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.
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