Introduction
Comparative research is an important tool in examining major variations in the global penal codes. In criminology, not all the global regions have a similar means of correcting law offenders. Even though comparative research can be used to identify some of the variations, the whole process is hampered by pitfalls. Cultural perception in different countries, insufficient statistical data, policy correlations, and language barriers are the major challenges that are inherent with a comparative analysis of global corrections. Even though most countries have numerous similarities, they harbor unique values and philosophical positions regarding the treatment of law offenders. United States, China, Sweden, England, and South Africa represent the five major global regions that harbor differences in their criminal correctional systems. However, the penal codes of these countries revolve around the restorative justice theory. This theory emphasizes that punishment is structured to deter criminals and also to influence the mentality of law offenders through community-based programs.
Issues
Cultural perceptions regarding justice hinder comparative research on global correctional systems. For instance, the United States bases its legal correction system on social control while china’s criminal justice is entirely anchored on the socialist law (Mika & Zehr, 2017). These differences have a strong bearing on how different individuals conform to cultural demands. Taking into consideration that China’s correction system is centrally based on the moral social control, it is ideally structured to adhere to the cultural concepts. Therefore, when carrying out a comparative analysis of the two countries, the whole process is made difficult since both US and China differ in terms of cultural beliefs and values. These differences have a direct bearing on what the two countries consider wrong and right. For instance, many sexual crimes in China are not punishable which contradicts the correction systems of United States (Mika & Zehr, 2017). In China marital rape does not violate any law (Ruggiero & Ryan, 2013). In the event that a cultural aspect dominates, the decisions made towards correcting law offenders is entirely influenced. Even though comparative research helps to explore some of these differences, it is difficult to identify some of the cultural consideration that certain nations consider key. However, in countries like Sweden, the culture demands that law offenders are treated more like humans and not animals (Ruggiero & Ryan, 2013). This concept draws inspirations from the restorative justice theory which is structured to amend the harm posed by victims in the society. The cultural aspect of Sweden differs from the perception of law offenders in South Africa and England where society requires criminals to undergo a tough rehabilitation course as a deterrence from future crimes.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Comparative research on global corrections is also hampered by differences in legal systems and policy correlations. For instance, the socialist's law implemented in China is difficult to understand since it partly follows both restorative justice and retribution theories (Ruggiero & Ryan, 2013). Even though the Chinese judicial system has embraced the concepts of restorative justice, the move has remained controversial since the society still believes in the retribution theory. This controversy is instigated by the fact that criminal reconciliation is a new concept in the society. In a retributive justice theory, a crime is considered to violate the rule of law, and an individual is held responsible while in restorative justice, crime is regarded as a violation of the community policies and the punishment provided by the correction criteria is directed towards changing the mindset of other criminals in the society. Even though global corrections of criminals may seem easy to identify, it is difficult to understand the main motives that compel the judicial systems to consider different treatment of crimes. In Sweden, imprisonment is considered a last resort option. In most cases, the Swedish judicial system prefers granting criminals probations and alternative penal sanctions as a way to correct their behavior (von Hofer & Tham, 2013). This policy draws much inspiration from the restorative justice theory where sentences are passed to repair harm and not to punish the offenders. However, it is worth noting that the social philosophy influences the decisions made regarding criminal punishments in Sweden where each human being is perceived to deserve a second chance. By keeping in mind that even the most notorious criminals have a right to be treated as human beings, most court sentences in Sweden are short in comparison to the US, England, China, and South Africa (von Hofer & Tham, 2013). Although this policy may seem lenient, it has contributed to about 40% reoffending rates which are way below those in England and US (von Hofer & Tham, 2013). The same aspect has been applied in South Africa with the majority of criminals being held on pre-trial detention. Even though the South African culture considers imprisonment as the only hope of redemption, overcrowding in the rehabilitation centers and has compelled courts to issue other sentences such as parole, community service, and probations (Ruggiero & Ryan, 2013). As regarded by the South African authorities, the punishment of law offenders is entirely structured to deter them from future crimes. This postulation draws inspirations from the choice theory of criminology where individuals choose to indulge in crime by choice. Therefore, deterring them from perpetuating the activities in the future is the only option to nurture good behavior in the society. With this knowledge, it is easy to protect the crime that originates from societal clashes as postulated in the classical theory of criminology. Therefore, these correlations are some of the challenges that hamper the process of comparative research in global correctional systems.
The language barrier is another key challenge that undermines comparative research techniques. It is difficult to relate the penal code of China, Sweden with those of other countries such as US and England which have English as their primary language. For instance, failure to interpret the Chinese syllables may undermine an explorative understanding of the country’s penal code. This is the main reason for insufficient data when it comes to comparatives studies. Since some of the perceptions are provided in the form of interviews with locals, it is difficult to understand their opinion without a proper interpreter. Keeping in mind that comparative research on corrections requires a substantial coverage of information from former law offenders and authorities, failure to understand their dialect renders the whole process shoddy and insufficient. Also, considering that the restorative justice theory has its roots in the ancient Greek, Arab and Roman civilization, its embrace by other nations is hampered by language deficiencies (Yuan, 2017). Even though the restorative approach is a proper substitute for the frustrating retributive laws, its implementation on a global scale has failed to materialize due to the challenges incurred in language interpretations. Therefore, the language barriers have forced some nations to adopt the simplest stipulations of the restorative justice theory which makes it difficult to draw comparisons with other nations. For instance, in 2012, the criminal procedural law of China absorbed the reconciliation element of restorative justice (Yuan, 2017). Criminal reconciliation is a judicial penal code that pardons some law offenders over lenient crimes. Therefore, the incorporation of these statutes with other original policies in the respective dialects renders comparative research impossible.
Insufficient data is another key barrier in the comparative study of correctional systems. Generally, for proper research, there is a need to grasp a vast range of information. Therefore, the existence of insufficient data renders the whole process faulty. In relation to the corrections on a global scale, some countries lag in terms of technology, therefore, updates on their penal code are not made timely. Even though countries like England and US have a contradicting view when it comes to death sentences, the partial implementation of the law in some states makes it complicated to acquire all the relevant information. China is one of the nations renowned for capital punishments. However, with the ever-changing trends, the policy has undergone various amendments. For instance, the law was amended in 2007 to prohibit execution of persons below the age of 18 years ( Trevaskes, 2013). These changes were also accompanied by the removal of thirteen other capital offenses in 2011 ( Trevaskes, 2013). Although the Chinese penal code is undergoing major changes, slow and less timely publication of amendments makes it hard for researchers to access the data. Also, considering that some of the constitutional statutes are structured in a professional language, inappropriate understanding of the stipulations makes it insufficient for use in the public domain. Regarding comparative research, failure of a researcher to understand the judicial language used may also render comparative research faulty. However, it is worth noting that even with little amount of data, lessons can still be drawn on the impact of society’s beliefs and values towards crime. As postulated in the critical theory, people commit crimes as a way to disagree with the stipulated laws. Even though comparative research has been hampered by the above-postulated challenges, it has still gained much relevance and implementation in the society.
Conclusion
When analyzing the corrections on a global scale, it is important to understand that different countries have a unique set of beliefs and values that govern their decisions. Cultural aspects, language barriers, policy differences and lack of enough data are some of the major challenges that hamper the success of comparative research in analyzing global correctional systems. Even though most countries differ in wide dimension, the largest portion their judicial systems are founded on a common restorative justice principle. While the traditional penal codes have remained ineffective, restorative justice has helped to nurture morality in the society. In contrast to the retributive justice model, this theory focuses on amending the harm caused by the crime in the society’s overall behavior.
References
Mika, H., & Zehr, H. (2017). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. In Restorative Justice (pp. 73-81). Routledge.
Ruggiero, V., & Ryan, M. (2013). Punishment in Europe: a critical anatomy of penal systems . Springer.
Trevaskes, S. (2013). China’s death penalty: The Supreme People’s Court, the suspended death sentence and the politics of penal reform. British Journal of Criminology , 53 (3), 482-499.
von Hofer, H., & Tham, H. (2013). Punishment in Sweden: A changing penal landscape. In Punishment in Europe (pp. 33-57). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Yuan, X. (2017). A Dialogue Between China and the West on Doing Restorative Justice. In Restorative Justice in China (pp. 181-190). Springer, Cham.
