Criminology

Many individuals find themselves held up in the penal institutions in the various parts of the world. This however happens through various means by which individuals find themselves locked up in the penal institutions. Some of the individuals are locked up due to the public condemnation via adversarial trials whereas others confess after being tortured and yet some are condemned by the secretive committees or officials acting alone. In some incidences, the verdict is arrived at after deliberations by professional lawyers, by laymen, political, military andor religious panels (Vogler, 2005). Criminal procedure is usually diverse as characterized in different parts of the world and thus there is no universal agreement on what is composed of a satisfactory criminal justice to be followed by all people.

This paper is going to look at the various types of systems that are used in the criminal justice across the world and draw some comparisons and contradictions between them. The systems in question shall include the Adversarial, Inquisitorial and Islamic criminal justice which are vastly being employed in the criminal justice across the world today.

The Inquisitorial  Adversarial systems
When comparing the two systems of criminal justice, it is important to understand that the two serves to attain the common objective of finding out the truth. Adversarial model however seeks to find out the truth by placing the two contesting parties head on with each other in the hope that the ensuing competition would finally expose the truth. On the other hand, the inquisitorial model sets out to discover the truth through posing questions to those who are most familiar with the events in the dispute at hand. The two models differ in the sense that the adversarial model gives priority to the individual rights of the accused while in inquisitorial model, the rights of the accused comes second to the need for the truth. The striking differences between the two models are well elaborated in criminal cases. During a criminal investigation, a defendant in the inquisitorial system is not to respond to any questions regarding the crime though heshe may answer any other questions at the trial especially those on the history of the defendant. In inquisitorial system, the defendant is usually the first to give testimony and is allowed to look at the governments case prior to giving hisher testimony. On the contrary, in adversarial system, the defendant is not needed for testifying and also is not allowed to comprehensively scrutinize the governments case against himher. In the adversarial system, the defendant is presumed guilty since evidence that indicates the guilt of the defendant is usually paramount for a case to be brought against the defendant. On the other hand, in inquisitorial system, the defendant is never presumed guilty and thus has to be proved so by the court (Vogler, 2005).

The inquisitorial system can be compared to the adversarial system of criminal justice in both agreement and contradictory manner. In the inquisitorial system, the court is usually involved either in part or in whole in the determination of the facts regarding the case. In contrast to the inquisitorial system, in the adversarial system, the court usually plays the role of a referee between the two parties. One fundamental difference between the two justice systems is to be found in the way that the criminal process is usually conducted especially in regards to the goals of the process. The inquisitorial system is usually focused on the determination of the truth regarding what happened hence the verdict is based on the facts which approximates the historical truth with as much accuracy as possible. On the other hand, the adversarial model takes the criminal procedure as a tool that will help to resolve the dispute between two parties. The search for the truth is usually emphasized due to the fact that it is essential for the resolution of the dispute. The adversarial model usually provides any of the sides with a reasonable chance to win the dispute. This is done when the process closely circumscribes the means by which facts can be established in court, and it excludes from the fact finders consideration evidence that might unfairly prejudice one party, (Weigend, 2002, para 5). Such is the difference that can be used in the explanation of the noticeable variation that is found between the continental and common law systems. In this case, hearsays are acceptable in inquisitorial model since they are considered as helpful when it comes to fact-finding. Common law usually does not incorporate hearsay in its jurisdiction since it is considered that hearsays would limit the capacity of the defendant in verifying the honesty and trustworthiness of the information source (Damaska, 1997).

An inquisitorial system usually relies on the non-partisan agents of the state which may include the magistrate andor the state attorney who have the responsibility of collecting and preparing the evidence ready for the trial. During the trial stage, the court, led by the presiding judge is supposed to introduce the appropriate proof whereas the attorney representing the state and the defendant are only to play an auxiliary role. On the contrary, in adversarial model, each party has to collect evidence that would favor the position taken either by the defense or by prosecutors. Here, the judge has to be impartial and his roles are limited to that of a referee whereas the jury has to provide the verdict. The decision in an inquisitorial model is arrived at through a collective vote by professional judges and a jury of laymen evaluators. Both the prosecution and the defendant have no opportunity to query the lay evaluators for partiality. The judges usually votes after the evaluators so as to avoid them influencing the conclusions that are made by the lay evaluators. For a criminal defendant to be convicted, a 23rd majority is usually required. On the contrary, the adversarial system arrives to a verdict following a unanimous decision (Vogler, 2005).

Islamic criminal justice
For a comprehensive understanding of the Islamic Criminal justice, there is need for one to understand the Islamic religion in totality. The true meaning of Islam is said to be total submission to God and therefore it is imperative for any Muslim to above all submit to the will of God. The Islamic law is based on theocratic principles and that there is no separation between the church and the state. The Islamic religion and the state governments are merged as one and the same. Basically, the Islamic law relies on various ideas, concepts, and information that can solve contemporary crime problems in many areas of the world, (Wiechman, Kendall,  Azarian, 2010, para 8). Islamic law is based on Sharia which is derived from the Quran as rules and regulations that were revealed to Prophet Mohammed through angel Gabriel (Wiechman, Kendall  Azarian, 2010). However, the Islamic law is broader than the Sharia law especially in review of laws regarding crime (Forte, 2010). Comparing the Sharia laws to the other contemporary system in justice comes with various challenges. This is due to the fact that studies on the Islamic Sharia law have not been well accomplished as the case of other contemporary legal systems. What can only be compared however are the main features of the two models and not to the details. It should also be noted that Islamic Sharia laws have a complex structure thus presenting a concise discussion on the matter becomes a problem. To the Muslims, Sharia is not only a legal system but also a code that is based on religious principles put forward for the regulation of Muslims conduct in all areas of life (Vogler, 2005).

It can however be argued that the Islamic legal system has some elements of inquisitorial model of criminal justice when comparisons are drawn with the contemporary legal systems. Under the Islamic Sharia, prosecutors as they are known in the contemporary legal system are not present. The investigation process is usually integrated with the trial as it forms part of the judicial process. Thus the judge who is responsible for the determination of the case is to conduct an investigation into the matter by himself. Though the Islamic state may allow for other officials to participate in initiating and carrying out the matter, the findings are presented to the judge for scrutiny before he makes a decision. In Islamic Sharia laws, a defendant may be allowed to enter a guilty plea but only after being advised of his rights and in the presence of a judge. A guilty plea is considered as binding as a conviction that comes after the trial based on the merits of the facts produced during the case. It therefore follows that a guilty plea is as punishable as any other conviction based on the Sharia law. According to Sharia law, there is no provision for bargaining because the punishments are already prescribed for the various crimes in the Quran and thus cannot be changed whatsoever. However, in some instances, repentance may be prescribed to relieve the accused from being punished under certain circumstances (Haleem, 2003).

Conclusion
The legal systems in the world as they are today shall continue to be contradictory to one another for quite a while. This can be attributed to the failure by the academic society in the provision of the required guidance when it comes to the criminal procedures. With little or no understanding of the working principles of criminal process, no significant progress can be made and thus any national reform program shall continue to be developed in isolation and with no theoretical direction. It is evident that there are different legal systems in the world as of today. Despite their differences in approach to legal matters, all the systems are focused on revealing the truth and offering sound judgment based on the truth of the matter. The adversarial and the inquisitorial legal systems are basically the legal cornerstones for the western countries whereas the Islamic criminal system is for the adherents to the Islamic faith. The western legal system is secular as opposed to the Islamic legal system which is intertwined with religion. It is important to reiterate that the diverse measures taken by the different human societies are all destined to provide some kind of justice to the populace despite doing it differently.