Comparative Study With Us Criminal Justice System
✅ U.S. Criminal Justice System – Overview
The U.S. criminal justice system is based on adversarial principles, constitutional guarantees, and federalism. It consists of:
Law Enforcement (police agencies)
Courts (state and federal)
Corrections (prisons, probation, parole)
Key features:
Presumption of innocence
Right to remain silent
Right to counsel
Jury trial
Double jeopardy protection
Due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments
🔍 Landmark U.S. Case Laws – Explained in Detail
1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. He confessed during police interrogation without being informed of his right to counsel or to remain silent.
Issue: Whether statements made during custodial interrogation are admissible if the defendant wasn't informed of their rights.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that custodial interrogations must include warnings about the right to remain silent and right to an attorney. These are now known as Miranda Rights.
Impact:
Changed how police conduct interrogations.
Aimed to prevent coerced confessions.
Affirmed Fifth Amendment protections.
2. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with felony theft in Florida. He couldn't afford an attorney and was denied one by the state court.
Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel apply to state courts?
Held: Unanimous decision — The Supreme Court held that the right to an attorney is fundamental, even in state courts.
Impact:
Incorporated the Sixth Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.
All defendants facing serious charges must be provided counsel if they cannot afford one.
3. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Facts: Police entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a proper warrant and found obscene materials.
Issue: Can illegally obtained evidence be used in state court?
Held: The Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) is inadmissible in state courts. Known as the Exclusionary Rule.
Impact:
Extended federal protections to state-level cases.
Discouraged unlawful searches by law enforcement.
4. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Facts: A police officer observed two men (including John Terry) acting suspiciously and frisked them, finding weapons.
Issue: Was the stop-and-frisk without a warrant or probable cause a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Held: The Supreme Court held that limited pat-downs (stop-and-frisks) are allowed if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed and dangerous.
Impact:
Created the doctrine of "reasonable suspicion" vs "probable cause".
Legalized brief, investigatory stops for safety purposes.
5. Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Facts: William Furman was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His case highlighted the arbitrary application of the death penalty.
Issue: Does the death penalty constitute "cruel and unusual punishment"?
Held: The Court ruled 5-4 that the arbitrary use of the death penalty violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Impact:
Led to a temporary moratorium on capital punishment across the U.S.
States had to revise laws to make the death penalty less arbitrary.
6. United States v. Nixon (1974)
Facts: In the Watergate scandal, President Nixon refused to hand over tapes, citing executive privilege.
Issue: Can the President withhold evidence in a criminal investigation?
Held: Unanimous decision — The President must comply with judicial subpoenas. No one is above the law.
Impact:
Reinforced the principle of checks and balances.
Enhanced the rule of law in the criminal justice process.
🌍 Comparative Analysis With Other Legal Systems
1. U.S. vs United Kingdom
| Feature | U.S. | U.K. |
|---|---|---|
| Legal System | Common law (adversarial) | Common law (adversarial) |
| Jury Trials | Guaranteed for serious crimes | Jury used mostly for indictable offences |
| Police Powers | More decentralized, Miranda warnings required | Less emphasis on Miranda-type warnings |
| Death Penalty | Legal in some states | Abolished completely |
| Constitution | Written, codified | Unwritten, based on statutes and conventions |
Key Difference: Miranda Rights are unique to the U.S. In the UK, suspects are told: "You do not have to say anything…", but not with the same constitutional gravity.
2. U.S. vs India
| Feature | U.S. | India |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Tradition | Common Law | Common Law |
| Right to Counsel | Guaranteed (Gideon v. Wainwright) | Guaranteed under Article 22(1) |
| Jury Trials | Common | Abolished after 1960s (due to K.M. Nanavati Case) |
| Speedy Trial | Constitutional right | Guaranteed under Article 21 but poorly implemented |
| Death Penalty | Legal | Legal (rarest of rare doctrine) |
Notable Case in India: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) broadened the interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life), similar to U.S. due process rights.
3. U.S. vs France (Civil Law System)
| Feature | U.S. | France |
|---|---|---|
| System | Adversarial | Inquisitorial |
| Role of Judge | Neutral arbiter | Active investigator |
| Jury Trials | Regular | Jury in some serious cases only |
| Police Questioning | Miranda warnings | No exact equivalent; judges play more role in interrogation |
| Rights | Bill of Rights-based | Based on Code of Criminal Procedure |
Key Difference: In the French inquisitorial system, judges control the investigation phase — opposite to the defense-driven U.S. model.
4. U.S. vs Germany
| Feature | U.S. | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| System | Adversarial | Inquisitorial |
| Double Jeopardy | Strictly prohibited | Some exceptions in retrials |
| Jury System | Present | Uses lay judges with professional judges |
| Constitutional Rights | Extensive under Bill of Rights | Grundgesetz (Basic Law) offers robust protections |
🔚 Conclusion
The U.S. criminal justice system emphasizes individual rights, due process, and adversarial trials. Its landmark cases like Miranda, Gideon, and Mapp have significantly shaped procedural fairness.
In contrast, civil law systems like those in France and Germany prioritize the truth-finding mission of the court, with active judicial roles in investigation. India and the UK, though influenced by common law, differ in practice and enforcement of procedural rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments