Criminal Justice Systems: US, Norway, and England Compared

Introduction

The criminal justice system protects the public from criminals and criminal activity by investigating, catching, and thwarting crime. Although some countries have similar methods of punishing criminals and preventing crime, many countries have different methods and strategies. Norway has its own way of handling criminals and criminal investigations that often involves a decentralized police and investigative force. The United States operates via a tiered system: federal, state, and local (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2013). England offers a tiered system as well, with most investigative efforts occurring in London. This essay highlights the differences and similarities of the criminal justice system in England/Wales, the United States, and Norway.

The United States has only been a country for a few centuries. It operates with peace and justice in mind. Operating under three branches of government, the judiciary branch allows the government to arrest, prosecute, and imprison criminals and criminal suspects. Other government agencies, especially at the federal level, perform investigations to understand and assess situations and problems in the country (Hirschel, Wakefield, & Sasse, 2008). These problems could be regarding the law and fall under an umbrella of categories including the environment, health, and organized crime.

Norway has a similar aspect to its government regarding its judiciary section. However, because Norway is a small country with a small, fairly homogenous population, the police force operates in a decentralized way (Walgrave, 2003). The same goes for its investigative efforts. This means government agencies are not split into local, state, or federal levels, but act free from geographical or district limitations.

England/Wales acts within the United Kingdom but has a tiered system for handling criminal cases. Regarding investigative efforts, England has a high number of private investigation agencies, with government-run investigative efforts concentrated in London. England's police force and court system operate on a tiered level, with various sub-agencies working under a main agency (Barton & Johns, 2013).

Courts

The tiered system of the courts is seen in the United States, Norway, and England/Wales. The main differences, however, concern the focus on certain areas and the means of labeling specific government agencies and bodies. For example, both Norway and the United States have a Supreme Court, which is the highest tier in each country's court system. Here, the justices decide which laws will be upheld. However, unlike the United States, Norway has conciliation boards and an Interlocutory Appeals Committee that allows for examination of information before it reaches the court. Furthermore, decisions made in the Norwegian Supreme Court are final, with no chance for appeal or complaint — the only exception being the Court for Human Rights (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2009).

The United States Supreme Court's rulings can be overturned by a future Supreme Court decision or a constitutional amendment. Although similar to Norway's Supreme Court in that no further appeals can occur once a case reaches the highest level, the mechanisms differ. Although England has no Supreme Court of its own, there is a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. This court represents the ultimate court for civil and criminal matters in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. This change was made on October 1, 2009, and replaced the judicial functions of the House of Lords. As Lee (2011) explains, "the Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom's senior judges and the Upper House of Parliament, emphasizing the independence of the Law Lords and increasing the transparency between Parliament and the courts" (p. 37).

Returning to the United States, the court system operates under the judiciary branch with courts functioning at the district, state, and federal levels (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2013). Unlike Norway, which has a formal conciliation process, the U.S. Supreme Court can decide to take on a case or not, but does not operate under a separate formal agency for that purpose. Both countries use their respective judiciary branches to uphold national legislation, unlike England/Wales, which operates under the United Kingdom umbrella. As Sriramesh and Vercic (2009) note regarding Norway's judiciary: "The Judiciary is supposed to comprise a relatively independent branch of government. Its role is to implement legislation adopted by the Storting, but also to monitor the legislative and executive powers to ensure that they comply with the acts of legislation" (p. 99).