Substantial Differences Between the Criminal Justice Systems in the United States and England
Abstract
This essay briefly
explains some of the differences in the criminal justice systems between the
United States and England. Numerous
examples are used to verify the particularities of both systems and allow the
audience to comprehend the variations in a distinctive manner. In addition, since both systems share many
similarities the components of each country will be presented so that major
differences can be assimilated in a worldly configuration and, in turn, bring
the knowledge of differences to better appreciate each nations’ culture and
history. By using the three basic parts
of each system, as well as the externalities, the differences and national
adaptations will be displayed in order to verify the aforementioned description
for both the English and American civilians.
Introduction
Modernized criminal
justice systems throughout the world have mostly adapted to a general theme of
judicial administration. Congruence
within the actions of seeking of justice, social control, and public safety is
without a question the goals of every contemporary criminal justice system in
the world. However, the particularities
of each application of justice become noticed because of the history and cultures
that vary from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction; the common theme of judicial
administration still exists, but when a systematic observation is conducted the
particularities of each nation’s criminal justice system becomes visible. Arrays of researchers have dedicated their
time to studying such a topic, and thus been able to educate many people about
the reasons that a specific society’s criminal justice system is shaped the way
it is. Interestingly, many criminal justice
systems that share similar professionalism undergo different steps to reach the
result of justice because of the desire to be unique. For example, and as previously mentioned,
many of the policing methods, courtroom procedures, correctional institutions,
and the professionals within them take different paths of education, training,
and other methods to secure the safety of the public and maintaining of order. It is these specifics that set the framework
for comparative criminal justice scholars and, in turn, bring a breadth of
knowledge about the reasons for the differences in the contemporary criminal
justice systems across the globe.
Moreover, England and the
United States of America are ideal examples to use when attempting to explain
the incongruity in criminal justice systems between nations. The homogeneity between these two countries
is quite evident, but the two systems still do provide numerous examples when one
is attempting to divulge the substantial differences of international criminal
justice systems. That is, because both
nations are modernized, as well as having different models of criminal justice professionalism,
the stark contrarieties give the aforementioned aspects of culture and history
more merit, as well as explain how similar modernized countries still have many
differences between them. Similar goals
or analogous professional characteristics are only a general acknowledgement of
the systems, and the deviations are what every person should look for when
deciding to engage in the study of world criminal justice systems. Therefore, this essay not only explains the
many differences between the two nations’ criminal justice systems, but also
acts as an adjuvant for students, laypeople, professionals, and scholars. Once more, examining the integral features of
the three criminal justice branches (police, courts, and corrections) and the
surrounding attachments (involved persons and procedures) will illuminate the
depth of differences between the English and American systems. By peering into the two countries, the
preconceived notions and conjectures can also be eliminated. Accordingly, this essay will examine the
English and American criminal justice systems and present brief differences
between the two contemporary arrangements.
Differences
in Policing
One of the major
differences between the English and United States of America police forces can
be categorized with the term “centralized authority.” It is well-known that both countries have a
democratic state; albeit, the Parliament in the United Kingdom is a form of
centralized government and operates on a fusion of powers (Dixon, 1929; Terrill,
2013). More specifically, the
centralization in the United Kingdom makes the English police departments
answerable to the Secretary of State
in the Home Office. The nationalization of police forces has
created an entity within Parliament whose sole positions has to deal with the
police forces in the each of the countries within the United Kingdom (Terrill,
2013, pp. 31-33). Obviously, England is
one of those nations, as well as one of the most populous countries, and does
have to adhere to the requests of this particular parliamentary member (Dixon,
1929; Terrill, 2013). The comparability
of the responsibilities of the Home
Office to the United States’ Department
of Home Land Security makes the differences very distinguishable, mostly
due the precise roles of body of authorities.
Whereas, the Home Office’s
primary duties are to manage the direction of the police in the United Kingdom,
which includes England (Terrill, 2013, p. 32), the United States of America has
no such national policing authority. The
Department of Homeland Security,
which is the closest commission of law enforcement guidance when compared to
England, is responsible for intelligence gathering and sharing and also has no authority
to direct the functions of state and local police methods, unless a national
risk becomes evident (Dempsey & Forst, 2008, pp. 461-464). It is simply a coalescence of numerous
federal law enforcement agencies working together to provide safety and
security (Dempsey & Forst, 2008, pp. 461-464).
The major differences
between the police forces in England and the United States are the
aforementioned use of branches of authority; England’s police forces are
expected to report and adhere to the Home
Office’s requests and centralized governance. Police forces in the United States of America
have no such national leadership to comply with. It is reasonable to suggest that size of the
nations or separation between federal and state powers may also have something
to do with distinction. Regardless, the
fact remains that the English police forces, and its centralized governance, are
quite different when compared to the policing methods in the United States of
America.
Differences
in Courts
The United States’
criminal court structure is structured in a dualistic fashion, having the one
Supreme Court, federal districts courts, and then the various states’ superior
courts, county courts, and lower town and village courts. Basically, every state in the union mimics
the federal version, and all of them are in compliance with the Constitution. Nevertheless, the English court system’s
structure is similar, its structure also has a multi-tiered system, but one of
the substantial differences lies with the unitary system that England is a part
of. Meaning that the dual system that is
in the United States does not exist in England (Terrill, 2013; Scheffer, Hannken-Illjes,
& Kozin, 2008). The United Kingdom’s
court system operates on a single nationalized system that interprets which
criminal cases may be sent from the Magistrates
Courts to the Crown Courts. Rather than having a state and federal system
like in the United States, there is a unitary administration of criminal
justice. Albeit, the inferior courts [Magistrates Courts] can be compared to
the town and village courts in the many areas in the United States, but the
fact remains that the English system is arranged into a nationalized process
(Terrill, 2013, pp. 48-58). A criminal
offender may find themselves being charged in two jurisdictions, but the structure
of the English system is the same allover and the offender would not be dealing
with a state and federal system simultaneously.
For example, a criminal offender could be held accountable for crimes in
two different areas, but they will be undergoing the nationalized version of
criminal justice as opposed to the different state and federal procedures like
in the United States of America (Schmalleger, 2008, pp. 243-254). Even if an offender’s (in England) charges
contain minor and serious offenses the entire system that he or she is involved
with is a unitary system, and not separate state and federal systems as seen in
the United States.
Differences
in the Legal Profession and Education
A major difference
between the legal professionals between the two countries is that England has a
bifurcated form of legal professionals, while in the United States attorneys
can have specializations between civil and criminal law, but all of the legal professionals
in the United States receive a similar type of education and passed a state bar
examination (Pyle, 2002; Terrill, 2013).
Additionally, the term “attorney” in the United States means that these
people are the only professionals that are legally allowed to practice law in a
court or solicit legal advice, unless otherwise directed by legislation.
In comparison, legal
practitioners in England have two different roles; the solicitors make up the
majority of legal professionals and mostly are responsible for being clerical
attorneys and informants to the public (Radcliffe, Cross, Bentley, & Hand,
1977; Terrill, 2013). Barristers are
considered to be the more prominent type of legal professionals in England;
these professionals participate in litigation and are subjected to a more
strenuous form of training and apprenticeship (pupilage) (Terrill, 2013, pp.
59-60). Furthermore, barristers usually
are the individuals who are more likely to become judges and are appointed as
opposed to the majority of elected judges in the United States of America
(Terrill, 2013, p. 60). Due the
centrality in England, judges there are similar to federal judges in the United
States, but rather than the Prime Minister appointing them a Judicial Appointment Commission has this
responsibility (Terrill, 2013, p. 60).
As aforementioned,
attorneys in the United States are required to graduate from a four-year
school, take a law school admissions test, graduate from a three-year law
school, and then pass a bar examination prior to being deemed a lawyer (Pyle,
2002, pp. 3-7). The educational
requirements in England are quite different; solicitors and barristers are
required to graduate from a four-year undergraduate school. However, if a person did not specialize in
law they must pass the Common
Professional Examination (Terrill, 2013, p. 59). Moreover, all solicitors are required to
participate in a one-year Legal Practice
Course and a two-year period of training with already practicing
solicitors, they also have to participate in another short training course and
then they are admitted into the Law
Society (Terrill, 2013, pp. 59). Whereas,
barristers must adhere to the same basic formal educational requirements, they
must also pass the Bar Vocational Course
as well as train in one of the Inns of
Court (Terrill, 2013, p 60). Upon
the completion of this, the barrister is obligated to engage in a pupilage for
at least one year and then their professionalism is confirmed by the more
experienced barrister (Terrill, 2013, p. 60).
In contrast, and as previously mentioned, the legal professionals in the
United States of America are only required to attend a formal law school and
pass a state bar examination; no apprenticing is required (Pyle, 2002, pp.
3-7).
Differences
in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure
Substantial differences
arise in the criminal laws and procedures of both countries when an
understanding of the shift, or title, of offenses in England is known. For instance, the traditional types of
English criminal law infractions used to be divided into the same terms and
definitions that are currently being valued in the United States. That is, felonies and misdemeanors (Terrill,
2013, pp. 66-67). However, England’s
1967 Criminal Law Act changed this,
and thus changed the types of offenses into arrestable (serious offenses) and
nonarrestable (every criminal act other than serious offenses) categories
(Terrill, 2013, p. 67). In comparison to
the United States of America, felonies and misdemeanor terminology is still
being used, as well as sets the framework for which court that a criminal
offender will be processed in (Pyle, 2002, pp. 205-220). The differences become noticed because of the
possibility of specific forms of criminal intent that can be processed in both
the English Crown Court and Magistrates Court. Particularly, there are serious (indictable)
offenses, as well as summary offenses, that can be referred to either court
(Terrill, 2013, p. 67). Remarkably, in
the United States this is not possible because of the dual system of higher and
lower courts. According to Pyle (2002),
as well as criminal procedural statutes all throughout the United States of
America, felonies can only be finalized in a superior court, unless a reduction
of the charges is accepted by the prosecution or court of original jurisdiction
(pp. 205-220). That is, there are no
hybrid offenses that can be referred to both courts, it is mandated by law that
only higher courts in the United States of America can conclude felonious
criminality; once again, unless a plea bargain or other reduction of the
charges takes place.
In brief, another
substantial difference lies with the plea bargaining preferences between both
countries. The United States of America
uses this strategy in the majority of its criminal cases, and it is considered
to be standard practice (Terrill, 2013; Pyle, 2002). Whereas in England, the practice of plea
bargaining is considered to be unethical; this course of action does posit the
notion of the stark differences in England’s procedural and individual
integrity in regard to justice (Terrill, 2013, p. 82). It seems that the right to speedy trial or
dues process is not taken literally by many American legal professionals.
Differences
in Corrections
Within the United States
of America’s correctional settings there is a genuine application of
individuality among states to run their correctional departments to their
predilection. Yet the conditions do have
to ascertain a specific criteria is upheld in order to be accredited and not
found in violation of the Eighth Amendment
of the United States Bill of Rights
(Schmalleger, 2008; Carlson & Garrett, 1999). This is done mostly by nationally recognized and
privatized accreditation agencies or other government entities (Schmalleger,
2008, pp. 391-392). However, in England,
the Ministry of Justice has
implemented Independent Monitoring Boards;
which has the purpose of reviewing the conditions of the country’s correctional
institutions and reporting the information to the authorities in charge of operating
the penal institutions, as well as other authority figures who are affiliated
with the corrections department (Terrill, 2013, pp. 95-96). The difference
between these review boards in England when compared to the United States of
America is that the participants in England are laypersons who are appointed
and receive training, they are not considered to be members of the government,
or professionals in the Parliament.
Although, Terrill (2013) expounds that these board members are not taken
that seriously, they still exist and have the potential to voice a sufficient
amount of inconsistencies to the Ministry
of Justice, correctional administrators, and the public, which can have a
great influence on the administration and organization of correctional
facilities in England (pp. 95-96).
Differences
in Juvenile Justice
The most obvious
difference in the two countries juvenile justice systems has to do with the
parameters of the common understanding of the age of adulthood (Terrill, 2013;
Vito, Tewksbury, & Wilson, 1998). In
England, juvenile offenders are considered to be persons who are under the age
of 17 (Terrill, 2013, p. 113).
Additionally, the English juvenile justice system has more categories
for juvenile offenders. Particularly,
any person who is under the age of 10 cannot be held liable for a criminal
offense, but juveniles between the ages of 10 and 13 can be found accountable
if the cognitive awareness of their actions can be proved (Terrill, 2013, p.
113). Another distinguishable element of
the English juvenile justice system is that the there is a juvenile-adult
classification; this type of offender falls between the ages of 18 and 20, yet
these offenders are held accountable in adult courts, but with juvenile
justice-like conditions (Terrill, 2013, p. 113).
In contrast, the juvenile
justice system in the United States is quite different. This is partially due to various state
applications of this form of justice (Gaines & Miller, 2004, p. 360). To be more precise, because each state in the
union has the ability to formulate its own criminal procedural laws the age of
responsibility varies from region-to-region (Gaines & Miller, 2004, pp.
360-361). Even more confusingly, the
common perception of adulthood in the United States of America is approximately
the age of 18, or close to it (Vito, Tewksbury, & Wilson, 1998, p. 56). But there still are many states that have no age
restrictions for treating juveniles as adults, the psychological competency is
a mitigating factor in the juvenile justice system in the United States of
America; which to this day is still being debated (Gaines & Miller, 2004,
p. 361).
Conclusion
General differences in
the two nations’ criminal justice systems can be found with the centralization
of the Parliament in England and the dual system in the United States of
America. Due this heterogeneity of authority
the particularities of both countries is inevitable, thus making the criminal
justice systems partially different.
Albeit, there is a general application of criminal justice in the two
regions, this generality is mostly found in the philosophy of criminality. That is, each country does have a common
understanding of what criminal behavior is and how a systematic process is
necessary for dealing with the unlawful behaviors. As previously mentioned, the particularities
of each system arise because of the type of governance that is prevalent throughout
the nations. Nevertheless, the different
cultural perspectives that the countries have is also a major influencer on the
roles of criminal justice administration.
The history and modernization of the two states affects the
administration of justice as well.
Whereas, England has its roots tied in within their system, and the same
concept applies to the United States of America. It is reasonable to suggest that the American
approach to criminal justice may have a grassroots campaign of intentionally
being different from its once superior nation, but as evolution and
institutionalism, as well as the ceasing of imperialism occurred, this theory
loses it merit.
The distinctions of the
police forces, judiciary, educational requirements, correctional departments,
and juvenile justice systems are also apparent because of the civilian
participation and socialization that each country is a part of. Meaning that the English criminal justice
system seems to be in favor of engaging in public insight and has a strong
binding to the other nations that closely surround it (European Union), therefore, there is a general international
consensus that has contributing factors on the domestic criminal justice
application. While in North America,
countries are separated in their view points and do not engage in many
international criminal justice or political unions. This can be verified by observing the
politics of Canada and Mexico, which are two systems that are entirely
different from the United States’ model of criminal justice. In sum, the United States of America does not
have much citizen participation in its justice systems. The majority of external checks and balances
are done by non-profit organizations who have no authority or say it what goes
on in the legal contrivances. Finally,
the overall differences can be attributed to the aforementioned culture and
history of the nations, as well as the evolution of modernization.
References
Carlson, P. M., &
Simon-Garrett, J. (1998). Prison and jail
administration: Practice and
theory. Gaithersburg, MD:
Aspen Publishers, Inc..
Dempsey, J. S., & Forst, L. S.
(2008). An introduction to policing
(4th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Dixon, A. L. (1929). The English
police system. The Annals of the American
Academy of
Political and Social Science, 146(1), 177-192. doi: 10.1177/000271622914600119
Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L.
(2004). Criminal justice in action: The core
(2nd ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Pyle, R. C. (2002). Foundations of law: Cases, commentary & ethics
(3rd ed.). Albany, NY:
West
Thomson Learning.
Radcliffe, G. R. Y., Cross, G. N.,
Bentley, D. J., & Hand G. J. (1977). The
English legal
system. London: Butterworth.
Scheffer, T., Hannken-Illjes, K.,
& Kozin, A. (2008). How courts know: Comparing english
crown court,
U.S.—american state court, and german district court. Space and Culture,
12(2), 183-204. doi: 10.1177/1206331208325600
Schmalleger, F. (2008). Criminal justice: A brief introduction
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Terrill, R. J. (2013). World criminal justice systems: A comparative
survey. Waltham, MA:
Anderson
Publishing.
Vito, G. F., Tewksbury, R. E.,
& Wilson, D. G. (1998). The juvenile justice
system: Concepts
and issues. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc..
Comments
Post a Comment