Anticipated Criminalization in Russia and China
The foundation of the criminal justice system is to bring justice for all, through sentencing and punishing wrongdoers to discourage them from offending others while safeguarding the innocent. Every nation in the world is guided by the rules, as well as, regulations imposed to ensure that its laws are not violated, and everyone receives a fair share of justice. Criminal justice is responsible for identifying crime and conveying it to justice.
Further, it seeks to carry out orders as directed by the court system, such as supervising the community, collecting fines, as well as imposing custodial punishments. In the recent past, International criminal laws, practices, and customs are often changing from one nation or state to another. However, they do so at varying intervals as a result of political, technological, as well as, cultural diversity within nation-states. Therefore, criminal behavior and law enforcement systems continue to evolve in response. The current paper discusses the anticipated criminalization and/or law enforcement initiative for Russia and China within the next ten years.
Criminal justice is the enforcement of criminal laws, customs, and practices through government institutions aimed at maintaining social order, and controlling and reducing crime rates. Further, it seeks to sanction law breakers with criminal fines and provide them with an opportunity for rehabilitation to transform them from indulging in criminal acts. However, law violators accused of various crimes have the right to be protected against abuse of investigatory, as well as the trial powers, though the efficiency of these rights varies from one nation/state to another. Consequently, there cannot be effective law enforcement systems if there are no well-laid-out principles and procedures within the states that guide government institutions responsible for law enforcement. The law aims to enforce a set of rules and principles intended for maintaining order, as well as administering justice within a society. In the contemporary world, laws are generally created and enforced by governments (Terrill, 2013).
However, these codified laws differ from state to state depending on different factors such as ethics, religious proscriptions, political grounds, cultural mores, as well as customs and conventions that vary from one society to another. Within the boundaries of codified laws, the court system is concerned with two forms of law. Civil laws are statutes and guidelines, which are responsible for governing operations and solving disputes among individual citizens (Muhlhahn, 2009). Alternatively, criminal law concentrates on dangerous actions that affect the entire society where justice is not sought by an individual but the state. Criminal justice aims to define the crime and impose punishment for the wrongdoers. The realm of criminal justice is solely concerned with ensuring that justice is found through enforcing criminal law.
The current Chinese criminal justice system is manifested by the durations of investigatory detention, increased rates of admissions, as well as administrative penalties synonymous with imprisonment without trial. Criminals have been denied the right to reject interrogation, enjoy no assumption of innocence, and have been deprived of the right to face their accusers and the obligation of having witnesses in their defense to testify. Also, in the investigatory stage of the case, the accused one has partial rights to counsel, while there exists a right at trial to counsel. The right is constrained if it is discovered that there is no pre-trial, and there is an inadequate capability of the defense to carry out its investigation (McConville, 2011).
Recently, the Chinese justice system has undergone major reforms that have improved how criminals are dealt with in China. For instance, recent reforms in Chinese justice disregard the act of prosecution by analogy. In this practice, an individual may be sentenced to a jail term for a crime if his behavior is similar to other behaviors that are generally forbidden, even though the offensive behavior was not stipulated in the criminal code. Further, these reforms also prohibited “shelter and investigation”, which provided the law enforcement officers with the right to hold a criminal indefinitely as they were trying to reveal the true identity of the accused. Also, recent reforms in the Chinese criminal justice system placed time limits on distinct kinds of detention referred to as “compulsory measures” (McConville & Pils, 2013). Therefore, the current law enforcement initiative has steered the Chinese criminal system to a better position. Nevertheless, much is to be done in the justice system in China; thus the Chinese law enforcement agencies have anticipated the following law enforcement initiative within the next ten years.
Trial and Adjudication Processes
Currently, trials in the Chinese justice system are carried out before a three decision-making tribunals in the presence of one professional judge. However, there is no provision as to whether a judge should have legal training or not, which is a loophole in the current judicial system. The trial also requires at least two citizen “assessors” or, in some circumstances, the presence of three trained judges. The outcome of the case is determined through the majority votes. Trials commence with the court’s inquiry of the defendant’s identity, status, as well as the current proceedings of the case. The accused is given a chance to demand a prosecutor’s refusal. The defense attorney together with the accused at the time of trial is allowed to cross-examine the defendant. After questioning, the prosecutor presents the evidence concerning the defendant, and the court requests the accused and his lawyer an opportunity to respond and give any opinion concerning the evidence presented before the court. If the prosecutor decides to introduce a witness, or if the plaintiff is to testify before the court, then the plaintiff, as well as the defense attorney may be allowed to cross-examine the defendant (Muhlhahn, 2009).
After the prosecution’s evidence has been presented, the defense team is allowed to table its evidence. Hence, the prosecution, the plaintiff, the defendant, as well as the defense attorney has a chance to argue the case. At this stage, the accused is provided with a chance to speak. Lastly, the judicial team temporarily retires and comes back to give their ruling and sentence. However, relying on the credibility of the witnesses’ life testimony may be difficult, and, in any particular case, is allowed but is not necessary. Recent research carried out by the China University of Law and Politics in Shanghai indicated that witnesses give their testimony personally for only 5% of all cases presided over in Chinese Courts. Furthermore, written statements from the witnesses may be accessed from the records, even when there is no chance for the defense team to question the witness (McConville, 2011). Therefore, this is one of the anticipations of the law enforcement initiative in China within the next ten years. Through the transformation of the trial and the adjudication process, the criminal justice in China will be efficient and effective in ensuring that fair justice is given to both the plaintiff and the defendant without favoring any side. Also, the time taken to preside over the cases is anticipated to reduce within the next ten years through enhanced trial and adjudication procedures.
During the sentencing process, the court arrives at a verdict and pronounces a ruling as a part of similar trial proceedings. This presents the defense team with a difficult argument. On the other hand, the defense team may wish to argue the case. Similarly, the defense team may not wish to look as if they are anything, but just a penitent stance to be given fair treatment in whichever the course the trial will take. However, article 47 appears to restrict this practice. The Article dictates that the witnesses’ testimony may be relied on as a foundation for determining the case when the witness has been cross-examined in the courtroom by both sides of the defendant and the plaintiff. However, only a few witnesses testify in person before the court. Therefore, the burden of proof is based on the clarity of the facts confirming the evidence’s reliability and sufficiency. However, the defendant may be found not guilty absolutely, or on grounds of inadequate evidence. Nevertheless, the observers have suggested that the final judgment implies that the burden of proof lies with the procurator. Procurators have no power to demand a deferment of the case at mid-trial to look for additional evidence (McConville & Pils, 2013). Similarly, may adjourn the case on their own and carry out their examination outside the court. In complex cases, the court may dialogue with the chief judge, who may refer the case back to the judicial committee to give their decision.
Thus, the Chinese criminal justice has no trial concept as a proceeding to measure reliability and establish legitimacy based on an evaluation from an open court based on the available evidence. Therefore, the Chinese law enforcement initiative for the next ten years is to demonstrate such a principle based on the reality that; witnesses do not need to be in court personally. Also, the final decision-makers need to be agencies who were not presiding over the trial in person or had an opportunity to listen to the evidence, who include the presiding judge, as well as the judicial committee. The measure of proof that brooks no interference, invalid obligation for live testimony, insufficient grounds for silence tied with prolonged durations of pre-charge confinement, and a chance for individuals who never make a choice (Nwankwo, 2011). These anticipated initiatives if applied in the next ten years will lead to fair trials in China, devoid of any blemish or uncertainty, and provide the court with fairgrounds to purge all conflicts before trial.
During the conclusion of a trial, the court gives a ruling, as well as the sentence. However, it has been noted that the Chinese verdicts can be exceedingly ruthless to the Western benchmark. For instance, the Chinese criminal justice imposes the death penalty for other crimes rather than murder cases. The Chinese Criminal Law approves the imposition of the death penalty using less than 35 articles that include rape, bribery, narcotics trafficking, financial fraud, and homicide. Therefore, to deal with criminals in a fair and just manner, the anticipated initiative regarding to the imposition of the death penalty within the next ten years requires that some of the crimes punishable through death be withdrawn. However, to discourage people from doing these in formidable acts less serious cases such as rape and financial fraud, the verdict should be life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty (Muhlhahn, 2009). This law enforcement initiative will give justice and a fair trial to everyone while giving criminals a chance for rehabilitation.
The issue of compensation has long been discussed in the current criminal justice in China. This principle is founded on the proposition that substantial truth is assured and the responsibility of ascertaining compensation lies with the police, as well as the procurators. The Chinese legal system authorizes compensation to be granted to the accused of any duration of confinement established to be unfair on the grounds of the defendant’s consequent acquittal. However, there is no conception that the practices are put into place to grant a reasonable measure of truth by allowing each side to challenge the other’s evidence. Instead, the truth is regarded as inevitable, and this has been confirmed as the official stance. A more precise interpretation is the case’s apparent facts, and the evidence, which is precise and absolute (McConville & Pils, 2013). Hence, the law enforcement initiative within the next ten years anticipates a fair share of justice in terms of compensation, which is not abandoned in the arms of the police, as well as the prosecutors to establish the truth and bring it to the court.
The Russian criminal justice functioned under the Federal authority of the government, with the court system under the Ministry of justice. The Russian judicial system is categorized into three distinct parts, namely the Supreme Court, which is the highest authority in the land, the justice of the peace, and the district and regional courts. Further, there are 82 adjudication courts of appeal with the court of arbitration in the highest rank; and the Constitutional court that operates as a single entity and deals with issues related to the abuse of the Russian Constitution. Furthermore, the justice system has more than 2,000 judges who preside over 300 rows per year. What makes the Russian system different as compared with other nations is that Russia has an exceptional court established to solve matters related to the violation of the Constitution. The system of correction in contemporary Russia has got drastic changes and is currently referred to as a penitentiary. The penitentiary in Russia is analogous to the Big House period that at one time prevailed in the US with the exclusion of disciplining prisons with introverted incarceration (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012). Nevertheless, much is to be done in the justice system in Russia; thus the Russian law enforcement agencies have anticipated the following law enforcement initiative within the next ten years.
Russian Correctional System
In Russia, persons waiting for a pre-trial hearing will be confined to any of the five established institutions. These institutions include the “gauptvakhty”, which is a detention center controlled by the Defense Ministry, where military investigations are conducted on all reprimanded military officers who have violated the law. Next is the “police lockup”, which is analogous to the United States’ local jail, a detention base, which has been established particularly for the destitute, as well as, the persons who cannot properly identify themselves to the law enforcement officers. Also, an “IVS center”, which is a temporal incarceration facility, as well as, “SIZO”, a criminal justice resource that holds individuals in seclusion while there are ongoing investigations connected to the defendant’s offense. However, within the next 10 years, political leaders propose that there is a need for an additional $9 billion aimed at refashioning existing penitentiaries in Russia (Roth, 2011).
In addition, the idea of privatization has been thought of, although it has not been well scrutinized by politicians. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Russian correctional system should be privatized within the ten years as an initiative that will enhance such a system by providing better services for the incarcerated. This will ensure that persons awaiting pre-trial receive fair treatment while in custody since the aim of the justice system is to safeguard individual rights. Similarly, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and he has the right to fair treatment pending for trial (Nwankwo, 2011). The conditions of the Russian penitentiary are extremely awful due to individuals’ congestion, inadequate food supply, poor health care services, as well as a spread of contagious diseases that include tuberculosis and hepatitis.
The current Russian justice system is characterized by individuals subjected to violence, torment, and unwarranted punishments. This is dissimilar to the stipulated guidelines of the Russian Constitution, which seeks to safeguard the freedoms and rights of all individuals. Further, the constitution deliberates that individuals should not be done any medical examination without their consent. This initiative is exceedingly important to prisoners, as well as, the civilians. The Russian criminal justice system has a parole committee that establishes whether non-violent prisoners coupled with detainees who have completed their jail should be released. Similarly, judges should strive to look for other alternative means of ruling rather than imprisonment, especially where the crime committed is not very serious. The judges should as well employ retribution, where the defendant is forced to pay fines and a portion of his annual salary is given to the plaintiff (Roth, 2011). This initiative if enforced within ten years of law enforcement in Russia will ensure fair and efficient criminal justice in Russia, where both sides receive equal justice without discrimination and violation of the law.
According to Maxfield and Babbie (2012), criminals’ evolution goes through various phases while their probable sufferers take precautionary measures against crime. They observe that as individuals install alarm systems to prevent auto theft, robbers respond by applying instruments that are meant to deactivate such systems. Despite this evolution across an array of crimes, crime-fighting as pointed out by Maxfield and Babbie (2012) will be based on three groups: minimizing the prospect of crime, transforming people’s motivation who execute crimes, and changing individuals’ elementary values that include cultivating positive values for the younger generation to decrease the probability of occurrence of criminal behavior in the future. Therefore, the Russian Government in collaboration with the criminal justice system should consider the aspect of changing demographics. As 2024 approaches, it is estimated that the percentage of males within the age bracket of 15 to 29 years, which is regarded as the crime-prone category, will significantly decrease and the proportion of the individuals who are over 30 years of age will increase.
Therefore, technological advancement as one of the law enforcement initiatives in Russia will help in mitigating possible causes of crime. For instance, DNA analysis, surveillance, identification microchips, as well as biometric instruments will help bring justice to the victims. However, these scientific methods are more accurate as compared to overlying on evidence from witnesses. This initiative will ensure fair trials in Russia within the next 10 years where the verdict will be based on scientific facts.
Worldwide Distribution of Justice Products
The distribution of justice products that include the court management computer systems, prison services, as well as consulting services will enhance the system of criminal justice in Russia within the next ten years. These products will ensure that the criminal justice system in Russia is consistent, credible, and reliable enough to ensure that justice is followed and given to those who deserve it (Terrill, 2013). Similarly, the initiative will help in reducing crime rates in Russia as criminals will be easily identified and charged with corresponding offenses.
In conclusion, the proposed law enforcement initiatives in Russia and China within the next ten years will help in transforming the criminal justice systems in both countries. The main objectives of criminal justice are to hold wrongdoers accountable for their behaviors and bring justice to the victims. Further, it tries to safeguard the individuals’ freedoms and rights to ensure that they are not violated in any way. Therefore, the discussed law enforcement initiatives within the next ten years are meant to improve the way the two countries will deal with criminals. However, these initiatives are not meant to mistreat criminals, but to bring fair justice to both sides. Criminals should be given an opportunity to a fair trial, and they should be deemed innocent until they are proven guilty. Similarly, law enforcement agencies should convict law offenders based on the seriousness of the crime committed. In addition, justice should not be denied to the victim and each country should have stringent criminal laws based on customs and practices applicable in each state.