Australia and the United States: Two Common Criminal Justice Systems Uncommonly at Odds Part 2
William & Mary Law School
Vicki C. Waye
School of Law UniSA
March 1, 2011
Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2010
William & Mary Law School Research Paper No. 09-78
In many ways, the Australian and United States criminal justice systems look strikingly similar. With common law roots from England, they both – as we noted in an earlier article – emphasize the adversary system, the role of the advocate, the presumption of innocence, and an appeals process. Upon closer review, though, they appear starkly distinct. From Australia and U.S. perspectives, we explore those differences. Our earlier work examined features such as the exclusion of evidence, rules regarding interrogation, the entrapment defense, and the open nature of trials. In this article, we consider prosecutorial discretion, especially in charging and plea bargaining; double jeopardy; sentencing; and alternatives to incarceration as punishment. Once again, we analyze the reasons for those important distinctions, reasons that relate to very different constitutional traditions and attitudes regarding the role of government.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 68
Keywords: Australia, United States, common law, adversary, advocate, presumption, innocence, appeal, evidence, exclusion, interrogation, entrapment, defense, plea bargaining, double jeopardy, and punishmentAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: March 4, 2011
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.391 seconds