Comparative Criminal Law Study With Uk And Us Frameworks
1. Introduction to Comparative Criminal Law
Comparative criminal law examines how different countries define crimes, determine culpability, and enforce penalties. Pakistan’s criminal law is primarily based on the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC, 1860), influenced by British common law, while the UK and US have their own frameworks:
| Aspect | Pakistan | United Kingdom | United States |
|---|---|---|---|
| Basis | Pakistan Penal Code, CrPC | Common law + statutory law | Federal & state criminal codes, common law influences |
| Offense Classification | Cognizable/Non-cognizable, IPC Sections | Felonies/Misdemeanors | Felonies/Misdemeanors, Federal vs State crimes |
| Sentencing | Fixed under PPC; Judicial discretion; Sharia-based provisions in some cases | Judicial discretion; guidelines exist | Wide judicial discretion; Sentencing guidelines; Jury trials |
| Juvenile Offenders | JJSO 2000 | Children Act 1989, Youth Justice System | Juvenile Justice Act, State laws vary |
2. Comparative Case Studies
Case 1: Murder – Pakistan vs. UK vs. US
Pakistan: State v. Zafar Iqbal (Lahore High Court, 2014)
Facts: Defendant charged with murder under Section 302 PPC.
Legal Issue: Whether premeditation existed or if it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ruling: Court distinguished Qatl-e-Amd (intentional killing) vs. Qatl-e-Khata (accidental). Death sentence awarded.
Significance: Pakistan law emphasizes mens rea and intent, along with Islamic principles in sentencing.
UK: R v. Smith (London Crown Court, 2012)
Facts: Defendant stabbed victim during an altercation.
Legal Principle: Murder requires malice aforethought.
Ruling: Defendant convicted; sentencing based on guidelines for murder with intent.
Significance: UK law focuses on intent but also allows for partial defenses like diminished responsibility.
US: State v. Miller (California, 2015)
Facts: Defendant killed during a robbery.
Legal Principle: First-degree murder requires premeditation; second-degree murder does not.
Ruling: Convicted of first-degree murder; sentenced to life imprisonment.
Significance: US criminal law differentiates degrees of murder; jury plays a central role.
Comparison:
All three systems require intent for murder, but sentencing procedures differ.
Pakistan may incorporate religious or retributive aspects (Qisas/ Diyat).
US uses jury trials; UK and Pakistan rely more on judges for sentencing.
Case 2: Theft/Robbery
Pakistan: State v. Ali Raza (Karachi, 2016)
Facts: Defendant accused of armed robbery under Sections 392 & 397 PPC.
Ruling: Court sentenced the accused to imprisonment and fined; emphasized deterrence.
Key Feature: Pakistani law distinguishes between robbery (armed theft) and simple theft.
UK: R v. Lockley (1970, Court of Appeal)
Facts: Theft from a store with minor force.
Ruling: Convicted of robbery, with sentencing considering minimal force.
US: People v. Johnson (New York, 2018)
Facts: Armed robbery in Manhattan.
Ruling: Convicted under state penal code; life sentence possible depending on weapon used.
Significance: US law classifies armed robbery as an aggravated felony, often with mandatory minimum sentences.
Comparison:
All three systems treat armed theft more severely than simple theft.
US emphasizes mandatory minimums, Pakistan focuses on deterrence and restitution, UK balances intent and force.
Case 3: Cybercrime
Pakistan: Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) v. Ahmed Khan (Islamabad, 2019)
Law Used: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016.
Facts: Defendant hacked government servers.
Ruling: Convicted, sentenced to 3 years imprisonment; fined for damage to data.
Significance: Pakistan’s cybercrime law is recent, technology-specific, similar to Western frameworks.
UK: R v. Lennon (2018)
Law Used: Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Ruling: Defendant convicted for hacking, sentenced to 2 years.
US: United States v. Aaron Swartz (Federal Court, 2011)
Law Used: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
Ruling: Defendant faced multiple charges; suicide prevented final verdict.
Significance: US cybercrime law is very strict, with broad prosecutorial discretion.
Comparison:
All countries recognize cybercrime as a serious offense.
US law often carries heavier penalties, while Pakistan and UK focus on proportionate punishment.
Case 4: Terrorism
Pakistan: State v. Qari Saifullah (Karachi, 2013)
Law Used: Anti-Terrorism Act 1997.
Facts: Defendant involved in bombing; targeting civilians.
Ruling: Convicted; death sentence under ATA.
UK: R v. Gul (2009)
Law Used: Terrorism Act 2000.
Facts: Suspected terrorist financing.
Ruling: Convicted; imprisonment for 10 years.
US: United States v. Faisal Shahzad (2010)
Law Used: US Federal Anti-Terrorism Statutes.
Facts: Attempted Times Square bombing.
Ruling: Convicted; life imprisonment.
Comparison:
All systems treat terrorism as distinct from ordinary crime.
Pakistan emphasizes capital punishment, UK and US rely on long-term imprisonment, reflecting proportionality vs. deterrence.
Case 5: Juvenile Offenders
Pakistan: Imran v. State (Juvenile theft, Lahore 2010)
Law Used: Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO), 2000.
Ruling: Probation and placement in reformative center; no adult imprisonment.
UK: R v. C (2012, Youth Court)
Law Used: Children and Young Persons Act 1933; Youth Justice System.
Ruling: Rehabilitation-focused; community service and probation.
US: In re Gault (1967, Supreme Court)
Facts: Juvenile accused of pranking phone calls; lacked proper due process.
Ruling: Supreme Court extended due process rights to juveniles, including right to attorney and notice of charges.
Comparison:
All three jurisdictions prioritize rehabilitation for juveniles.
US emphasizes constitutional due process, Pakistan focuses on reformative sentencing, UK balances both.
Case 6: Drug Trafficking
Pakistan: State v. Muhammad Ali (Lahore, 2015)
Law Used: Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997.
Ruling: Death penalty for large-scale trafficking; smaller offenders imprisoned.
UK: R v. Smith (2016, Crown Court)
Law Used: Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Ruling: Convicted; sentencing based on scale and harm; no death penalty.
US: United States v. Pablo (2018)
Law Used: Federal Controlled Substances Act.
Ruling: Mandatory minimums for trafficking; 20–40 years imprisonment.
Comparison:
Pakistan allows capital punishment for major trafficking; UK prohibits death penalty.
US uses mandatory minimum sentences for deterrence.
3. Key Comparative Insights
| Aspect | Pakistan | UK | US |
|---|---|---|---|
| Murder | Death possible; Qisas/Diyat | Life imprisonment; judicial discretion | Life imprisonment; jury decides |
| Theft/Robbery | Severity based on force; fines & imprisonment | Force + intent considered | Mandatory minimums for armed robbery |
| Cybercrime | PECA 2016; proportional punishment | Computer Misuse Act; balanced sentencing | CFAA; strict penalties |
| Terrorism | Death penalty; ATA 1997 | Long-term imprisonment | Life imprisonment; federal prosecution |
| Juveniles | Reformative measures under JJSO | Community service, probation | Constitutional due process rights |
| Drugs | Death penalty for major trafficking | No death penalty | Mandatory minimums; long sentences |
4. Conclusion
Pakistan’s criminal law is heavily influenced by Islamic principles and British common law, emphasizing deterrence and Qisas/Diyat in serious crimes.
UK law is common law-based, balancing intent, proportionality, and rehabilitation.
US criminal law is broad and federalized, with strong reliance on jury trials, mandatory minimums, and constitutional protections.
Comparative study shows different approaches to punishment, juvenile justice, and drug/terrorism offenses, reflecting cultural, legal, and social contexts.
RELATED Blog
comments