Comparative Criminal Justice
The goal of comparative studies is to extend a person’s knowledge of people and cultures beyond his or her own groups. Some comparative scholars have a better understanding of their own society and of ways that society might be improved.
When thinking about research in comparative justice, there are two questions that we should ask ourselves; what is it that we want to compare? What are the strategies of comparison or the perspectives of comparison? There are issues and problems that when comparing you have to deal with both internal and external to the system of criminal justice. There are multiple perspectives that are to be used: ...view middle of the document...
A historical understanding of the evolution of criminal justice in different countries, particularly in post-colonial societies where indigenous law and justice systems were impacted for centuries by European systems of law and justice, so, is enormously significant.
The next factor is the systems perspective, is somewhat equal to the Historical perspective. With the Systems perspective it requires an understanding of both the both the macro and micro institution of criminal justice and the way they are connected as an integrated system, it also requires an understanding of the themes, thoughts, idea, and ideologies that bind criminal justice as an integrated sector within the structure of the government of a country. Without this understanding we will not know why some of the things that are apart of criminal justice systems in some countries, are not the same in other countries. The criminal justice system is like an economic system in a country, may be predominantly traditional or modern, largely centralized or decentralized, largely formal or informal, and highly science and technology intensive or predominantly based on common sense knowledge and traditions. Even though there are many projects and discourses for strengthening the role of informal institutions of social control, community justice, and restorative justice within the criminal justice system in America, it remained highly formal and legalistic unlike that of Japan and China (Jiang, Lambert &Wang, 2007). Here is a table showing some of the differces between Japan and America:
Japan | America |
Japan institutions of informal control of family, parents, friends, relatives, neighborhoods, communities, schools, and religious institutions, etc | system is based on the model of crime control within the framework of the due process law |
there is any act of violence in a school, the whole school is put on shame and made responsible for failing to control the violent behavior of the students, this a cultural process described by Braithwaite (1989) as the “reintegration of shaming.” | The best thing to do is to call the police and allow them to handle the situation. |
Surveillance on crime and criminality is seen more as a collective responsibility. | The use of parole, probation, GPS tracking, home incarceration, drug court, and other community based justice and treatments are seen as efforts to revitalize its institutions of informal control mechanism. |
Japan is a society uniquely characterized by “socio-cultural conditions of mutual surveillance.” (Fujieda, 1989) | High rate of crime and violence in America and there is a high rate of incarceration, the system strongly safeguards the laws and the principles of due process. |
There are a lot of differences between Japan and America, because of certain traditional laws, morals, and belief. The institutions inside of a country can choose to enjoy some autonomy from politics and the executive branch...