Chinese Law and American Law
CHINESE LAW AND AMERICAN LAW 4
Laws all over the world differ considerably depending on thecountry. China and United States are an illustration of countriesthat have a difference in their legal system. However, various legalpractices compare to both nations. The paper compares and contrastsChinese and US law. The comparison derives from the similarity in theuse of capital system, while the disparity arises from theirdifferent legal systems and the criminal investigation procedure.
Although most countries do not apply the death penalty, the UnitedStates and China are some of the nations that have not abolished thissystem of punishment. Capital punishment regards to a method ofretribution where the offender is sentenced to death. China usescapital punishment in punishing capital offenses such as humantrafficking, rape and grave offences involving corruption. InAmerica, capital punishment applies in robberies with violence thatresult in the killing of at least one innocent individual and murdercases, in specific first degree massacre. However, it is necessary tonote that not all American states hold on to the practice. Bothnations believe that by practicing the capital punishment, it becomepossible to bar potential offenders, intending to execute the similarcrimes, from engaging in wrongdoing. The primary objective of holdingon to capital punishment law is to reduce crime.
China and the US have a different legal system. China practicescivil law, whereas America practices common law. The disparity amidcivil and common law depends on the primary source of law. In theAmerican common law, there is a lot of reference to statutes, yetjudicial cases are regarded as the major source of law. This permitsjudges to add pro-actively to rules. For instance, the aspectsrequired in proving a murder case are obtained from case law insteadof being defined via statute (Brand& Getzler, 2012).Courts follow precedents created by higher courts when evaluating thesimilar issue. Contrary, in Chinese civil law, statutes and codes aredesigned for dealing with all eventualities. Judges have a restrictedrole of using law to a case in hand. Previous judgments are merelyloose guides. In the event of court cases, judges act asinvestigators, whereas judges in common law serve as arbiters amidparties bringing forward their case (Brand& Getzler, 2012).
The criminal investigation procedure is another source of contrastbetween Chinese and US law. Rights basic to the US legal structureare restricted, or unavailable in Chinese law. For instance, China’scriminal suspects do not have the freedom of refusing interrogation.In addition, they have no right of remaining silent. The suspect isnot permitted to conduct consultation with a lawyer all through theinterrogation procedure (Yue, 2010). As a result, the Chinese legalstructure comprises of more time spent in investigation detention,and is characterized by many confessions from suspects. Contrary,America’s law has more procedure protection towards criminalsuspects. Before and interrogation, the police inform suspects abouttheir rights. These include the right of remaining silent, and tolegal counsel. If a suspect decides to remain silent, interrogationstops. If they choose to have legal counsel, the interrogation stopsto when the suspect’s lawyer is present.
China and America have more contrasts in their law than comparisons.They mainly compare because of the continued use of death penalty asa manner of deterring wrongdoing. However, they contrast in thatChina uses civil law and America uses common law. In addition is thatChina’s interrogation procedure disregards any rights to suspects,while the US ensures suspects are aware of their rights prior tointerrogation.
Brand, P., & Getzler, J.(2012). Judgesand judging in the history of the common law and civil law:From antiquity to modern times.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yue, M. (2010). A Comparative View of the Law of Interrogation.Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36.