Imprisonment or incarceration plays a major role in keeping away dangerous persons and perpetrators of heinous crimes from our communities. In fact this has been the practice among humans since the beginning of time. However, in the past, people preferred a more permanent solution to wrecked characters. These solutions involved cutting off limbs, crucifixion and stoning to death. Prisons and incarcerations were later introduced as less punitive measures so as to give such persons a second chance in the society. Different nations have developed a judicial system that handles matters of police operations, the judicial process and the incarceration of such persons. Countries, especially western nations have defined the judicial system in an elaborate judicial arm of the government as defined in their constitutions. These governments have relied on expert knowledge and past events to develop what these nations consider as the fairest form of punishment for offenders and justice for the offended. On the other hand, nations that have constitutions based on religious teachings have their constitutions based on such religions. These instances of different methods of developing a judicial system result in a totally different process that defines the diverse natures of the prisons and punishment methods. This paper provides insights into the judicial processes between two distinct nations, that is, France and Saudi Arabia. The paper will provide the underlying factors that define law and punishment between these nations.
Judicial System in France
The French government is composed of three different arms that play different roles as defined by the country’s constitution. The executive is made up the President and other departments such as the cabinet whose role is to implement the laws in the country. The Legislature is composed of the parliament and the role of the Legislature is to pass laws. Finally the judiciary is the arm of the government whose sole responsibility to enforce the laws of the land. This sought of clear demarcation of the different arms of government allows each division to streamline its operation due to the fact that they enjoy somewhat an independent mode of operation (Nwankwo,42).
Courts
The French courts for instance have developed principles that guide their operations. Some of the principles include autonomy and impartiality of a judicial process, right to access judicial instruments, right to a fair and independent trial, intransience of a defined judicial process and right to lodge an appeal without limitation. These principles have guided the French courts in dispensing justice to its people in all facets of the law.
According to Dammer and Albanese, the French judicial system has defined its court into two broad categories in a system referred to as the “double pyramid arrangement” (31). In this kind of court arrangement, the courts have been divided into administrative courts and judicial courts. As the name suggests, administrative courts have the sole responsibility of handling cases that settle disputes between public administration and the general public. In this sense, any citizen has the right of lodging a complaint against holder of public office or an entire unit of public administration.
Administrative courts have a hierarchy that is divided into the three levels. The lowest in this chain of command is the administrative tribunal that is mandated with hearing the cases for the first instance. The second in the hierarchy is the Administrative Appeal court that takes on cases in which one of the aggrieved parties is not contended with the results of the first court. The highest court under the administrative courts is the Council of State and this case is the final court in the administrative unit and hears only appeal cases from the court of appeal (Dammer and Albanese, 32).
The Judicial Court on the other hand, is a more elaborate system and is composed of many courts. These are the courts that handle the common justice cases that involve criminal and civil cases as defined by the constitution. As the facets of justice may define, these courts are thus divided into two broad categories, that is, penal courts and civil courts. Penal courts have the responsibility of determining cases of criminal nature, while civil courts determine cases of dispute that can be settled monetarily or otherwise without the need for incarceration (Dammer and Albanese, 38).
Penal courts are further divided into several divisions according to the kind of criminal cases that an accused faces. The first courts in this system are the Courts of Position, which essentially is meant to determine cases deemed to grave criminal offences. The other courts are the Juvenile courts for minors, Police courts that determine cases involving law enforcement bodies and finally the criminal court that handle cases of less criminal nature.
Civil courts, just as penal courts, have been divided according to the nature of civil cases that is presented in the courts. The first court in this division is the Judge of Nearby court which is mandated with handling disagreements whose civil value is less than 4,000 Euros. The next court in the hierarchy is the Court of Proceedings and in these courts the civil values of the dispute should not exceed 10,000 Euros. In cases where the civil dispute exceeds 10,000 Euros, the cases are forwarded to the High Court.
In general though, all civil and penal cases follow the defined courts, however, if one of the aggrieved parties is not satisfied with the outcome, that person has the right to an appeal at the Court of Appeal. The final court of the land is the Court of Cassation which is perhaps the equivalent to the Supreme Court, which hears any case that is beyond the determination of the Court of Appeal.
There are other two specialized courts in France that play a key role in the country. The first court is the Dispute Tribunal which has the task of hearing disputes between the different administrative arms of the government. This court is made of individuals from the different arms of the government that may include but not limited to the attorney general and a member of the cabinet and about eight members of the judiciary (Nwankwo,88). The other specialized court is the Constitutional council, whose sole responsibility is to ensure that new laws and legislation do not contravene any existing laws in the constitution. The court also handles other matters that affect the constitutionality that may affect the country. The president appoints all the 11 members of the Constitutional council and each of these members may serve a maximum term of 9 years.
Judicial process
Just like many other nations, the French Judicial process employs a procedure in which an accused person is taken to a court for trial. It is a French principle to presume an accused person to be innocent until a duly completed judicial process determines such a person to be guilty (Levinson, 25). Unlike the United States system, the French system does not fully rely on a jury in all trials. Thus, it is upon the judge to indulge the accused, witnesses and law enforcement bodies to come up with a verdict. However, in cases that are deemed to be of grave criminal offense that attract prison sentence of more than ten years, a jury may be used. The number of cases that requires the use of a jury is quite limited as defined by the penal code in the constitution. Here, the jury has similar footing as the judge and determine the guilt of the accused person.
Punitive Measures
The essence of a judicial process in any country it to determine the nature and extent of punishments that is due for an offence committed. In France, the rates of imprisonment under the judicial process have found to be considerably low as compared to other developed nations. For instance, Dammer and Albanese, illustrate that in the United States imprisonment rate as at 2008 was about 728 persons per every 100,000 as compared to the French with a rate of about 89 per very 100,000 (89). The penal code under the French system relies on incarceration as the major mode of punishment. Criminal cases such as rape, robbery with violence, murder, treason, theft and assault attract terms of imprisonment with varying lengths. A definite case for example is the case of murder in which punishment is about thirty years and in case where the murder was preceded by another criminal act possible sentence is prescribed to be life incarceration. Other cases such as rape and theft carry a sentence of about fourteen years. In general though, all cases under the penal system are defined along with the punishments due to these offenses.
Similarly, capital punishment has been an emotive issue in French system for many years. Previous French monarchs and leaderships had relied on capital punishments for cases such as murder and rape to instill fear for committing such crimes. However, in 1981, the French government prohibited capital punishment in its judicial system. The last person to be executed was in 1977.
Police System
The French law enforcement unit can be broadly divided into two units. The first unit is the Police Nationale which is essentially the police arm of the government composed of field officers and administrative arms of the government. It is also composed of investigative units that assist the judiciary in determining criminal cases. It is also the responsibility of the national police to ensure that all the laws that have been legislated by the parliament is enforced. There are about ten departments under the national police that help enforce all the laws. These departments include Judiciary Police, Border Police, protection of high-profile personalities unit, Public Security unit among others. The second unit is a military unit that seeks to enforce some laws as well as providing intelligence for the government.
Saudi Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the nations that make up the Arab League of nations and is famous for being the world’s largest exporter of oil. The country is led by a king and it is the king who enjoys all the executive powers of the government. The country is predominantly an Islamic nation whose laws and constitution are based on the Islamic teachings. Similarly, the country’s legal system is based on these Islamic teachings commonly referred to as Sharia law (Levinson,51). These laws are derived from the Holy book used in Islam, the Quran as well as the teachings on the traditions as practiced by early prophets referred to as Sunnah. Additionally teachings and studious writings including reasoning by Islamic judges have also been incorporated in Islamic teachings that have been included in the Sharia law. Thus the legal system of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has directly been adapted from the different facets of Sharia law without any variations to it (Dammer and Albanese, 89). This adoption has been done in an unmodified manner and thus lacks the possibility of employing judicial precedence. Additionally, all other laws such as intellectual property laws have been re-adjusted to suite the provisions of Sharia laws.
The potion that makes the Saudi case interesting is the manner in which it has been adopted without any adjustments. While other Islamic nations such as Iran and Yemen that have their enforcement simply defined by principles under Sharia law without direct adoption, Saudi Arabia has directly used these laws without codification. Codifying Sharia laws allows different governments to incorporate modern aspects that affect the community. Additionally, when the Sharia law is not codified, it gives room for varied interpretation and thus a similar case in the judicial system results in varied outcomes. Furthermore, there is no room for judicial precedence and thus results of similar cases cannot be used to determine other cases.
Courts
The judicial system in Saudi Arabia is composed of Sharia Courts. These courts can be divided into two broad categories, that is, the Court of First Instance and the Appellate Courts (Dammer and Albanese, 93). The Courts of First Instance have been mandated with handling cases that are deemed of less offence and is usually heard by a solitary a judge. However, in cases where the offence is considered grave and may lead to either to stoning, death or limb amputations, then such a case is heard by a panel of three judges. The collection of judges and lawyers are referred to as the Ulema, a group that determines the country’s religious leadership. There is also another kind of court that is meant to serve a minority group of Muslims referred to as Shia Muslims that rely on different courts that determine marital and religious issues of the society. However, the Shia court is only limited to the Eastern provinces where this kind of Islam is practiced. Appellate courts on the other hand have the responsibility of reviewing cases that have gone through the courts of First instance and the aggrieved persons are not satisfied with the outcomes. These courts only sit in the Holy city of Mecca and country’s commercial capital Riyadh.
This form of judiciary system has faced several criticisms that it is backward and does not provide room for the ever changing world that even Saudi Arabia is not immune to. To try and provide room for inclusion of such changes, the King has the powers to issue Royal Decrees that assist the courts to including such recent events into the judicial process.
The Police System
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a police unit that is composed three distinct forces. These are the religious police unit, the secret police unit and the regular police unit. The regular police, as the name may suggest, is the arm of the police that is concerned with daily safety of the public and general order in the country. This is a much disciplined force with a central mode of leadership commonly led by a member of the royal family. The religious police force is a unit of the arm of the police force that is meant to enforce the Islamic code of conduct. These are men not trained in law enforcement but only make sure public behaviors such as closing of businesses during prayers and dressing in the expected code are adhered to. Finally, the secret police force as the name may suggest is composed of highly trained men who are concerned with the country’s intelligence and internal security measures.
Punishments
The criminal system that has been employed by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia has come under heavy scrutiny by the United Nations and other human rights groups around world. However, the process under which a suspect can be found guilty is clearly defined in these laws. There three situations that ensures a guilty verdict for a suspect. The first case is where the suspect confesses to the offence without any coercion. The second situation is where two witnesses who must be male support the guilt conviction of the suspect. Finally, in a case where the suspect refuses to take an oath, then such a suspect is deemed guilty of the crime.
Punitive measures employed under Sharia law are defined according to the teachings that were in place over two millennia ago. The punishments for adultery, rape, apostasy, murder or armed robbery is usually death. The admission of the punishment is also different as determined by Sharia laws. Some of the methods include the archaic methods of beheading by a blade, crucifixion and stoning. Public beheading according to Dammer and Albanesem were about 103 in 2008 alone (102). Other punishments for other criminal cases are also very punitive in nature and seem to completely deter criminal character through fear.
Comparison
The difference between the two nations is quite clear. While France has adapted modern measures and an elaborate judicial system that traverses all religions, the Saudi Arabia system is composed of laws and process based on Islamic laws. France has a system that has been developed for several years and relies on judicial precedence and case laws that guide in the execution of justice. This constitutional process based on clear process and procedures ensures that human rights of individual suspects are maintained. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia system is adopted from the Sharia teachings without any codification to allow flexibility in its application. Additionally the modes of punishment used in the sharia law are rather punitive and the death penalty is widely used.
Conclusion
A country’s law enforcement unit is one of the most important arms of government for any administration to run smoothly. Different nations have employed different methods of enforcing the laws of the land. But it is arguable to always ensure that these laws and procedures of law enforcement do not infringe on the rights of suspects and thus such systems should consider a suspect innocent unless proven guilty. It is upon governments to try and adjust their laws to move with current events so as to remain relevant, just as the French.
Works Cited
Dammer, Harry R. and Jay S. Albanese. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. New York: Cengage Learning, 2010.
Levinson, David. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, Volumes 1-4. New Jersey: SAGE, 2002.
Nwankwo, Peter O. Criminology and Criminal Justice Systems of the World: A Comparative Perspective. Leeds: Trafford Publishing, 2011.
