The Judicial System
The legal system includes significant diversity because court jurisdictions tend to vary from, feasibly, one country to another. For instance, different nations or even groups including religious groups and social groups abide by changing legislation. Like in this case, there exist substantial differences and limited similarities of legal systems between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Important to note is that the legal systems in Saudi Arabia are founded on Sharia law thus the Islamic principles regulate its criminal justice. The Arabian legal system is specifically guided by the Quran, public agreement, Hadith and views of Islamic scholars. Notably, religious beliefs develop the Islamic law which in turn directs the Arabian justice system in all life orientations (Ansary, 2008). On the contrary, the justice system in the United States exemplifies principles of common law, which resembles the European and many other justice systems in the world. The statutory requirements in the U.S's justice system are founded on a democratic perspective from which every citizen is included during the drafting process (Falk, 2010).
Becoming a Judge
To become a judge in the U.S involves a series of significant steps. The attainment of an undergraduate degree founds the first step for one to be a judge. Important to note is that there is no specific arena of study although the undertaken curriculums are stipulated to involve history, public speaking, and government-related courses and extensively, studies in foreign language. The second step requires a judicial aspirant to have a ‘Juris Doctor’; a law degree from a certified law school as per the ‘American Bar Association.' Subsequently, one has to pass a bar examination; the ‘Multistate Bar Examination’ (MBE) (Neubauer, & Meinhold, 2017). The fourth step highlights the appointment or election of lawyers with the MBE qualifications to judgeships by the government agencies (Kauffman, 2013). The selected candidates are then put into test by the ‘U.S. Office of Personnel Management'. The final step requires the endorsed candidates to complete the judgeship training, which focuses on the introduction to state administration. Becoming a judge in Saudi Arabia is determined by one’s religious background unlike in the U.S where natives of different religious backgrounds have chances for the judgeship. Like in the U.S, the Arabian judiciary expects candidates to be holders of higher academic levels although the scholars must be familiar with the ijtihad. Specifically, Arabian Laws regulate judicial candidates to have a degree from the Sharia colleges within Saudi Arabia (Ansary, 2008), which concurs with the American system where candidates are accepted from specific law schools. The processes of becoming a judge in both countries tend to harmonize; however, the differing factor is noted in the essence that people of all religions can attain judgeships in U.S unlike in Saudi Arabia where judgeships are limited to the Islamic believers.
I know age is a common composition among the other qualifications to becoming a judge in Saudi Arabia. For instance, the Arabian judiciary provides judgeship opportunities to certain ages. It is eminent that appellate judgeships are limited to judicial candidates with not less than forty years whereas as applicants for supplementary judicial ranks, we are required to be no less than twenty-two years of age (Ansary, 2008). On the contrary, the American court orientation ceases to commonly employ the age factor when validating federal judgeships although there encompass an informal criterion of inaugurating chief judges that rely on seniority. It is prevalent that judgeships in the U.S are offered on the basis one’s proficiency to serve by the constitution rather than age factors.
Presenting a Case in Court
According to Sharia law, a case to be filed in court should encompass a substantial base of evidence; preferably, the fact should bring in a reliable number of witnesses. The Sharia law denotes that witnesses have to be selected among those who had reported the crime immediately after observing its occurrence (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011). In contrast, the Common Law of the United States allows the judge and even the jury to determine the validity of a conviction. A prosecution party has the freedom to present a case to the board after which the defense party is allowed to offer its expositions on the sentence (Beloof, 2012). While the Sharia Law incorporates witnesses to strengthen the prosecution, the Adversarial Law uses witnesses to either support or abate the foundation of a conviction.
Importance of Investigators in the Courtroom
The judicial system of the U.S makes excellent use of investigator contributions to enhance the judicial process when compared to the roles of investigators in the Arabia. Judgments in the United States differ depending on the viability and validity of facts presented in a case. The investigation system, therefore, engages diverse techniques of varied dimensions to extract the essential requirements regarding the situation at hand for validity (Fish et al. 2013). The magnitudes of investigations incline to differ liable to the diversity of a crime. It is reasonable that some cases require full information including scientific facts thus investigators are used by the judiciary to gather fact-based details through respective tests. It is, therefore, reasonable to state that investigators play essential roles of strengthening cases in the American courts. As an investigator, the investigation system in the Arabian kingdom is often assumed as a substantial source of facts for feasibility and cogency in courts. The Sharia law provides chances for replacing the investigation system with views of eyewitnesses. It instead relies on the presentations of crime witnesses to impose rulings (Barkan & Bryjak, 2011).
Judgments
The Sharia laws in the Arabian land clarify that the plaintiff or the investigator must present more evidence over the expositions of the defendant to validate a crime for conviction. The law, however, may allow oaths to be used for examining a defendant’s innocence in proceedings lacking satisfactory evidence. It is important to note that the perpetrator of a crime must take the oath to outdo the prosecution and otherwise the petitioner grabs the determination of the court system (Neubauer & Meinhold, 2017). Conversely, the court scheme of the U.S contradicts with the Arabian justice principles. Commonly, lack of reliable proofing base allows the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims by the U.S’s justice system. The court systems may as well give investigators the consent to gather more information depending on the feasibility of the claim (Fish et al. 2013).
Punishments
The orientations of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia tend to contradict with the human rights deed in most countries worldwide regarding criminal penalties. Evidently, harsh punishments including stoning are used as active measures for certain crimes that, in many, violates the moral views on criminal punishments (Jouet, 2017) . In opposition, the Adversarial Law advocates for the establishment and protection of human rights thus curbing insensitive sentences in the U.S courts despite the crime (Hall & Clark, 2002).
Eminently, criminal punishments vary between both justice systems. Like the Sharia laws, most of the Islamic authorities subject offenders of certain crimes to punitive sanctions. It is not uncommon for offenders of, for example, adultery to face death punishments by inhuman methods including stoning and hanging in the Islamic-related justice systems (Nwankwo, 2011). Sharia laws as in the justice systems of Saudi Arabia, provide consents to harsh punishments. More so, capital crimes, that is, less massive offenses are subjected to severe penalties that tend to offset crime scale by the Sharia law. The sentences of Sharia laws on capital crimes like murder differ from those of the American Justice system. Conversely, the Adversarial principle on the essence of humanity prohibits the American system from corporal punishment (Reid, 2011) rather imprisonment is the pervasive penalty for such offenses in the American world (Jouet, 2017).
Reforms
It can be argued that the Arabian justice system accrues significant undemocratic aspects, which limit chances for extensive analysis. For instance, the legislation is drafted by the Qur'an hence the complexity for its modification. Like in Iran, Saudi Arabia exemplifies the traditional forms of justice since the two are theocratic countries. Nevertheless, the court systems in both states symbolize the critical aspects of Sharia law and Islamic perceptions of fairness and; as a result, judgments in Saudi Arabia are usually governed by the principles of Islamic religion (Kechichian, 2013). In comparison, the common law in the U.S’s justice system bequeaths the adversarial law, which comprehensively protects human rights within the land regardless of one’s social or religious background.
The essence that Sharia laws of the Arabian justice systems are strictly dependent on the Qur'an develops significant differences when compared with the court systems of U.S. The idea unfolds that the principles of Sharia law are not to be challenged by anyone although Islamic scholars have the priority to review and interpret the statutes into simpler forms. As a result, there accrue a wide range of hindrances to changing the determinations of Arabian courts because all laws are made in line with the Qur’an (Ansary, 2008). Unlike the principles of Sharia laws, the universal laws in the American judicial system avail a base of constitutional adequacy. Therefore, laws are often challenged in the court system of the U.S considering that statutory law communicates that court rulings must work in ways that satisfy autonomy of the majority (Falk, 2010).
References
Ansary, F., A. (2008). A Brief Overview of the Saudi Arabian Legal System. Hauser Global Law School Program. Extracted From http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Saudi_Arabia.html
Barkan, S. E., & Bryjak, G. J. (2011). Fundamentals of criminal justice: A sociological view. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Beloof, D. E. (2012). Victims' rights: A documentary and reference guide. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood
Falk, G. (2010). The American criminal justice system: How it works, how it doesn't, and how to fix it. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger.
Fish, J., T., Miller, L., S., Braswell. M C., & Wallace E., W. (2013). Crime Scene Investigation. RoutledgeHall, K., & Clark, D. S. (2002). The Oxford companion to American law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jouet, M. (2017). Exceptional America: What divides Americans from the world and from each other. Oakland, California: University of California Press.
Kauffman, K. D. (2013). Legal ethics. Albany, N.Y: Delmar.
Kechichian, A. J. (2013). Legal and Political Reforms in Saudi Arabia. RoutledgeNeubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2017). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States.
Neubauer, D. W., & Meinhold, S. S. (2017). Judicial process: Law, courts, and politics in the United States.
Nwankwo, P. O. (2011). Criminology and criminal justice systems of the world: A comparative perspective. United States: Trafford On Demand Pub.
Reid, S. T. (2011). Criminal Justice Essentials. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
