International Criminal Justice Systems Today
The major difference among the model nations regarding the education of the legal actors in the court system is that there are some nations in which education does not play a significant role in the implementation of the actors, whereas in others, stringent educational standards are effected. Thus, there is a wide variation in the form of formal education that is required of those that take place in the court systems of the model nations. In the United States, for instance, virtually anyone who is accused of a crime can operate as his or her own defense attorney -- regardless of what sort of education he or she may or may not have. In cases in which there are co-defendants, it is possible for someone who may have only a high school or middle school education to effectively act as the representing lawyer for others. There are some notable examples of this sort of situation. For instance, Afeni Shakur acted as the lawyer for the Panther 21 case that took place in New York during the 1970's despite having limited formal education. She performed her job so effectively that she and several of her other co-defendants were eventually acquitted. In other model countries, individuals must fulfill strict requirements -- some of which pertain to education -- involve themselves as legal actors within a court setting.
Still, there are other examples in model nations in which education requirements do not factor heavily into the ability of an individual to act as a legal actor in the court system. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, it is possible for members of the royal family to issue decrees which are widely regarded as laws and which can substantially effect court proceedings and individuals involved with those particular laws. Although most members of the royal family are educated, there are no express requirements for education to be a member of this family and enact...
The primary reason that I make this assertion is because England, although it is not on the continent of Europe, is a fundamental part of the lawfulness that extends throughout Europe in the form of the European Convention of
Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The latter, of course, helps to oversee incidents that pertain to the Convention and its many different statutes. There is a degree of parity that the Convention implies in its court proceedings for the simple fact that its boundaries extend throughout the duration of Europe. Thus, some of the laws and proceedings that individuals are held accountable for in Europe are actually applicable throughout the continent of Europe. Thus, basic crimes against humanity and that routinely take place in other nations are suitably punished in a model country such as England. Moreover, some of these laws that are based on the Convention help to protect those involved in the court system, whether guilty or otherwise, with a degree of
equality that is difficult to find outside of Europe.
The country I would least like to be involved in as a defendant is Saudi Arabia. There are a number of different reasons for this sentiment. The most eminent of these pertains to the fact that the
legal system in that country is highly arbitrary. In fact, the arbitrary nature of the legal system is easily traced back to the fact that there is no establishment and maintenance of precedents. Thus, the principle that applies in one
court case does not in the other. Therefore, defendants are actually at the mercy of the judges and their feelings than they are at the mercy of objective
law.
The data describing the recent trends in the use of imprisonment vs. community sanctions today essentially reflects the fact that throughout the majority of the world, imprisonment is still the preferred aspect of the correctional system to which violators of laws are sent. However, it also reflects that there are more and more states, countries, provinces, counties, etc. that…
