Key Takeaways
- The criminal justice system consists of three main court system subcomponents: police, courts, and corrections, which interact in complex ways.
- In the U.S., tough on crime policies lead to high incarceration rates due to overwhelmed courts and crowded prisons.
- England and Wales have a centralized criminal justice system, modeled after the U.S., but with a distinct structure for case management.
- France employs an inquisitorial legal system, using two police forces and low-level courts to minimize litigation.
- The efficiency of the court system subcomponents relies on the relationship and balance among police, courts, and corrections to ensure justice.
Within the criminal justice system, there are three primary subcomponents acting as checks and balances in the undertaking of seeking justice for victims and betterment for offenders: police, courts, and corrections. Through many criminal justice systems, these three subcomponents are a constant, always appearing but in various configurations. This article explores the complexities and dependencies of these components within the criminal justice systems of the United States, England and Wales, and finally, France, as well as how one subcomponent may impact others.
Subcomponents in the United States Compared to France, Russia, and South Africa
Like many criminal justice subcomponents, the United States’ police, courts, and corrections maintain commonalities throughout that contribute to its successes as well as its inefficiencies. Police, courts, and corrections are all handed down policies and laws to uphold and follow, sometimes from elections and sometimes from legislation. Police are the first interaction with individuals who enter the criminal justice system, followed by courts who interpret the law and carry it out, and corrections who uphold the sentence handed down by the court1. This relationship creates ripples not just upward or downward, but back and forth.
Tough on crime policies in the United States historically created a direct impact on courts and corrections as offenders move through the system, creating court backlogs and overpopulated prisons. As a result, America’s incarceration rate is high, even compared to that of Russia and South Africa2. Additionally, politics and courts also contribute to increased arrests with the adoption of decreased judicial discretion and enacting minimum sentencing, further contributing to overpopulated prisons. The fundamentals of states’ rights upon which America was founded also contribute to the problem of a decentralized, uncoordinated system of command between the various law enforcement agencies at local, state, and federal levels3. France also has two courts: administrative and ordinary courts, with the Tribunal des Conflits deciding jurisdiction when necessary. Ordinary courts have purview over both civil and criminal services, in which all cases go to trial rather than allowing for plea bargaining.
Subcomponents in England and Wales, United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has three criminal justice systems due to agreements with Northern Ireland and Scotland 4. England and Wales’ common law based criminal justice system will be examined for this paper. Likely due to America’s origins, England and Wales’ criminal justice subcomponents look very similar to that of the United States. An offender first interacts with the police, the police subsequently investigate the crime, the case will go to court if charges are filed, an option is given to plea, and if found guilty, the offender will interact with the correctional system5.
The centralized and coordinated aspects of the criminal justice system, such as the Crown Protection Service, overseeing what cases go to trial and which do not. Her Majesty’s Courts, tasked by the Ministry of Justice, governs criminal, civil, and family courts within England and Wales. Two courts exist depending on severity of the crime, Magistrates courts at the lower level, and the Crown Court, overseeing cases such as rape, murder, and robbery6. An appeals court does exist, but should the appeal fail, the offender will be required to enter the corrections subcomponent, whether through community service, probation, or incarceration, with rehabilitative services also offered to prevent recidivism.
Subcomponents in France
France utilizes a legal system with origins stemming from Roman law and codified laws, creating an inquisitorial system for court proceedings7. France offers two police forces, one for rural, less populated areas, called Gendamarie Nationale, and one for larger metro areas, called the Police Nationale. Like other countries employing the inquisitorial system, France seeks to limit needless litigation, offering instead procedures to save everyone involved time.
As a result, low level courts exist at the police level, giving more responsibility and leeway for offenders to avoid a correctional trial at a higher level of court. Trials are not utilized, and instead one or more judges decide upon the defendant’s fate after considering all evidence from the trial. An appeals court exists to hear appeals from both police and correctional court criminal cases. Should an appeal fail, there is a Supreme Court of Appeals for one last review8.
The Relationship Between Police, Courts, and Correctional Subcomponents
Several connections and impact points exist for the three subcomponents of the criminal justice system. First, law and order to be carried out by police will impact the court system. Should a government require police to arrest additional offenders due to new or strict laws, such as that mentioned above in America, more offenders will move through the criminal justice system.
However, courts may also impact corrections and the number of incarcerated individuals through offering early release opportunities, reducing the burden on the correctional system, or alternatively, requiring lifetime incarceration9. Correctional facilities may also impact the police and potentially court subcomponents should they fail to address factors that could lead an offender toward recidivism. Most importantly, impropriety, misconduct, or perceived miscarriage of justice at one level may impact trust in the entire system10.
In Conclusion
Though each of the above countries employ nuances in the administration of their police, courts, and corrections, they also share several commonalities. The inextricable bond between these systems intends to create a check and balance, ensuring that justice is served in the most fair and complete way as possible. Along with it, comes impacts to one another, which must be balanced delicately to ensure none of the three subcomponents becomes overwhelmed and face inefficacy, or worse yet, collapse.
References
1 Bureau of Justice. (2021, June 3). The justice system. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/justice-system.
2 Adelman, L. (2017). How Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and Federal Judges Contribute to Mass Incarceration. Litigation, 44(1), 8–11.
3 Reichel, P. L. (2018). Comparative criminal justice systems: A topical approach (7th ed.). Pearson.
4Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. (n.d.). The justice system and the constitution. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/justice-sys-and-constitution/.
5Dorset Criminal Justice Board. (n.d.). Follow a journey through the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from https://www.dorset.police.uk/media/1467/cjb_flow_chart.pdf.
6 Government of United Kingdom. (2015, May 27). Criminal courts. GOV.UK. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/courts.
7 Ministrie De La Justice. (2012, November). The French Legal System. Retrieved from https://justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/french_legal_system.pdf.
8 Georgetown University. (2020, October 28). French Legal Research Guide: The layout of the French legal system. Georgetown Law Library. Retrieved from https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=362135&p=2446075.
9 Louthan, W. C. (1974). Relationships among police, court, and correctional agencies. Policy Studies Journal, 3(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1974.tb01124.x
10 Berthelot, E. R., McNeal, B. A., & Baldwin, J. M. (2018). Relationships between Agency-Specific Contact, Victimization Type, and Trust and Confidence in the Police and Courts. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 768–791.
