The Chinese offender’s modus operandi is fundamentally different than in the method used between Chinese and American jurisprudence. China’s legal classification is a civil law entity, as to a common law entity, it only has statutory law, not case law. Judges' adjudication is normally not associated with dictated legal assumptions accounts for their interpretation. Also, judicial adjudication does not have legal authoritative obligatory precedence outcome on other proceedings (Belkin, Ira, 2000).
Most delinquent misdemeanors in China are cross-examined by the Public Security Bureau; they are part of the executive branch of government. Delinquent misdemeanors that are executed by government agents, bureaus and employees, are cross-examined precisely by the Procurator. Under Chinese law, the police have the consideration in deciding any judicial procedures, to send a person to administrative incarceration for up to three years. According to Belkin, Ira; “in 1997, some 230,000 people were held in such labor camps throughout China” (Belkin, Ira, 2000).
China’s criminal justice system is decided with long periods of investigative apprehension, a much higher amount of affirmations, authoritative amends that are equivalent to confinement without an arraignment. Criminals don’t have any rights to disallow cross-examinations, they don’t get to use probability of incorruptibility, and they don’t have a right to approach their informer or to coerce a witness to attest in their exoneration. Their legal right to an attorney is notably controlled in the investigative juncture of litigation and, even though there are rights to have an attorney at arraignment that right is encompassed by the inadequacy of pre-trial ascertainment and the...
... middle of paper ...
...erson, 2013).
In my opinion I feel that the United States is superior, because each person is given an opportunity to testify their innocence, and when it comes to the laws of the courts each American goes in front of a jury in most cases to get tried and convicted not the police in deciding to put you in jail for three years and deciding an American’s fate. I believe I saw on the news an American was held captive in China and put in prison without a trial. At least if an alien would come to the U.S. they would have the same rights to be tried in our Court of Law.
Works Cited
Belkin, Ira (2000). China's Criminal Justice System: A Work in Progress. Retrieved from http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Chinas_Criminal_Justice_System.pdf Gardner, T., & Anderson, T. (2013). Criminal evidence. (8th ed., pp. 2-20). Mason, Ohio:
Cengage Learning. DOI: www.cengage.com
In by reading the Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee, I gained a perspective of the people and culture of China. This book showed the analysis of Chinese saw and the background of Chinese history.
The due process model commands a “formal, adjudicative fact-finding process in which cases against suspects are heard publicly by impartial trial courts” (Bohm & Haley, 2012 p 17). This approach to the criminal justice system identifies each case as unique and therefore treats them as such. By holding accountable each participant, and providing the suspect with the ability to question the means by
It is more difficult for governments to provide adequate salaries to public defense lawyers and the result is that these lawyers are often more inexperienced (Fairfax, 2013). Since the amount of defendants who are unable to afford private counsel has increased, public defense lawyers are also overworked. It is not uncommon for public defense lawyers to juggle hundreds of cases simultaneously (Fairfax, 2013). In other words, the system is unable to handle the volume and has therefore resorted to avoiding the trial process whenever
Within the United States’ Criminal Justice System, problems pertaining to jurisdiction issues are quite common due several reasons. The United States v. Thomas J. L Smiley case and the United States v. Jared Lee Loughner case both had jurisdiction issues. Smiley and several other men obtained permission through a license from Mexico to search for treasure on an expedition; the treasure belonged to the steamer Golden Gate, which belonged to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company located within the United States. Ultimately, federal charges were brought upon him from the United States for violating a statue regarding plundering a sunken and/or abandoned ship. In contrast, Loughner had federal charges brought upon him by the United States due to his act a shooting, which resulted in the injuries and deaths of federal officials and employees. Furthermore, both cases involve jurisdiction issues involving the fairest of the trials and the location of the alleged crime; however, they both differ due to the circumstances and nature of the alleged crimes.
In order for one to understand the criminal justice system, it is important to study both the criminal law of one’s own country as well as surrounding countries. By engaging in comparative criminal justice studies, one can expand this knowledge through the discovery of similarities and differences in the structure of criminal justice agencies of various nations or states. There are a multitude of factors which could contribute to the differences in each nation’s criminal justice system. By studying the ways in which other countries operate their criminal justice system, it may be possible to learn ways in which we could better our own system. In order to do this, we can study the ways in which various court systems operate around the world. In doing so, we will examine countries with both a different and similar judicial system to ours and discover the differences in how each operates. In furtherance of understanding the criminal justice system, we will
We are the prosecuting stance in the Pizarro vs. human rights case. Pizarro began his voyage by holding 3 Indians as “captives” for the use of interpreters. By definition, captive means enslaved or imprisoned, in other words against their own will. This breaks article 4 of the human rights act which states no one shall be held in slavery. Furthermore, Article 2 states, everyone is entitled to all rights and freedoms without distinction of any kind, such as religion. These rights were broken as Pizarro and his men forced their Christian religion among the Indians. The Indians refused, and instead of acknowledging those rights possessed, they disregarded them. They violated Article 18 which grants everyone the right to freedom of religion, to
The entire criminal justice system can be very frightening and even intimidating if someone fails to understand the meaning of terms used, procedures, laws, and rules (Cook, 2009). Criminal law is among the terms that have been defined differently by various sources. It is mainly concerned with a system of legal rules defining actions that are classified as crimes and the manner of which the government prosecutes people who commit crimes (Snyman, 2014). According to the chapter, some sources use it in a way that is very general that describes it as the entire spectrum of laws that deal with the criminal justice system while others use shorthand ways which terms it as substantive criminal law, which is very true.
China’s policy of political imprisonment is a clear act of genocide. It is used to incite bodily and mental harm and inflict conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Tibetan people. At times imprisonment even results in death. These crimes are all accomplished under the guise of being legal in Chinese law. A statement made by Amnesty International in 1996 cites these abuses:
Salyer, Lucy. "Chew Heong v. United States: Chinese Exclusion and the Federal Courts." Federal Trials and Great Debates in United States History (2006): 1-77.
Champion, D. J., Hartley, R. D., & Rabe, G. A. (2012). Criminal Courts: Structure, process, and
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
They served subpoenas for documents that would prove the illegitimacy of Chinese citizenship. The Six Companies, which represented the interests of the community, fought back claiming “the subpoena was being used for the ‘obvious purpose of oppressing and intimidating the entire Chinese American community…” Delivering mass subpoenas proved jurisdictionally unsuccessful. Yet, the INS Chinese Confession Program in 1956 birthed a second opportunity to dispute Chinese legal
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
It is no secret that the American legal system is distinct from other developed Western nations in its practices and laws. This variation, termed “adversarial legalism” by Professor Robert Kagan in his book, Adversarial Legalism, has two salient features: formal legal contestation and litigant activism. In civil and criminal law, jury trials and a specific lawyering culture exemplify these traits. Though adversarial legalism responds well to the American desires of justice and protection from harm while simultaneously respecting the societal fear of a government with too much power, it leads to extremely costly litigation and immense legal uncertainty. To reconcile the American view of justice and the undesirable outcomes of formal contestation and litigant activism, the legal system has gone so far as to reform large parts of the system, including bureaucratic regulations and the plea bargaining process. However, as Kagan states, rather than reduce the costliness or uncertainty of the legal process, these procedural changes have merely lead to an increase in litigation and, therefore, an increase of adversarial legalism in criminal and civil law.