Introduction
This essay compares the criminal justice systems of two nations. The United States of America and Australia are two of these nations. Due to their shared heritage with England, the USA and Australia have a strong sense of belonging to one another and speak the same language. However, a large ocean and thousands of miles or kilometers divide these nations.
This essay discusses the significant parallels between the criminal justice systems of the two nations. One immediately considers the procedures for conducting a criminal investigation, gathering evidence at trial, and the necessary degree of fundamental justice. However, equally striking is the failure to have similarities between the two systems in some areas. There is a reflection of the differing views that concerns the limits on the actions of law enforcement, the evidence admissibility in the criminal prosecutions, as well as the jury and the lawyer's role.
In this paper
both the differences and similarities found in the two systems of criminal justice are explored. The paper starts by introducing the subject matter. Here, it talks about the regulation nature of the criminal procedure in the two countries. Subsequently, it explains some of the similarities and differences in criminal justice. Furthermore, the paper touches on the interrogation rules, and the right to legal representation, as well as the process of appeal. Other areas that are explored include the open trials and the entrapment defense.
Comparison of Criminal Justice in the USA and Australia
Even though the United States of America and Australia share some common heritage, the two countries also have differences and similarities in their criminal justice (Boas, 2004). In Australia for example, the criminal procedure regulation occurs on two levels. These levels include the federal and state. The 1994 Crime Act of the Commonwealth largely codified the criminal procedure's federal regulation. In the same way, the majority of the activities of crime are investigated and prosecuted at the state level (O’Malley, 2002).
In this country, matters such as detention, arrest power, bail, forensic examination, and the interrogation are covered by the common and the statutory law. In general, the rules are enforced indirectly through the exclusion of evidence mechanism. In their article, Jones and Newburn (2002) note that the evidence that is excluded include the ones obtained that are obtained from the breach at the criminal defendant's trial. Normally, the courts are provided with the discretionary power of the common law for excluding evidence that is not appropriately obtained or the evidence that is likely to cause unfair trial (Sanders, 2005).
In the United States, the bases for the process of criminal procedure are similar to those in Australia in some ways. Just like in Australia, the system of criminal justice in the USA is overwhelmingly state oriented (O’Malley, 2002). The federal courts prosecute relatively few crimes. Frequently, the attorney of the USA tends to bring forward drug oriented cases. Unlike in Australia however, where the procedure of crime tends to be based on state, the criminal procedure of America is federal. It depends overwhelmingly on the United States Constitution's constructions by the federal courts, and to state courts, to a lesser extent (Boas, 2004).
Various states had for a considerable period a different requirement about lawyers for indigent defenders in the cases of crime. This exercise took the decision of the supreme court of US for mandating the rights to counsel for virtually all the defendants of crimes at the stages that are critical of both the state and the federal criminal prosecutions (McCammon, 2001). The construction of the constitutional rights by the supreme court of the United States superseded state law. As a result, it dominated the national debate.
Rules of Interrogation
Traditionally, the common rules of law that governs the interrogation of the suspect in Australia have developed for maintaining the rights to the silence of an accused. It also ensures the confessional evidence's reliability (O’Malley, 2002). Usually, some form of external pressure must be demonstrated by the authority over and above the techniques of ordinary interrogation for the justification of the exclusion of confession. Those suspects of crime were expected by the courts to conduct themselves robustly at the time of interrogation unless they are categorized as people of special vulnerability (Boas, 2004). In Australia, the courts admit confessions where the suspect was drunk. These confessions are also admitted where psychotic episodes were experienced by the suspect during the time of questioning. Again, the confessions can be admitted where the suspect was reported to be under the influence of the drug.
In the United States, it is possible to quickly identify some of the key features that are also present in the criminal justice system of Australia. Remember, these three features relate to the process of interrogation (Sanders, 2005). In the first place, there is the use of the standard of voluntariness as the linchpin analysis for determining the actions prosperity by the officers of law enforcement that results in the admissions that the criminal suspects make. The important direction that the trial judges are given is the second feature. This feature plays a significant role in determining the particular incriminating statements validity, especially when it comes to giving a ruling on the serious statements (Jones & Newburn, 2002). The final feature explores what much of the law in these areas has failed to develop as a way for having judicial supervision or oversight of the potential misconduct of police.
Similarities of the Criminal Justice System
Everyone can comment on the criminal justice system's commonalities in the two countries irrespective of whether one attends a criminal justice in Chicago or Melbourne. The supreme court of the United States has been extravagant in its presumption of innocence's praise (O’Malley, 2002). Evidently, the persuasion burden rests entirely on the prosecutor. This requirement is also essential in the system of criminal justice in the United States. The use of a standard of reasonable doubt is indispensable for commanding the confidence and respect of the community in the criminal law applications (Boas, 2004). The standard of proof should not dilute the criminal law's moral force.
In the same way, the High court of Australia is also written based this foundation of the criminal justice administration (McCammon, 2001). It describes the burden of proof's allocation beyond the reasonable doubt upon the prosecution as a "cardinal principle" or "fundamentals." This principle is required by the government for the "minimization or elimination of the possibility of finding an innocent person guilty," especially when considering some of the grave consequences. Moreover, the innocence presumption is a regular feature that is necessary for the adversarial trial (Sanders, 2005).
In both countries, the courts have long written eloquently of some of the proceedings. Even though the Americans are currently considering the confessions validity in light of the right to privilege and counsel against self-incrimination, the systems in both countries historically evaluated confessions using the traditional voluntariness standards. Also, the judges of United States are more concerned about the suspects being interrogated (Jones & Newburn, 2002).
Differences of the Criminal Justice System
Central to any modern system of criminal justice is the set of practices and rules that concern the citizen's seizures and searches by the government. There are considerable differences between the United States of America and Australia in this broad area. In particular, these differences are vivid when the remedies and considerations for dealing with government actions that are inappropriate are evaluated separately (McCammon, 2001).
In Australia for example, there are a plethora of statutory provisions that help in governing the regulation of seizure and search in the country. Needless to say, such provisions are ranging from specific powers that apply to particular body of investigation or criminal activities to the broad powers that are applicable at the time arousing reasonable suspicion (Jones & Newburn, 2002). In general, the powers are granted by the statutory provisions rather than protection. These powers result from the common trespass law that would otherwise apply to rendering seizure and search unlawful (Sanders, 2005).
In Australia, there is no constitutional protection against the unreasonable seizure and search like in the Fourth Amendment of America (McCammon, 2001). However, the courts appear to read strictly the statutory provisions that authorize seizures and searches. For this reason, any activity that falls outside the scope of the provisions is regarded as unlawful, enlivening the discretion for excluding evidence that was improperly or illegally obtained.
In the United States, the judges have been more sensitive to concerns about the privacy invasions by the physical intrusion (Sanders, 2005). The court has to fashion a test of balance which aims at preserving the individual's privacy while recognizing the values of privacy at the Fourth Amendment heart. The use of "planted informer" has been helpful in combating some of the organized crime. The person acting as an undercover is sent with the main purpose of gathering evidence against a figure of crime (O’Malley, 2002). Also, the supreme court of United States continuously rejects the Fourth Amendment contention of defense while utilizing the assumption of the argument's risk sort.
Open Trials
Both the United States of America and Australia are committed to maintaining criminal trials that are open proceedings (McCammon, 2001). In this scenario, the government can be put to the test of proving by the defendant, in front of the community. It is possible to trace this kind of commitment directly to the presumptively open criminal trials English system. The openness of the system of criminal justice has always been viewed by the two countries, United States and Australia as essential. However, beyond such indisputable and basic philosophies, the difference between the countries that regards the open trials are quite significant (Boas, 2004).
In important criminal cases, trial judges are regularly faced with undue pretrial publicly serious questions about the ability of the defendant to receive a fair trial from the difficulty of closing a trial to the public and the impartial jury. Often, one question has been taken into consideration in the past (Jones & Newburn, 2002). The supreme court of the United States of America recognizes that the judges of appeals and the state trial tries to act accordingly.
Conclusion
Overall, this paper has compared the criminal justice of two countries. These countries include the United States of America and Australia. USA and Australia share some common heritage that includes close ties to their England's mother country, a genuine sense of connection to each other and the same language. However, these countries are separated by thousands of miles or kilometers and a large ocean. Also, the paper has succeeded in describing the striking similarities between the two countries with respect to criminal justice. Immediately, one thinks of the rules about the criminal investigation, the process of fact-finding at trial, as well as the required sense of fundamental fairness for a just exercise. However, equally striking is the failure to have similarities between the two systems in some areas.
It is observed that there is a reflection of the differing views that concerns the limits on the actions of law enforcement, the evidence admissibility in the criminal prosecutions, as well as the jury and the lawyer's role. In summary, both the differences and similarities found in the two systems of criminal justice are explored. Accordingly, the paper introduces the subject matter. Here, it talks about the regulation nature of the criminal procedure in the two countries. Subsequently, it explains some of the similarities and differences in criminal justice. Furthermore, the paper touches on the interrogation rules, and the right to legal representation, as well as the process of appeal. Other areas that are explored include the open trials and the entrapment defense. The United States and Australia share so many things in common especially in their system of criminal justice.
References
Boas, G. (2004). An Overview of Implementation by Australia of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2(1), 179-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jicj/2.1.179
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). Policy convergence and crime control in the USA and the UK. Criminal Justice, 2(2), 173-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17488958020020020401
McCammon, L. (2001). Book Review: InfoTrac College Edition: Exercises for Criminal Justice, Internet Activities for Criminal Justice, Internet Guide for Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice Review, 26(1), 113-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073401680102600123
O’Malley, P. (2002). Globalizing risk? Distinguishing styles of ‘neo-liberal’ criminal justice in Australia and the USA. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2(2), 205-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1466802502002002719
Sanders, A. (2005). Book Review: Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice, 5(4), 431-432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1466802505057719
