Global Criminal Law And Comparative Analysis
1. Understanding Global Criminal Law
Criminal law governs offenses against the state or society, punishing conduct that threatens public order, safety, or morality. While every country has its own criminal code, global criminal law shares common principles:
Key Principles:
Nullum crimen sine lege (No crime without law): Acts must be clearly defined as criminal.
Presumption of innocence: Accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Proportionality of punishment: Penalties must match the gravity of the offense.
Due process and fair trial: Procedural safeguards are essential.
Protection of fundamental rights: Even accused persons are protected under constitutional or human rights law.
Comparative Dimensions:
| Aspect | India | U.S.A. | U.K. | International Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codified system | Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Federal & State statutes | Common law & statutory offenses | International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) |
| Death Penalty | Retained for rare offenses | Retained in some states | Abolished | Abolished |
| Juvenile Justice | JJ Act, 2015 | Juvenile Justice Acts | Youth Justice Act | UN Convention on Rights of the Child |
| Human Rights Integration | Strong via Supreme Court | Strong via Constitution | Integrated via Human Rights Act | ICCPR & ICC Statute |
2. Case Laws for Comparative Analysis
Case 1: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) – India
Facts: Constitutional case, but established limits of state power over individual rights, influencing criminal law.
Decision: Basic structure of Constitution cannot be altered; due process and fundamental rights are supreme.
Impact: Indian criminal law must respect constitutional rights, similar to U.S. constitutional protections.
Case 2: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – U.S.A.
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was interrogated without being informed of his right to remain silent.
Decision: Supreme Court of the U.S. established Miranda Rights – suspects must be informed of their rights to counsel and against self-incrimination.
Comparative Insight: Similar to India’s Article 20(3) & 21 (protection against self-incrimination and arbitrary detention).
Case 3: R v. Brown (1993) – U.K.
Facts: Group of men engaged in consensual sadomasochistic acts; charged under criminal assault laws.
Decision: House of Lords held consent was not a defense; criminal law protects bodily integrity even if voluntary.
Comparative Insight: Highlights state intervention in private behavior, similar to India’s IPC Section 75–76, though modern Indian jurisprudence may allow consent in some cases.
Case 4: Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) – India
Facts: Juvenile homes were reported for inhuman conditions and abuse.
Decision: Supreme Court ordered reforms; emphasized rehabilitation, not punishment, especially for minors.
Comparative Insight: Aligns with U.S. Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act (1974) and U.K. Youth Justice System, emphasizing reform over retribution.
Case 5: The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu (1998) – ICTR, Rwanda
Facts: Jean-Paul Akayesu, mayor during Rwandan Genocide, was charged with genocide and crimes against humanity.
Decision: International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda convicted him; first time sexual violence recognized as an act of genocide.
Comparative Insight: Unlike domestic criminal law, international criminal law addresses crimes against humanity and systemic offenses, beyond national jurisdictions.
Case 6: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – India
Facts: Excessive arrests under IPC Section 498A.
Decision: Supreme Court restricted arbitrary arrests, emphasizing constitutional safeguards under Article 21.
Comparative Insight: Similar to U.S. Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful arrest and detention.
Case 7: R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) – U.K.
Facts: Shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy; charged with murder.
Decision: Court rejected necessity defense; homicide cannot be excused even under extreme circumstances.
Comparative Insight: Indian law (IPC Section 300) also limits the necessity defense in murder cases; demonstrates shared criminal law principles across jurisdictions.
Case 8: Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (2006) – ICC
Facts: Convicted for conscripting child soldiers in DRC.
Decision: First conviction by ICC; children cannot be used in armed conflict.
Comparative Insight: Reinforces global standards on juvenile protection; India also criminalizes use of minors in armed conflict under JJ Act.
3. Comparative Analysis of Key Themes
| Theme | India | U.S.A. | U.K. | International Criminal Law |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juvenile Justice | JJ Act, focus on rehabilitation | Juvenile Justice Act, mix of punishment & rehab | Youth Justice Act, focus on reform | ICC statutes prohibit child soldiers & crimes against children |
| Self-Incrimination | Article 20(3) | Miranda Rights | Limited; common law protections | Right to fair trial in ICC |
| Capital Punishment | Rare, “rarest of rare” | State-level, constitutional | Abolished | Abolished |
| Corporate / White-Collar Crimes | IPC & SEBI Act | Sarbanes-Oxley & federal statutes | Bribery Act, Fraud Act | UNODC & International treaties |
| Mass Crimes / Human Rights | PILs & IPC | Federal civil rights & RICO | Human Rights Act, PILs | ICC, ICTY, ICTR |
4. Key Takeaways
Fundamental Rights Protection: Across all jurisdictions, accused persons have procedural and substantive rights.
Juvenile Justice: Global emphasis on rehabilitation over punishment.
International Criminal Law: Focuses on crimes transcending borders – genocide, war crimes, human trafficking.
Comparative Approach: While statutory frameworks differ, principles like due process, proportionality, and fairness are universally upheld.
Case Law Influence: Domestic courts (India, U.S., U.K.) and international tribunals shape the evolution of criminal jurisprudence globally.
✅ Conclusion:
Global criminal law, though varied in statutory frameworks, shares core principles of fairness, due process, and proportionality. Indian criminal law is influenced both by domestic constitutional values and international human rights norms. Cases like Maneka Gandhi, Miranda, R v. Brown, Akayesu, and Lubanga illustrate cross-jurisdictional principles of justice, rights protection, and accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments