The Basics of the Adult Chinese and Japanese Criminal Justice Systems
China and Japan are two very
different countries regarding their cultures.
There are some similarities, yet the two countries mostly have more
differences when they compared on a general level. Moreover, the legal systems in the countries are part of these differences and the two nations operate with different perceptions
about crime and justice, dealing with mental health problems, and the role of the
legal professionals in their societies.
China has high incarceration rates, whereas Japan has an overall low
crime rate. Some individuals have
suggested that the differences in crime are due to the size of the countries as
well as the structure of the governments (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Chen,
2004; Parker, 2013). Others have suggested
that cultural characteristics – such as discipline and individual integrity are
mostly responsible for the differences between the two Asian countries (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Thus, this essay will explain the basics of each adult system so that
the reader is able to comprehend the similarities and differences between the
two criminal justice systems.
China’s
and Japan’s Police Departments
Starting with Japan, there
is a centralized police force. The
National Police Agency is the centralized force and has many responsibilities (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).
Specifically, the agency is responsible for police training, operating
its budget, reviewing policies, emergency services, operating the Imperial Guard,
international emergency affairs, identifying police communications, research
and crime statistics, traffic regulation, maintaining standards for recruitment,
and protocol for individuals in the police force (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley,
1991; Parker, 2013). Japan’s national police
force has many departments throughout the country and they are referred to as “kobans”
or “chuzaishos (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).” The police officers in Japan are highly
dedicated and perform much more community work than police officers in the
United States. More specifically, Japanese
police officers are responsible for performing house calls to residents and
businesses and beat patrols in a routine manner (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991;
Parker, 2013). Citizens in the country
do not have as much disdain towards police officers because of these reasons, as
well as because Japanese police officers are more respectful and perform
sincere operations that makes their communities thrive (Adelstein, 2009;
Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). There are
also not many racial or ethnic biases in Japan by its police officers. These characteristics have been attributed to
the familial culture in the country which, in turn, have been suggested to
enter the National Police Agency’s agenda and respect from its citizens (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).
Being a police officer in
Japan does not require a college education, but if individuals have a college
degree they are not required to participate in training procedures for as long
as persons who do not have a college education (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker,
2013). Pay rates are similar to police
officers in the United States, but include different incentives and benefits
that make the salaries similar (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). Turning
to the structure of the National Police Agency, it is similar to federal law
enforcement organizations in the United States.
That is, there is a superintendent supervisor, chief police supervisor,
senior police superintendent, police inspector, assistant police inspector, sergeants,
senior police officers, and typical police officers (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley,
1991; Parker, 2013). The National Police
Agency’s highest leader – Commissioner General – is appointed by the National
Public Safety Commission and requires approval from the Prime Minister (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).
China’s police force is
also centralized and incorporates various functions of public safety and governmental
operations (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Precisely, the People’s Armed Police Force is not only responsible for preventing
and investigating criminal activities (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). Other functions of the nation’s police force
include border patrol, security for government buildings and members of the government,
emergency services, traffic safety, monitoring business registrations, and
community work that assists urban and rural areas (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). Moreover, most of the police officers in
China are unarmed and only participate in lethal violence if a situation of
such behaviors comes about (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). The training incorporates these policies and
consists of similar practices in the United States, but with some variations. Recruits attend police academies for numerous
months and are taught the methods of police work according to the laws and
provisions in the country (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). There are also academic institutions that specifically
cater to these recruits and are sponsored by government-based organizations (Chen,
2004; Parker, 2013). The structure of
the police force in China is similar to most other modern nations and consists
of a top-down hierarchy that requires approvals from executive-level public
officials (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Additionally, it is
necessary to discuss the surveillance and social role of Chinese police
departments. In other words, the Chinese
have a unique culture regarding privacy laws and redressing governmental
operations. The Chinese government
monitors and censors the media, as well as has a very large number of security cameras
in the country that are heavily monitored and are able to use facial recognition to
linkup with profiles that have been made by and for law enforcers (Chen, 2004; Parker,
2013). These actions cause civil unrest
at times, but for the most part many citizens are not participating
demonstrations against the governmental surveillance or censorship (Chen,
2004; Parker, 2013). Police officers are typically
viewed as respected persons and have many qualities that entail compassion and
dedication to public service (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Japanese and Chinese Courts
Japanese courts are well-structured legal systems and, in turn,
make many of the practices in American courts appear to be outdated. Being more precise, criminal courts have a
hybrid method of using votes by a panel of judges and jurors in the courts that are responsible for trials (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). A three-judge system is used in trials and
there is a juror system comprised of laypeople and other legal professionals (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). Appellate
procedures are also part of the Japanese criminal justice system (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). A “Jokuku
appeal” is a final appeal in the highest court in Japan (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley,
1991; Parker, 2013). The structure of
the legal system is different than the United States. In Japan, there is 1 Supreme Court, 8 High Courts,
and 50 Summary Courts (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). The High Courts and Summary Courts have many
branches within them (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). The prosecutors in Japan work within the
Supreme Public Prosecutors Office and defense attorneys are both privately
retained as well as provided for those who are considered indigent (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).
Chinese courts consist of
3,100 basic courts, 400 intermediate courts, and 31 provincial-level high
courts who act under the support of the Supreme People’s Court (Chen, 2004;
Parker, 2013). Prosecutors are referred to
as “procurators” and the other legal professionals have the same titles in most
other modern nations (judges and criminal defense attorneys) (Chen,
2004; Parker, 2013). Regarding judges in
China, these professional roles are very different when compared to the United States. That is, judges in China often
consult with the Communist Party prior to rendering decisions, and do not have
the same authority as American judges (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). More specifically, Chinese judges have very
limited authority when it comes to interpreting laws and administering the law
over other governmental bodies (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). Appointments and salaries are configured by
the Communist Party and, therefore, judges will typically side with the stance
that other public officials desire (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). Lastly, many Chinese judges lack a law degree
or education in the specific field, yet this has recently changed and some law
school graduates are entering the criminal justice system and becoming judges (Chen,
2004; Parker, 2013). Albeit, many
researchers have questioned the academic standards of Chinese law schools (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Japanese and Chinese Corrections
Japanese correctional
facilities are configured in pretrial and post-conviction processes that are
similar to the United States (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). However, the differences lie in the prison
system and the daily recourse that takes place in its prisons. Strict regiments are used in Japanese prisons
and many human rights groups have harshly criticized the activities by the
Bureau of Corrections (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). Claims have been made that suggest that
talking is not allowed, eye contact is also regulated, and military-like discipline
in used while inmates walk to-and-from areas within the prison (Adelstein,
2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).
Inmates are allowed visitors, but the familial integrity that Asian
countries are known for hinders these visitation processes (Adelstein, 2009;
Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). Older
inmates are especially shunned by their families for being convicted of a
criminal act (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). Moreover, the strict guidelines of Japanese
prisons include conduct that entails locking an inmate in a room that is very
small and does not allow for much movement or standing (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley,
1991; Parker, 2013). This is only
suggested to be used for inmates who show signs of aggression or are violent at
times (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013). Yet, and once more, human
rights groups have claimed that these practices are used more often and not
only for aggressive or violent inmates (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker,
2013). In Japan, there are intermediate
facilities that are similar to halfway houses and shelters for inmates who are
released and have little resources to survive on their own. Many of these facilities offer rehabilitative
services and do not include the strict guidelines of Japan’s conventional
correctional facilities (Adelstein, 2009; Bayley, 1991; Parker, 2013).
Chinese prisons are known
for using labor camps for its convicted criminals (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). China also has a two-part correctional
facility, but it is very different from the United States (Chen, 2004; Parker,
2013). Specifically, there are
administrative detention facilities and labor camps (prisons) (Chen,
2004; Parker, 2013). Administrative
detention facilities are known for providing reform via a reeducation
institution; whereas prisons typically implement labor as a method to correct
unwanted behaviors (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Basically, administrative detention facilities do not have all of the
harsh conditions of a Chinese prison/labor camp (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013). China also has a widespread use of the death
penalty. Capital punishment in China is
used for many crimes and can be ordered for non-violent crimes (Chen, 2004; Parker,
2013). Finally, China remains one of the
world’s top jailers, but its recidivism rates are nothing like the rates in the
United States or other modern nations (Chen, 2004; Parker, 2013).
Conclusion
Overall, the two
countries have different cultures and use their history as a basis for the
formulation of their criminal justice system.
Judgement and prejudiced thoughts should be eliminated given this
comprehension. Even with acts that are
considered to be inhumane and cruel, Japan and China are not performing
activities that most other modern countries are not participating in. With this being stated, terrible practices
exist in the nations' criminal justice systems and should be reconfigured to
produce better treatment and reformation.
Once more, this is nothing that is not expected in other contemporary countries. China and Japan’s legal system is mostly
based on western ideologies and the public positions are centered on providing
safe societies for its citizens for the most part. Respect should be given to variations in the
globe’s legal systems and the people who are associated with them.
References
Adelstein, J.
(2009). Tokyo vice: An American reporter
on the police beat in Japan. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Bayley, D. (1991). Forces
of order: Policing in modern Japan. Berkeley, CA: University
California
Press.
Chen, A.
(2004). An introduction to the legal system of the people’s republic of China
(3rd
ed.). Singapore: Lexis Nexus.
Parker, L. C.
(2013). Crime and justice in Japan and China:
A comparative view. Durham,
NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Source: Public Domain
Comments
Post a Comment