, all three nations have different laws that protect them against corrupt police officers (Dammer & Albanese, 2013). Even though, it is difficult to know the rate of corruption taking place, the laws erected by the United States seem to work more than the laws erected by France and Malaysia (Hopson, 2012). This is because the cases reported by the United States are much fewer that the cases reported in France and Malaysia (Hopson, 2012). Conclusion This paper has compared the criminal justice system of the United States, France and Malaysia. These national systems have gone through significant changes over the course of history. Considerable differences can be seen between Western and non-Western systems of criminal justice. In Western countries, there are differences in the ideas and objectives of criminal justice, but they greatly signify differences on a similar subject, particularly when contrasted with non-Western criminal justice systems. For instance, this paper has presented the roots of the United States criminal justice system and also discussed the differences that have come to exist between current systems, which evolved in that tradition, such as in Malaysia, which adapted in criminal justice system from England. This paper has presented some significant differences with regards to the criminal justice system of the United States, France and Malaysia. Therefore, comparing the United States and French systems, one might argue that the United States may have borrowed a number of features from the French system such as: supervision of police and more careful selection of police personnel. In order to further people’s knowledge, more research should be published on nations such as Malaysia because coming up with the findings of the paper was rather challenging. References Dammer, H. R., & Albanese, J. S. (2013). Comparative criminal justice systems. London: Cengage Learning. DuPont-Morales, M. A., Hooper, M. K., & Schmidt, J. (2007). Handbook of criminal justice administration (4th ed.). New York: Marcel Dekker Publishers. Hassan, M., & Haji, A. (2014). The administration of criminal justice in Malaysia: The role and function of prosecution. Retrieved from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No53/No53_25PA_Hassan.pdf Hopson, J. (2012). Breaking the blue wall: One mans war against police corruption. New York: Oxford University Press. Reichel, P. L. (2005). Comparative Criminal Justice Systems (4th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (USCCR). (2014). Recruitment, selection, and training for police work. Retrieved from http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/guard/ch2.htm Wisler, D., & Onwudiwe, I. D. (2008). Community policing in comparison. Police Quarterly, 11(4), 427-446. Read More