Introduction
The US criminal system is under the judicial system, which is divided into federal and state courts. The federal court includes the Supreme Court that deals with federal issues such as trade disputes, limitary and government lawsuits. In the US, criminal cases are heard by trial courts that have general jurisdictions, which consist of both a judge and a jury. When it comes to China, the legal system is more Marxist. There is a division of labor in judicial tasks, public security agencies, and people’s courts. The purpose of this paper is to compare the justice system of the People’s Republic of China with that of the United States.
The US and Chinese Substantive Law
The US substantive law is different from that of China in several ways, and it is under common law and legislative factions. Until the end of the 20th century, most of the substantive laws were developed from principles found in judicial decisions. Under the Chinese perspective, there is a current law in the force known as ‘free China’, which is under the nationalist government and is recognized by the United Nations (Hu, 2019). The Chinese criminal procedure has it that offenses directly infringed upon people’s rights are limited to private prosecution. In the US, public prosecution takes significant power when it comes to substantive law. The law is applied in that the person who is offended may personally institute a prosecution that will be against the offender.
When it comes to the functions of public prosecutors, there is no jury system in China as opposed to the case of the US. Chinese lawmakers believe that the jury system does not apply to the psychology of the people since it has not been practiced before (Tu et al., 2020). In the US, the jury system is accepted, as the Americans believe that it cannot cause hatred and collisions among the members of the public. The US justice system, in this case, acknowledges that finding facts requires skill, experience, and ordinary people can be trained to get competent in this. The burden of proof in the Chinese substantive law perspective makes facts that lead to justification of offense be under established evidence.
Procedural law in China and the US
The Chinese procedural law is different from that of the US. In China, the civil procedure law (CPL) is well established from in Chinese legal perspective, and when compared to substantive law, the procedural law has been for a long while been neglected. Under the CPL, courts can exercise judicial independence in trying cases. In the US, the judicial independence under article III provides that judges may hold their positions during what is referred to as ‘good behavior as long as they satisfy the legal and ethical elements of the judicial requirement(Tu et al., 2020). In China, the judicial system has been subservient to the political organs that are maligned to the government and the demands of the Communist Party.
The legal representation in China is slightly different from that of the US. No law must require an attorney to engage as a representative in legal tasks in china. In the US, any party that is arraigned or required on court cases must be observant of an attorney who will be part of the proceedings. When it comes to parties, there may be the use of one or two legal representatives to affect the matters (Tu et al., 2020). Thus, the two countries differ when it comes to the independence of representation for the clients during the court system.
Chinese vs. US Judicial Review
In China, there is no federal-state distinction as it is evident in the US. Chinese only have one court system that rules over major factions of the legal requirements. Unlike the US, China has no subject matter jurisdiction whereby each Chinese city has two levels of courts (Urinboevich, 2021). There are basic court levels and intermediate levels in court. For the United States, the court system splits on the basis of federal and state governments, and for that matter, there is a major difference. In China, a court may not fully exercise the jurisdiction unless there is state authorization and satisfaction of all requirements. When it comes to pleading, the Chinese judicial system is characterized by a plaintiff having direct interests in a lawsuit, which is not the case in the US (Wolff, 2018). For example, during a review, a court may determine whether it will agree with the submissions made by the accused in one week after receiving the complaint.
When it comes to real trials, the Chinese usually consist of judges and jurors or judges only. In the US, there must be a judge a jury, which must be a fully constituted bench to have the matters arising, dealt with effectively. In appeals, the Chinese have to appeal to the next level court within fifteen days after the verdict from the recent court case in question. In this case, a US-based court will only appeal after the complainant’s parties agree with the court on the most appropriate time to do that. Hence, the US judiciary is different from that of China.
Policing Systems in the US vs China
Chinese have a national security system that is comprised of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) and Ministry of State Security (MSS), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the People’s Armed Police (PAP). In the US, there are various police agencies such as a federal system that has the Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Justice an example being the Federal Board of Investigations (FBI) among others (Wolff, 2018). So, the policing system in the US is highly decentralized while for China is centralized.
International Police Cooperation in the US and China
In the US, there is an embracing of Interpol, which advances enforcement interests of the US in other parts of the world. The USA joined Interpol in 1938, which had been active in more than 59 countries then. Similarly, the Chinese have more than two million police officers, Interpol group in Beijing has two divisions that administer major cities in the country and the country joined Interpol in 1961 (Hu, 2019). International cooperation in policing has been effective in the two countries with the US extending a long arm of the law to meet the required standards of security in many countries. Chinese have a strong military but they are placed after their counterparts when it comes to implementation and keeping of law and order. Therefore, the two countries embrace international police cooperation with Interpol being a common example.
Conclusion
The Chinese and Americans have slight differences when it comes to the judicial system. The US has a federal and state legal system while china has one centralized system. The US criminal trials include the use of attorneys, while the Chinese may disregard that depending on the intensity of the case. There is more impunity in the criminal justice system in China more than it is in the US. Judges play a pivotal role in pleasing the government, unlike the US whereby a case might be influenced by the interest of the members of the public. The two countries have embraced international police cooperation and for this matter; Interpol is a common example that has been evident for that matter.
References
Hu, W. (2019). On the differences between Chinese and Western legal ideas in the process of Chinese legal modernization —Taking the witness affidavit as an example. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 07(06), 257-270. Web.
Tu, Y., Ma, R., & Gong, J. (2020). Work analysis and the future reform of HRM for China’s judicial system: A comparative study from the perspective of post system between China and the US. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 11(1), 34-49. Web.
Urinboevich, D. (2021). Development of organizational and legal framework in combating corruption in the judicial system. The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 03(02), 65-71. Web.
Wolff, L. (2018). Comparing Chinese law … But with which legal systems? The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, 4(7), 11-18. Web.